(SUBMITTED) Defense of Life Act

[Christian Democrats]

From what I can tell, this only bans abortion after viability/fetal pain. I see no reason why a rape victim ought be allowed to abort a 9-month fetus.

I agree completely.

In that case, they could induce labor.

Which is why I originally included the labor induction clause.

[Linux and the X]

Does anyone have any suggestions on how I can improve this proposal?

[Intellect and the Arts]

From what I can tell, this only bans abortion after viability/fetal pain. I see no reason why a rape victim ought be allowed to abort a 9-month fetus.

At least make sure that consensual incest and a woman raping a man aren't included.

Actually, viability and fetal pain occur prior to the ninth month in human pregnancies, so your statement appears misinformed.

Further, if a man gets pregnant because a woman rapes him (which IS possible in NationStates), I don't see why his rights should be less recognized than that of a woman who becomes pregnant because a man raped her.

Christian Democrats, I'm going to take a bit of a break as I've been working with various people in the General Assembly for several hours now, resulting in my brain being a little fried. I'll go over this as I stated when I come back.

[Nulono]

From what I can tell, this only bans abortion after viability/fetal pain. I see no reason why a rape victim ought be allowed to abort a 9-month fetus.

I agree completely.

In that case, they could induce labor.

Which is why I originally included the labor induction clause.

But if the rape victim wants to abort at 9 months, you would allow this?

From what I can tell, this only bans abortion after viability/fetal pain. I see no reason why a rape victim ought be allowed to abort a 9-month fetus.

At least make sure that consensual incest and a woman raping a man aren't included.

Actually, viability and fetal pain occur prior to the ninth month in human pregnancies, so your statement appears misinformed.

Further, if a man gets pregnant because a woman rapes him (which IS possible in NationStates), I don't see why his rights should be less recognized than that of a woman who becomes pregnant because a man raped her.

Christian Democrats, I'm going to take a bit of a break as I've been working with various people in the General Assembly for several hours now, resulting in my brain being a little fried. I'll go over this as I stated when I come back.

Read "woman" as "the one who gets pregnant" and "man" as "the one who impregnates".

[Christian Democrats]

I agree completely.

Which is why I originally included the labor induction clause.

But if the rape victim wants to abort at 9 months, you would allow this?

I argued this exact same point earlier in the debate, but I had to make this concession to keep the proposal viable (no pun intended). Without this exception, many neutral nations easily could be persuaded to oppose the proposal because of this unlikely scenario.

[Nulono]

It is in the opinion of the Nulona delegation that this proposal, while arising from a noble cause, has been watered down too much.

[Christian Democrats]

It is in the opinion of the Nulona delegation that this proposal, while arising from a noble cause, has been watered down too much.

I'm only trying to water it down to the point where it will be able to pass. I'm only trying to water it down as far as it will pass with 50% + 1 support.

The problem is that most delegates are social progressives . . . or, if you dislike using misnomers, social regressives.

[Christian Democrats]

In one of these abortion debates, someone argued that abortion has been legal in the past. I did not have time to reply but was going to come back and reply later. Now, I cannot find that post, so I'll post a reply here. Please come forward and respond to this if you are the ambassador who made such an argument. I want to know . . .

Do we really want to regress to less civilized times?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

In one of these abortion debates, someone argued that abortion has been legal in the past. I did not have time to reply but was going to come back and reply later. Now, I cannot find that post, so I'll post a reply here. Please come forward and respond to this if you are the ambassador who made such an argument. I want to know . . .

Do we really want to regress to less civilized times?

Honoured ambassador: banning or restricting abortion is in fact a regression to less civilized times.

[Nulono]

Honored ambassadors, let's not engage in chronological snobbery and consider the merits of proposals regardless of the times at which society agreed with them.

[Christian Democrats]

In one of these abortion debates, someone argued that abortion has been legal in the past. I did not have time to reply but was going to come back and reply later. Now, I cannot find that post, so I'll post a reply here. Please come forward and respond to this if you are the ambassador who made such an argument. I want to know . . .

Do we really want to regress to less civilized times?

Honoured ambassador: banning or restricting abortion is in fact a regression to less civilized times.

I do not understand why many of you want to regress to an unbridled state of social anarchy.

[Linux and the X]

Honoured ambassador: banning or restricting abortion is in fact a regression to less civilized times.

I do not understand why many of you want to regress to an unbridled state of social anarchy.

Regress to social anarchy? Hah!

[Flibbleites]

Does anyone have any suggestions on how I can improve this proposal?

Add a lit match?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Xanthal]

The problem is that most delegates are social progressives . . . or, if you dislike using misnomers, social regressives.

Frankly, I find both terms loaded and unproductive if the goal is amicable compromise. I agree that there are reasonable restrictions that are appropriate to place on abortion, even to impose through the World Assembly on nations with extremely liberal abortion policies. I also believe, however, that abortion is a right which, though it may be justly abridged, must be fundamentally protected. That is why although you sit on opposite ends of the table, I have tried to make myself productive party to the proposals of both you and Ambassador Harper.

[Nulono]

How does one go about approving/endorsing/supporting a proposed resolution?

[Embolalia]

How does one go about approving/endorsing/supporting a proposed resolution?

If it has been submitted (it hasn't) and you're a regional delegate (you're not), then you approve it on the proposals page. Otherwise, you say "I like this" in the forums.

[Intellect and the Arts]

Ok... here we go.

First, I'd suggest putting quotation marks around the words you seek to define for the sake of clarity and to remove potential ambiguity.

Second, I think you can safely remove "or induced" from the definition of abortion. It's generally assumed that if abortion is induced, it's intentional.

Third, since the ability to feel pain, onset of mental activity, and consciousness generally occur at or around the point of viability, it'd also be safe to shorten the definition of "late-term abortion" by removing everything after "older than the limit of viability".

(I'm going to stop with the ordering number words...) It may be advisable to leave out "and that many nations neglect to regulate abortion" from line seven.

The following line,

ACKNOWLEDGING abortion as a medical procedure but declaring that some abortions are not necessary and, hence, are not covered by existing legislation protecting patients' access to necessary and beneficial medical procedures

would be better shortened as

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

The lines where you directly quote CoCR might be risky... they aren't technically House of Cards violations, but if CoCR is ever repealed (not likely, but if), the quoting and usage of that phrase will no longer make sense or be relevant.

I'd appreciate if the line requiring surgical procedures to be performed by physicians specified that they be QUALIFIED physicians. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want a podiatrist operating on my uterus.

The word "individual" in "RECOGNIZES an individual right..." should be in the possessive. You're recognizing the right of an individual, not a single right as opposed to a plurality.

In the following line, it would behoove you to refer to the aforementioned individuals consistently. You did not call them "objectors" in the preceding clause; therefore, you should not call them as such now. "Individuals" is just fine. Additionally, that line duplicates protections already provided by Freedom of Assembly, Freedom of Expression, and CoCR, so you might want to remove it entirely.

Your idea of creating a committee to regulate when each developing prenate seems superfluous. Surely that determination would be better made by the doctors themselves on a case-by-case basis? Additionally, what is the point of collecting data regarding abortions? Furthermore, the time at which each prenate would qualify for protection cannot be determined universally, even for a given species or subspecies. Ask any mother and she'll tell you that no two pregnancies are exactly alike, just as no two children that result from these pregnancies are exactly alike. Even identical twins, triplets, and so on have some physiological differences. Case-by-case basis is the best way, medically, to determine when a prenate qualifies for the terms of your proposal.

By saying no more than "DISALLOWS forced abortion" you may be effectively preventing abortions that take place due to the exceptions you previously mentioned, including and especially in the case of medical emergency where the abortion MUST be performed to avoid the deaths of both parent and prenate. Since the parent may be incapable of giving consent in a medical emergency, the procedure could be construed as forced. You may want to consider being more specific in describing what you intend to disallow. Perhaps you could instead state that no abortion can be performed against the will of the pregnant individual excepting medical emergencies as outlined previously?

Other than that, I can't think of anything specific at the moment. It's been a long day, and I think I've given you enough to work with for now.

[Tajpania]

Dear Nation of Christian Democrats,

We, the Community of Tajpania have been watching the discussion closely in the past week or so and we would like to point out a few things, before voicing our own opinion.

1. It is interesting, how you used the debate over the viability of abortion after the first trimester as a background noise for a debate about abortion itself. It is notable that this notion of yours didn't succeed, however it shows, that you have tried to pass a bit of a Trojan Horse here.

2. You are totally forgetting a whole other dimension to the debate, while possibly not being the most usable for your side of the argument and certainly pertaining much more than the discussion of abortion. This issue is the cycle of social and cultural norms. Often ( in RL ) and I am sure also in Nation States the social escape velocity for a person to escape there norms and background is far too high for him to achieve and thus being born into certain circumstances can greatly affect your life. Should we allow an individual to be born knowing that the chances of the individual ( collective for other lifeforms ) to fullfill their individual needs and achieve full development and growth as a being can never realise? Sure, if the individual in question doesn't know any better he/she/it/them could live in "Plato's cave" for the rest of their lifespan not knowing what it misses, but is that something we would like to build our societes in? If we know the being will never achieve full potential of existence and also service to the community? We could, but through that we would allow a world where the equality of opportunities is laughable. While it may be more important for you to uphold a moral code you hold sacred for whatever reasons ( quite ironically since democracy means the rule of people while christianity means the reign of God while you call yourself a Christian Democrat, please do not take this as an attack on your ideals, just a remark about what is confusing to our Community ), we think this could also warrant a valid reason for abortion.

For these reasons We, the community of Tajpania believe your proposal ( and the philosophy behind it that it triggers ) is unplausible.
We would like to thank you for noting our opinion and look forward to any discussion it might bring.

Have a nice day

The Community of Tajpania

[Christian Democrats]

How does one go about approving/endorsing/supporting a proposed resolution?

I'd appreciate it if you could convince Delegate Opalaland to give his/her approval when this proposal is submitted.

[Christian Democrats]

Ok... here we go.

First, I'd suggest putting quotation marks around the words you seek to define for the sake of clarity and to remove potential ambiguity.

Second, I think you can safely remove "or induced" from the definition of abortion. It's generally assumed that if abortion is induced, it's intentional.

Third, since the ability to feel pain, onset of mental activity, and consciousness generally occur at or around the point of viability, it'd also be safe to shorten the definition of "late-term abortion" by removing everything after "older than the limit of viability".

(I'm going to stop with the ordering number words...) It may be advisable to leave out "and that many nations neglect to regulate abortion" from line seven.

The following line,

ACKNOWLEDGING abortion as a medical procedure but declaring that some abortions are not necessary and, hence, are not covered by existing legislation protecting patients' access to necessary and beneficial medical procedures

would be better shortened as

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

The lines where you directly quote CoCR might be risky... they aren't technically House of Cards violations, but if CoCR is ever repealed (not likely, but if), the quoting and usage of that phrase will no longer make sense or be relevant.

I'd appreciate if the line requiring surgical procedures to be performed by physicians specified that they be QUALIFIED physicians. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want a podiatrist operating on my uterus.

The word "individual" in "RECOGNIZES an individual right..." should be in the possessive. You're recognizing the right of an individual, not a single right as opposed to a plurality.

In the following line, it would behoove you to refer to the aforementioned individuals consistently. You did not call them "objectors" in the preceding clause; therefore, you should not call them as such now. "Individuals" is just fine. Additionally, that line duplicates protections already provided by Freedom of Assembly, Freedom of Expression, and CoCR, so you might want to remove it entirely.

Your idea of creating a committee to regulate when each developing prenate seems superfluous. Surely that determination would be better made by the doctors themselves on a case-by-case basis? Additionally, what is the point of collecting data regarding abortions? Furthermore, the time at which each prenate would qualify for protection cannot be determined universally, even for a given species or subspecies. Ask any mother and she'll tell you that no two pregnancies are exactly alike, just as no two children that result from these pregnancies are exactly alike. Even identical twins, triplets, and so on have some physiological differences. Case-by-case basis is the best way, medically, to determine when a prenate qualifies for the terms of your proposal.

By saying no more than "DISALLOWS forced abortion" you may be effectively preventing abortions that take place due to the exceptions you previously mentioned, including and especially in the case of medical emergency where the abortion MUST be performed to avoid the deaths of both parent and prenate. Since the parent may be incapable of giving consent in a medical emergency, the procedure could be construed as forced. You may want to consider being more specific in describing what you intend to disallow. Perhaps you could instead state that no abortion can be performed against the will of the pregnant individual excepting medical emergencies as outlined previously?

Other than that, I can't think of anything specific at the moment. It's been a long day, and I think I've given you enough to work with for now.

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

[Grays Harbor]

This has been submitted yet again??

[Christian Democrats]

Submitted.

[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.

[Rawrgirnia]

It fits in with all the other crap proposals that have the queue so full right now!

[Forlon]

How does one go about approving/endorsing/supporting a proposed resolution?

I'd appreciate it if you could convince Delegate Opalaland to give his/her approval when this proposal is submitted.

The Free Land of Forlon is wholeheartedly against this issue, we see no reason why the women in our countries should not be given the choice to have an abortion if they so choose. Personal freedom is paramount to Forlon. I hope that our regional delegate, Opalaland, does not support this resolution.

From the Desk of:
Shinji Dai
Leader and Ambassador of the Free Land of Forlon