[DRAFT] Repeal "On Abortion"

[Nulono]

A parasite, by definition, is another species from an external source.

The delegate has several biology and embryology textbooks on her desk, as well as a large slingshot.

[Christian Democrats]

[I]t [this draft] has a religious foundation in the argument why "On Abortion" should not pass, instead of founding the argument on the fact that military, technological and industrial prowess stems from increased populations.

^ This would be a NatSov (national sovereignty) argument . . . which is illegal for proposed repeal efforts.

[Christian Democrats]

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

Does the honorable delegate from Christian Democrats remember this conversation? Because I would like to believe you are a man of your word.

That is a quote from another proposal that has little to do with this proposed repeal.

[Christian Democrats]

To paraphrase another ambassador, how is it that one second before birth, someone has no rights, and, one second after birth, someone magically has been conferred numerous human rights?

[Nulono]

A Wizard Did It.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

To paraphrase another ambassador, how is it that one second before birth, someone has no rights, and, one second after birth, someone magically has been conferred numerous human rights?

Honoured ambassador, that is the one of the biggest cases of micromanagement I've seen to date.

[Glen-Rhodes]

To paraphrase another ambassador, how is it that one second before birth, someone has no rights, and, one second after birth, someone magically has been conferred numerous human rights?

The same as one second before death, somebody is alive; one second after death, somebody is not alive.

[Mosasauria]

It requires my nation to automatically legalize abortion. I do not agree with this. Therefore, I support the repeal.

[Nulono]

To paraphrase another ambassador, how is it that one second before birth, someone has no rights, and, one second after birth, someone magically has been conferred numerous human rights?

The same as one second before death, somebody is alive; one second after death, somebody is not alive.

Abortion, by definition, entails the death of the fetus. Death entails previous life.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

It requires my nation to automatically legalize abortion. I do not agree with this. Therefore, I support the repeal.

Not in all cases, honoured ambassador. Let me clarify that your government still has the ability to determine for more general cases such as sex selection and on demand.

To paraphrase another ambassador, how is it that one second before birth, someone has no rights, and, one second after birth, someone magically has been conferred numerous human rights?

I must add on to emphasise why the controversy has to be zoomed in to the split second? This isn't the Olympics 100m final, honoured ambassador from Christian Democrats.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Abortion, by definition, entails the death of the fetus. Death entails previous life.

Only if you consider the fetus to be alive. My point was, obviously, that the 'one second' argument only makes sense if one believes your assumption -- that an unborn child is alive -- to be a fact. Otherwise, it's just a plain silly question.

[The People of Belfast]

Abortion, by definition, entails the death of the fetus. Death entails previous life.

Only if you consider the fetus to be alive. My point was, obviously, that the 'one second' argument only makes sense if one believes your assumption -- that an unborn child is alive -- to be a fact. Otherwise, it's just a plain silly question.

It is quite clearly alive. It is a living organism (and before that a living orgasm). The debate centres on whether or not it holds human rights. The one second before death argument isn't valid because 1 second after death a person isn't a living organism.

[St George of England]

Only if you consider the fetus to be alive. My point was, obviously, that the 'one second' argument only makes sense if one believes your assumption -- that an unborn child is alive -- to be a fact. Otherwise, it's just a plain silly question.

It is quite clearly alive. It is a living organism (and before that a living orgasm). The debate centres on whether or not it holds human rights. The one second before death argument isn't valid because 1 second after death a person isn't a living organism.

So... 1 second after being brain dead a person isn't a person? Or someone who's had a heart attack and stops breathing? Are they not a person?

[Nulono]

Abortion, by definition, entails the death of the fetus. Death entails previous life.

Only if you consider the fetus to be alive. My point was, obviously, that the 'one second' argument only makes sense if one believes your assumption -- that an unborn child is alive -- to be a fact. Otherwise, it's just a plain silly question.

The fetus grows, metabolizes, reacts to stimuli, et cetera. The dictionary defines abortion as involving fetal death; that's what distinguishes it from live birth.

[Glen-Rhodes]

It is quite clearly alive. It is a living organism (and before that a living orgasm). The debate centres on whether or not it holds human rights. The one second before death argument isn't valid because 1 second after death a person isn't a living organism.

Not biologically alive. Legally alive. (Besides, not even the scientific community agrees that fetuses are scientifically alive.)

If I ask, "How is that one second before death, you have all these rights; but one second after death, you don't have all those rights?", is there really going to be any issue there? No. Because we all agree on the premise that you don't have the right to vote if you're dead. Because you're dead. However, if somebody did not accept that premise, it wouldn't be such an open-and-shut case.

So, when somebody asks why an unborn fetus has no rights, but they get all these magical rights once they're born, then the question is silly. It's silly unless you don't accept the premise that an unborn fetus isn't legally alive. And if the people you're arguing with don't accept the premise -- and in fact it's the premise you're trying to get them to accept -- then it's even sillier to ask the question!

[Zeltros WA Mission]

Abortion, by definition, entails the death of the fetus. Death entails previous life.

Abortion entails aborting the pregnancy. As in abort = stop. An abortion may be performed even after the foetus is already no longer viable. It is still an abortion, because the word refers to inducing an ending to the pregnancy.

[Nulono]

It is quite clearly alive. It is a living organism (and before that a living orgasm). The debate centres on whether or not it holds human rights. The one second before death argument isn't valid because 1 second after death a person isn't a living organism.

Not biologically alive. Legally alive. (Besides, not even the scientific community agrees that fetuses are scientifically alive.)

If I ask, "How is that one second before death, you have all these rights; but one second after death, you don't have all those rights?", is there really going to be any issue there? No. Because we all agree on the premise that you don't have the right to vote if you're dead. Because you're dead. However, if somebody did not accept that premise, it wouldn't be such an open-and-shut case.

So, when somebody asks why an unborn fetus has no rights, but they get all these magical rights once they're born, then the question is silly. It's silly unless you don't accept the premise that an unborn fetus isn't legally alive. And if the people you're arguing with don't accept the premise -- and in fact it's the premise you're trying to get them to accept -- then it's even sillier to ask the question!

The law is a shoddy place to argue from. A fetus is alive in and ex utero; the difference is location.

[Nulono]

Abortion, by definition, entails the death of the fetus. Death entails previous life.

Abortion entails aborting the pregnancy. As in abort = stop. An abortion may be performed even after the foetus is already no longer viable. It is still an abortion, because the word refers to inducing an ending to the pregnancy.

By that logic, a live birth is an abortion. That's not what we're arguing over.

[The People of Belfast]

It is quite clearly alive. It is a living organism (and before that a living orgasm). The debate centres on whether or not it holds human rights. The one second before death argument isn't valid because 1 second after death a person isn't a living organism.

Not biologically alive. Legally alive. (Besides, not even the scientific community agrees that fetuses are scientifically alive.)

If I ask, "How is that one second before death, you have all these rights; but one second after death, you don't have all those rights?", is there really going to be any issue there? No. Because we all agree on the premise that you don't have the right to vote if you're dead. Because you're dead. However, if somebody did not accept that premise, it wouldn't be such an open-and-shut case.

So, when somebody asks why an unborn fetus has no rights, but they get all these magical rights once they're born, then the question is silly. It's silly unless you don't accept the premise that an unborn fetus isn't legally alive. And if the people you're arguing with don't accept the premise -- and in fact it's the premise you're trying to get them to accept -- then it's even sillier to ask the question!

But the two are different. In the opinion of some the child isn't legally alive. In the opinion of most the dead person isn't legally alive. But the two are different as the child is biologically alive while the dead person isn't biologically alive. One could argue that they get their rights from being biologically alive and as such the rights apply to the child but not the dead man.

And I from Northern Ireland. What's this silly nonsense about dead men not being able to vote?

[Glen-Rhodes]

The law is a shoddy place to argue from. A fetus is alive in and ex utero; the difference is location.

We're arguing about a law... And it's not a fact that a fetus is alive in utero. There are argument for and against the 'life' of a fetus. And that doesn't even address the arguments about what constitutes 'life' beyond the biological definition.

[Zeltros WA Mission]

Abortion entails aborting the pregnancy. As in abort = stop. An abortion may be performed even after the foetus is already no longer viable. It is still an abortion, because the word refers to inducing an ending to the pregnancy.

By that logic, a live birth is an abortion. That's not what we're arguing over.

Most live births are not externally induced.

And of course it's not what you're arguing over; you wouldn't want a little thing like accuracy involved in your debate.

An abortion aborts the pregnancy. It really is that simple. An abortion, as I said, can be performed even if the foetus is already dead in the womb.

[Nulono]

The law is a shoddy place to argue from. A fetus is alive in and ex utero; the difference is location.

We're arguing about a law... And it's not a fact that a fetus is alive in utero. There are argument for and against the 'life' of a fetus. And that doesn't even address the arguments about what constitutes 'life' beyond the biological definition.

You said the fetus was not legally alive. The law can be whatever tyrants say it is.

Open any embryology (or even biology) textbook and you'll see how silly you look.

[Glen-Rhodes]

You said the fetus was not legally alive. The law can be whatever tyrants say it is.

Yes. Tyrants can even try and say a fetus is legally alive.

Open any embryology (or even biology) textbook and you'll see how silly you look.

I happen to have a biology book. Granted it's Bio 101 -- I'm an IR major, not a scientist -- but I'm fairly certain it says that (a) there are no facts in science and (b) the definition of life is not universally agreed upon.

[South Asia Minor]

We will oppose any repeal.

And lo, SAM actually makes an input at the WA.

[Nulono]

You said the fetus was not legally alive. The law can be whatever tyrants say it is.

Yes. Tyrants can even try and say a fetus is legally alive.

Open any embryology (or even biology) textbook and you'll see how silly you look.

I happen to have a biology book. Granted it's Bio 101 -- I'm an IR major, not a scientist -- but I'm fairly certain it says that (a) there are no facts in science and (b) the definition of life is not universally agreed upon.

The definition is not universally agreed upon; it's fuzzy around areas such as viruses. However, the unborn are certainly alive. The question is whether they have rights.