[PASSED] Access to Abortion

[Honeydewistania]

Sweet 1k!

[Godular]

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?"

“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.”

[Kenmoria]

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.

“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.”

[Madison and Wisconsin]

"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."

[Attempted Socialism]

"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."

"So you're already deliberately in non-compliance with On Abortion and Reproductive Freedoms. Why should we consider the feelings of a rogue state lead by anti-moral criminals in breach of their international obligations?"

[Godular]

"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."

"Neither will all the sanctions and embargoes that your nation has against it. Easy way to fix that, though!"

[Flying Eagles]

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.

[Godular]

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.

"Abortion has no affect on babies. If you would like to support methods that encourage the retention of pregnancies, I might suggest you look at the proposal I am authoring on the subject. I may need to revise it after this proposal passes, though. I do not wish to be seen as duplicating anything."

[Picairn]

IC: "The meeting with our economists is finished. We can meet these requirements with supporting funds from the WA. Unfortunately, a tax increase and some small spending cuts are still needed. Expect our aid request letter soon, with an additional copy of The Stormridge Times and a pamphlet villifying Imperium Anglorum as a trophy."

OOC: Time to ramp up my writing skills. Good, I haven't had an interesting topic to write for a long time.

[Heavens Reach]

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. It dismisses the importance of improving technology such that abortions of earlier term fetuses may be made viable through technological advances in out-of-womb surrogacy. It makes it legal to kill a viable, aborted fetus in the third trimester out of fiscal or paternal concern -- and not necessarily by the person seeking the abortion. There are serious problems with defining personhood as a privilege granted only by birth. It is also superfluous to legislation that concerns itself with access to abortive healthcare; there is no need to affirm that fetuses lack personhood to justify this access. It is sufficient to say that no person may be morally obliged to sacrifice their bodily autonomy to save the life of another -- and this is already very much the prevailing legal and moral precedent. One can not be impelled, for instance, to donate one's organs, even though one could hypothetically save many lives in doing so without giving up their own. One could donate a total of one lung, one kidney, half of a liver, and a length of intestine and live, albeit with diminished quality of life, but live nonetheless. And, yet, although this act could hypothetically, and maximally, save a significant number of lives, no person can be legally or morally impelled to take it. So prima facie is this precedent that in many member nations it is not even legal to impel a corpse to donate life-saving organs if the living owner did not provide consent to do so before their untimely demise. So it is not necessary to limit personhood to achieve the legal, practical or moral aims of this legislation. It, therefore, creates quite unnecessary and serious problems for no legal or moral purpose, and these problems extend well beyond the improbable third trimester abortion seeker.

[Ardiveds]

"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.”

"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."

[The New California Republic]

"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."

Then you need to RP getting hit by sanctions from other WA nations, as you are in breach of past resolutions, and you will be getting hit pretty hard by them if your nation does international trade.

[Godular]

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.

"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."

[Kenmoria]

“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."

“Indeed, the pregnancy has been terminated, so that counts an abortion.”

[Godular]

“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."

"Even an emergency C-section would qualify as an abortion."

[Heavens Reach]

"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.

[Ave Gloriana]

We are against murder.

Rights come from justice. That which is unjust cannot be a right.

This resolution is disgusting and abhorrent in every way. It is clear that the globalist bourgeoisie have replaced the blessed sacraments with infanticide.

[The New California Republic]

We are against murder.

Good job that the WA does not define it as murder, isn't it Ambassador?

Rights come from justice. That which is unjust cannot be a right.

It isn't clear that anything unjust is happening here.

This resolution is disgusting and abhorrent in every way.

List them. List the ways. Please.

It is clear that the globalist bourgeoisie have replaced the blessed sacraments with infanticide.

If that is so then it is awfully strange how Socialist nations are supporting this, isn't it Ambassador?

[Godular]

"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.

"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."

[Ardiveds]

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."

"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?"

[Godular]

"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?"

"Mayhap not murder, necessarily."

[Dreadton]

As a good Christian I will be voting For. The Bible is pretty clear that the unborn and infants have no value.

[Heavens Reach]

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. This would require that a separate law be passed specifying that the killing of a fetus is a crime, but only outside of the abortive procedure. The likelihood of any such law existing is low, and that effectively means that taking the life of a fetus is not, itself, a crime, even if it's irrespective of the wishes of the person carrying it. I attributed your statement to, perhaps, emotion, because it could not be attributed to an argument, being as you declined, initially, to present one.

This is also an act in overly theorizing the practical problems associated with delineating personhood at birth, avoiding the real conceptual issue with doing so upon which so many practical problems may emerge. And also pointedly avoids the question of why a resolution created to ensure access to abortion should even comment on personhood, and the legally superfluous nature of any attempt to do so within that context. All arguments you continue to fail to address. We wouldn't want to accuse you of being dilatory, but it does seem to us that you are overly interested in, let's say, "streamlining" the discussion, even if it means only half-addressing other's points, if at all.

[Godular]

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.

That does not mean it is no longer illegal. Forcing a woman to undergo an abortion against her will --or forcibly terminating a pregnancy outside of abortion circumstances-- is not suddenly rendered acceptable by this proposal, nor does any resolution currently in effect.

[Bairamcea]

I have an issue with section two: "Funding. Members must pay for or provide directly abortions, abortifacients, and contraceptives to any recipient bona fide within their jurisdiction upon request. Members must also provide a means to access such services and commodities speedily and free at the point of service or provision." I believe that this will be a financial burden on small or developing nations with the WA. MEMBER NATIONS DO NOT HAVE AN UNENDING EXPENSE ACCOUNT.