[DRAFT] "On Abortion" Repeal

[Nobodyville]

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: STRONG
Proposed by: Nobodyville

Description: The World Assembly,

ASSERTING that it is the duty to protect the health of living persons;

THEREFORE

1) On Abortion https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=4524923#p4524923 is Hereby repealed

[Imperium Anglorum]

You cannot introduce legislation (or definitions) in a repeal.

[San Hieronymi]

((OOC: I very much doubt this has any chance of passing in this state. You need to go through the resolution you want to repeal and find arguments against each of their points and present them clearly, as a piece of legislation. Have a look at successful repeals and see what they've done. Also be aware that if repealed it open the floor to a new pro-abortion resolution that requires even more cooperation in abortion, so be careful you don't open Pandora's' box. You will also need to accommodate non-human sapients if you want the proposal to have any chance of passing))

[Tinhampton]

You cannot introduce legislation (or definitions) in a repeal.

Now, where have I seen those definitions before?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Now, where have I seen those definitions before?

He can self-plagiarise.

[Nobodyville]

You cannot introduce legislation (or definitions) in a repeal.

It is not illegal. The definitions are the basis for why it should be repealed. That is different than contradicting a current resolution in legislation.

[San Hieronymi]

You cannot introduce legislation (or definitions) in a repeal.

It is not illegal. The definitions are the basis for why it should be repealed. That is different than contradicting a current resolution in legislation.

((OOC: Saying resolved and then defining is counted as fresh legislation something a repeal cannot do. You can make arguments but not define anything or impose any change (other than removing that piece of legislation)))

[Nobodyville]

I defy anyone to give me a good reason why we should keep the law in question.

1) With so much science and embryology now a days, you can no longer claim that a fetus is not biologically human

2) and philosophical you cannot claim that some persons are not equally a person in rights without also arguing for salver and genocide (which does the same thing)

[Entronium]

I defy anyone to give me a good reason why we should keep the law in question.

1) With so much science and embryology now a days, you can no longer claim that a fetus is not biologically human

2) and philosophical you cannot claim that some persons are not equally a person in rights without also arguing for salver and genocide (which does the same thing)

Soo your basicly saying that even if someone cant surpport the child, thus the child has a bad life , your saying its not right for the Woman giving birth to the child to abort it before its even alive?

Isn't that taking away a right from women?

((OOC. Sorry Im just trying to see if this was what you were implying ))

[San Hieronymi]

I defy anyone to give me a good reason why we should keep the law in question.

1) With so much science and embryology now a days, you can no longer claim that a fetus is not biologically human

2) and philosophical you cannot claim that some persons are not equally a person in rights without also arguing for salver and genocide (which does the same thing)

((OOC: Well one decent reason is that once its gone they could try to impose abortion for any reason on us. If we are to repeal we need to lay certain foundations to prevent such a forced relaxation of the law. The pro-abortion wing will not take such a challenge lying down and could make things worse.))

[Nobodyville]

I defy anyone to give me a good reason why we should keep the law in question.

1) With so much science and embryology now a days, you can no longer claim that a fetus is not biologically human

2) and philosophical you cannot claim that some persons are not equally a person in rights without also arguing for salver and genocide (which does the same thing)

Soo your basicly saying that even if someone cant surpport the child, thus the child has a bad life , your saying its not right for the Woman giving birth to the child to abort it before its even alive?

Isn't that taking away a right from women?

((OOC. Sorry Im just trying to see if this was what you were implying ))

1) stray man alert

2) "even if someone cant support the child"

One word........adoption

3) "Your saying its not right for the Woman giving birth to the child to abort it"

No.......No woman has the right to kill another human being.......PERIOD!"

[Entronium]

Soo your basicly saying that even if someone cant surpport the child, thus the child has a bad life , your saying its not right for the Woman giving birth to the child to abort it before its even alive?

Isn't that taking away a right from women?

((OOC. Sorry Im just trying to see if this was what you were implying ))

1) stray man alert

2) "even if someone cant support the child"

One word........adoption

3) "Your saying its not right for the Woman giving birth to the child to abort it"

No.......No woman has the right to kill another human being.......PERIOD!"

How about not have a child in the first place?

[Nobodyville]

1) stray man alert

2) "even if someone cant support the child"

One word........adoption

3) "Your saying its not right for the Woman giving birth to the child to abort it"

No.......No woman has the right to kill another human being.......PERIOD!"

How about not have a child in the first place?

......or that......but once you conceive a child, you cannot then turn around a kill a human child.

It is that simple.

[The Unfounded]

Soo your basicly saying that even if someone cant surpport the child, thus the child has a bad life , your saying its not right for the Woman giving birth to the child to abort it before its even alive?

Isn't that taking away a right from women?

((OOC. Sorry Im just trying to see if this was what you were implying ))

1) stray man alert

2) "even if someone cant support the child"

One word........adoption

“Not a solution. That’d be no different than telling the woman to just let the rapist finish. It’s ‘just an inconvenience’ after all!”

3) "Your saying its not right for the Woman giving birth to the child to abort it"

No.......No woman has the right to kill another human being.......PERIOD!"

“Guess that’s just for the menfolk huh? Even in her own self-defense she should just take it, hmm?”

[Nobodyville]

“Not a solution. That’d be no different than telling the woman to just let the rapist finish. It’s ‘just an inconvenience’ after all!”

Maybe, but yours is not an argument for the killing of children

[Nobodyville]

“Guess that’s just for the menfolk huh? Even in her own self-defense she should just take it, hmm?”

Still not a valid argument for killing children

[United Tribes of Pacifica]

All mammalian births are risky, especially for humans. IMO the mothers life takes primacy over that of the fetus per biological hierarchy, unless she indicates to her medical provider otherwise (Forfeits her primacy for the sake of the fetus/child), therefore I think it's always the mothers right to determine if she want's to carry the pregnancy through to birth or not. I would argue in favor of abortion availability from the viewpoint of biology and safety of the mothers life being paramount.

[Araraukar]

......or that......but once you conceive a child, you cannot then turn around a kill a human child.

It is that simple.

OOC: So rather you'd enslave the woman to carry to term a pregnancy they don't want, even if they used all precautions to avoid getting pregnant in the first place?

[Nobodyville]

“Not a solution. That’d be no different than telling the woman to just let the rapist finish. It’s ‘just an inconvenience’ after all!”

So let me ask you unfounded.............are you arguing the issue of rape because you agree that abortions outside of rape are wrong.........or are you using the minuscule case of rape to argue for abortion in general?

[Nobodyville]

All mammalian births are risky, especially for humans. IMO the mothers life takes primacy over that of the fetus per biological hierarchy, unless she indicates to her medical provider otherwise, therefore I think it's always the mothers right to determine if she want's to carry the pregnancy through to birth or not. I would argue in favor of abortion availability from the viewpoint of biology and safety of the mothers life being paramount.

So a mother should be allowed to kill her bratty toddler via biological hierarchy?

[The Unfounded]

“Guess that’s just for the menfolk huh? Even in her own self-defense she should just take it, hmm?”

Still not a valid argument for killing children

“It’s a valid argument for killing others who seek to use your body without your consent. If the only way to rectify the situation involves killing another, it is unfortunate, but no reason to deny one the right to defend themselves.”

[Nobodyville]

......or that......but once you conceive a child, you cannot then turn around a kill a human child.

It is that simple.

OOC: So rather you'd enslave the woman to carry to term a pregnancy they don't want, even if they used all precautions to avoid getting pregnant in the first place?

She should have thought of that before having sex.

A woman cannot complain that a pregnancy is "enslaving" her when it was her action of having sex that caused a conception

[Nobodyville]

Still not a valid argument for killing children

“It’s a valid argument for killing others who seek to use your body without your consent. If the only way to rectify the situation involves killing another, it is unfortunate, but no reason to deny one the right to defend themselves.”

EXCEPT its NOT her body.......The HUMAN baby has a unique DNA that is distinguishable from that of the mother.


Try again

[Arotania]

I defy anyone to give me a good reason why we should keep the law in question.

1) With so much science and embryology now a days, you can no longer claim that a fetus is not biologically human

2) and philosophical you cannot claim that some persons are not equally a person in rights without also arguing for salver and genocide (which does the same thing)

1) Tumours are biologically human. So what is this supposed to imply?

2) You are playing fast and loose with definitions. When does personhood start in your eyes? By what resolution is your position on the beginning of personhood supported? What unforseen effects would it have to put the beginning of personhood before birth?

Also this has been done time and time again. A proposal of this quality with this topic doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. Endless discussions won't change this even for a tiny bit.

She should have thought of that before having sex.

A woman cannot complain that a pregnancy is "enslaving" her when it was her action of having sex that caused a conception

What a charming display of blatant misogyny. This will surely win the hearts and minds of potential voters.

[Araraukar]

All mammalian births are risky, especially for humans. IMO the mothers life takes primacy over that of the fetus per biological hierarchy, unless she indicates to her medical provider otherwise, therefore I think it's always the mothers right to determine if she want's to carry the pregnancy through to birth or not. I would argue in favor of abortion availability from the viewpoint of biology and safety of the mothers life being paramount.

OOC: Also ^that, because pregnancy alone, not to mention the process of giving birth, are dangerous to the female in question.

So a mother should be allowed to kill her bratty toddler via biological hierarchy?

OOC still: It's not a toddler. It's not even a child yet. It's a fetus. Get your terminology right.

She should have thought of that before having sex.

A woman cannot complain that a pregnancy is "enslaving" her when it was her action of having sex that caused a conception

OOC yet again: Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, or have you never heard of condoms?

EXCEPT its NOT her body.......The HUMAN baby has a unique DNA that is distinguishable from that of the mother.

Try again

OOC: You try again, as long as the fetus depends on the mother's body to sustain itself and grow, it's up to the mother if she wants to let it feed off of her.

Also, don't post many times in a row. Edit replies into one post.