Advertisement
by Honeydewistania » Fri Jul 10, 2020 6:34 am
Alger wrote:if you have egoquotes in your signature, touch grass
by Godular » Fri Jul 10, 2020 6:39 am
Ardiveds wrote:Heavens Reach wrote:This resolution was a few mere words away from being perfect. There is, however, a deep moral conflict in ascribing personhood only at the time of birth. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, with the often unfortunate associated cost of the life of the fetus. A right to abortion does not inherently provide a right to end the life of a fetus as an end in itself. Per third trimester, fetuses are viable, and meet the necessary neurobiological predisposition to experience pain via the spinothalamic tract to a fully developed dorsal posterior insula. Abortive procedures which have as intention the preservation of the fetuses life at this point in the pregnancy are prescribed, which, per the biologically independent nature of the erstwhile developed fetus should be sufficient for a definition of personhood which does not impinge on the bodily autonomy of the person who theretofore carried the fetus.This should not be construed to be in conflict with the right to universal access to abortive healthcare, but presents a serious moral issue of what prescribes personhood, and why it should have an arbitrary delineation of birth, and not a more scientifically or morally compelling category. This also puts forth a cynical apprehension of future technology in which it surely will become possible to preserve, in the total sense, the life of all aborted fetuses without restriction of abortive procedure. This is a deeply troubling flaw in an otherwise extremely well-written and thoroughly considered resolution, and creates a significant ethical dilemma that is only resolved by the more pressing need of bodily autonomy. We will vote for this resolution, but we will keep an eye out for a repeal and replacement which maintains the strength of this resolution, but compels a much more ethically sound prerequisite of personhood. With consideration to these significant concerns, but in keeping with the presently more compelling moral objective of this resolution, and with deep apprehension, we vote FOR in the matter of the proposal entitled Access to Abortion.
"Ambassador, you perfectly explained our sole grievance with this resolution (well other than the money). If this passes, Ardiveds would have to allow free abortions even after the beginning of the third trimester. While we support the bodily sovereignty of women, even we feel like abortion after foetal viability is a needless procedure when the foetus can be seperated from the mother's body. We hopefully won't get too many such cases since women usually don't wait till the third trimester to get an abortion.
Speaking of money, can anyone here explain to us what the whole 'WA choice plus clinic' thing is and how would it be different from a average abortion clinic from an operational standpoint?"
by Kenmoria » Fri Jul 10, 2020 6:42 am
Ardiveds wrote:Heavens Reach wrote:This resolution was a few mere words away from being perfect. There is, however, a deep moral conflict in ascribing personhood only at the time of birth. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, with the often unfortunate associated cost of the life of the fetus. A right to abortion does not inherently provide a right to end the life of a fetus as an end in itself. Per third trimester, fetuses are viable, and meet the necessary neurobiological predisposition to experience pain via the spinothalamic tract to a fully developed dorsal posterior insula. Abortive procedures which have as intention the preservation of the fetuses life at this point in the pregnancy are prescribed, which, per the biologically independent nature of the erstwhile developed fetus should be sufficient for a definition of personhood which does not impinge on the bodily autonomy of the person who theretofore carried the fetus.This should not be construed to be in conflict with the right to universal access to abortive healthcare, but presents a serious moral issue of what prescribes personhood, and why it should have an arbitrary delineation of birth, and not a more scientifically or morally compelling category. This also puts forth a cynical apprehension of future technology in which it surely will become possible to preserve, in the total sense, the life of all aborted fetuses without restriction of abortive procedure. This is a deeply troubling flaw in an otherwise extremely well-written and thoroughly considered resolution, and creates a significant ethical dilemma that is only resolved by the more pressing need of bodily autonomy. We will vote for this resolution, but we will keep an eye out for a repeal and replacement which maintains the strength of this resolution, but compels a much more ethically sound prerequisite of personhood. With consideration to these significant concerns, but in keeping with the presently more compelling moral objective of this resolution, and with deep apprehension, we vote FOR in the matter of the proposal entitled Access to Abortion.
"Ambassador, you perfectly explained our sole grievance with this resolution (well other than the money). If this passes, Ardiveds would have to allow free abortions even after the beginning of the third trimester. While we support the bodily sovereignty of women, even we feel like abortion after foetal viability is a needless procedure when the foetus can be seperated from the mother's body. We hopefully won't get too many such cases since women usually don't wait till the third trimester to get an abortion. Sadly, we don't expect to ever get a better replacement of this this since resolutions related to abortion seem almost impossible to repeal even if the purpose is a minor amendment.
by Madison and Wisconsin » Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:00 am
by Attempted Socialism » Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:03 am
Madison and Wisconsin wrote:"Against. With only a few exceptions, abortion is almost completely illegal in the nation of Madison and Wisconsin. Requiring taxpayers to fund unnecessary abortions isn't a good idea, to put it bluntly, and will not help matters in Madison and Wisconsin at all."
Represented in the World Assembly by Ambassador Robert Mortimer Pride, called The Regicide Assume OOC unless otherwise indicated. My WA Authorship. | Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt? Bobberino: "The academic tone shines through." | Who am I in real life, my opinions and notes My NS career |
by Godular » Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:04 am
Madison and Wisconsin wrote:"Against. With only a few exceptions, abortion is almost completely illegal in the nation of Madison and Wisconsin. Requiring taxpayers to fund unnecessary abortions isn't a good idea, to put it bluntly, and will not help matters in Madison and Wisconsin at all."
by Flying Eagles » Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:09 am
by Godular » Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:12 am
Flying Eagles wrote:This resolution is ludicrous. Unlimited abortions are usually not in the best interest of the baby, and other solutions, such as adoption, are in usually more in the baby’s best interest.
by Picairn » Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:22 am
by Heavens Reach » Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:31 am
Keep in mind, by the point of the third trimester it is possible to extricate the fetus without killing it. Something to keep in mind in the EXTREMELY IMPROBABLE circumstance that an abortion should be sought at that juncture.
by Ardiveds » Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:35 am
Kenmoria wrote:Ardiveds wrote:"Ambassador, you perfectly explained our sole grievance with this resolution (well other than the money). If this passes, Ardiveds would have to allow free abortions even after the beginning of the third trimester. While we support the bodily sovereignty of women, even we feel like abortion after foetal viability is a needless procedure when the foetus can be seperated from the mother's body. We hopefully won't get too many such cases since women usually don't wait till the third trimester to get an abortion. Sadly, we don't expect to ever get a better replacement of this this since resolutions related to abortion seem almost impossible to repeal even if the purpose is a minor amendment.
“The proposal defines an ‘abortion’ as ‘a medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy deliberately.’ Any procedure that removes a foetus from someone’s body therefore counts as an abortion, regardless of whether that foetus is destroyed. Therefore, an operation that would separate the two is fine according to this legislation.”
by The New California Republic » Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:45 am
Madison and Wisconsin wrote:"Against. With only a few exceptions, abortion is almost completely illegal in the nation of Madison and Wisconsin. Requiring taxpayers to fund unnecessary abortions isn't a good idea, to put it bluntly, and will not help matters in Madison and Wisconsin at all."
by Godular » Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:47 am
Heavens Reach wrote:Keep in mind, by the point of the third trimester it is possible to extricate the fetus without killing it. Something to keep in mind in the EXTREMELY IMPROBABLE circumstance that an abortion should be sought at that juncture.
We're not speaking probabilistically, ambassador. Among the issues that this creates, it effectively decriminalizes killing a fetus that someone is carrying, that they have not yet carried to term, even if they strongly desired to do so.
by Kenmoria » Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:47 am
Ardiveds wrote:Kenmoria wrote:
“The proposal defines an ‘abortion’ as ‘a medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy deliberately.’ Any procedure that removes a foetus from someone’s body therefore counts as an abortion, regardless of whether that foetus is destroyed. Therefore, an operation that would separate the two is fine according to this legislation.”
"So if we successfully transfer the foetus from the mother's womb to an artificial womb, the resolution would still count it as an abortion? That would indeed make this vastly more palatable to those in Ardiveds against the killing of viable foetuses."
by Godular » Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:48 am
Ardiveds wrote:Kenmoria wrote:
“The proposal defines an ‘abortion’ as ‘a medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy deliberately.’ Any procedure that removes a foetus from someone’s body therefore counts as an abortion, regardless of whether that foetus is destroyed. Therefore, an operation that would separate the two is fine according to this legislation.”
"So if we successfully transfer the foetus from the mother's womb to an artificial womb, the resolution would still count it as an abortion? That would indeed make this vastly more palatable to those in Ardiveds against the killing of viable foetuses."
by Heavens Reach » Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:56 am
"That is incorrect on a rather fundamental level. The remainder of your concerns are a functional non-issue, as you seem to be complaining that it makes too many changes when those alterations already occurred courtesy of previous resolutions on the topic."
by Ave Gloriana » Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:58 am
by The New California Republic » Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:02 am
Ave Gloriana wrote:We are against murder.
Ave Gloriana wrote:Rights come from justice. That which is unjust cannot be a right.
Ave Gloriana wrote:This resolution is disgusting and abhorrent in every way.
Ave Gloriana wrote:It is clear that the globalist bourgeoisie have replaced the blessed sacraments with infanticide.
by Godular » Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:02 am
Heavens Reach wrote:"That is incorrect on a rather fundamental level. The remainder of your concerns are a functional non-issue, as you seem to be complaining that it makes too many changes when those alterations already occurred courtesy of previous resolutions on the topic."
This is not an argument ambassador. It's a statement of, perhaps, your feelings.
by Ardiveds » Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:07 am
Godular wrote:Heavens Reach wrote:
This is not an argument ambassador. It's a statement of, perhaps, your feelings.
"Not so. You brought up the claim that this somehow legalizes abortions to which the pregnant individual does not consent, but this resolution does not do that thing, and in fact the probability of such occurring has been addressed elsewhere. The same could be said of the remainder of your claims. I find it curious that you would attribute this to some sort of emotive response."
by Godular » Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:10 am
Ardiveds wrote:Godular wrote:
"Not so. You brought up the claim that this somehow legalizes abortions to which the pregnant individual does not consent, but this resolution does not do that thing, and in fact the probability of such occurring has been addressed elsewhere. The same could be said of the remainder of your claims. I find it curious that you would attribute this to some sort of emotive response."
"Ambassador, since it does say that personhood is to be given at birth, would that allow a nation to charge a person with murder if the person forced a woman to abort her baby medically or otherwise?"
by Dreadton » Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:12 am
by Heavens Reach » Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:20 am
Not so. You brought up the claim that this somehow legalizes abortions to which the pregnant individual does not consent, but this resolution does not do that thing, and in fact the probability of such occurring has been addressed elsewhere. The same could be said of the remainder of your claims. I find it curious that you would attribute this to some sort of emotive response.
by Godular » Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:28 am
Heavens Reach wrote:Not so. You brought up the claim that this somehow legalizes abortions to which the pregnant individual does not consent, but this resolution does not do that thing, and in fact the probability of such occurring has been addressed elsewhere. The same could be said of the remainder of your claims. I find it curious that you would attribute this to some sort of emotive response.
Of course it does, ambassador. If a fetus is specifically defined not to be a person, the killing of that fetus outside of the abortive procedure, which has as its end the termination of the pregnancy, not the killing of the fetus in and of itself, will no longer constitute murder.
by Bairamcea » Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:30 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement