NationStates Jolt Archive

Proposal Name: Independent Viability
Proposed By: Cyrian Space
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
strength: significant

noting with regret That in many nations, abortion is still a necessity.

Reaffirming That a female has every right to end a pregnancy.

Alarmed by The rising tension and outrage on both sides of the abortion debate.

Fearing The possibility of a prolonged war over this issue.

Desiring A solution.

The United Nations

Resolves that After leaving the womb of the mother, and being able to survive with or without assistance, a fetus cannot be aborted.

Urges All nations to support, through funding, medical research to make it possible for a fetus to be removed from a mother's womb and kept alive as early in the pregnancy as possible.

(this is my first time writing a proposal, so give me some advice, please)
On Cyria, we have suffered through a long and protracted war over this debate, and we see similer things in store for many other nations if something is not done. Should this proposal pass, then in the future abortion will no longer need to be an issue.

This is going to enrage so many of the religious bent I'm tempted to make some popcorn and enjoy the show. If this ever gets to becomming a resolution, anyway.

I don't see the need for this. It's just a bit of redundancy. And, I suspect, an attempt to illegalize abortions among egg-layers.

well, it's that, and it's an attempt to make it so that a human female can become pregnant, have the fetus removed, and this not result in the fetuses death.

And why would religious groups object? Isn't their position in this debate that life begins at conception?

Well, for one, this is a resolution that, in wording, supports abortion. That'll piss off a few. For two, it is working on removing the fetus from the parent. That'll piss off even more, including some of various religions. Basically, it'll be seen as unnatural and a step away from raising all children outside the womb, which could lead to genetic-engineering of the entire species. In other words, you just brought up every Bible thumper's nightmare about genetic engineering.

This will be most interesting. I really don't have a problem with the resolution, but, of course, Krioval already has legal abortion and we're working on innovative ways to address the fetus-outside-mother issue. We already have devices to contain a fetus as if inside the uterus, mind you, but it's the transfer that's proving difficult; the mortality rate for attempting to move a fetus from its mother to an artificial pregnancy unit is quite high. And then there's the issue of into whose custody the baby will be released. Krioval simply can't afford to raise every baby whose mother doesn't want to continue the pregnancy.

I thought that if I left out abortion entirely, people would think I was banning it.
I tried to come down on both sides of the abortion debate, so I noted with regret that abortion is a necessity.

And yes, this proposal did have the intended side-effect of outlawing abortion among egg-layers.

Also, I am working on a proposal for a resolution to establish an international adoption agency.

I would like to petition the mods to pretend that every single nation in the UN is hereby a future tech nation, and we already have the technology to accomplish this.

Otherwise, there'll be hell to pay on our national statistics.

2: All nations will create and support, through funding, scientific programs working to make it possible for a fetus to be removed from a mother's womb and kept alive as early in the pregnancy as possible.

This sure as hell better be made optional. Or removed entirely. There's no way in hell pregnancy is going to be shortened to a week and a half, and we pay through the nose for all that "additional care" just so you lunks can get over your fear of abortion.

I thought that if I left out abortion entirely, people would think I was banning it.
I tried to come down on both sides of the abortion debate, so I noted with regret that abortion is a necessity.

And yes, this proposal did have the intended side-effect of outlawing abortion among egg-layers.

Also, I am working on a proposal for a resolution to establish an international adoption agency.

Why not just work on the proposal for an international adoption agency, and stop with the firebrand attempts?

What I meant by that is that all nations will put funding towards research in this field. In fact, I'm going to go change that now.

A possible variation on the second part of the bill
The United Nations

Resolves that After leaving the womb of the mother, and being able to survive with or without assistance, a fetus is considered born, and is thus due all rights accorded to citizens.
Urges All nations to support, through funding, medical research to make it possible for a fetus to be removed from a mother's womb and kept alive as early in the pregnancy as possible.

Nope. Still won't support it.

Has anyone done any definitive studies that show that there is no long-term emotional/developmental damage to children who were nurtured in artificial wombs? The uterus provides a developing fetus with sensory information from the mother (sound, rythms and so forth).

What would happen to fetuses that are defective (as many of them are) and would otherwise be miscarried because of major developmental defects? Are you suggesting bringing such obviously damaged people into the world that would require extraordinary lifetime care? Or are you suggesting that we genetically engineer them?

If the fetus removal procedure is statistically safer than, say, natural childbirth, will we then decide to remove all fetuses rather than risk the lives of the mother and/or the child? Will mothers be forced to hide in the forests and caves in order to birth their babies in the manner they choose? Will you force all nations to become medical dictatorships?

And what of nations, like Bitewaldi, that aren't on the "bleeding edge" of technology? How will you implement this proposal in such "backward nations"?

How will this resolution affect the stem-cell research resolution (already passed)?

And Bitewaldi is not a technologically advanced nation, nor do we have vast financial resources to pay for such programs.

you are also aware that the way your proposal is written, you have just given eggs the vote.

What is the determination of a Cyrian (I am guessing it is your race that lays eggs?) "birthday" - the day the egg is laid, or the day the young one emerges from the egg?

Humans (and other humanoid species) start the counting of days from when the fetus is ejected from the womb, not the day of conception.

If it is your ultimate wish to prevent the destruction of viable eggs, why not limit the proposal to that very thing, rather than requiring surgery for live-bearing females? It sounds as if you are trying to force your biological reproductive methods (fetal development independent of a parental body - in other words, egg-laying) on everyone. I do not appreciate your species-ism in assuming your way is the "best" way. It is the best way - for you. It is not the best way for everyone. We must continue to respect diversity, and not force all beings to do things the same way.

And I'd suggest to further amend the proposal to "being able to survive without assistance" - limiting the group to entities that reproduce by laying eggs that develop independently of another entity's body provides a "loophole" for premature live-birth fetuses that must remain in ICU until all their internal organs have sufficiently developed to allow them to live independently.

I must agree with Bitewaldi. My nation is beyond the cutting edge in many areas of medicine and has even perfected a procedure for removing stem cells from aborted fetuses without having to remove it from the womb first, technology most modern tech nations are centuries from. And yet what you are talking about is something that, due to the delicate nature of fetuses, is not only dangerous to both the mother and fetus, but potentially stupid because of how long it will take to develop the technology and find a way to allow infants to survive outside the womb at times when they usually die from the stress of being removed.

I do not see this technology as being feasible or worth the effort to develop. Maybe it is viable for egg-layers, but it certainly isn't viable for the majority of the UN.

Obviously, I will have to make the funding optional.
The proposal does nothing to make live birth illeagal, nor does it force unsafe operations. It simply says that a fetus, if removed safely from the womb and brought to term by other means, cannot be terminated. By no way does this replace abortions, nor does it even force nations to fund medical programs. It just makes it so that in a nation WITH these medical advances, a child cannot be aborted outside of the womb.

Also note that the child has to be able to survive, so you will not be required to care for a child that will live a year and then die, for instance.

Cyrians are mammals, and thus have live birth, but we do share our space with a sentient egg-laying species.

Nations not capable of this technology will see no change, aside from being urged to fund research in it.

There's no such thing as optional in a resolution. The gnomes decide how much it costs and adjust all members accordingly.

Obviously, I will have to make the funding optional.
The proposal does nothing to make live birth illeagal, nor does it force unsafe operations. It simply says that a fetus, if removed safely from the womb and brought to term by other means, cannot be terminated. By no way does this replace abortions, nor does it even force nations to fund medical programs. It just makes it so that in a nation WITH these medical advances, a child cannot be aborted outside of the womb.

no it doesn't say that. Your resolution states (emphasis mine):

Resolves that After leaving the womb of the mother, and being able to survive with or without assistance, a fetus is considered born, and is thus due all rights accorded to citizens.

This statement implies that, if the technology exists to maintain the life of a fetus, it is considered born (with all attendant rights) when it is removed from the womb. This defines abortion as legal murder, since the method of removal kills the fetus. If you use a non-lethal method of removal, then the fetus must be kept alive, or you will be violating its rights.

It looks suspiciously like an anti-abortion bill to me.

Urges All nations to support, through funding, medical research to make it possible for a fetus to be removed from a mother's womb and kept alive as early in the pregnancy as possible.

This also has frightening implications regarding voluntary termination of pregnancy (for humans, at least), as it will "push back" the date at which a decision regarding whether or not to have an abortion must be made. This may force potential mothers into deciding against having the child because they will have to make the decsion to abort without having enough time to think everything through.

Also note that the child has to be able to survive, so you will not be required to care for a child that will live a year and then die, for instance.

You don't talk about the length of time for fetal survival. There are many human children that die within a year or 2 of their births (due to genetic diseases such as Tay-Sachs, or from living conditions or illness). Are you implying that someone would be relieved of their obligation to care for an ill child, simply because the prognosis for their survival is 1 year or less?

I'm talking about using "extreme life support methods" that can keep a fetus alive, but the fetus will have one eye socket, or some other deformity that would (under "normal" conditions) never have resulted in a live birth, but that now technology has given us the ability to keep these "monsters" alive.

Your resolution implies such an outcome, using the current wording.

Cyrians are mammals, and thus have live birth, but we do share our space with a sentient egg-laying species.

Why are you so concerned about how another species chooses to procreate or not? And, I further suggest that your resolution be limited to those species who incubate their young outside of the body cavities of the parent. Otherwise, you are treading too close to the abortion issue for the comfort of this live-birth species to endorse.

Nations not capable of this technology will see no change, aside from being urged to fund research in it.

And what if we develop sufficiently? Then we must conform. Hmmm.

Well, for one, this is a resolution that, in wording, supports abortion. That'll piss off a few. For two, it is working on removing the fetus from the parent. That'll piss off even more, including some of various religions. Basically, it'll be seen as unnatural and a step away from raising all children outside the womb, which could lead to genetic-engineering of the entire species. In other words, you just brought up every Bible thumper's nightmare about genetic engineering.

Heh. this resolution supports abortion in the preamble, and then goes and proposes methods by which abortion becomes moot, and all fetuses live to be "born" -- just not in the "birth mother's" womb. Very clever. :mad:

Heh. this resolution supports abortion in the preamble, and then goes and proposes methods by which abortion becomes moot, and all fetuses live to be "born" -- just not in the "birth mother's" womb. Very clever. :mad:

It's clever in its apparent support of abortion, which will piss off the anti-abortion people, and it is really anti-abortion, which will piss off the abortion people. Basically, this is one that is won't be supported by either side because of the author's cleverness.

That's what we call "out-smarting yourself."

First of all, in an abortion, a fetus is in almost all cases rendered dead before it is removed from the womb. Thus the resolution has no effect on it. This resolution is partly to prevent parents from being able to "abort" their prematurely born children, because they have not matured yet. Also, there is nothing in this resolution to force anyone to have this proceedure done, and if a parent wished to have this proceedure done (assuming it was possible with technology available) then the nation they are in would determine who pays for it.

The point of this resolution was not to outlaw abortion, but rather to make abortion unneccesary. The way we see it, there are going to be (and likely are) wars over the abortion issue.

This resolution only works to define the time a fetus is removed from it's mothers womb as the time of it's birth.

Cyrian Space:

In what circumstances do you foresee it being appropriate for a fetus to be allowed to develop to term outside the womb?

What's the intent behind this proposal?

Cyrian Space:

In what circumstances do you foresee it being appropriate for a fetus to be allowed to develop to term outside the womb?

What's the intent behind this proposal?

The point of this resolution was not to outlaw abortion, but rather to make abortion unneccesary.



I doubt that even among the most pro-choice, there is any doubt that abortion is regrettable. This proposal had NO intention of desciding the abortion debate for one side or the other, but rather it was made to end the debate entirely.

I don't see why you wouldn't support it. Should a mother have the right to end the life of the fetus after it has been extracted, if it is still alive an healthy?

Should I put in a clause requiring the fetus to be healthy?

The bill does not outlaw abortion, even in countries that have all of the technology to do these proceedures. It simply sets aside money to research these proceedures, and considers fetuses once removed from the mothers body in a whole and healthy state to be born persons.

The bill does not outlaw abortion, even in countries that have all of the technology to do these proceedures. It simply sets aside money to research these proceedures, and considers fetuses once removed from the mothers body in a whole and healthy state to be born persons.

Except they're not. By definition, a whole and healthy fetus is still in the area in which it would be if no technology were involved. Part of fetus health is it growing in an environment condusive to its survival, and that is pretty much either in the womb or in an egg.

I doubt that even among the most pro-choice, there is any doubt that abortion is regrettable. This proposal had NO intention of desciding the abortion debate for one side or the other, but rather it was made to end the debate entirely.

I don't see why you wouldn't support it. Should a mother have the right to end the life of the fetus after it has been extracted, if it is still alive an healthy?

Should I put in a clause requiring the fetus to be healthy?

The bill does not outlaw abortion, even in countries that have all of the technology to do these proceedures. It simply sets aside money to research these proceedures, and considers fetuses once removed from the mothers body in a whole and healthy state to be born persons.
Slow down there, spartacus!

I didn't say I don't support it. I first questioned the cost, then asked 2 specific questions:

In what circumstances do you foresee it being appropriate for a fetus to be allowed to develop to term outside the womb?

What's the intent behind this proposal?
I hold myself answered on the second question. I really want to know about circumstances .

Alright, so lets say that in the lext fourty years this technology in your nation is advanced enough that it can be done safely, quickly and cheaply, requiring a mother to only carry a child for three months. Now a woman can, instead of having an abortion, have the fetus removed, allow it to grow into a child, and then give it up for adoption.

Besides, there are other situations happening among humans all the time, when children are born premature.

Really the point of this resolution is to make way for a future in which abortion has been replaced by this proceedure. Obviously this future will require a much more efficient adoption system, but I intend to tackle that issue in future proposals.

that After leaving the womb of the mother, and being able to survive with or without assistance, a fetus is considered born, and is thus due all rights accorded to citizens.

If you say that then theoritcally a fetus of any age can be considered living with the right technology. That would make aborition at any age murder even if it were necesary for the health of the mother.

If that is true, then should mothers have the ability to "Abort" their prematurely born children? Some of these are born as much as 3 months early.

that After leaving the womb of the mother, and being able to survive with or without assistance, a fetus is considered born, and is thus due all rights accorded to citizens.

If you say that then theoritcally a fetus of any age can be considered living with the right technology. That would make aborition at any age murder even if it were necesary for the health of the mother.
Not quite.

A fetus of any age can be considered born only after it has left the womb.




By the way, I think that's a mistake; the child should be considered botn only after it has left the life-support machinery.

You see, the point of this resolution is to protect the fetus from being killed by mandate of mother or state. If you can think of a better way to do that then declairing the time the fetus leaves the womb as the time of it's birth, then please, I am all ears.

You see, the point of this resolution is to protect the fetus from being killed by mandate of mother or state. If you can think of a better way to do that then declairing the time the fetus leaves the womb as the time of it's birth, then please, I am all ears.

How about not trying to force a loophole into a resolution and being honest in your attempts?

I don't see how I'm being dishonest. Should abortion rights apply to fetuses no longer in the mothers womb? How do I word this to make them not apply?

You see, the point of this resolution is to protect the fetus from being killed by mandate of mother or state. If you can think of a better way to do that then declairing the time the fetus leaves the womb as the time of it's birth, then please, I am all ears.

OOC: How about "stop trying to play games and come out with honesty about your intentions"?

We still don't see parasites as "human beings with rights", and this will not change. Our right to our view is as valid as your right to your own views. So we put to you - how about laying off?

I don't see how I'm being dishonest. Should abortion rights apply to fetuses no longer in the mothers womb? How do I word this to make them not apply?

The dishonesty is the fact you are trying to work around a resolution you don't like and find a way to effectively repeal it without actually repealing it. I've tolerated it this long, but I've decided it's been long enough.

Okay, this was never an attempt to repeal the resolution. I am just working towards a future in which it may be unnecessary. I am not attempting to repeal it, but I am trying to make it wholly unnecessary. If abortions are no longer needed, why would anyone have them?

Okay, this was never an attempt to repeal the resolution. I am just working towards a future in which it may be unnecessary. I am not attempting to repeal it, but I am trying to make it wholly unnecessary. If abortions are no longer needed, why would anyone have them?

You may not have intended it as such, but that's what it and your arguement in support of it amount to.

So tell me, why do you think that a mother should be able to chose to abort a fetus that is no longer in her womb?

So tell me, why do you think that a mother should be able to chose to abort a fetus that is no longer in her womb?

Where do you see me saying that?

I just changed the bill a bit, so now that's all that the bill is proposing. That and it asks governments to work to develop medical technology to make it possible to safely remove a fetus early.

So tell me, why do you think that a mother should be able to chose to abort a fetus that is no longer in her womb?
I do think that, in fact, a mother should be able to choose to abort a fetus that is no longer in her womb.

Unless we want to quibble about at what point a fertilized egg becomes a fetus, I'll point out that it happens all the time in RL fertility clinics.

You see, the point of this resolution is to protect the fetus from being killed by mandate of mother or state. If you can think of a better way to do that then declairing the time the fetus leaves the womb as the time of it's birth, then please, I am all ears.
I just don't think that's a worthy goal.

In my book, human life begins at birth. A fetus is a potential human being, but a fetus is not a human being. There's no reason to protect it.

Okay, this was never an attempt to repeal the resolution. I am just working towards a future in which it may be unnecessary. I am not attempting to repeal it, but I am trying to make it wholly unnecessary. If abortions are no longer needed, why would anyone have them?

So you are a deceptive liar - very well, we remember such things. As to your attempted manipulation of the public - what they do is their choice. You may not like it, but as it does not affect you, too damn bad.

FWIW, people take medications not because they're sick, but because they want to. People take overdoses of birth control medications to reset their cycles because they "don't want to be bleeding on vacation". People are beyond anyone's complete control. And if they want to evict parasites from their wombs, so be it.

I don't see anywhere where I lied or have been deceptive. My purpose has been quite clear from the beginning. People take medicine because they want to, but would people take medicine for the common cold if the common cold no longer occurred?

You may disagree with me, and that is fine, but do not accuse me of lying. And EVERY U.N. resolution fits your definition of "Manipulating the public" AS DOES every national law.

I am aware that this proposal is a bit of a long shot, but I believe that it is necessary.

And if they want to evict parasites from their wombs, so be it.
MY PROPOSAL DOES NOT TOUCH THIS ISSUE!
My proposal only comes into play when a fetus is removed from the womb intact. Thus the right to "Evict a parasite" Is still intact.

I don't see anywhere where I lied or have been deceptive. My purpose has been quite clear from the beginning. People take medicine because they want to, but would people take medicine for the common cold if the common cold no longer occurred?

You may disagree with me, and that is fine, but do not accuse me of lying. And EVERY U.N. resolution fits your definition of "Manipulating the public" AS DOES every national law.

I am aware that this proposal is a bit of a long shot, but I believe that it is necessary.


MY PROPOSAL DOES NOT TOUCH THIS ISSUE!
My proposal only comes into play when a fetus is removed from the womb intact. Thus the right to "Evict a parasite" Is still intact.
Since I don't see where you ever directly addressed my question, I'll try to paraphrase what I think you're getting at and you correct me, OK?

You want to provide women a way to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy without abortion.
You feel that if this technology existed, many women would choose to give up their fetuses to test-tube gestation and adoption.
You do not intend for this to be mandatory for women who don't want to have a child, but rather you want the option to be available.
You do not intend that this technology replace natural childbirth for women who want to have children.
You do not intend for this technology to be used to destroy the nuclear family and replace it with Socratic child-raising by the government.

If I've missed anything, or gotten anything wrong, please reply directly.

Thank you. Thank you very much. That's exactly what I'm saying.

The point the issue is getting continually stuck on is whether or not a mother should be able to "abort" a fetus which has been taken from her womb. I am starting to think that this point of contention is where I am losing my proposal, so I may be forced to eliminate it, and allow a mother the power to abort a fetus outside of her body, until say the fetus is six months old. Does anyone think that this would go over better?

Since I don't see where you ever directly addressed my question, I'll try to paraphrase what I think you're getting at and you correct me, OK?

You want to provide women a way to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy without abortion.
You feel that if this technology existed, many women would choose to give up their fetuses to test-tube gestation and adoption.
You do not intend for this to be mandatory for women who don't want to have a child, but rather you want the option to be available.
You do not intend that this technology replace natural childbirth for women who want to have children.
You do not intend for this technology to be used to destroy the nuclear family and replace it with Socratic child-raising by the government.

If I've missed anything, or gotten anything wrong, please reply directly.

And Cyrian Space replied "That's it, exactly"

My point is that while you may not intend for this to be mandatory for pregnant women, it's certainly within the realm of "unintended consequenses". Once the technology exists to safely remove a fetus at any stage of development and continue that development outside the womb, there will come a point where the medical community with governmental support will force all pregnant women to have this procedure.

How many multiple births (twins, triplets, and so on) do you know that are allowed (permitted) to be delivered vaginally in the United States now (in RL)? NONE. They are all "mandatory" C-section (surgical) deliveries. This is chiefly because the doctor can control the birthing process using surgery, and there is much less risk for the babies being born (and also for the mother) in the procedure. You cannot find a doctor that is willing to allow twins to be born vaginally at this time. I'm sure the medical insurance business also has something to do with that.

You may not intend to have these dire consequences, but that is certainly within the realm of possibility, once we have the technology.

And, I wonder how a "natural" miscarriage will be handled, legally, if the mother could have opted for a surgical removal of her fetus before the miscarriage, but chose not to. Is that negligent homicide?

Not quite.

A fetus of any age can be considered born only after it has left the womb.




By the way, I think that's a mistake; the child should be considered bo[r]n only after it has left the life-support machinery.

On the first point how am I mistaken, enless I forgot to mention something or misread something I think it complety means what you just said.

On the second I don't really have a strong oppinion of when it should be considered living but I disagree with yours because somone could go around shooting thouse babys and since they arn't considered born it wouldn't be murder

My point is that while you may not intend for this to be mandatory for pregnant women, it's certainly within the realm of "unintended consequenses". Once the technology exists to safely remove a fetus at any stage of development and continue that development outside the womb, there will come a point where the medical community with governmental support will force all pregnant women to have this procedure.

How many multiple births (twins, triplets, and so on) do you know that are allowed (permitted) to be delivered vaginally in the United States now (in RL)? NONE. They are all "mandatory" C-section (surgical) deliveries. This is chiefly because the doctor can control the birthing process using surgery, and there is much less risk for the babies being born (and also for the mother) in the procedure. You cannot find a doctor that is willing to allow twins to be born vaginally at this time. I'm sure the medical insurance business also has something to do with that.

You may not intend to have these dire consequences, but that is certainly within the realm of possibility, once we have the technology.
You see, but then it won't matter. Once this proceedure is in place and is so safe and easy and cheap that it can replace abortions, I see no reason why it should not. Do you have a reason?


And, I wonder how a "natural" miscarriage will be handled, legally, if the mother could have opted for a surgical removal of her fetus before the miscarriage, but chose not to. Is that negligent homicide?
Legally, a fetus is not alive until it has been born, according to this resolution, and it has been born once it leaves the womb. Morally, however, there is an issue here.

On the second I don't really have a strong oppinion of when it should be considered living but I disagree with yours because somone could go around shooting thouse babys and since they arn't considered born it wouldn't be murder

This is exactly what my resolution is trying to prevent, when these proceedures become commonplace.

On the second I don't really have a strong oppinion of when it should be considered living but I disagree with yours because somone could go around shooting thouse babys and since they arn't considered born it wouldn't be murder
And that would be bad?

Why?

And Cyrian Space replied "That's it, exactly"

My point is that while you may not intend for this to be mandatory for pregnant women, it's certainly within the realm of "unintended consequenses". Once the technology exists to safely remove a fetus at any stage of development and continue that development outside the womb, there will come a point where the medical community with governmental support will force all pregnant women to have this procedure.

How many multiple births (twins, triplets, and so on) do you know that are allowed (permitted) to be delivered vaginally in the United States now (in RL)? NONE. They are all "mandatory" C-section (surgical) deliveries. This is chiefly because the doctor can control the birthing process using surgery, and there is much less risk for the babies being born (and also for the mother) in the procedure. You cannot find a doctor that is willing to allow twins to be born vaginally at this time. I'm sure the medical insurance business also has something to do with that.

You may not intend to have these dire consequences, but that is certainly within the realm of possibility, once we have the technology.

And, I wonder how a "natural" miscarriage will be handled, legally, if the mother could have opted for a surgical removal of her fetus before the miscarriage, but chose not to. Is that negligent homicide?
Ya know, it's rude to steal a killshot like that.

I set this up over several pages. I pitched the softball, I was totally ready for the smackdown.

There is no honor among flamebaiters.

I didn't realize I was "stealing a killshot". I've actually forshadowed my post way back upthread, if you haven't read it. I was "away" doing taxes for most of the past 2 days. I haven't abandoned this thread, nor given up on my position. I'm not really saying anything different that what I said earlier, just with a slightly different scenario and different "backing data" from RL.

I apologise if I spoke out of turn.

But Cyrian Space isn't "getting" what I'm saying, in any case. So please, don't hold back on my account.

Taxes? Is it that time of the year already?





AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!

I am failing to see how it would be in any way a bad thing if abortions were replaced with this proceedure, in the future. Maybe you could enlighten me as to why this is bad.

I am failing to see how it would be in any way a bad thing if abortions were replaced with this proceedure, in the future. Maybe you could enlighten me as to why this is bad.

How about "I don't want my genes replicated"? "I desire no reproduction"?
"Get the government out of my womb"?

And again - who is going to pay for the kids born? We certainly do not want to - abortion is a one time expense, you're asking for eighteen years of payouts. Our answer to that is "hell no".

How about "I don't want my genes replicated"? "I desire no reproduction"?
"Get the government out of my womb"?
Then in the future, you can lead the defense of abortion. I really don't care. This resolution does nothing of that sort.

And again - who is going to pay for the kids born? We certainly do not want to - abortion is a one time expense, you're asking for eighteen years of payouts. Our answer to that is "hell no".
The way i figured it, their care would be initially paid for by the parent, and then taken over by adoptive parents. Really, have you abolished children yet? I wasn't planning on them becoming wards of the state.

And if the parent doesn't want to pay for a child in the first place?

You do not appear to have thought out this whole "funding" thing yet. Children are expensive. And the State of Vastiva is not interested in becoming a foster parent for "accidents".

I am failing to see how it would be in any way a bad thing if abortions were replaced with this proceedure, in the future. Maybe you could enlighten me as to why this is bad.

What I have been saying, ever since I first read your proposal, is that it will not only replace abortions, but will replace a normal healthy pregancy because it will be statistically "safer" to incubate a fetus in an artificial womb, and the insurance company (and then the medical community) will insist upon it. Much as cesarians sections are forced on women who are carrying muliple fetuses today (so don't tell me "it won't happen" because it already HAS).

If it is NOT safer to incubate a fetus in an artificial womb, you are condemming a huge percentage of future generations to pre-natal abuse. Adoption carries emotional baggage and rejection issues for the child as it is now. Add 8 Monthis in a test-tube to that equation and tell me these kids are going to grow up into "normal" adults.

And unless you institute some sort of eugenics policy, or start manipulating fetal genes, you will be raising a host of deformed children. People do not always get abortions for "convenience" you know, but because the results of amniocentesis (genetic testing of the unborn) show that there is something genetically WRONG with the baby (i.e. down's syndrome, triple-X syndrome, and a host of other genetic diseases that can now be tested for).

Cyrian space, I understand why you want this proposal to pass and I can sympathise with your aims, but there are so very many subtle reasons why it should not, as detailed by other posters (especially Bitewaldi).

Yes, let those nations with the available funds research into independent viability. Once it has been achieved (or is close), then nations and communities can discuss the implications - medical, ethical, financial and otherwise - and mabe we'll make some headway on the issue. Maybe we won't. Until 'independent viability' is feasible, legislation is a very bad idea.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

Alright, so are you saying I should trash this proposal?
Question 1: Should independent viability research be encouraged?
Question 2: Once Independent viability is achieved, should a mother be able to abort a fetus while it is outside of her womb? Should she be able to when the fetus is six months old?
These are the only things this proposal specifically touches. I am thinking of making a requirement that the fetus be six months old before it is considered "born"

The implications of this research however, raise other questions.

Question 1: What do we do with possible deformities which would be taken care of by miscarriage in a natural birth?
Question 2: What do we do with the children resulting from this proceedure?
Question 3: Would this proceedure eventually replace natural childbirth? Should it?
Question 4: Should a person have the right to ensure that they have no children?
Question 5: Would the availability of this proceedure lead to the illegalization of abortion? Should it?

Now it is not my intention to answer any of these questions in this proposal.

It has worked quite well for us in Cyrian Space

Alright, so are you saying I should trash this proposal?


That's up to you.


Question 1: Should independent viability research be encouraged?


Not enough of an international concern in our opinion.



Question 2: Once Independent viability is achieved, should a mother be able to abort a fetus while it is outside of her womb?

Well that's a kettle of worms.



Should she be able to when the fetus is six months old?

Same kettle.



These are the only things this proposal specifically touches. I am thinking of making a requirement that the fetus be six months old before it is considered "born"

Same question as each time - why are you so into "protecting the unborn"? Are you that interested in children suffering in homes that do not want them?



The implications of this research however, raise other questions.

Question 1: What do we do with possible deformities which would be taken care of by miscarriage in a natural birth?
Question 2: What do we do with the children resulting from this proceedure?
Question 3: Would this proceedure eventually replace natural childbirth? Should it?
Question 4: Should a person have the right to ensure that they have no children?
Question 5: Would the availability of this proceedure lead to the illegalization of abortion? Should it?

Now it is not my intention to answer any of these questions in this proposal.

It has worked quite well for us in Cyrian Space

Not answering questions?

Same question as each time - why are you so into "protecting the unborn"? Are you that interested in children suffering in homes that do not want them?

The idea would be that they would be accepted into homes that do want them.

Not answering questions?
I am leaving the answers to these questions up to the individual nations.

I also see this proceedure as an answer to parents who cannot care for their children or go through a pregnancy, but whose religious or moral persuasions prevent them from having an abortion.

Really, it seems to me that you are looking at all of this from a very nihilistic viewpoint.

I am leaving the answers to these questions up to the individual nations.

I also see this proceedure as an answer to parents who cannot care for their children or go through a pregnancy, but whose religious or moral persuasions prevent them from having an abortion.

Really, it seems to me that you are looking at all of this from a very nihilistic viewpoint.

We're back to "if they dont' want to pay for it, who does?" Can you answer that one?

My government hates added expense of any sort, and there is enough shark chow already. We will also quickly admit that most orphanages are inadequate to the needs of a child - and we accept the want of a family can cause problems later.

Which is another reason abortion is a viable, acceptable option to us.

Another question left up to the individual nation
Question 6: Who pays for it.
You can leave the funding purely up to either the birth parents or the adoptive parents, if you wish.

Another question left up to the individual nation
Question 6: Who pays for it.
You can leave the funding purely up to either the birth parents or the adoptive parents, if you wish.

"Birth parents" either do not wish to or cannot.
"Adoptive parents" - ooh, this works well. "Here's your child and a bill for $282,643 for services rendered so far. Oh, you're looking for something more in a bargain model? This one is only $64,483 though she doesn't have all her teeth yet...."

You would be fully able to restrict the proceedure to those who could afford it.

You would be fully able to restrict the proceedure to those who could afford it.

~moves price to twelve billion times the GDP of the planet~

yes, we can abuse the hell out of that answer....

Yeah, whatever.
And if I were to make a resolution guaranteeing access to food, you would charge a million dollars for a loaf of bread?

Really, if you don't want to make this proceedure available at all, that's still within your rights. It would be a lot of wasted research money, but that's your perogative. If you want to deny your citizens access to healthcare options, go ahead.

A loaf of bread isn't worth that much. Drinkable water, however, is extremely rare in the galaxy, and thus more valuable than even my Graviton Destroyers are. So if you wish to charge them any price, you're entitled.

Continued from the Repeal Abortion thread.

Alright, now you are just getting rediculous. You know full well what I meant.
Really I am not attempting to ban abortion, I am just attempting to eliminate the necessity to have one.

I have already stated I doubt it is possible to eliminate the necessity of ever having one. For one thing, as you have brought up, what about the fetuses nature would normally terminate (miscarriages)? Eliminating that creates a case of the state dictating who is born and who isn't, while at the same time has the state violating human rights. Leaving it up to nature deals with this.

You would be fully able to restrict the proceedure to those who could afford it.
We can't still be talking about the same proposal.

Because that would make this statement incomprehensible, reprehensible, and possibly prehensile to boot.