NationStates Jolt Archive

The World Assembly,

STATING its commitment to the protection of innocent life,

WISHING to extend that commitment to the unborn residents of WA member states,

ACKNOWLEDGING that irreconcilable differences exist between abortion rights proponents and opponents,

ACCEPTING that compromise on this very divisive issue is difficult, if not impossible,

NEVERTHELESS, determined to extend a modicum of protection to the unborn, who through no fault of their own currently face the possibility of death even at advanced stages of their development,

Enacts the following:

1. WA member states shall have the right to declare voluntary abortion legal or illegal through the second trimester of fetal development. Member states may also pass legislation extending or restricting voluntary abortion rights to any degree they may find appropriate through this stage of fetal development.

2. Involuntary or “forced” abortions shall be illegal in all WA member states.

3. Abortions performed in the third trimester of fetal development shall be illegal in all WA member states with the following exception: member states may pass legislation allowing abortions to be performed in the third trimester in cases of rape, incest, severe fetal abnormality, or severe medical risk to the life of the mother.

4. Any infant that is born alive is considered a person and is entitled to full protection under WA law. Any infant that is born alive is entitled to proper medical treatment as needed. Killing such infants or allowing their death through neglect or the withholding of proper medical treatment shall be considered murder.

The Aundotutunagirian People offer this proposal for the perusal of the General Assembly. The proposal category shall be "Moral Decency". I would guess the strength should be at least "significant".

So we can't force someone to have an abortion, but can force them not to? Seems like a double standard to me.

-- Samantha Benson
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

We will find it hard to see any justification for this resolution. This arises from our firm conviction that if a resolution legalising abortion throughout the w.a. were to be brought before this organisation not only would it face immense opposition from pro-life quarters it would more importantly face strong opposition from National Sovereigntist states who may or may not be in favour of women's right to choose but who would see such a resolution as a gross infringement on member state's ability to run themselves according to their own cultural and social mores.

Such national sovereigntist states would doubtless also say that the w.a. has no business legislating for such contentious moral issues and certainly has no business pushing any particular moral position on its entire membership.

Under such circumstances it would be impossible for us to support a resolution which is diametrically in opposition to the kind of resolution we outlined.

We have no problem with the protection of the life of a child which is born under any conditions alive and capable of continuing to live.

Nor do we object to the proscription of forced abortion.

We should say that we see no point in the first clause of this resolution which merely confers rights on member states which they already have, and which looks like a fig leaf to cover the abrogation of rights contained in the following clauses.

However we will not accept that the unborn has a right to live in its mother's body against her will in the third trimester of pregnancy under any circumstances.

We do not expect any other state to agree with us, and we have no desire to try to convince other member states of this organisation of this position either.

So why is the honoured Ambassador for Aundotutunagir asking this organisation to legislate on this issue?


Yours e.t.c.,

So we can't force someone to have an abortion, but can force them not to? Seems like a double standard to me.

-- Samantha Benson
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria
So you wish to force women to have abortions? The Aundotutunagirian People oppose this. And how is it a double standard? Outlawing forced abortions protects life, restricting late term abortions protects life.

We will find it hard to see any justification for this resolution. This arises from our firm conviction that if a resolution legalising abortion throughout the w.a. were to be brought before this organisation not only would it face immense opposition from pro-life quarters it would more importantly face strong opposition from National Sovereigntist states who may or may not be in favour of women's right to choose but who would see such a resolution as a gross infringement on member state's ability to run themselves according to their own cultural and social mores.
It is a gross infringement on member state's ability to run themselves.

We should say that we see no point in the first clause of this resolution which merely confers rights on member states which they already have, and which looks like a fig leaf to cover the abrogation of rights contained in the following clauses.
The purpose of the first clause is to protect the rights of member states to make those decisions themselves.

However we will not accept that the unborn has a right to live in its mother's body against her will in the third trimester of pregnancy under any circumstances.
Did the child ask to be put in its mother's body?

So you wish to force women to have abortions?
We wish for no compulsion regarding women's choices: neither forcing them to partake of, nor abstain from, abortions.
The Aundotutunagirian People oppose this.
Oh, yours being a notably open and free democracy based on the will of the people?
And how is it a double standard? Outlawing forced abortions protects life, restricting late term abortions protects life.
I dispute both. There is, in neither case, any life to be protected; there is, though, the quality of life of the woman, which is best served by permission of a free choice.

-- Sam Benson

This resolution seems superflous and unnecessary to me.

Effectively the only thing this bill does is make 3rd trimester abortions, and forced abortions illegal. Which, I'm assuming is your personal opinion on the matter. So please do explain why the WA requires an entire resolution to ensure your beliefs ring through your fellow assembly nations.

What about in extreme cases where the child is made through incest or other means but the mother refuses to abort it, knowing the child will be malformed or sick. Is a doctor not allowed to make a choice then, if the mother consciously refuses abortion? That would be forced abortion.

Good bill, but a pointless one.

http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/5043/oiseauisignaturexu7.png

So please do explain why the WA requires an entire resolution to ensure your beliefs ring through your fellow assembly nations.
As far as I am aware the passage of a resolution is the only way to accomplish such a thing.

What about in extreme cases where the child is made through incest or other means but the mother refuses to abort it, knowing the child will be malformed or sick. Is a doctor not allowed to make a choice then, if the mother consciously refuses abortion? That would be forced abortion.
So you believe that a doctor should have the power to force a woman to undergo an abortion in this circumstance? Incredible. Would this not still be the taking of a life, against the will of the mother no less?

It is a gross infringement on member state's ability to run themselves.

If by "it" you mean a resolution to legalise abortion throughout the w.a.then we have no reason to dispute that, but the introduction of a statute to interfere with how late state's allow abortions is also a gross infringement, we will not be able to argue with national sovereingntist states that this has the moral weight to warrant such an infringement.


The purpose of the first clause is to protect the rights of member states to make those decisions themselves..

And to disguise that this is a drastic abrogation of other "rights" a state may have.


Did the child ask to be put in its mother's body?

Is this a line of reasoning? The Foetus is incapable of making any decisions and therefore its imaginary requests are not relevant



Yours e.t.c.,

...it would more importantly face strong opposition from National Sovereigntist states who may or may not be in favour of women's right to choose but who would see such a resolution as a gross infringement on member state's ability to run themselves according to their own cultural and social mores.

Such national sovereigntist states would doubtless also say that the w.a. has no business legislating for such contentious moral issues and certainly has no business pushing any particular moral position on its entire membership.We applaud the representative for his high-minded defense of sovereigntism. A misfortune, however, that these concerns for national self-determination are thrown by the wayside when the rights of gypsies and adorable gay couples are in jeopardy!

We thank the ambassador from whatever his country's name is, for bravely illustrating the anti-sovereigntists' hypocrisy on the issue: We must preserve national sovereignty and states' rights, but only when we say it's OK.

As to the resolution itself, we find it an abhorrent, despicable assault on reproductive freedoms and the rights of women, and we therefore have no choice but to endorse it. Well done, good sirs.

(Although we would prefer it if the late-term ban were an "urges" clause.)

- Jimmy Baca, Deputy Ambassador

We applaud the representative for his high-minded defense of sovereigntism. A misfortune, however, that these concerns for national self-determination are thrown by the wayside when the rights of gypsies and adorable gay couples are in jeopardy!

We thank the ambassador from whatever his country's name is, for bravely illustrating the anti-sovereigntists' hypocrisy on the issue: We must preserve national sovereignty and states' rights, but only when we say it's OK.

As to the resolution itself, we find it an abhorrent, despicable assault on reproductive freedoms and the rights of women, and we therefore have no choice but to endorse it. Well done, good sirs.

(Although we would prefer it if the late-term ban were an "urges" clause.)

- Jimmy Baca, Deputy Ambassador



We are not taking an actual sovereigntist position, please see our comments above.


Yours e.t.c. ,

Then why presume to speak for the sovereigntists, especially now, as you stare one straight in the face?

~Jimmy Baca

(Although we would prefer it if the late-term ban were an "urges" clause.)
The Aundotutunagirian People will be unable to comply with your request as we consider late-term abortions murder.

STATING its commitment to the protection of innocent life,

Agreed.

WISHING to extend that commitment to the unborn residents of WA member states,

While our unborn are not considered residents or citizens, I follow what is meant. We already have strict laws that protect the unborn.

ACKNOWLEDGING that irreconcilable differences exist between abortion rights proponents and opponents,

ACCEPTING that compromise on this very divisive issue is difficult, if not impossible,

NEVERTHELESS, determined to extend a modicum of protection to the unborn, who through no fault of their own currently face the possibility of death even at advanced stages of their development,

To put the word 'death' in there is going to be pushing a few buttons. Some people don't consider a fetus to be alive until it's born. The argument would be that death won't occur.

1. WA member states shall have the right to declare voluntary abortion legal or illegal through the second trimester of fetal development. Member states may also pass legislation extending or restricting voluntary abortion rights to any degree they may find appropriate through this stage of fetal development.

Personally, I'd prefer it to be completely illegal except for certain cases, but we do recognise that some nations will find this unacceptable. This could probably be dropped completely and focus placed on late-term partial-birth abortion to begin with.

2. Involuntary or “forced” abortions shall be illegal in all WA member states.

Again, you're going to be facing some opposition with this. In the case of severe risk to the mother's life, some states may have laws in place that allow a doctor to do what is necessary to save a 'living individual', therefore forcing an abortion since they do not see the fetus as being alive. Theoretical situation, but with all the different nations we have, I wouldn't be surprised if this situation did exist.

3. Abortions performed in the third trimester of fetal development shall be illegal in all WA member states with the following exception: member states may pass legislation allowing abortions to be performed in the third trimester in cases of rape, incest, severe fetal abnormality, or severe medical risk to the life of the mother.

This is precisely what we have in Rutianas, though it extends to all trimesters. Not just the third. This is what you should likely focus on rather than the other two clauses. I'd add 'poor quality of life to the child' as well.

4. Any infant that is born alive is considered a person and is entitled to full protection under WA law. Any infant that is born alive is entitled to proper medical treatment as needed. Killing such infants or allowing their death through neglect or the withholding of proper medical treatment shall be considered murder.

The medical treatment parts can be dropped as it is assured under the Child Protection Act.

This is something that Rutianas would vote for after further debate by other ambassadors. We do hope some kind of compromise can be made for this touchy subject to be passed.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

This proposal doesn't mandate anything in regards to abortion. It tells nations what they can mandate, if they choose to mandate anything at all.

I'd call this a "Rights of Infants" bill, if anything, as the only substantial part is that it makes forced abortions illegal, and protects botched abortions from being "fixed". Really, it's not much of a compromise at all, if it doesn't actually protect a woman's right to abort a fetus.

I have to admit, though, that calling it a "sensible compromise" got me to read it. But, after doing so, I've decided that it's any but that. It's an "I'll-disguise-this-as-a-compromise-but-only-mandate-my-views" proposal.

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

As to the resolution itself, we find it an abhorrent, despicable assault on reproductive freedoms and the rights of women, and we therefore have no choice but to endorse it. Well done, good sirs.
As it happens, the Aundotutunagirian People do not currently hold WA membership and will be unable to apply for some time. We would be willing to let the Federal Republic of Omigodtheykilledkenny (or their designated agent) use all or part of of our draft.

The Aundotutunagirian People offer this proposal for the perusal of the General Assembly. The proposal category shall be "Moral Decency". I would guess the strength should be at least "significant".

I'm not too fussed about this, which means it's good enough to back. Personally I wouldn't put the strength at more than "significant".

A couple of quick points:

2. Involuntary or “forced” abortions shall be illegal in all WA member states.
There are exception cases here, particularly medical ones. Suppose for instance an expectant mum was undergoing major surgery for some reason, and the doctors ended up being able to save only one of mother and baby. Since there's no way they could get the mother's consent, this would force them to pick the baby every time, which might well not be the best choice.

You might find it useful to take a look at the debate on Patients' Rights.

3. Abortions performed in the third trimester of fetal development shall be illegal in all WA member states with the following exception: member states may pass legislation allowing abortions to be performed in the third trimester in cases of rape, incest, severe fetal abnormality, or severe medical risk to the life of the mother.
Out of interest, why incest?

4. Any infant that is born alive is considered a person and is entitled to full protection under WA law.[snip]
Oo. Does this sneak Sentients' Rights in? Probably not, but it made me happy.

Out of interest, why incest?OK, is this just an English thing (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14200157&postcount=733)? Exceptions for incest are hardly considered rare or unusual in America. Plenty of Republican and other pro-life pols state that they favor abortion in cases of rape, incest, or if the life of the mother is in jeopardy. Forcing a 14-year-old girl to bear her uncle's child is not, shall we say, moral or decent. It is rather repugnant if you ask me.

Oo. Does this sneak Sentients' Rights in? Probably not, but it made me happy.Without defining infant, probably not.

A complication is that, under the Sexual Privacy Act, incest is legal.

Then why presume to speak for the sovereigntists, especially now, as you stare one straight in the face?

~Jimmy Baca

We are not speaking for them, we are making the point that we could not advocate violating national sovereignty to such nations on the moral case made by this resolution.

As the honoured Ambassador knows well, we have always maintained that national sovereignty is dear to us but that we will accept w.a. legislation superseding it if the moral or practical case is convincing enough.

The case made by this resolution is not convincing enough to violate national sovereignty, that is all we are saying.


Yours e.t.c. ,

A complication is that, under the Sexual Privacy Act, incest is legal.


Only as long as it is consenting incest. Rape remains rape under the SPa no matter who commits it.


Yours e.t.c. ,

A complication is that, under the Sexual Privacy Act, incest is legal. and so is rape lololololol butts
Only as long as it is consenting incest. Rape remains rape under the SPa no matter who commits it.
I stand corrected.

Much as though we feel it is a Philimbesian woman's right to decide to have an abortion or not, we also feel as though it is the WA Nations right to decide if it is legal within their own boarders.

We applaud your defense of the unborn and have taken our own steps to ensure that the choice to have an abortion in the USoP is a well-informed one, we believe a total ban at any point in the pregnancy will not stop the procedure only make it unsafe.

We must therefore not support this measure.

Nigel S Youlkin
World Assembly Ambassador

The issue of abortion, is covered in: Much Ado About Abortion (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6711757&postcount=15) already gives nations the right to decide whether or not they want to allow it within their borders. There would be no point in submitting this proposed resolution. This is an example of one case where even if the resolution were to be passed, a nation could still find a loophole and remain in non-compliance.

The Aundotutunagirian People will be unable to comply with your request as we consider late-term abortions murder.

Then why are you allowing an exception in the case of rape or incest?

If the foetus is healthy and the mother's health/life not in danger why is it not murder to abort the foetus just because of who its father is and how he impregnated the woman. As a firm believer in the right of the woman's right to choose, from go to whoa in a pregnancy, this particular double standard of the pro life brigade never fails to make me angry and confused.

There would be no point in submitting this proposed resolution. This is an example of one case where even if the resolution were to be passed, a nation could still find a loophole and remain in non-compliance.

With respect to my colleague, I don't think this applies. Since WA resolutions and NS issues frequently contradict each other, there's a long-standing tacit understanding that issues don't impact the WA and vice versa.

There are only so many topics one can legislate on, and we have effectively two separate but equal legislative bodies who pay no attention to each other in order to maximize their own effectiveness. It's ultimately a Game Mechanics question that we've chosen to ignore, permanently. Otherwise, we WA mods would have to adjudicate every passed resolution on a nation by nation basis, and that's simply not going to happen.

Much as though we feel it is a Philimbesian woman's right to decide to have an abortion or not, we also feel as though it is the WA Nations right to decide if it is legal within their own boarders.

We applaud your defense of the unborn and have taken our own steps to ensure that the choice to have an abortion in the USoP is a well-informed one, we believe a total ban at any point in the pregnancy will not stop the procedure only make it unsafe.

We must therefore not support this measure. I've gone cross-eyed.

I've gone cross-eyed.

Like that's the first time I've achieved that. ;)

Unless I read it wrong this measure seeks to place WA limits on abortion in member nations. We think the member nations should do that on their own.

If I misread it then I appologize.

a nation needs to grow. abortion WOULD cause birth rate to drop, and we cannot accept that.

With respect to my colleague, I don't think this applies. Since WA resolutions and NS issues frequently contradict each other, there's a long-standing tacit understanding that issues don't impact the WA and vice versa.

There are only so many topics one can legislate on, and we have effectively two separate but equal legislative bodies who pay no attention to each other in order to maximize their own effectiveness. It's ultimately a Game Mechanics question that we've chosen to ignore, permanently. Otherwise, we WA mods would have to adjudicate every passed resolution on a nation by nation basis, and that's simply not going to happen.

Thanks for the input; much appreciated. :)

We are not speaking for them, we are making the point that we could not advocate violating national sovereignty to such nations on the moral case made by this resolution.

As the honoured Ambassador knows well, we have always maintained that national sovereignty is dear to us but that we will accept the w.a. legislation superseding it if the moral or practical case is convincing enough.

The case made by this resolution is not convincing enough to violate national sovereignty, that is all we are saying.So now you're a sovereigntist again?

I must say, you flip easier than a flapjack. Wonderful fun.

So now you're a sovereigntist again?

I must say, you flip easier than a flapjack. Wonderful fun.



We have never claimed to be anything else honoured Ambassador. As you well know we have always been defenders of national sovereignty where this did not directly conflict with protecting the personal liberties of individual citizens of w.a. member states.

We are pragmatic in this and therefore do not see national sovereignty as sacred or inviolable.

We are glad you are entertained but the impression that we have flip-flopped is entirely in your head respected Ambassador.


Yours e.t.c. ,

Might the government of Omigodtheykilledkenny be prepared to consider bringing in a 'WA' version of the former [organisation-that-mustn't-be-named] Resolution the 'Abortion Legality Convention' (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10737905&postcount=148), which they sponsored although it lists the government of Gruenberg as the actual authors?

(Please? Pretty please? Pretty please with honey and condensed milk on top?)

OK, is this just an English thing (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14200157&postcount=733)? Exceptions for incest are hardly considered rare or unusual in America. Plenty of Republican and other pro-life pols state that they favor abortion in cases of rape, incest, or if the life of the mother is in jeopardy.

OOC: It's not particularly an English thing as far as I know, it's just something that I've idly considered for a while now. Any time I raise it I get a reaction similar to yours, which is roughly "*cough* *splutter* *reach for moral high ground*". None of which answers the question "why?"

The problem as I see it is that there is an implicit assumption that incest means rape. Well, if it's rape then it's rape, and why bother mentioning the incest? If it's not rape, we come back to "why incest?", and I still don't have an answer to that.

Forcing a 14-year-old girl to bear her uncle's child is not, shall we say, moral or decent. It is rather repugnant if you ask me.
Or there's this one, "incest => paedophilia". Again, if so, it's rape (because the 14-year-old girl isn't old enough to give consent, by and large), and the previous argument applies.

It specifies rape, but does not define it, except in the colloquial sense, which does not always include statutory rape. Besides which, even if a consenting 19-year-old girl were impregnated by her cousin, and wanted to abort her child to prevent inbreeding, that would be perfectly acceptable, don't you think? We would assume the woman's right to choice would be no-brainer for a liberal delegation such as yourselves.

Might the government of Omigodtheykilledkenny be prepared to consider bringing in a 'WA' version of the former [organisation-that-mustn't-be-named] Resolution the 'Abortion Legality Convention' (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10737905&postcount=148), which they sponsored although it lists the government of Gruenberg as the actual authors?

(Please? Pretty please? Pretty please with honey and condensed milk on top?)What's wrong with the version in front of you?

It specifies rape, but does not define it, except in the colloquial sense, which does not always include statutory rape. Besides which, even if a consenting 19-year-old girl were impregnated by her cousin, and wanted to abort her child to prevent inbreeding, that would be perfectly acceptable, don't you think? We would assume the woman's right to choice would be no-brainer for a liberal delegation such as yourselves.



Yes this is perfectly acceptable so why isn't a 19 year old woman who has been left by her partner and has realised that she is too young to raise her child alone? Or an older married woman who has been pressurised into having children by the mores of her culture and no longer wishes to put her body through the trials and dangers of late pregnancy? Or a woman who realises that she he has a terminal disease which will shorten her life leaving her child orphaned?

We could go on with these kind of subjective decision making criteria till the cows come home. The point is why should it be illegal for a woman to choose to end her pregnancy under these conditions but legal when she decides she no longer wants to bear the child she consentingly conceived with her cousin?


Yours e.t.c.

Yes this is perfectly acceptable so why isn't a 19 year old woman who has been left by her partner and has realised that she is too young to raise her child alone? Or an older married woman who has been pressurised into having children by the mores of her culture and no longer wishes to put her body through the trials and dangers of late pregnancy? Or a woman who realises that she he has a terminal disease which will shorten her life leaving her child orphaned?Oh, I don't know... maybe because killing an unborn baby simply because the pregnancy poses an inconvenience to the mother is immoral? Check the category; it's "Moral Decency" for a reason.

Oh, I don't know... maybe because killing an unborn baby simply because the pregnancy poses an inconvenience to the mother is immoral? Check the category; it's "Moral Decency" for a reason.


So your suggesting, honoured Ambassador, that the woman who seduces her uncle and becomes pregnant by him and then decides on the basis of some bizarre and completely unscientific belief that the child will be "inbred" ( a term which strictly speaking means nothing ) and then has an abortion is behaving in any more moral a fashion than a woman who makes a mature decision to not bring an infant in to the world which will not be cared for as it should be or will have its parent for only the shortest period and will then become an orphan e.t.c.


Do not lecture us on morality, and do not play poltics with the lives of billions of the citizens of this organisation's membership.


Yours e.t.c. ,

So your suggesting, honoured Ambassador, that the woman who seduces her uncle and becomes pregnant by him and then decides on the basis of some bizarre and completely unscientific belief that the child will be "inbred" ( a term which strictly speaking means nothing ) and then has an abortion is behaving in any more moral a fashion than a woman who makes a mature decision to not bring an infant in to the world which will not be cared for as it should be or will have its parent for only the shortest period and will then become an orphan e.t.c.Oh, so you're a geneticist now? And a moralist! A pity, therefore, that you would mistake murder for a preferable option to living in an orphanage.

This proposal seems reasonable, with just enough of a hint of evil that the Palentine would also gladly support this one. Well done, old boy.
Exceslior,
sen. Horatio Sulla

Oh, so you're a geneticist now? And a moralist! A pity, therefore, that you would mistake murder for a preferable option to living in an orphanage.


It may be the custom of the Federal Republic of Omigodtheykilledkenny to send representatives to the w.a. who have no basic understanding of the world around them, it is not the custom of the Government of the Emperor of Urgench to do so.

Your absurd and topsy turvy review of our position on this statute which aims at completely misrepresenting what we have said cannot disguise the fact that your delegation is supporting a resolution which deprives billions of women the right to control what happens to their own body.

Who are you, honoured Ambassador, to make any kind of decision on the matters of a woman's most private conscience and her most intimate person ?

Can you seriously ask this organisation to take your delegation's word that it has decided now to take a moral position on any issue in earnest ?


Yours e.t.c. ,

Oh, I don't know... maybe because killing an unborn baby simply because the pregnancy poses an inconvenience to the mother is immoral? Check the category; it's "Moral Decency" for a reason.With all due respect, representative, you are simply wrong. If the mother does not want the child, then it is reasonable to say that the child isn't going to be taken care of like children whose parents actually wanted them. If the mother cannot support the child financially, then it becomes a burden on the state's coffers, if the state so happens to have social welfare programs. Not only does it pose a burden on the state, but on the mother herself. If she cannot take care of herself, how is she going to be able to take care of her child? You're asking for the mother to either give up her life, so her baby can live, or give up the baby's life so that she can live. Neither are reasonable, and both are irresponsible.

Yes, it may have been the mother's irresponsibility that got her pregnant, but are we really going to sit there and let two lives crumble because, somehow, it is "immoral" to protect the livelihood of a person? Keep in mind that adoption isn't an option everywhere; and in plenty cases, it's certainly not a good option for the child, when it could have been aborted (and the problem thus erased) before it became a human (at least, in Glen-Rhodes).

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

With all due respect, representative, you are simply wrong. If the mother does not want the child, then it is reasonable to say that the child isn't going to be taken care of like children whose parents actually wanted them. If the mother cannot support the child financially, then it becomes a burden on the state's coffers, if the state so happens to have social welfare programs. Not only does it pose a burden on the state, but on the mother herself. If she cannot take care of herself, how is she going to be able to take care of her child? You're asking for the mother to either give up her life, so her baby can live, or give up the baby's life so that she can live. Neither are reasonable, and both are irresponsible.You hear that, kids? Carrying a baby to term despite the financial risk is both "unreasonable" and "irresponsible"!

It's like, God, how do you keep your head from exploding when you hear shit like this?! Do you even realize what you sound like when you say it? For the sake of diplomacy, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you don't.

- Jimmy Baca, Deputy Ambassador

You hear that, kids? Carrying a baby to term despite the financial risk is both "unreasonable" and "irresponsible"!

It's like, God, how do you keep your head from exploding when you hear shit like this?! Do you even realize what you sound like when you say it? For the sake of diplomacy, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you don't.

- Jimmy Baca, Deputy AmbassadorPutting the life of the mother and the child at risk is reasonable and responsible?

Let me ask you, Ambassador: do you realize what you sound like when you say that?

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

I suppose simply being alive puts your "life at risk," for all living beings are going to die at some point. But attempting to rationalize ending a life because of the financial strain involved -- aye, even to the poor, oppressed "state" that chooses to provide aid for needy families -- is absolutely disgusting. Did they happen to teach ethics at the school that gave you your doctorate, Ambassador?

I suppose simply being alive puts your "life at risk," for all living beings are going to die at some point. But attempting to rationalize ending a life because of the financial strain involved -- aye, even to the poor, oppressed "state" that chooses to provide aid for needy families -- is absolutely disgusting. Did they happen to teach ethics at the school that gave you your doctorate, Ambassador?Yes; it was where I learned that it is unethical to force a person to give up their livelihood because of an easily rectifiable mistake. The thing isn't born, yet; it has no name, no identity. It's just an unborn fetus. Perhaps you think I am a monster, but I prefer to stack my cards for the person that's alive and has a chance to correct their lives; not for the baby that will lead a horrible life, subject to the whims of an unwanting mother or an overburdened government.

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

While my colleague from OMGTKK needs no assistance, I will point out to my colleague from Glen-Rhodes that there are several Philimbesians who were born into abhorrent situations who however have been able to become productive members of our society and not always does quality of childhood translate itself to quality of adult hood.

Nigel S Youlkin
World Assembly Ambassador
United States of Philimbesi

While my colleague from OMGTKK needs no assistance, I will point out to my colleague from Glen-Rhodes that there are several Philimbesians who were born into abhorrent situations who however have been able to become productive members of our society and not always does quality of childhood translate itself to quality of adult hood.

Nigel S Youlkin
World Assembly Ambassador
United States of PhilimbesiNot all birds fly, either. That doesn't mean that we just assume that a bird we see in the park doesn't fly.

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Yes; it was where I learned that it is unethical to force a person to give up their livelihood because of an easily rectifiable mistake.

The fact that you would describe a living, sentient being as "an easily rectifiable mistake" proves, to us at least, that you're utterly bankrupt, both morally and intellectually speaking. The fact that you think that it's perfectly acceptable for a parent to look at a child as merely a burden on their livelihood and life just adds a slight touch of additional confirmation.

The thing isn't born, yet; it has no name, no identity. It's just an unborn fetus.

So, the fact that the unborn child is both alive and sentient is irrelevant to you, just because it hasn't popped out yet?

Perhaps you think I am a monster

Yeah, that's about right.

but I prefer to stack my cards for the person that's alive and has a chance to correct their lives; not for the baby that will lead a horrible life, subject to the whims of an unwanting mother or an overburdened government.

You automatically assume that all children in this situation would be destined for a horrible life, or that all governments would be unable to handle the task. Fail.

I'm also willing to bet if you asked the child in question which choice it would prefer to see made, the child, once old enough to do so, would probably say that it preferred to be, you know, alive. Assuming, of course, that your despicable nation allowed it to get that far.

If the delegation of Aundotutunagir decides to push this forward, the Trilateral Federation will be pleased to support it. Our nation already bans abortion, in all trimesters, except for cases of rape or incest, and frankly we wouldn't mind seeing the practice banned across the board except for those exceptions. But this would be, as you say, a sensible compromise.

-Irina Misheli, Deputy Ambassador

So, the fact that the unborn child is both alive and sentient is irrelevant to you, just because it hasn't popped out yet?Essentially, yes. Though, I would argue the "sentient" part.

You automatically assume that all children in this situation would be destined for a horrible life, or that all governments would be unable to handle the task. Fail.When speaking about mothers that want to abort their baby, I think it's safe to assume that the mother doesn't want the child. Also, I'm not suggesting that all governments are unable to handle the care of children. I'm saying that it's a burden; which is definitely is.

I'm also willing to bet if you asked the child in question which choice it would prefer to see made, the child, once old enough to do so, would probably say that it preferred to be, you know, alive. Assuming, of course, that your despicable nation allowed it to get that far.Of course it would. It's been living long enough to know that dying is something generally not desirable. However, a fetus is physically incapable of such knowledge.

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Essentially, yes. Though, I would argue the "sentient" part.

You'd argue it incorrectly, but feel free.

When speaking about mothers that want to abort their baby, I think it's safe to assume that the mother doesn't want the child. Also, I'm not suggesting that all governments are unable to handle the care of children. I'm saying that it's a burden; which is definitely is.

This doesn't address the point I made that a child, who could live a noble, fulfilled and worthy life, doesn't get the chance to if a burdened, lazy or irresponsible "mother" decides to dispose of them like a pair of old socks. And yes, children can be a burden. Everything living can be a burden. Does that make them unworthy to live? We wouldn't think so, but then again, we don't dispose of living beings just because they're an inconvenience either. I guess it's just a question of a society's values....or whether they have any at all.

Of course it would. It's been living long enough to know that dying is something generally not desirable. However, a fetus is physically incapable of such knowledge.

Is it? Even if we choose to buy that statement, it'll never get the chance to attain such knowledge if you kill it. Again, to some of us that's an undesirable outcome, and one which international legislation would thankfully cease.

-Irina Misheli, Deputy Ambassador

All of this "is an unborn a burden or is it not?" is a sideshow. The fact of the matter is that this organisation should have no right to tell individual beings what they may or may not do to their own bodies.

This may be considered the right of national governments by some ( not us ) but we cannot see a justifiable case for the w.a. having such a right.


Yours e.t.c. ,

I have been tardy in my responses so excuse me if I address points which have already been adequately addressed by others.

There are exception cases here, particularly medical ones. Suppose for instance an expectant mum was undergoing major surgery for some reason, and the doctors ended up being able to save only one of mother and baby. Since there's no way they could get the mother's consent, this would force them to pick the baby every time, which might well not be the best choice.
Hmmm. Yes, that is a complicated situation. In Aundotutunagir the doctors would most likely opt to save the child, but I recognize that in other cultures that might not be the case.

You might find it useful to take a look at the debate on Patients' Rights.
I have looked in on that discussion. The author is a communist.


Out of interest, why incest?
There are cultures where incest is taboo and would be considered legitimate grounds for performing an abortion.


Oo. Does this sneak Sentients' Rights in? Probably not, but it made me happy.
We did intend for it to cover other species, not just humans.

Then why are you allowing an exception in the case of rape or incest?
This is an attempt at compromise. As an Aundotutunagirian, I would not consider rape or incest to be legitimate grounds, but we are trying to be culturally sensitive.

If the foetus is healthy and the mother's health/life not in danger why is it not murder to abort the foetus just because of who its father is and how he impregnated the woman.
You make a very good point and I agree with you. In Aundotutunagir, all abortions are illegal. We believe that the child is blameless and innocent and no reason for taking its life is ever justifiable.

As a firm believer in the right of the woman's right to choose, from go to whoa in a pregnancy, this particular double standard of the pro life brigade never fails to make me angry and confused.
The double standard appears in this proposal because I am trying to appease those who hold the double standard. As I said earlier, we are trying to author a compromise on this very difficult subject.


I've gone cross-eyed.
Perhaps you are the victim of witchcraft? I can summon an Aundotutunagirian priest to perform the fire, hornets and boiling water ritual which will cleanse you of this affliction.

a nation needs to grow. abortion WOULD cause birth rate to drop, and we cannot accept that.
A very wise observation. I applaud you.

As you well know we have always been defenders of national sovereignty where this did not directly conflict with protecting the personal liberties of individual citizens of w.a. member states
This does protect the personal liberties of individual citizens. It protects the rights of unborn citizens, the very future of our nations.

a resolution which deprives billions of women the right to control what happens to their own body.
You would rather it deprived billions of unborn children of their right to live?

With all due respect, representative, you are simply wrong. If the mother does not want the child, then it is reasonable to say that the child isn't going to be taken care of like children whose parents actually wanted them. If the mother cannot support the child financially, then it becomes a burden on the state's coffers, if the state so happens to have social welfare programs. Not only does it pose a burden on the state, but on the mother herself. If she cannot take care of herself, how is she going to be able to take care of her child? You're asking for the mother to either give up her life, so her baby can live, or give up the baby's life so that she can live. Neither are reasonable, and both are irresponsible.
So kill it because it is a financial burden?

Keep in mind that adoption isn't an option everywhere; and in plenty cases, it's certainly not a good option for the child, when it could have been aborted (and the problem thus erased) before it became a human (at least, in Glen-Rhodes)
So you believe it is better to be aborted than to be adopted?

Yes; it was where I learned that it is unethical to force a person to give up their livelihood because of an easily rectifiable mistake.
I can't help but notice that you keep using terms like "problem erased" and "rectifiable mistake" in reference to unborn children. It is almost as if you are at war with the unborn and consider them an enemy.

You'd argue it incorrectly, but feel free.It's an argument of morality. There is no winning side, just a more convincing one.
This doesn't address the point I made that a child, who could live a noble, fulfilled and worthy life, doesn't get the chance to if a burdened, lazy or irresponsible "mother" decides to dispose of them like a pair of old socks. And yes, children can be a burden. Everything living can be a burden. Does that make them unworthy to live? We wouldn't think so, but then again, we don't dispose of living beings just because they're an inconvenience either. I guess it's just a question of a society's values....or whether they have any at all.Don't be so crass, Ambassador. Nobody is suggesting that it's acceptable for any old mother to throw her baby away. Certain circumstances, such as the mother being unable to sufficiently support the baby, do give her the right to abort her unborn child.
Is it? Even if we choose to buy that statement, it'll never get the chance to attain such knowledge if you kill it. Again, to some of us that's an undesirable outcome, and one which international legislation would thankfully cease.

-Irina Misheli, Deputy AmbassadorPerhaps we shouldn't execute serial murderers either, with the idea that if we execute them, we may never know if they'll become better people. Absurd, isn't it? So is what you've said.

I know that Ambassador Mongkha may not agree with I'm saying, but the delegation of Glen-Rhodes fully agrees with what he is saying.

So you believe it is better to be aborted than to be adopted? Are you assuming that all nations have adoption systems?


I can't help but notice that you keep using terms like "problem erased" and "rectifiable mistake" in reference to unborn children. It is almost as if you are at war with the unborn and consider them an enemy.Don't be silly.

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

This does protect the personal liberties of individual citizens. It protects the rights of unborn citizens, the very future of our nations.


You would rather it deprived billions of unborn children of their right to live?





The foetus is not a citizen putative or otherwise, it is not relevant what its imaginary rights are. It is only the liberties of actual citizens we are even remotely interested in.

The unborn does not exist in a relationship with government, its mother does. Her rights over her own body must be left intact.


Yours e.t.c. ,

.Are you assuming that all nations have adoption systems?
Are you assuming that the unwanted unborn who had the misfortune of being conceived in a nation lacking an adoption system deserve to die?

Don't be silly.
I was being serious. I detect in your statements a marked hostility towards the unborn. It was just an observation.

The foetus is not a citizen putative or otherwise, it is not relevant what its imaginary rights are. It is only the liberties of actual citizens we are even remotely interested in.

The unborn does not exist in a relationship with government, its mother does. Her rights over her own body must be left intact.


Yours e.t.c. ,
You state as fact that "the foetus is not a citizen" and that it "does not exist in a relationship with government" when in fact there are no doubt many nations which extend citizenship to the unborn. Aundotutunagir is one of them.

Are you assuming that the unwanted unborn who had the misfortune of being conceived in a nation lacking an adoption system deserve to die?Are you mandating that all nations set up an extensive adoption system? Can we stop playing this game of answering questions with questions?

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Are you mandating that all nations set up an extensive adoption system?
No I am not and why should I in this proposal?

Now certainly it would be good if all nations had adoptive services and mechanisms to care for unwanted and orphaned children, but that is a subject that would require a proposal of its own. There would not be enough available space to cover that subject and abortion adequately in one proposal.
Can we stop playing this game of answering questions with questions?
No, I don't think we can.

It's times like this I wish I had a time machine so I could travel back in time and have a long discussion with a certain ambassador's parents about what a wonderful thing abortion is.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

It's times like this I wish I had a time machine so I could travel back in time and have a long discussion with a certain ambassador's parents about what a wonderful thing abortion is.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative
The Aundotutunagirian People oppose the use of time machines.

The Aundotutunagirian People oppose the use of time machines.

Why am I not surprised?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Now certainly it would be good if all nations had adoptive services and mechanisms to care for unwanted and orphaned children, but that is a subject that would require a proposal of its own. There would not be enough available space to cover that subject and abortion adequately in one proposal.One would think, then, that a proposal about adoption services would come before, and make easier to write, a proposal about abortion.

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

One would think, then, that a proposal about adoption services would come before, and make easier to write, a proposal about abortion.

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes
The Aundotutunagirian People are not well versed in the writing of proposals dealing with adoption and orphans, though we know of Peoples that are.

Why don't you write it?

As far as I am aware the passage of a resolution is the only way to accomplish such a thing.

I think you misunderstand. My point isn't, "do it another way" but that I don't see why it should be done to begin with. I don't see why an entire resolution is needed to say "Third trimester and forced abortions are illegal." It seems like a lot of fluff for a small unnecessary point.

Funny enough, I agree that third trimester abortions shouldn't be allowed in a perfect world. I just think this resolution has no real merit, as it's such a small point to cover.

So you believe that a doctor should have the power to force a woman to undergo an abortion in this circumstance? Incredible. Would this not still be the taking of a life, against the will of the mother no less?

If a woman has previously expressed that she does not want an abortion, but finds herself unconscious on a medical table in the health position of either the baby or her surviving, the doctor should be able to make the decision to choose the woman. It would be technically be forced abortion but as a medical professional it should be his choice who's life he saves. The doctor in these times has the medical expertise to make this choice, and as such he should be allowed to follow his gut.

In other words, regardless of the situation my point is that it isn't so black and white. There is gray area and making the blank statement of forced abortions are not allowed overlooks much of it.

Why don't you write it?I would, but for the past few months I have been writing an education proposal. As you can see if you look at the topic "Draft: Universal Education Act", it's quite an extensive debate, and writing another proposal would be suicide at this point. Perhaps another day, though.

I implore you to listen to the representative of Oiseaui, though, as they raise an incredibly good point.

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

The Aundotutunagirian People are not well versed in the writing of proposals dealing with adoption and orphans, though we know of Peoples that are.

Why don't you write it?

This is something that I have been working on coming up with a basic draft for debate. Hopefully I will have it to a point where it may be open for debate soon.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

You state as fact that "the foetus is not a citizen" and that it "does not exist in a relationship with government" when in fact there are no doubt many nations which extend citizenship to the unborn. Aundotutunagir is one of them.


Even if some nations do extend citizenship status to the foetus, it is still not really in a relationship with government until it is born since it can have no formal or informal interactions with the state.

Essentially the foetus's entire existence is mediated through its mother's body therefore the mother's rights as a citizen should by considered a priori and paramount to the foetus's.

Until such time as medical science makes it possible for the foetus to be carried to term entirely outside of a woman's body, governments should have no right to demand that their female citizens carry offspring they do not wish to carry.

Perhaps the debate running between some states about adoption should result in all children who would otherwise have been aborted becoming the wards of the politicians in Aundotutunagir who have made them unwanted.

Would the esteemed Ambassador for Aundotutunagir consent to being forced to raise these millions perhaps billions of children? Could the ruling class of Aundotutunagir submit to having its rights curtailed and being forced to parent such unwanted offspring?

Because this is exactly what the renowned rulers of Aundotutunagir are requiring of millions of women throughout the w.a.

Yours e.t.c. ,

The first part of clause 1 refers to 'voluntary abortions', but the latter does not, meaning it includes accidental abortions. This proposal, therefore, permits and in fact guarantees in legal perpetuity the right of nations to outlaw, and punish with anything up to and including the death sentence, a woman who has a miscarriage. That its supporters consider it a 'sensible compromise' is beyond scorn.

Seeing, however, no shortage of support for it, we are preparing a proposal to guarantee the right to an abortion.

-- Samantha Benson

The first part of clause 1 refers to 'voluntary abortions', but the latter does not, meaning it includes accidental abortions. This proposal, therefore, permits and in fact guarantees in legal perpetuity the right of nations to outlaw, and punish with anything up to and including the death sentence, a woman who has a miscarriage. That its supporters consider it a 'sensible compromise' is beyond scorn.

Seeing, however, no shortage of support for it, we are preparing a proposal to guarantee the right to an abortion.

-- Samantha Benson



We will support that honoured delegation for Quintessence of Dust in this action in any way we can.

We applaud them for their alacrity.


Yours sincerely,

What's wrong with the version in front of you?
Well, this version wouldn't actually require that we change any of our existing laws, so we could live with it, but it is a bit less sovereignty-friendly than the ALC...

It's times like this I wish I had a time machine so I could travel back in time and have a long discussion with a certain ambassador's parents about what a wonderful thing abortion is.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative
Hang around in the Strangers' Bar for long enough and a TARDIS will probably arrive there (again), although of course it owner might not be willing -- or even able -- to take you exactly where & when you'd like...

Seeing, however, no shortage of support for it, we are preparing a proposal to guarantee the right to an abortion.Oh. In that case, we would not object to something similar to the original "Abortion Rights" resolution (http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Abortion_Rights).

Hang around in the Strangers' Bar for long enough and a TARDIS will probably arrive there (again), although of course it owner might not be willing -- or even able -- to take you exactly where & when you'd like...

Which will make it the fourth time he's shown up, I think? Anyway, I doubt he'll agree to it considering my goal is to change the past, something he's not really big on.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Which will make it the fourth time he's shown up, I think? Anyway, I doubt he'll agree to it considering my goal is to change the past, something he's not really big on.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Well, you could get the Meddling Monk instead... ;)

If a woman has previously expressed that she does not want an abortion, but finds herself unconscious on a medical table in the health position of either the baby or her surviving, the doctor should be able to make the decision to choose the woman. It would be technically be forced abortion but as a medical professional it should be his choice who's life he saves. The doctor in these times has the medical expertise to make this choice, and as such he should be allowed to follow his gut.

Interesting hypothetical. But what if the doctor wants to choose the fetus? I'm not sure I see this as directly related to this proposal anyway. But it is the opinion of Alector that doctors have no right to circumvent the previously expressed wishes of the patient. That's inviting abuse by doctors with political agendas, which they often have when it comes to abortion.

The first part of clause 1 refers to 'voluntary abortions', but the latter does not, meaning it includes accidental abortions. This proposal, therefore, permits and in fact guarantees in legal perpetuity the right of nations to outlaw, and punish with anything up to and including the death sentence, a woman who has a miscarriage. That its supporters consider it a 'sensible compromise' is beyond scorn.

Seeing, however, no shortage of support for it, we are preparing a proposal to guarantee the right to an abortion.

-- Samantha Benson

Good luck. If you try to circumvent the right of nations to protect human life you will find bitter opposition.

Orion Morel
Representative of the Federation of Alector

Good luck. If you try to circumvent the right of nations to protect human life you will find bitter opposition.
1. I am proposing we protect human life.

2. If I tried to circumvent the right of nations to standardise crisp packeting colours, I'd face bitter opposition.

3. I'm not easily cowed, and not especially surprised, by naked threats.

-- Samantha Benson

Any resolution that legalizes abortion does come with downsides, as it may go against the will of a culture. But it will come useful for cases where a woman's life is in danger or family planning. However forcing abortions should be banned, as it is the choice of the citizen.

1. I am proposing we protect human life.

You intend to protect the life you have judged worthy of living. Perfectly acceptable . . . as long as you don't try to shove your definition of life down the throats of your fellow nations.

2. If I tried to circumvent the right of nations to standardise crisp packeting colours, I'd face bitter opposition.

But surely a savvy diplomat like yourself recognizes the inherently volatile nature of the abortion debate?

3. I'm not easily cowed, and not especially surprised, by naked threats.

It would never be the intention of Alector to threaten any of the far more powerful nations here! I am shocked and appalled that any nation would regard a statement of fierce opposition to a proposal they plan to author as a threat. A nation could mistake that as aggression on the part of Ms. Benson and those she represents. Alector is a peaceful nation devoid of military strength.

I humbly request you withdraw that disrespectful statement.

Orion Morel
Representative of the Federation of Alector

But surely a savvy diplomat like yourself recognizes the inherently volatile nature of the abortion debate?



It would never be the intention of Alector to threaten any of the far more powerful nations here! I am shocked and appalled that any nation would regard a statement of fierce opposition to a proposal they plan to author as a threat. A nation could mistake that as aggression on the part of Ms. Benson and those she represents. Alectoris a peaceful nation devoid of military strength.

I humbly request you withdraw that disrespectful statement.

Orion Morel
Representative of the Federation of Alector


This issue was not brought before this organisation by the respected Quodite delegation, and the honoured Ms. Benson is merely responding sensibly to an extremist attempt to deprive women of their basic rights.

And as for the respected Ms. Benson's supposed disrespect, we suggest the honoured Ambassador for Alector calm down and look at what the respected Ms. Benson actually said, and stop trying to create conflict were it is unnecessary.


Yours e.t.c. ,

Ms. Benson expressed her intention to develop a counter-resolution, unless I am mistaken. I made a comment in opposition of the apparent stance such a resolution would take. She interpreted my opposition as a threat. I'm not sure how that is not disrespectful. Though we are weaker than all the great nations who hold the fate of the world in their palm and though we may be crushed when the palm is squeezed, Alector does not respond to bullying.

Orion Morel
Representative of the Federation of Alector

You intend to protect the life you have judged worthy of living. Perfectly acceptable . . . as long as you don't try to shove your definition of life down the throats of your fellow nations.
Thanks for teeing that one up: nations don't have throats.

Here are some other things that, unlike me, nations don't have: feelings, emotions, opinions, four Grateful Dead live bootlegs, thoughts, views, a mind. A nation is a political unit, not a functional organism. Later in your statement, you suggest abortion is a 'volatile' issue subject to an ongoing debate, which casts further suspicion on your assertion that nations have an absolute approach to the issue. I recognise the legality abortion might be more or less favoured in different nations according to their political circumstances. But I am not trying to replace any particular nation's 'definition of life' insofar as I don't grant the premise that a nation can have a definition of life. Certain members of its government might enforce their own on other citizens, but that's not the same.

I'd also note I have, twice, within this discussion voiced my opposition to compulsion on this issue. The beauty of advocating individual responsibility is that no one is placed under force: if you don't like abortion, don't have one. I don't like toffee apples, which is why I never buy them in the first place.
But surely a savvy diplomat like yourself recognizes the inherently volatile nature of the abortion debate?
We've been in the WA/UN for 2 years this New Year. In that time, we have not once mooted a draft proposal even vaguely related to abortion. The only reason we are now doing so is that someone else began the 'inherently volatile' debate, and in an unfavourable direction. So I agree with you: and ours is a product of, not a reactant in, that debate.
It would never be the intention of Alector to threaten any of the far more powerful nations here!
Were I a nationalist, I'd be rather flattered. I'm not, and I suspect you're just taking the piss, but in case you are genuinely mistaken: Quintessence of Dust is a backwater. Why do you think I accepted a post out here? To get away. Our 5 million citizens have not mustered a whole lot of noteworthy military campaigns or historic inventions or notable symphonies: a few postcolonial writers and some half-decent shoegaze is about our lot. We are no more powerful than any other nation in the WA. And, insofar as our votes are determined by regional consensus, we are by some measures less powerful than many other delegates.
I humbly request you withdraw that disrespectful statement.
Given you are advocating abrogating the most basic personal autonomy of 50% of the world's population, I find your authority to lecture on disrespectful statements questionable.

-- Samantha Benson
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

Ms. Benson expressed her intention to develop a counter-resolution, unless I am mistaken. I made a comment in opposition of the apparent stance such a resolution would take. She interpreted my opposition as a threat. I'm not sure how that is not disrespectful. Though we are weaker than all the great nations who hold the fate of the world in their palm and though we may be crushed when the palm is squeezed, Alector does not respond to bullying.

Orion Morel
Representative of the Federation of AlectorThe delegation of Alector should break their nasty habit of referring to themselves as "weak", and asserting that because they are neither large nor prolific, that they have less of a voice in the World Assembly. Not only is it self-deprecating, but it is also disrespectful to the large delegations that are being accused of belonging to some elitist club.

Furthermore, my Urgenchi colleague, Ambassador Mongkha, is correct in all that he said. The drama is unnecessary. It is not uncommon for "counter-resolutions" to be created, especially for such taboo subjects.

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

It specifies rape, but does not define it, except in the colloquial sense, which does not always include statutory rape.
Good point.

Besides which, even if a consenting 19-year-old girl were impregnated by her cousin, and wanted to abort her child to prevent inbreeding, that would be perfectly acceptable, don't you think? We would assume the woman's right to choice would be no-brainer for a liberal delegation such as yourselves.
This version lets her do it until the third trimester anyway. Beyond that, I'm still not really seeing the special pleading; the rights argument isn't a given, because there are too many entities with conflicting interests involved.

The delegation of Alector should break their nasty habit of referring to themselves as "weak", and asserting that because they are neither large nor prolific, that they have less of a voice in the World Assembly. Not only is it self-deprecating, but it is also disrespectful to the large delegations that are being accused of belonging to some elitist club.

Strange, but not surprising, that you were not so critical of Alector's characterization when that characterization was being used in defense of a measure you proposed Mr. Castro (Alector does not recognize the designation of Doctor as legitimate outside of its borders.)

As for elitist club, well, considering I've directly stated that in the past, implying it should be the least of your complaints. I believe the appropriate phrase is "If the shoe fits . . . "

Furthermore, my Urgenchi colleague, Ambassador Mongkha, is correct in all that he said. The drama is unnecessary. It is not uncommon for "counter-resolutions" to be created, especially for such taboo subjects.

Whether or not it is common for a counter-resolution to be proposed was never at issue.

Thanks for teeing that one up: nations don't have throats.

Yes, they do. They have millions or billions of throats, all crying out against the oppression you so often defend.

Later in your statement, you suggest abortion is a 'volatile' issue subject to an ongoing debate, which casts further suspicion on your assertion that nations have an absolute approach to the issue. I recognise the legality abortion might be more or less favoured in different nations according to their political circumstances. But I am not trying to replace any particular nation's 'definition of life' insofar as I don't grant the premise that a nation can have a definition of life. Certain members of its government might enforce their own on other citizens, but that's not the same.

I agree. The definition of life is universal and incontrovertible. A human life is formed at the point of conception. Why then is abortion legal in Alector? Well, obviously the public of Alector does not share my view. Yet, I would not propose a measure to enforce my view in the World Assembly. Why are you so special Ms. Benson, that your view must be enforced?

I'd also note I have, twice, within this discussion voiced my opposition to compulsion on this issue. The beauty of advocating individual responsibility is that no one is placed under force: if you don't like abortion, don't have one. I don't like toffee apples, which is why I never buy them in the first place.

You are free to argue that position in your own nation. But whether you wish to believe it or not, asserting the mythical right to abortion exists across all borders is compulsion on an unprecedented scale.

We've been in the WA/UN for 2 years this New Year. In that time, we have not once mooted a draft proposal even vaguely related to abortion. The only reason we are now doing so is that someone else began the 'inherently volatile' debate, and in an unfavourable direction. So I agree with you: and ours is a product of, not a reactant in, that debate.

I share your opposition to this proposal. I simply stated that would oppose any proposal on your part intending to establish the right to abortion. If you oppose any proposal related to abortion, your statement was foolhardy.

Were I a nationalist, I'd be rather flattered. I'm not, and I suspect you're just taking the piss, but in case you are genuinely mistaken: Quintessence of Dust is a backwater. Why do you think I accepted a post out here? To get away. Our 5 million citizens have not mustered a whole lot of noteworthy military campaigns or historic inventions or notable symphonies: a few postcolonial writers and some half-decent shoegaze is about our lot. We are no more powerful than any other nation in the WA. And, insofar as our votes are determined by regional consensus, we are by some measures less powerful than many other delegates.

If Quintessence of Dust is so insignificant, that does explain why you were so quick to twist a statement of disagreement into a threat. However, it does not excuse that action.

Given you are advocating abrogating the most basic personal autonomy of 50% of the world's population, I find your authority to lecture on disrespectful statements questionable.

You assume a great deal from a simple statement of opposition to your proposal. The official position of Alector is one of national sovereignty only, although my personal feelings are different as I stated above. For a representative who claims no nationalistic fervor, you have a love affair with cultural imperialism.

Orion Morel
Representative of the Federation of Alector

Strange, but not surprising, that you were not so critical of Alector's characterization when that characterization was being used in defense of a measure you proposed Mr. Castro (Alector does not recognize the designation of Doctor as legitimate outside of its borders.)

As for elitist club, well, considering I've directly stated that in the past, implying it should be the least of your complaints. I believe the appropriate phrase is "If the shoe fits . . . "First of all, I will be addressed by the titles that I have earned. That is, either Doctor, Ambassador, or Chief Ambassador of the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes if you so prefer. I will not, however, accept myself and my accomplishments to be disrespected in a such a blatant manner, because Alector "does not recognize" the legitimacy of a Ph.D. from Glen-Rhodes.

I would further advise you to not burn your bridges so quickly and deliberately, as even the rickety of bridges are valuable in this organization. I would then go on to advise the delegation of Alector be careful with the insinuations it spouts, as it is a quick and sure-fire way to gain enemies. I would then suggest that the insinuations in the quoted response should be worrying for the delegation of Alector, assuming such an elite club does exist, if they wish to ever gain influence within this legislating body. I believe the phrase goes "don't bite the hand that feeds". Of course, if there were an elite club within the World Assembly, it would only be by them that the voice of the delegation of Alector is allowed in their hallowed halls.

However, since I am not a legitimate doctor, I would be well out of my league as to advise and suggest such things.

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Strange, but not surprising, that you were not so critical of Alector's characterization when that characterization was being used in defense of a measure you proposed Mr. Castro (Alector does not recognize the designation of Doctor as legitimate outside of its borders.)


Orion Morel
Representative of the Federation of Alector





We seriously recommend that the honoured delegation of Alector calm down and stop flinging figurative mud around in the vain hope that some of it will stick.

We should point out that in matters of international relations the titles representatives of other nations use are not subject to ones own nation's definitions and should be respected at all times, unless one is trying to insult the representative in question.


We have not quoted the rest of what the honoured representative has said because it is drivelous, nonsensical and broadly lacking in reason.

The honoured delegation for Alector should consider treating this debate with a little more gravity.

Yours e.t.c. ,

Perhaps the debate running between some states about adoption should result in all children who would otherwise have been aborted becoming the wards of the politicians in Aundotutunagir who have made them unwanted.
We would welcome this influx of children. They would be raised communally, as are all children in Aundotutunagir, and become well adjusted and right-thinking adults such as myself.

Would the esteemed Ambassador for Aundotutunagir consent to being forced to raise these millions perhaps billions of children? Could the ruling class of Aundotutunagir submit to having its rights curtailed and being forced to parent such unwanted offspring?
Yes and yes. We don't have a "ruling class" though. Aundotutunagir is a classless society where all have an equal chance to succeed.

The first part of clause 1 refers to 'voluntary abortions', but the latter does not
It doesn't?

1. WA member states shall have the right to declare voluntary abortion legal or illegal through the second trimester of fetal development. Member states may also pass legislation extending or restricting voluntary abortion rights to any degree they may find appropriate through this stage of fetal development.


Seeing, however, no shortage of support for it, we are preparing a proposal to guarantee the right to an abortion.

-- Samantha Benson
The Aundotutunagirian People oppose this!

Well, this version wouldn't actually require that we change any of our existing laws, so we could live with it, but it is a bit less sovereignty-friendly than the ALC...
There is a bear loose in the General Assembly.

The Aundotutunagirian People are not troubled by this as we have a long and harmonious relationship with the bears of the Aundotutunagirian forests.

However, we have recently seen foreign news reports (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYC3fngxmfg) of bears engaging in a variety of dangerous and threatening behaviours.

There is a bear loose in the General Assembly.

The Aundotutunagirian People are not troubled by this as we have a long and harmonious relationship with the bears of the Aundotutunagirian forests.

However, we have recently seen foreign news reports (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYC3fngxmfg) of bears engaging in a variety of dangerous and threatening behaviours.
I'm assuming that you've given up on this piece of legislation, as you just committed diplomatic suicide.

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

I'm assuming that you've given up on this piece of legislation, as you just committed diplomatic suicide.

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes
Given up on it? Hardly. It is in the process of being revised, incorporating some of the suggestions from the Omigodtheykilledkenny delegation.

Committed diplomatic suicide? In what way? We have no quarrel with the delegation from Bears Armed but were merely stating that we had seen a newscast detailing a series of bear attacks. We certainly don't think all bears are a threat to mankind.

Are you trying to stir trouble between the Aundotutunagirian People and the people of Bears Armed? Is this one of those "let's you and him fight" situations?

Know that the Aundotutunagirian People will not tolerate your crude machinations and will respond aggressively to any further attempts by yourself to embroil us in diplomatic controversies. We are a serious people and have no tolerance for your antics.

Committed diplomatic suicide? In what way? We have no quarrel with the delegation from Bears Armed but were merely stating that we had seen a newscast detailing a series of bear attacks. We certainly don't think all bears are a threat to mankind.

Are you trying to stir trouble between the Aundotutunagirian People and the people of Bears Armed? Is this one of those "let's you and him fight" situations
You're kidding, right? If I were to response to you, and cite a news source about religious quacks drinking the punch, it would in no way be a commentary on my thoughts of Aundotutunagir? I find that extremely hard to believe. Nobody here is that naive. I'd advise you to tread lightly, and put away your big stick.

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

I'd advise you to tread lightly, and put away your big stick.
I'd advise you to be quiet. The grown-ups are trying to have a conversation.

Isn't diplomatic suicide just killing yourself in such a way that you leave no mess and don't upset anyone?

Isn't diplomatic suicide just killing yourself in such a way that you leave no mess and don't upset anyone?Touche, Ambassador, touche. It's been quite some time since anybody in the World Assembly has made me laugh. The naiveté of certain delegations isn't as amusing as it once was.

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

The World Assembly,

STATING its commitment to the protection of innocent life,

WISHING to extend that commitment to the unborn residents of WA member states,

ACKNOWLEDGING that irreconcilable differences exist between abortion rights proponents and opponents,

ACCEPTING that compromise on this very divisive issue is difficult, if not impossible,

NEVERTHELESS, determined to extend a modicum of protection to the unborn, who through no fault of their own currently face the possibility of death even at advanced stages of their development,

Enacts the following:

1. WA member states shall have the right to declare voluntary abortion legal or illegal. Member states may also pass legislation extending or restricting voluntary abortion rights to any degree they may find appropriate.

2. Involuntary or “forced” abortions shall be illegal in all WA member states. Exception shall be made for emergency medical procedures deemed necessary by a physician to save the life of the mother and performed without her consent.

3. WA member states are strongly urged to outlaw abortions performed in the third trimester of fetal development with allowances for cases of rape, incest, severe fetal abnormality, or severe medical risk to the life of the mother.

4. Any infant that is born alive is considered a person and is entitled to full protection under WA law. Any infant that is born alive is entitled to proper medical treatment as needed. Intentionally killing such infants or allowing their death through neglect or the withholding of proper medical treatment shall be considered murder.

This incorporates some suggestions made earlier.

You're kidding, right? If I were to response to you, and cite a news source about religious quacks drinking the punch, it would in no way be a commentary on my thoughts of Aundotutunagir? I find that extremely hard to believe. Nobody here is that naive. I'd advise you to tread lightly, and put away your big stick.

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

*Bob hands Dr. Castro a shovel*
Keep digging, maybe you'll manage to get out of that hole you're in. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to see a doctor about borrowing a DeLorean.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

This incorporates some suggestions made earlier.
[snip]
2. Involuntary or “forced” abortions shall be illegal in all WA member states. Exception shall be made for emergency medical procedures deemed necessary by a physician to save the life of the mother and performed without her consent.
I suggest really hard that you pay a lot of attention to the way the parallel parts of the Patients' Rights proposal is phrased, because that's got it right and this hasn't.

This incorporates some suggestions made earlier.




We would rather this resolution did not get into the realm of defining what constitutes murder in the way that it does.

Our legal system demands that intent be proven above all else when judging whether murder has happened or not, as written this resolution defines a kind of murder purely on the outcome of what might be accidental circumstances, which might be at best manslaughter by our standards but is certainly not murder.

Yours e.t.c. ,

We would rather this resolution did not get into the realm of defining what constitutes murder in the way that it does.

Our legal system demands that intent be proven above all else when judging whether murder has happened or not, as written this resolution defines a kind of murder purely on the outcome of what might be accidental circumstances, which might be at best manslaughter by our standards but is certainly not murder.

Yours e.t.c. ,
So if an infant manages to somehow survive a botched abortion procedure and is born alive, then has its head bashed in, you wouldn't consider that murder? That is what clause 4 is talking about.

But it does not specify that, and even if we did think what you are referring to is murder you have not just made that illegal.

Your resolution means that no doctor would be able to perform procedures for the benefit of the foetus which might have possible adverse outcomes.


Specify what you mean Ambassador or else you will endanger more offspring than you will save.

Clinical negligence does not always amount to murder.



Yours e.t.c.,

Interesting hypothetical. But what if the doctor wants to choose the fetus? *snip*

Then it's the doctor's choice. Ideologically I agree with the resolution, but intelligently I see faults in it's black&white phrasing.

Unless that woman signed a medical affidavit that expressly stated what she wanted (such as a DNR) while she's unable to make decisions for herself and under the doctor's knife it should be his decision (assuming there is nobody else there who can make the decisions for the woman, husband, lawyer, etc).

The entire point of this hypothetical being that situations may arise where such black and white phrasing does not serve the people.

Your resolution means that no doctor would be able to perform procedures for the benefit of the foetus which might have possible adverse outcomes.
This is a good point. Thank you. I have altered the text to read "Intentionally killing".

*Bob hands Dr. Castro a shovel*
Keep digging, maybe you'll manage to get out of that hole you're in. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to see a doctor about borrowing a DeLorean.

Bob Flibble
WA RepresentativeI'm perfectly comfortable in my hole. It's warm and cozy.

And there's no punch.

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

This is a good point. Thank you. I have altered the text to read "Intentionally killing".

We are not sure if we are glad or not that we could assist you, respected Ambassador, since we are generally opposed to what are referred to as "blocker" resolutions, which attempt to stop the w.a. from legislating for the entirety of its membership, but since this allows us to maintain our own national legal framework on this issue we are considering the possibility of supporting this statute.

However should a statute be proposed by the honoured delegation of Quintessence of Dust which makes the moral case for total legalisation of abortion we may have to support that statute instead.

We hope the honoured Ambassador for Aundotutunagir understands our position.


Yours e.t.c. ,

Yes, they do. They have millions or billions of throats, all crying out against the oppression you so often defend.
First, I'm unaware I've often defended oppression. (Given your frequent disclaimers that you are new to the world scene, it is indeed a wonder you've had time to observe such tendencies: perhaps some prior nation has supplied you with experience? :] ) If you are defining 'oppression' to be 'the support of binding international legislation', I don't grant your premise that it is 'oppression', but I'll leave that debate for another point. Since I don't want this to be yet another pointless exchange of meaningless invective, then, I'll completely yield to you on this: yes, not only are you absolutely correct that I regularly defend oppression, but also, I kill nuns for fun, and you are wonderful. I'll throw a cake too if it'll help move the debate away from trivia and back to substance.

Second, your semantic laxness here illustrates that you have not grasped my point. A nation does not have a throat, and it does not have a mind. It is incapable of thought or sentiment. Yes, its inhabitants have throats, but that is incomparably different.

Third, if all these marauding throats do indeed oppose me - there's an image that I'll be having nightmares about tonight - I am a little perplexed they don't express this through: 1. voting down proposals I support; 2. repealing legislation I support; or 3. voting to withdraw from the WA. More on this later.
I agree. The definition of life is universal and incontrovertible. A human life is formed at the point of conception. Why then is abortion legal in Alector? Well, obviously the public of Alector does not share my view. Yet, I would not propose a measure to enforce my view in the World Assembly. Why are you so special Ms. Benson, that your view must be enforced?
Numerous points here.

First, I'm not sure what you mean when you say the 'definition of life is universal and incontrovertible'. This is because you follow it with a statement about the beginning of life, but not the nature of life itself. It also because such a definition is plainly not universal: I can think of at least one person who disagrees with it, rendering it non-universal. So, if you genuinely believe every person believes life is formed at conception, you are wrong. (Note: it may well be the case that every single person in the universe except me does so, but your statement would still be incorrect.) If it's an attempt at a joke, I don't get the humour. If it has some other purpose, well, could you explain?

Second, you assume the Alectorian electorate 'does not share [your] view' (which, again, makes your assertion that it is universal puzzling). Nonetheless, you don't really provide any evidence for this. You are assuming that the moment human life 'begins', the legitimacy for abortion ends: that, in other words, by legalising abortion, they are deciding that life only begins later. (If, for example, life begins at the start of the third trimester, this is where abortion should become illegal.) I do not think this works out, however. It is not inconsistent to believe life begins at some point, and that abortion should be legal even after that point. The following are just a few possible explanations:
- even though they believe such an abortion would constitute the ending of life, they believe the decision should be left to each person to make;
- they do not accept that one person has an obligation to provide their own flesh for another person's use, even if it leads to the death of the latter person (for example, I would imagine few countries enforce a law where someone causing a traffic accident has to give up their organs to those harmed);
- recognition of some abstract legal or constitutional principle;
- a pragmatic belief that criminalising abortion will only worsen the situation by promoting back alley abortions while not stopping the demand.

Note: there are other reasons, and none of these is necessarily preeminent.

My point is, in each case it would be legitimate to agree with your statement that life begins at conception, AND to agree that abortion should be legal.

Third, as to my own views on abortion, they are a private matter, and I don't intend on disclosing them. Your assertion that I am pushing my own view is incorrect: I am representing my national government.

Fourth, as I have already stated to no obvious rebuttal, a choice position means that no person is forced to accept anyone else's view on abortion: those who do not wish to have abortions do not have to have them. This, I repeat, is why banning forced abortions while permitting the banning of voluntary abortions represents a false dichotomy.
You are free to argue that position in your own nation. But whether you wish to believe it or not, asserting the mythical right to abortion exists across all borders is compulsion on an unprecedented scale.
First, I have not argued for a 'right to abortion'.

Second, I am not asserting the 'right to abortion exists across all borders': in fact, I am asserting that it does not.

Third, the idea that speech should be constrained by national borders. While I admit the WA has passed no free speech legislation, I hope it one day will. In the meantime, I don't see what so fundamentally alters in my stating a position while standing on Quodite soil as to stating such while standing on non-Quodite soil.

Fourth, the WA is the world's governing body. A part of the contract nations enter into in joining it is that they agree to permit the arguing of certain positions, while of course retaining their right to speak and ultimately vote against such.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Office of WA Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

It is worthy of mention that the above definition of life is absolutely correct. Life starts at conception.

However, that is in absolutely no way, shape, or form relevant to the following discussion. We are not talking about life, but about human life. And therein, as the Bard would say, lies the rub. When the sperm pierces the egg, it creates a living being. Absolutely correct. However, is that a living human being? Not necessarily. It has the 26 chromosomes belonging to the human race, yes, but then again, so does every single other cell in your body. If I were to take my friends out for a night of hard drinking, should I be summarily tossed into the brig for premeditated murder? After all, alcohol fries a few dozen neurons. Obviously, however, I could not be tried for serial murder because though dozen genetic humans were killed, they were all the same genetic human and the laws of double jeopardy come into play.

So then the argument needs to be pushed back slightly and state that the fertilized egg contains the "potential for human life." Give it time and energy and, nine months later, it will be a human. This therefore differentiates the fertilized egg from skin cells because skin cells are incapable of becoming into an entire human. Only, well, they don't. Cloning has proven that it is theoretically possible to clone any living creature from any one of its intact cells. Just pluck out its DNA, toss it into an empty egg, give it some love and care and, nine months later, the kid will look great. And I'm just using nine months because I don't believe many of our members doubt that a newborn is alive.

As well, there then comes the question of how far back you're willing to go: after all, the sperm and the egg also have the "potential for human life." Sure, it takes some work and, perhaps, alcoholic beverages, but both are capable of creating a new human being. Should one, therefore, truly say that "if abortion is murder, masturbation is genocide?" True, sperm lack half of the human genome, but that is only because they weren't fed enough alcohol and some idiot covered the door with a sticky sock. Shouldn't a nation so concerned about the well-being of it's Microscopic, Potential Human Beings not be far more strict regarding masturbation than abortion? After all, so many more MPHB are starved by the Sock of Deprivation than by the abortion doctor's saline injection. In fact, one could even go so far as to state that the very idea of sex is despicable. Almost as horrible as masturbation, in fact. After all, even when the egg is fertilized, millions of MPHB's are killed due to their failure to win the race. Systems should be put in place where all males donate every last one of their sperm. When a woman decides to procreate, her egg should be injected with but one single sperm so as to not risk loss of life.

I admit to having gone over the top there, but the point stands: what makes the fertilized egg human? That the egg itself is alive is not being debated. The question is instead what makes that living egg a living human.

It is worthy of mention that the above definition of life is absolutely correct. Life starts at conception.

However, that is in absolutely no way, shape, or form relevant to the following discussion. We are not talking about life, but about human life. And therein, as the Bard would say, lies the rub. When the sperm pierces the egg, it creates a living being. Absolutely correct. However, is that a living human being? Not necessarily. It has the 26 chromosomes belonging to the human race, yes, but then again, so does every single other cell in your body. If I were to take my friends out for a night of hard drinking, should I be summarily tossed into the brig for premeditated murder? After all, alcohol fries a few dozen neurons. Obviously, however, I could not be tried for serial murder because though dozen genetic humans were killed, they were all the same genetic human and the laws of double jeopardy come into play.

So then the argument needs to be pushed back slightly and state that the fertilized egg contains the "potential for human life." Give it time and energy and, nine months later, it will be a human. This therefore differentiates the fertilized egg from skin cells because skin cells are incapable of becoming into an entire human. Only, well, they don't. Cloning has proven that it is theoretically possible to clone any living creature from any one of its intact cells. Just pluck out its DNA, toss it into an empty egg, give it some love and care and, nine months later, the kid will look great. And I'm just using nine months because I don't believe many of our members doubt that a newborn is alive.

As well, there then comes the question of how far back you're willing to go: after all, the sperm and the egg also have the "potential for human life." Sure, it takes some work and, perhaps, alcoholic beverages, but both are capable of creating a new human being. Should one, therefore, truly say that "if abortion is murder, masturbation is genocide?" True, sperm lack half of the human genome, but that is only because they weren't fed enough alcohol and some idiot covered the door with a sticky sock. Shouldn't a nation so concerned about the well-being of it's Microscopic, Potential Human Beings not be far more strict regarding masturbation than abortion? After all, so many more MPHB are starved by the Sock of Deprivation than by the abortion doctor's saline injection. In fact, one could even go so far as to state that the very idea of sex is despicable. Almost as horrible as masturbation, in fact. After all, even when the egg is fertilized, millions of MPHB's are killed due to their failure to win the race. Systems should be put in place where all males donate every last one of their sperm. When a woman decides to procreate, her egg should be injected with but one single sperm so as to not risk loss of life.

I admit to having gone over the top there, but the point stands: what makes the fertilized egg human? That the egg itself is alive is not being debated. The question is instead what makes that living egg a living human.


All of this is well reasoned and doubtless very interesting academic speculation but it is not really reaching the true core of this issue.

I am human, honoured Ambassador, but I have no right to force another human being to physically bear the cost of my continued ability to live, to breath for me, to eat for me, to excrete my waste, to support my immune system, to grow my cells, e.t.c., and then to bear the responsibility and danger involved in separating our bodies and looking after me ( in an infantilised state ) for a significant period of their life, so why should a foetus have this right?

Ultimately, this is not a question of when life begins or even of metaphysical debates about when a foetus is imbued with life ( particularly since this resolution continues to allow abortions in the early and middle stages of pregnancy ) it is about who has prior claim to an individual's body, the individual or the state?

No state ( notionally communistic or not ) should have the right to treat my living body or yours, honoured Ambassador, as it's to command and to coerce or compel into physical processes you or I would not consent to it undergoing.


Yours,

We are not sure if we are glad or not that we could assist you, respected Ambassador, since we are generally opposed to what are referred to as "blocker" resolutions...I always thought blocker resolutions were illegal - although my understanding of WA legislation is a tad rusty. But this does strike me as blocking the WA from actually doing anything meaningful...if that's possible with this particular topic.

Abortion discussions are like a tossing a hand grenade into the WA - they always shake things up.

I always thought blocker resolutions were illegal - although my understanding of WA legislation is a tad rusty. But this does strike me as blocking the WA from actually doing anything meaningful...if that's possible with this particular topic.

Abortion discussions are like a tossing a hand grenade into the WA - they always shake things up.

OOC: Resolutions that do nothing except block further legislation are illegal, because every resolution must have an effect of some kind (even if it merely 'Urges' this...) to justify its game-mechanic effect on the member-nations' stats.
Resolutions that say outright "The WA will not pass any future laws about [whatever the subject is]" -- or other words to that immediate effect -- are also illegal, because the WA's current membership simply isn't allowed to limit the future membership's options in that way.
Resolutions that do something, but that also close off future legislative options (unless & until they're repealed) have to be legal, however, beacause otherwise ALL resolutions with any mandatory clauses would be illegal as 'blockers' on the matters that those clauses covered...

Abortion discussions are like a tossing a hand grenade into the WA - they always shake things up.
*tosses a hand grenade into the WA*

This is not pure blocking legislation. It prevents the killing of newborns and outlaws forced abortions.

I have made subtle changes to the text which are sure to enrage abortionists and practitioners of infanticide everywhere.

The World Assembly,

STATING its commitment to the protection of innocent life,

WISHING to extend that commitment to the unborn residents of WA member states,

ACKNOWLEDGING that irreconcilable differences exist between abortion rights proponents and opponents,

ACCEPTING that compromise on this very divisive issue is difficult, if not impossible,

NEVERTHELESS, determined to extend a modicum of protection to the unborn, who through no fault of their own currently face the possibility of death even at advanced stages of their development,

Enacts the following:

1. The World Assembly condemns abortion in all circumstances but allows that WA member states shall have the right to declare voluntary abortion legal or illegal. Member states may also pass legislation extending or restricting voluntary abortion rights to any degree they may find appropriate.

2. Involuntary or “forced” abortions shall be illegal in all WA member states.

-In emergency situations where the mother's life is endangered, a physician may perform an abortion without her consent only if, because of her physical or mental state, it is not possible to obtain her consent.

3. WA member states are strongly urged to outlaw abortions performed in the third trimester of fetal development.

4. Any infant that is born alive is considered a person and is entitled to full protection under WA law. Any infant that is born alive is entitled to proper medical treatment as needed. Intentionally killing such infants or allowing their death through neglect or the withholding of proper medical treatment shall be considered murder.

*tosses a hand grenade into the WA*
*Bob walks over to the grenade, pulls the pin and throws it back*

*Bob walks over to the grenade, pulls the pin and throws it back*
A game of hot potato, excellent! I didn't know you played.

*tosses the grenade back to Bob Flibble*

Clarification: It isn't a fragmentation grenade, it's one of these. (http://www.gearzoneproducts.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=2293) We wouldn't want to kill or maim anyone, but a little uncontrollable crying coupled with the discharge of seemingly impossible amounts of mucous is good fun. :D

The honoured Ambassador for Aundotutunagir must be deluded to think that inclusion of this clause-" The World Assembly condemns abortion in all circumstances but allows that WA member states shall have the right to declare voluntary abortion legal or illegal. Member states may also pass legislation extending or restricting voluntary abortion rights to any degree they may find appropriate." will be in any way acceptable to the entire world assembly.

We suspect the w.a. will not be condemning abortion in all circumstances, so long as we and other moral and decent nations are members of it.


Omit this pejorative and unnecessary piece of foolishness and nations which have a conscience may still be able to vote for this resolution. Continue to include it and this resolution will damned for its arrogance and callous presumption.


Yours e.t.c. ,

A game of hot potato, excellent! I didn't know you played.

*tosses the grenade back to Bob Flibble*

Clarification: It isn't a fragmentation grenade, it's one of these. (http://www.gearzoneproducts.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=2293) We wouldn't want to kill or maim anyone, but a little uncontrollable crying coupled with the discharge of seemingly impossible amounts of mucous is good fun. :D




O.O.C. Good lord, what do you do that you'd be looking at that kind of website eh?

Spy ? Militiaman ? Mercenary ? :gas:

Remind me not to mess with you :)

The honoured Ambassador for Aundotutunagir must be deluded to think that inclusion of this clause-" The World Assembly condemns abortion in all circumstances but allows that WA member states shall have the right to declare voluntary abortion legal or illegal. Member states may also pass legislation extending or restricting voluntary abortion rights to any degree they may find appropriate." will be in any way acceptable to the entire world assembly.

We suspect the w.a. will not be condemning abortion in all circumstances, so long as we and other moral and decent nations are members of it.


Omit this pejorative and unnecessary piece of foolishness and nations which have a conscience may still be able to vote for this resolution. Continue to include it and this resolution will damned for its arrogance and callous presumption.


Yours e.t.c. ,
Perhaps you would prefer it to say: " The World Assembly applauds abortion in all circumstances and encourages all women to have at least three in their lifetime, but allows that WA member states shall have the right to declare voluntary abortion legal or illegal. Member states may also pass legislation extending or restricting voluntary abortion rights to any degree they may find appropriate."

Would that be acceptable?

Perhaps you would prefer it to say: " The World Assembly applauds abortion in all circumstances and encourages all women to have at least three in their lifetime, but allows that WA member states shall have the right to declare voluntary abortion legal or illegal. Member states may also pass legislation extending or restricting voluntary abortion rights to any degree they may find appropriate."

Would that be acceptable?



Naturally that would be absurd honoured Ambassador, nor is it a correct characterisation of our position on this issue.

In fact we are at a loss to understand why your delegation feels it is so necessary to make reactionary judgements of any kind on the matter of people's most private decisions.

What purpose does it serve to insult and denegrate billions of women who's decisions about their private lives and their own bodies are their own concern?


Yours e.t.c.

What purpose does it serve to insult and denegrate billions of women who's decisions about their private lives and their own bodies are their own concern?
Why must the ambassador from Urgench twist my words around and make a mockery of this debate? I never insulted or denigrated any women. And what about the lives and the bodies of the unborn? Are they of no importance in your reckoning?

Why must the ambassador from Urgench twist my words around and make a mockery of this debate? I never insulted or denigrated any women. And what about the lives and the bodies of the unborn? Are they of no importance in your reckoning?



So the condemnation of thousands of nations of billions of people is supposed to be a positive and life affirming experience for those women who have made or will make the choice to obtain an abortion is it honoured Ambassador ?

You are being disingenuous honoured Ambassador, your words need no twisting, they speak volumes about your government's deeply unsavoury attitude towards women.

The life of a foetus is at the expense of its mother and is dependent upon the consent of its mother for continuance. The state should have no business making judgements about this relationship since it has no part, interest or rights in it.


This organisation therefore could have no logical reason to make pronouncements on the outcomes this relationship may produce.

Will it be the business of this organisation to enforce what it considers to be the right diet, the correct amount of rest e.t.c. on billions of pregnant women.

Is each and every woman in the w.a. only as free as her reproductive functions permit ? Do men have the right to demand a public stake in what happens to their bodies ? Are women therefore less deserving of personal freedom than men honoured Ambassador ?


The condemnation included in the current draft of this resolution implies all these things.


Yours e.t.c.

So the condemnation of thousands of nations of billions of people is supposed to be a positive and life affirming experience for those women who have made or will make the choice to obtain an abortion is it honoured Ambassador ?
I have not condemned any people, women or otherwise, in the text of my Resolution. I have condemned the practice of abortion. The People of Aundotutunagir consider abortion an immoral act at best, murder at worst. Why would we not condemn it in a WA Resolution we are planning to have submitted?

You are being disingenuous honoured Ambassador, your words need no twisting, they speak volumes about your government's deeply unsavoury attitude towards women.
You have no evidence to indicate my government's attitude towards women. All you have are my words, spoken in this chamber, which you are twisting in an unconscionable manner in an effort to make them appear unsavoury. Women are held in high esteem in Aundotutunagirian society. We honor them for bringing life into this world. Without Aundotutunagirian women there would be no more Aundotutunagirians. This is why we continue to honor them even after they have passed child-bearing age, even to the end of their lives.

The life of a foetus is at the expense of its mother and is dependent upon the consent of its mother for continuance.
So you admit that it has a life, but you contend that the mother has the right to snuff out that life at any time.

You and I are alive, are we not? When did that life begin? At the exact moment we slid out of the birth canal? When our heads emerged, or when we were fully outside? The light within me shines like a diamond mine, and I am convinced that it was lit well before I slid out onto the delivery table.

The state should have no business making judgements about this relationship since it has no part, interest or rights in it.
So you contend that even national governments should have no say in regulating abortion? It should be totally unregulated right up to the moment of delivery?


This organisation therefore could have no logical reason to make pronouncements on the outcomes this relationship may produce.
Of course it does. This organization has a duty to protect innocent lives from being ended.

Will it be the business of this organisation to enforce what it considers to be the right diet, the correct amount of rest e.t.c. on billions of pregnant women.
Not in this Resolution. A future Resolution to promote prenatal care and nutrition wouldn't be out of the question though.

Is each and every woman in the w.a. only as free as her reproductive functions permit ? Do men have the right to demand a public stake in what happens to their bodies ? Are women therefore less deserving of personal freedom than men honoured Ambassador ?
If men became pregnant and bore children I would still be proposing this. This isn't about oppressing women, it's about protecting life.

I've got to say, I find it harder to support the new version than the original. This one is strident and full of itself.

While I do not speak for my People at this moment, I've personally got nothing against this resolution anymore. So the little piece of paper thing there in the archive says the WA is against abortions. Boo-bloody-hoo. Go cry me a river, honey. See if I give a damn.

And sure, the WA "strongly urges" the member nations to make third-trimester abortions illegal. Uuuuuuuuuu, I'm scared now. Once again, who cares? "Strongly urges" is just big fancy ugly-sounding words for "do it if you feel like it." Which basically means that this resolution really does everything the pro-choice side wanted: choice.

However, my Peoples might have quite a few issues with how arrogant, self-righteous and degrading this resolution sounds. I'll get back to you.

1. The World Assembly condemns abortion in all circumstances

Even if the life of the female is in danger, which the proposal later goes on to explicitly allow, even in cases of rape, and even in cases where the fetus has severe defects?

As much wrong as I see in your arguments, I believe the hon. ambassador from Urgench is more than capable of putting forth their case and so I will not get into this. However, this line of argument is sidetracking because the issue really is that the World Assembly should refrain from making such kinds of value judgements in these kinds of deeply personal decisions, and on these highly controversial issues.

Besides, it doesn't really accomplish any other purpose. I highly doubt anyone who has decided on an abortion is going to say "Oh no! The World Assembly disapproves! Better not do the abortion then."

Eric Lattener
Ambassador to the WA

I tend to agree that, deeply offensive as it of course it is, for the WA to 'condemn' abortion will do precious little to prevent it. Even banning abortion won't actually prevent it happening: many, many women die or are seriously injured every year from illegal abortions, which are more likely to be unsafe and unsanitary.

Those who genuinely wish to reduce the number of abortions would be most interested in promoting sex education and contraception to reduce the number of pregnancies in the first place, in promoting childcare, maternity leave, and family and medical leave, and in opposing workplace discrimination, to reduce economic incentives to abortion. Perhaps the people of Aundotutunagir would support such measures? Some of them were included in an abortion compromise act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=472606) briefly considered by the old UN.

Were the people of Aundotutunagir to oppose such measures, however, their claim to be interested in reducing abortions would become distinctly questionable.

-- Samantha Benson
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

While I do not speak for my People at this moment, I've personally got nothing against this resolution anymore. So the little piece of paper thing there in the archive says the WA is against abortions. Boo-bloody-hoo. Go cry me a river, honey. See if I give a damn.

And sure, the WA "strongly urges" the member nations to make third-trimester abortions illegal. Uuuuuuuuuu, I'm scared now. Once again, who cares? "Strongly urges" is just big fancy ugly-sounding words for "do it if you feel like it." Which basically means that this resolution really does everything the pro-choice side wanted: choice.

However, my Peoples might have quite a few issues with how arrogant, self-righteous and degrading this resolution sounds. I'll get back to you.




So you are happy to live with the gross hypocrisy of allowing abortions and yet condemning them at the same time honoured Ambassador ? Your government would be doing so if this resolution passed and it continued to allow abortion.


We urge the government of Sasquatchewain to reconsider this duplicity, which is aimed at appeasing extremist views on this subject.


Yours sincerely,

I've got to say, I find it harder to support the new version than the original. This one is strident and full of itself.

However, my Peoples might have quite a few issues with how arrogant, self-righteous and degrading this resolution sounds. I'll get back to you.

However, this line of argument is sidetracking because the issue really is that the World Assembly should refrain from making such kinds of value judgements in these kinds of deeply personal decisions, and on these highly controversial issues.

I tend to agree that, deeply offensive as it of course it is, for the WA to 'condemn' abortion will do precious little to prevent it.
Hmm. A consensus seems to be building that I should remove the language condemning abortion. I will consider doing so if it will aid in the passage of the legislation. It was merely a symbolic gesture meant to convey the WA's disapproval.

Those who genuinely wish to reduce the number of abortions would be most interested in promoting sex education and contraception to reduce the number of pregnancies in the first place, in promoting childcare, maternity leave, and family and medical leave, and in opposing workplace discrimination, to reduce economic incentives to abortion. Perhaps the people of Aundotutunagir would support such measures? Some of them were included in an abortion compromise act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=472606) briefly considered by the old UN.
Similar measures are already in place in Aundotutunagir and I would consider adding provisions for such in this legislation, with the exception of the fanciful "fetal transplant" procedure mentioned in the proposal you referenced.

Were the people of Aundotutunagir to oppose such measures, however, their claim to be interested in reducing abortions would become distinctly questionable.
Obviously we wish to reduce the number of abortions, Ms. Benson.

The World Assembly,

STATING its commitment to the protection of innocent life,

WISHING to extend that commitment to the unborn residents of WA member states,

ACKNOWLEDGING that irreconcilable differences exist between abortion rights proponents and opponents,

ACCEPTING that compromise on this very divisive issue is difficult, if not impossible,

NEVERTHELESS, determined to extend a modicum of protection to the unborn, who through no fault of their own currently face the possibility of death even at advanced stages of their development,

Enacts the following:

1. WA member states shall have the right to declare voluntary abortion legal or illegal. Member states may also pass legislation extending or restricting voluntary abortion rights to any degree they may find appropriate.

2. Involuntary or “forced” abortions shall be illegal in all WA member states.

-In emergency situations where the mother's life is endangered, a physician may perform an abortion without her consent only if, because of her physical or mental state, it is not possible to obtain her consent.

3. WA member states are strongly urged to outlaw abortions performed in the third trimester of fetal development.

4. Any infant that is born alive is considered a person and is entitled to full protection under WA law. Any infant that is born alive is entitled to proper medical treatment as needed. Intentionally killing such infants or allowing their death through neglect or the withholding of proper medical treatment shall be considered murder.

5. WA member states are urged to institute educational programs promoting sex education and contraception.

6. WA member states are further urged to institute policies promoting childcare, maternity leave, and family and medical leave, and opposing workplace discrimination, to reduce economic incentives to abortion.

I have not condemned any people, women or otherwise, in the text of my Resolution. I have condemned the practice of abortion. The People of Aundotutunagir consider abortion an immoral act at best, murder at worst. Why would we not condemn it in a WA Resolution we are planning to have submitted?


You have no evidence to indicate my government's attitude towards women. All you have are my words, spoken in this chamber, which you are twisting in an unconscionable manner in an effort to make them appear unsavoury. Women are held in high esteem in Aundotutunagirian society. We honor them for bringing life into this world. Without Aundotutunagirian women there would be no more Aundotutunagirians. This is why we continue to honor them even after they have passed child-bearing age, even to the end of their lives.


So you admit that it has a life, but you contend that the mother has the right to snuff out that life at any time.

You and I are alive, are we not? When did that life begin? At the exact moment we slid out of the birth canal? When our heads emerged, or when we were fully outside? The light within me shines like a diamond mine, and I am convinced that it was lit well before I slid out onto the delivery table.


So you contend that even national governments should have no say in regulating abortion? It should be totally unregulated right up to the moment of delivery?



Of course it does. This organization has a duty to protect innocent lives from being ended.


Not in this Resolution. A future Resolution to promote prenatal care and nutrition wouldn't be out of the question though.


If men became pregnant and bore children I would still be proposing this. This isn't about oppressing women, it's about protecting life.




So you condemn the sin and not the sinner honoured Ambassador ? That is a semantic nicety which attempts to hide the true nature of your government's unpleasant pseudo-moral prejudices.


Aundotutunagir may believe that it honours women but it is mistaken in that belief if it thinks that its government has the right to force pregnancy and unwanted offspring on them. No women is honoured by having subordinate rights over her own body to those held by the other half of society.


Of course we admit that the foetus has a life, it would be contrary to science to contend otherwise, the life or otherwise of the foetus is not really in debate. I have no right to demand that you physically support and bear the responsibility of my life honoured Ambassador so why does the foetus have the right to demand this from the woman that carries it ?


Of course we contend that the state has no right to prevent its female citizens from obtaining an abortion why would we not ? It should have no right to force any of its citizens to endure such injury to their personal dignity and to endure a physical condition of their body they do not wish to endure ( which would be tantamount to torture we might add ) .The state can certainly regulate who may perform this procedure, and to what standards of professionalism it should be performed. It should of course outlaw "forced abortion" and should be at pains to help women arrive at the decision to abort their pregnancies only if it is the only option these women can countenance.

The kinds of provisions which the honoured Ms. Benson of the Quodite delegation mentioned should of course be available to women to help reduce the frequency of what is in some cases a dangerous procedure or at best merely one which may have lasting emotional repercussions.



" This organization has a duty to protect innocent lives from being ended " does it honoured Ambassador ? In that case it must ban capital punishment, since there is always the possibility that mistakes have been made and an innocent victim is being executed in place of the real guilty party. Would you advocate this organisation banning ( or condemning for that matter ) the practice of capital punishment honoured Ambassador ?



The tyranny of one sex viewing the other as subordinate, subordinate to itself and subordinate to their reproductive abilities, is writ large in the condemnations and judgements contained in this draft of your delegation's statute, honoured Ambassador, and we could never submit our citizens even to the fiction that we endorsed such a tyranny.


respectfully yours,



Edit; O.O.C. As I was writing this the latest draft was posted so obviously it refers to the previous draft, damn I wrote all this for nothing grrr!

Of course we admit that the foetus has a life, it would be contrary to science to contend otherwise, the life or otherwise of the foetus is not really in debate. I have no right to demand that you physically support and bear the responsibility of my life honoured Ambassador so why does the foetus have the right to demand this from the woman that carries it ?
The fetus has no choice and has no ability to "demand" anything. It did not ask to be placed in its mother's womb. Can you not see that the fetus is in a helpless situation?

" This organization has a duty to protect innocent lives from being ended " does it honoured Ambassador ? In that case it must ban capital punishment, since there is always the possibility that mistakes have been made and an innocent victim is being executed in place of the real guilty party. Would you advocate this organisation banning ( or condemning for that matter ) the practice of capital punishment honoured Ambassador ?
How can you equate capital punishment inflicted on an adult, even if the adult is innocent, with taking the life of a child that is totally blameless? The adult may be innocent of the crime with which he is charged, but he has surely committed some other transgressions in his life. The child has yet to have a chance to commit any offences against any person, or society. An adult wrongfully sentenced to death could at least theoretically have committed other offences that are not known. I think it's safe to assume that an unborn child has committed no act for which it could be sentenced to death by any court in the land. Yet they are sentenced to death daily without even the benefit of a trial.

Can you not see that the fetus is in a helpless situation?


And so is the woman, isn't she?

The child has yet to have a chance to commit any offences against any person, or society.

Most fetuses kick their mother a lot. Generally kicking your own mother is frowned upon.

Ah, I'm sure you consider that ridiculous, because the fetus can't possibly have consciously decided to hurt the mother intentionally seeing as it has little in the way of conscious thought... are you now starting to see why people generally don't give an unborn fetus and a living person the same kind of regard?

The fetus has no choice and has no ability to "demand" anything. It did not ask to be placed in its mother's womb. Can you not see that the fetus is in a helpless situation?


How can you equate capital punishment inflicted on an adult, even if the adult is innocent, with taking the life of a child that is totally blameless? The adult may be innocent of the crime with which he is charged, but he has surely committed some other transgressions in his life. The child has yet to have a chance to commit any offences against any person, or society. An adult wrongfully sentenced to death could at least theoretically have committed other offences that are not known. I think it's safe to assume that an unborn child has committed no act for which it could be sentenced to death by any court in the land. Yet they are sentenced to death daily without even the benefit of a trial.



And so now you presume to judge the innocence of every living human being in the world do you honoured Ambassador? Even as you made the above statements you must have realised how thin and ludicrous they were.

You seriously contend that it is perfectly acceptable for a state to execute innocent people because they might have some amorphous, undefined guilt of a general nature which has nothing to do with the crime they have been wrongly convicted of and at the same time this state would ban the abortion of foetuses who may in fact go on to be mass murderers or rapists ?


Why should this principle of yours honoured Ambassador, that killing the innocent born is acceptable because they may have committed a transgression, not be applied to the unborn, who may yet commit even more terrible crimes ?


Of course both positions are incompatible with common sense and with natural justice. Neither are a basis upon which to form an a sensible opinion let alone a statute.


So again, why, honoured Ambassador, are you prepared to offer the unborn protections from mortality which you are not prepared to offer the born ?



Yours sincerely,

Besides, it doesn't really accomplish any other purpose. I highly doubt anyone who has decided on an abortion is going to say "Oh no! The World Assembly disapproves! Better not do the abortion then."Indeed, all it will do is push abortion into the unregulated, (normally) illegal, and underground domain of unlicenced medical care.

Indeed, all it will do is push abortion into the unregulated, (normally) illegal, and underground domain of unlicenced medical care.
If you'd bothered to actually read the proposal, you'd notice that clause doesn't ban abortion.

And so is the woman, isn't she?
In what way? The mother likely has family and friends she can go to for advice and support. In lands where abortion is legal, she can visit her local abortionist to have her "problem" solved. Even in lands such as Aundotutunagir where abortion is illegal there are always cretinous individuals who are willing to terminate a pregnancy for a price. So the mother has options, she is not helpless. Who can the fetus turn to for help?

Most fetuses kick their mother a lot. Generally kicking your own mother is frowned upon.

Ah, I'm sure you consider that ridiculous, because the fetus can't possibly have consciously decided to hurt the mother intentionally seeing as it has little in the way of conscious thought... are you now starting to see why people generally don't give an unborn fetus and a living person the same kind of regard?
You have made my point. The fetus is blameless because it is incapable of consciously inflicting harm on any person or committing any wrong.

And so now you presume to judge the innocence of every living human being in the world do you honoured Ambassador? Even as you made the above statements you must have realised how thin and ludicrous they were.
I never presumed any such thing. I was merely stating the fact that while a fetus is incapable of committing any wrongful act, it is at least possible that an adult has.

You seriously contend that it is perfectly acceptable for a state to execute innocent people because they might have some amorphous, undefined guilt of a general nature which has nothing to do with the crime they have been wrongly convicted of and at the same time this state would ban the abortion of foetuses who may in fact go on to be mass murderers or rapists ?

Why should this principle of yours honoured Ambassador, that killing the innocent born is acceptable because they may have committed a transgression, not be applied to the unborn, who may yet commit even more terrible crimes ?
I never advocated the execution of innocent people. Are you advocating the execution of innocent people because they "might" commit a crime in the future?


Of course both positions are incompatible with common sense and with natural justice. Neither are a basis upon which to form an a sensible opinion let alone a statute.


So again, why, honoured Ambassador, are you prepared to offer the unborn protections from mortality which you are not prepared to offer the born ?



Yours sincerely,
Are you so thickheaded that you cannot comprehend the innocence of the unborn? What possible crime could a fetus have committed that it should deserve the death penalty? And I never advocated for the execution of innocent people. I was merely stating the FACT that while a fetus is incapable of committing any wrongful act at all, it is at least possible that an adult has done so.

I never presumed any such thing. I was merely stating the fact that while a fetus is incapable of committing any wrongful act, it is at least possible that an adult has.


I never advocated the execution of innocent people. Are you advocating the execution of innocent people because they "might" commit a crime in the future?



Are you so thickheaded that you cannot comprehend the innocence of the unborn? What possible crime could a fetus have committed that it should deserve the death penalty? And I never advocated for the execution of innocent people. I was merely stating the FACT that while a fetus is incapable of committing any wrongful act at all, it is at least possible that an adult has done so.




Of course the honoured Ambassador knows well that we advocate no execution of any person on the basis of speculative guilt.

The point that we are making is that Aundotutunagir seems to hold the life of the foetus in higher regard than the life of those who are born.


This business of the possibility of guilt or innocence is the ludicrous outcome of the hypocrisy of your position honoured Ambassador. Why should one presume that anyone is more guilty or any less guilty than anyone else with out any evidence to prove such a contention? Passed possible guilt is a nebulous and meaningless as possible future guilt.

The only Fact in this dispute between us honoured Ambassador is that you seem to think that a foetus has more right to live than an independently extant human being which is already contributing to society in some way.

Life is life is it not Ambassador ?

Oh, and there should be no need for this debate to deteriorate into name calling, we are not "Thick-headed" in the slightest respected Ambassador.



Yours sincerely,

Of course the honoured Ambassador knows well that we advocate no execution of any person on the basis of speculative guilt.

The point that we are making is that Aundotutunagir seems to hold the life of the foetus in higher regard than the life of those who are born.

We do not hold one life in higher regard than another. We regard both lives equally. If it is a matter of life or death, and the mother's life is in imminent peril, we would usually opt to save the life of the mother unless she implored us to save the child instead.

It is a moral and ethical paradox. Let us suppose that a madman is holding your wife and your child at gunpoint. He has announced that he will kill one of them, but you must choose which one he shoots. He has also announced that if you refuse to make the choice, he will kill them both. Which one would you choose?



This business of the possibility of guilt or innocence is the ludicrous outcome of the hypocrisy of your position honoured Ambassador. Why should one presume that anyone is more guilty or any less guilty than anyone else with out any evidence to prove such a contention? Passed possible guilt is a nebulous and meaningless as possible future guilt.

I was simply trying to make the case that the unborn does not, and can not, deserve to be killed. You introduced capital punishment of adults into the discussion.


The only Fact in this dispute between us honoured Ambassador is that you seem to think that a foetus has more right to live than an independently extant human being which is already contributing to society in some way.
Are you talking about the life of the mother now? I thought we were talking about the life of the fetus vs. the life of an adult wrongfully accused of murder. You are trying to twist my words around again and derail the conversation in that sneaky Urgenchi way of yours, aren't you?

Life is life is it not Ambassador ?
Yes it is. Wouldn't it be nice if innocent lives could be spared?

Oh, and there should be no need for this debate to deteriorate into name calling, we are not "Thick-headed" in the slightest respected Ambassador.
Poopy pants.

So the mother has options, she is not helpless.

But from your argument it is clear that you wish to take the options away.

You have made my point. The fetus is blameless because it is incapable of consciously inflicting harm on any person or committing any wrong.

So why should it have legal status making the termination of its life illegal, then? After all, in most jurisdictions it's perfectly legal to kill life-forms which are both generally and legally considered incapable of committing any wrong as long as it is not done in a cruel manner.

No, I do not equate a human fetus to the status of a cow or a dog. What I'm trying to illustrate is that you can't have it both ways. You can't say the fetus has the same rights and status as an already-born human being, yet cannot have the same responsibilities. As hon. representative from Urgench says, you're privileging unborn life. Additionally, let me say you shouldn't expect an answer to your hypothetical because not only is it extremely unlikely for anyone to face such a situation, it's completely at a tangent to the discussion.

So why should it have legal status making the termination of its life illegal, then? After all, in most jurisdictions it's perfectly legal to kill life-forms which are both generally and legally considered incapable of committing any wrong as long as it is not done in a cruel manner.

No, I do not equate a human fetus to the status of a cow or a dog. What I'm trying to illustrate is that you can't have it both ways. You can't say the fetus has the same rights and status as an already-born human being, yet cannot have the same responsibilities. As hon. representative from Urgench says, you're privileging unborn life.Ah, so Jonathan Swift's "modest proposal" would be perfectly legal within Kelssek? Small children are generally considered harmless, too.

Mr. Burns: The one who shot me is ... Augh! Augh! M-Maggie Simpson! ...

Marge: If Maggie could talk I'm sure she'd apologize for shooting you.

Mr. Burns: I'm afraid that's insufficient. Officer, arrest the baby!

Chief Wiggum: Heh. Yeah, right, pops. No jury in the world's going to convict a baby! ...Maybe Kelssek.

But from your argument it is clear that you wish to take the options away.
Many of my arguments are my own personal opinion mixed with the official policies of the Aundotutunagirian government. The text of the proposal does not take those options away.

What I'm trying to illustrate is that you can't have it both ways. You can't say the fetus has the same rights and status as an already-born human being, yet cannot have the same responsibilities.
I don't believe the ability to bear responsibilities is a proper criteria for preserving a life. We preserve the lives of people who carry no responsibilities all the time. People in long-term comas are kept alive. Infants born with brain deformities who will never contribute to society or bear any responsibilities are kept alive. If the lives of such infants are considered worthy of preserving, why is it acceptable to terminate the life of a normal and healthy fetus?

As hon. representative from Urgench says, you're privileging unborn life.
It is not "privileging" to extend the right to continue living to the unborn. I am not placing a greater value on the life of the unborn than I place on the life of the mother. Both lives should be considered precious.

In your arguments, ambassador, you make a powerful case for the value of the life of the mother. It is easy to see that you are firm in your belief and that you argue from the heart. I detect though that you place very little, if any, value on the life of the unborn and I find it impossible to understand how one could feel that way.

Additionally, let me say you shouldn't expect an answer to your hypothetical because not only is it extremely unlikely for anyone to face such a situation, it's completely at a tangent to the discussion.
I disagree. I think the ambassador from Urgench will respond.

It is not "privileging" to extend the right to continue living to the unborn. I am not placing a greater value on the life of the unborn than I place on the life of the mother. Both lives should be considered precious.



I disagree. I think the ambassador from Urgench will respond.


We should point out that even if one is in a coma one is still legally responsible for one's actions, even if one commits no actions at all, unless one acts under circumstances which can be shown to have voided one's ability to have undertaken said action of one's own volition.


Indeed the position of Aundotutunagir cannot be characterised in any other way than as a crusade which aims at prioritising the rights of the foetus at the expense of its mother, in the process elevating the level of legal privilege and protection it is allowed above that of the level of the general populace.

As to the hypothetical situation which the honoured Ambassador postulates, we would likely have pointed out that it is not analogous, as the respected Ambassador for Kelssek did. But it is worth pointing out that even we had a clear answer to it motivated by a moral position, it would still be meaningless since in reality one's ability to be moral or even rational in such a situation would be seriously compromised and to make a judgement of someone who has been made to make such a awful choice would be cruel in the extreme.



Yours e.t.c.

We should point out that even if one is in a coma one is still legally responsible for one's actions, even if one commits no actions at all, unless one acts under circumstances which can be shown to have voided one's ability to have undertaken said action of one's own volition.
¡WHAT!? How in God's name can a person in a coma be responsible for their actions?


Indeed the position of Aundotutunagir cannot be characterised in any other way than as a crusade which aims at prioritising the rights of the foetus at the expense of its mother, in the process elevating the level of legal privilege and protection it is allowed above that of the level of the general populace.
And how is allowing the fetus to live prioritizing its rights over the rights of the mother? I'm not suggesting that the fetus be spared and the mother killed. I'm suggesting they both be allowed to live. When have I ever advocated the killing of women?

As to the hypothetical situation which the honoured Ambassador postulates, we would likely have pointed out that it is not analogous, as the respected Ambassador for Kelssek did. But it is worth pointing out that even we had a clear answer to it motivated by a moral position, it would still be meaningless since in reality one's ability to be moral or even rational in such a situation would be seriously compromised and to make a judgement of someone who has been made to make such a awful choice would be cruel in the extreme.
You disappoint me Ambassador. I had hoped you would have an answer.

And how is allowing the fetus to live prioritizing its rights over the rights of the mother? I'm not suggesting that the fetus be spared and the mother killed. I'm suggesting they both be allowed to live. When have I ever advocated the killing of women?

I'd say your rather absurd statement previously that it's okay to wrongly execute a person because they may have done something else worthy of capital punishment, while a fetus is considered unimpeachably innocent, goes some way towards suggesting that you hold the unborn in a higher regard than sentient beings who are already biologically independent of their mother.

EDITED IN:

Many of my arguments are my own personal opinion mixed with the official policies of the Aundotutunagirian government. The text of the proposal does not take those options away.

Indeed, yet the reason we are still discussing this when the only mandatory provision is the uncontroversial ban on forced abortions is because you have peppered the rest of the proposal and made numerous statements clearly demonstrating your desire to ban voluntary ones as well.

I don't believe the ability to bear responsibilities is a proper criteria for preserving a life.

Neither do I. I was simply using that point to illustrate the implications of your position that the unborn should have equal status to those who are already born. As a matter of fact, as the Kennyite points out, in most jurisdictions, children below the age of majority have fewer legal rights than adults and are considered less than fully responsible for their actions; and in cases of lawbreaking are subject to a different legal system than adults, because their capability to exercise legal rights and responsibilities are considered to be reduced.

However, I do recognise that they are accorded the same legal protection with regards to being harmed, and the reason I believe fetuses do not have the same protection is explained below:

why is it acceptable to terminate the life of a normal and healthy fetus?

I detect though that you place very little, if any, value on the life of the unborn and I find it impossible to understand how one could feel that way.

The argument that the unborn should be equally treated to the already-born is often based on the idea that there is no real difference between a fetus and a newborn. If the second proposition were true I would agree with the first, however, in my opinion it is not. Birth is a very significant event. As much as I dislike to implicitly denigrate the status of an unborn fetus, before birth it is essentially a part of its mother's body and it is only after birth that it can properly be considered a living human being because it is only after birth that it exists independently as its own entity. You could say I don't place as much value on its "life" because I don't believe it is as "alive" as its mother.

I'd say your rather absurd statement previously that it's okay to wrongly execute a person because they may have done something else worthy of capital punishment, while a fetus is considered unimpeachably innocent, goes some way towards suggesting that you hold the unborn in a higher regard than sentient beings who are already biologically independent of their mother.
When did I ever say it was okay to wrongfully execute a person? It is never okay to execute an innocent person. I was simply making the case that with an adult the possibility exists that they may have committed other acts, whereas with the unborn no such possibility exists. If it is wrong to execute an innocent adult then surely it is wrong to execute an innocent fetus.

Why must you cretins continuously twist my words?

Your words were:

How can you equate capital punishment inflicted on an adult, even if the adult is innocent, with taking the life of a child that is totally blameless? The adult may be innocent of the crime with which he is charged, but he has surely committed some other transgressions in his life... An adult wrongfully sentenced to death could at least theoretically have committed other offences that are not known.

Your attempt to justify wrongful execution is quite explict. I don't think it's being twisted.

Indeed, yet the reason we are still discussing this when the only mandatory provision is the uncontroversial ban on forced abortions is because you have peppered the rest of the proposal and made numerous statements clearly demonstrating your desire to ban voluntary ones as well.
Yes, I would like to ban voluntary ones as well. It won't happen though. The WA would never pass such a proposal.


The argument that the unborn should be equally treated to the already-born is often based on the idea that there is no real difference between a fetus and a newborn. If the second proposition were true I would agree with the first, however, in my opinion it is not. Birth is a very significant event. As much as I dislike to implicitly denigrate the status of an unborn fetus, before birth it is essentially a part of its mother's body and it is only after birth that it can properly be considered a living human being because it is only after birth that it exists independently as its own entity. You could say I don't place as much value on its "life" because I don't believe it is as "alive" as its mother.
So you believe that once the fetus exits the birth canal it becomes a child, yet two weeks or two days or two minutes prior to that it is somehow not a child? Fascinating.

Yes, that is indeed my opinion (and that applies regardless of whether the birth canal is involved or it was a C-section). There is a line between "fetus" and "baby" and the point of birth is the least arbitrary way to draw it.

We at the United Kingdom of Brutland and Norden thoroughly agree with the intentions of the proposal. The Royal Supreme Court of Brutland and Norden had ruled that life begins at conception (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13833050&postcount=28) and the Nord-Brutlandese voters had recently enshrined it in the constitution (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14352434#post14352434). Based on the above, we could be arguing that the division of gestation into trimesters is purely arbitrary, and that there is a seeming contradiction between the stated goals and the implementing clauses of the proposal.

However, the United Kingdom of Brutland and Norden will not be arguing based on those points. We believe that abortion is a moral, cultural, medical, societal, and, shall we daresay, religious, issue, one that cannot be decided on such a large scale as the World Assembly. It is known that nations of the World Assembly share a variety of opinions on the issue, from those who believe in the protection of the youngest of individuals, to those share the repugnant ageist view advocating the massacre of the most helpless of individuals. As such, while we abhor the converse view, we certainly cannot impose our views on peoples who thoroughly believe otherwise as us; nor can they impose their views on our people. This compromise represents one view in the middle, which, unfortunately, we see as too rigid to be imposed on nations holding a different set of views as ours.

We understand how it is to be dictated by the World Assembly on matters like these, and as such, we refuse to dictate others on matters that nations and societies should decide on their own.

Cpl. Maria Ramona Stanziola
Security Attaché at the Permanent Royal Nord-Brutlandese Mission to the World Assembly

PS. We are amused and at the same time very annoyed and disgusted at the fact that there are some delegations who are using the national sovereignty argument when their interests are threatened, yet who are willing to trample upon the sovereignty of others to impose their agenda. Tsk tsk, despicable.

We rest our case.

Every time someone says that this is a 'moral', a 'cultural', a 'religious' issue, which hinges on the very definition of life itself, I am reminded of the stunning lack of such arguments when my slavery proposal was being debated. Where were you all then? Slavery is a 'moral', a 'cultural', a 'religious' issue, which hinges on the very definition of life itself. Yet by a more than 80% majority, the World Assembly had no problem making such decisions for every nation within its membership. I am curious as to why those who believe slavery is a universal wrong should be compelled to acquiesce out of some stilted sense of propriety in the preservation of womb slavery.

-- Samantha Benson
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

Yes, that is indeed my opinion (and that applies regardless of whether the birth canal is involved or it was a C-section). There is a line between "fetus" and "baby" and the point of birth is the least arbitrary way to draw it.
"The date at which a soul becomes present, whether it is actually developed within the foetus or comes from outside which is admittedly a debated matter, is is surely the best point at which to draw the line.
And, before any of the less religious 'diplomats' here start trying to dismiss this suggestion as "superstitious rubbish" (as I strongly suspect some of you would), perhaps I should point out that in Bears Armed the existence of souls is not just a matter of faith, it has actually been proven by 'falsifiable' experiments using scientific methodology: The precise stage at which each foetus acquires a detectable soul varies, but this generally seems occur at about a third of the way through the gestation process. Of course, maybe people in some of your nations don't have souls after all, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt for now..."


Borrin o Redwood,
Chairbear,
Bears Armed Mission to the World Assembly,
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

"The date at which a soul becomes present, whether it is actually developed within the foetus or comes from outside which is admittedly a debated matter, is is surely the best point at which to draw the line.
And, before any of the less religious 'diplomats' here start trying to dismiss this suggestion as "superstitious rubbish" (as I strongly suspect some of you would), perhaps I should point out that in Bears Armed the existence of souls is not just a matter of faith, it has actually been proven by 'falsifiable' experiments using scientific methodology: The precise stage at which each foetus acquires a detectable soul varies, but this generally seems occur at about a third of the way through the gestation process. Of course, maybe people in some of your nations don't have souls after all, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt for now..."
OOC: Don't expect everyone to accept such godwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaank trash.

OOC: Don't expect everyone to accept such godwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaank trash.

OOC: Oh, I don't by any means expect everybody to accept it, but in a setting that is widely recognised as including [e.g.] dragons and witches and 'talking animals' of various kinds (whether anthropomorphic or not) and vampires, and for that matter SF cultures as well as the 'realistic' and 'fantasy' ones, I expect that some people will. And please note that Borrin himself never attributed the existence of souls to any deity's work... and neither did he try to insist that it must be a universal condition: If you want to consider your nation's people as soul-less then he'd accept the possibility... although if this was actually proven to be the case then he might no longer consider Quodites to be 'people' rather than just clever animals...

OOC: OOC: Oh, I don't by any means expect everybody to accept it, but in a setting that is widely recognised as including e.g. dragons and witches and 'talking animals' of various kinds (whether anthropomorphic or not) and vampires, and for that matter SF cultures as well as the 'realistic' and 'fantasy' ones, I expect that some people will. And please note that Borrin himself never attributed the soul to any deity.
You are asking every other player in the entire game to retool their roleplay to a different physical universe to suit your own demands. You are also missing a point a damaged child would happen upon faster: someone could very easily have their scientists magic up a proof that souls don't exist.

Having a talking bear does not require suspending the laws of science: it simply suggests a different evolutionary pathway was taken at some point. It is possible in a 'hold your nose, close your eyes, and think of England' kind of way. Having something that is by definition supernatural present as a natural force so completely erodes the basis of knowledge that we may as well ignore proposals about energy because we've just invented a perpetual motion machine.

It is mystifyingly arrogant to assume this kind of discussion should be allowed to subsume every proposal you comment on; I am surprised it is even permitted (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=406616).

Every time someone says that this is a 'moral', a 'cultural', a 'religious' issue, which hinges on the very definition of life itself, I am reminded of the stunning lack of such arguments when my slavery proposal was being debated. Where were you all then? Slavery is a 'moral', a 'cultural', a 'religious' issue, which hinges on the very definition of life itself. Yet by a more than 80% majority, the World Assembly had no problem making such decisions for every nation within its membership. I am curious as to why those who believe slavery is a universal wrong should be compelled to acquiesce out of some stilted sense of propriety in the preservation of womb slavery.

-- Samantha Benson
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria
You call pregnancy "womb slavery", we call abortion-on-demand genocide. In fact, genocide against one of the most vulnerable groups, the youngest of individuals. Perhaps you would be willing to support this (http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=577946)?

Enough of this semantic games. You know as well as we do that all of these semantic games are rubbish, highlighting the wide variety of positions nations strongly take. We concur with the delegation of Bears Armed (http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14315612&postcount=32)that perhaps the resurrection of the ALC is better.

Cpl. Maria Ramona Stanziola
Security Attaché at the Permanent Royal Nord-Brutlandese Mission to the World Assembly

Enough of this semantic games.No. For one thing, your initial response was entirely semantic: it invoked the definition your people had voted on. That is a semantic construct. Therefore my semantics are simply following suit.

Abortion is a 'moral' issue. Slavery is a 'moral' issue. Why is it ok for the WA to rule on one, and not the other?
You know as well as we do that all of these semantic games are rubbish, highlighting the wide variety of positions nations strongly take.
If we should be respecting a wide variety of positions, why not allow a position that allows everyone to make their own decision? Or, why privilege the position of a nation and not the position of a person?

(After all, I fail to see what harm legalising abortion in Brutland and Norden could do: all your people would presumably choose not to partake of them, right?)

-- Samantha Benson

OOC: Anyone else getting 'Vote Pro-Life' ads?

The honoured Ambassador for Bears Armed and the Ambassador of the recalcitrant law breaking nation of Brutland and Norden have both offered the concept of life's inception or the imbuing of the soul as reasons why foetuses should not be aborted.

Both of these positions are irrelevant if both nations do not fully apply these concepts. I am a living person according to some I am imbued with a soul, should I be allowed to physically submit another living, soul-gifted individual to the rigours of supporting my every bodily function and supporting my very existence as well as make them legally responsible for my life if and when I become able to support my own existence unaided ?

No is the short answer.

And further, are the honoured delegation of the Bears Armed or the delegation of Brutland and Norden proposing that this organisation ban all state killing of beings imbued with this sacred life or a precious soul to the exclusion of capital punishment or even warfare ?

No is the short answer.

So why is the foetus entitled to parasitise its mother and make her the legally culpable for its wellbeing when the wrongly convicted or the innocent bystander at a carpet bombing are excluded from such protections of their lives and souls ?


Yours e.t.c. ,

No. For one thing, your initial response was entirely semantic: it invoked the definition your people had voted on. That is a semantic construct. Therefore my semantics are simply following suit.

Abortion is a 'moral' issue. Slavery is a 'moral' issue. Why is it ok for the WA to rule on one, and not the other?

If we should be respecting a wide variety of positions, why not allow a position that allows everyone to make their own decision? Or, why privilege the position of a nation and not the position of a person?

(After all, I fail to see what harm legalising abortion in Brutland and Norden could do: all your people would presumably choose not to partake of them, right?)

-- Samantha Benson
I see you latched on the word "moral" only. Is it entirely a "moral" issue, because you seem to clutch on that word? Did you hear the word "societal"? Did I say "personal"? Our nation and our people believe that the unborn is another person... shall we let the murder of another person (as we see it) lie on just that flimsy assumption that everyone will not do it? And if a murder of the unborn happens, shall it go unpunished?

Perhaps some other nations believe otherwise, that abortion is not murder, the unborn is devoid of inherent rights, etc. While we believe that that stand is erroneous, we are in no power or position to enforce our own beliefs on them... and vice versa. Hence we remain unsupportive of the proposal at hand.

Cpl. Maria Ramona Stanziola
Security Attaché at the Permanent Royal Nord-Brutlandese Mission to the World Assembly

I see you latched on the word "moral" only. Is it entirely a "moral" issue, because you seem to clutch on that word? Did you hear the word "societal"? Did I say "personal"?
Slavery is a societal issue. It is a personal issue. I used the word 'moral' as one among many of the terms.
Our nation and our people believe that the unborn is another person... shall we let the murder of another person (as we see it) lie on just that flimsy assumption that everyone will not do it? And if a murder of the unborn happens, shall it go unpunished?
You haven't answered my question, so I'll ask again: some nations believe certain of their nationals are not persons, and hence can be enslaved. As such, we would like to see you sponsor a repeal of the resolution banning slavery, for it clearly intrudes on these nations' notions of personhood.

Second, you are making strikingly universal claims. It is indeed amazing that all people in Brutland and Norden feel this way. As such, my assumption that no one will have an abortion hardly seems flimsy: it would be so only if everyone in your people in fact did not believe that clumps of cells were people.

Third, a nation is not capable of 'belief'. A nation is a political entity, not an organism with the capacity of thought.

Fourth, and I'm happy to let the Urgenchi ambassador handle this section of debate though it's disappointing he has been so stunningly unanswered, even if we agree that these little bits of flesh are 'people' (before the development of the primitive streak, a plainly absurd suggestion, and for a considerable time thereafter distinctly questionable) that still does not confer upon them the right to the person of another human. Indeed, it is odd to see someone so attached to the notion bodily integrity defending the right to parasitism.
Perhaps some other nations believe otherwise, that abortion is not murder, the unborn is devoid of inherent rights, etc. While we believe that that stand is erroneous, we are in no power or position to enforce our own beliefs on them... and vice versa. Hence we remain unsupportive of the proposal at hand.
First, you are in exactly that position, by virtue of your legislative membership of the world's governing body. As are we.

Second, as I've said, I find the notion that a nation believes one thing or the other hard to follow. There is no mechanism for 'belief', unless we mean by it a completely different sense from that usually employed.

Third, some nations believe otherwise on slavery. We enforced our own beliefs on them, to little complaint. Our definition of personhood was allowed to run rampant then, so why should it be yoked now?

I still see no justification for the double standard, and we look forward to your resolution to strike the slavery ban. (Note: that is only the first of several resolutions that will need to be repealed.)

-- Samantha Benson
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

You amaze me. You really do. Should I tell the Ambassador that you make a wonderful spokesperson for Brutland and Norden, because you seem to know my country much?

No is the short answer.

I am a living person according to some I am imbued with a soul, should I be allowed to physically submit another living, soul-gifted individual to the rigours of supporting my every bodily function and supporting my very existence as well as make them legally responsible for my life if and when I become able to support my own existence unaided?
Oooh. So now the unborn catch an unaware woman in the street, take over her body, and suck the blood out of her. Are you aware how offspring are created? Sex. That's right. Sex. So the mother in effect accepts the consequences of the risk of pregnancy every time she willingly consents to (unprotected) sex. And so, however bad you paint it, yes.

And for one thing, let's consider a week-old infant. A ten-day old infant is dependent on its caregivers for support (food, for one) without which it could not exist. Why don't we make that a choice too? Let's have infanticide also.

So why is the foetus entitled to parasitise its mother and make her the legally culpable for its wellbeing when the wrongly convicted or the innocent bystander at a carpet bombing are excluded from such protections of their lives and souls ?
How challenging. I see that you and Ms. Benson are using the same tactic of forcing other issues that are slightly relevant, to give you some credit. Go on and heap all of those topics we should make resolutions too. It might just give us a nice idea what to work on.

Cpl. Maria Ramona Stanziola
Security Attaché at the Permanent Royal Nord-Brutlandese Mission to the World Assembly

You amaze me. You really do. Should I tell the Ambassador that you make a wonderful spokesperson for Brutland and Norden, because you seem to know my country much?

No is the short answer.


Oooh. So now the unborn catch an unaware woman in the street, take over her body, and suck the blood out of her. Are you aware how offspring are created? Sex. That's right. Sex. So the mother in effect accepts the consequences of the risk of pregnancy every time she willingly consents to (unprotected) sex. And so, however bad you paint it, yes.

And for one thing, let's consider a week-old infant. A ten-day old infant is dependent on its caregivers for support (food, for one) without which it could not exist. Why don't we make that a choice too? Let's have infanticide also.


How challenging. I see that you and Ms. Benson are using the same tactic of forcing other issues that are slightly relevant, to give you some credit. Go on and heap all of those topics we should make resolutions too. It might just give us a nice idea what to work on.

Cpl. Maria Ramona Stanziola
Security Attaché at the Permanent Royal Nord-Brutlandese Mission to the World Assembly


Your nation is recalcitrant in relation to the Freedom of Marriage act is it not Ambassador ? Therefore it is lawbreaking.

So women are culpable for the outcomes of sex, and men are not ? Women are inherently inferior in rights over their own bodies are they Ambassador ?

Would Brutland and Norden be happy if this organisation insisted that instead of abortion the Foetus should be transfered to the appropriately modified body of its father, against his will ?


An infant is quite different to the foetus in that it can be looked after by other persons than its parents, and that it is in a personal relationship with the state which is the arbiter of its rights, this cannot be the case with the foetus since its existence is entirely mediated through its mother with whom the state has a prior responsibility of care.


As for your final comments as quoted above, we should point out that it is the inconsistency and hypocrisy inherent in your nation's position on this issue which demands that these other issues be brought into debate.

Be consistent in your application of the sanctity of life Ambassador or this sanctity is absolutely meaningless.


Yours e.t.c. ,

Oooh. So now the unborn catch an unaware woman in the street, take over her body, and suck the blood out of her. Are you aware how offspring are created? Sex. That's right. Sex. So the mother in effect accepts the consequences of the risk of pregnancy every time she willingly consents to (unprotected) sex. And so, however bad you paint it, yes.
Ah, I see: the 'the slut has it coming to her' defence.

First, the above assumes the woman 'willingly consents'; yet your own constitutional amendment does not differentiate between life beginning with consentual or non-consentual conception. Therefore, this seems to be a red herring.

Second, you raise two related issues: being 'aware how offspring are created', and protection. Can I assume, then, that you will strongly support legislation to promote comprehensive sex education and promote access to contraception? After all, your scenario does not work if the woman is either unaware of the consequences of the act, or is unable to obtain contraception.

Third, you are assuming that the woman is accepting the risk of pregnancy. What if she simply believes that if having sex leads to her becoming pregnant, this is an unfortunate but easily rectifiable mistake? She may plan on taking the morning after pill. She may even realize that she is prepared to have an abortion. You have not demonstrated why someone should not think so.
And for one thing, let's consider a week-old infant. A ten-day old infant is dependent on its caregivers for support (food, for one) without which it could not exist. Why don't we make that a choice too? Let's have infanticide also.
It is dependent only insofar as it has certain requirements that it is unable to meet itself. But it does not actually prey on another person's body. Babies whose mothers die during childbirth do not automatically die: other adults can provide for them. No one can substitute for a woman during pregnancy, though. A woman has a choice between giving or not giving a baby a source of milk; she has no choice between giving or not giving her blood to the foetus.
How challenging. I see that you and Ms. Benson are using the same tactic of forcing other issues that are slightly relevant, to give you some credit. Go on and heap all of those topics we should make resolutions too. It might just give us a nice idea what to work on.
First, this tactic obviously isn't a very good one, because you're not addressing such issues at all. Hmm. Maybe it's not a tactic, but a sincere belief?

Second, slavery is perfectly relevant: it rests on the definition of personhood. Had the WA been around 100 years ago and passed its slavery ban then, it would have conflicted with Quintessence of Dust's then definition of personhood, which did not recognise Chinese-Quodites as people. If a national definition of personhood takes priority in your case, I fail to see why it should not take priority in this other case.

-- Samantha Benson
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

You haven't answered my question, so I'll ask again: some nations believe certain of their nationals are not persons, and hence can be enslaved. As such, we would like to see you sponsor a repeal of the resolution banning slavery, for it clearly intrudes on these nations' notions of personhood.
See what I said earlier. I will neither challenge nor defend your resolution.

Second, as I've said, I find the notion that a nation believes one thing or the other hard to follow. There is no mechanism for 'belief', unless we mean by it a completely different sense from that usually employed.
Nice semantic play. Very well, "people of the nation"? Will it suit you?

Third, some nations believe otherwise on slavery. We enforced our own beliefs on them, to little complaint. Our definition of personhood was allowed to run rampant then, so why should it be yoked now?
For the record, the United Kingdom of Brutland and Norden did not vote on your resolution. We did not vote for, against, or abstain.

And dabbling off-topic for a while, I see that your resolution concerns only "persons". In no part did it define what a "person" are or what constitutes "personhood". Did you say you imposed some definition?

Very well. Back to the issue.

Cpl. Maria Ramona Stanziola
Security Attaché at the Permanent Royal Nord-Brutlandese Mission to the World Assembly

OOC: Happy New Year! :) Now I'm off to see some fireworks! :D

This is entirely an OOC post.

OOC:
You are asking every other player in the entire game to retool their roleplay to a different physical universe to suit your own demands. You are also missing a point a damaged child would happen upon faster: someone could very easily have their scientists magic up a proof that souls don't exist.
DId you actually bother to read all of my last comment, before quoting only part of it in your reply? I said that Borrin was NOT insisting that the existence of souls must be a universal condition, he simply accepts that it's been proven to be the case for people in his own nation... and that if it's proven some other nation's people don't have souls then he'd accept that too.
And you seem to be insisting that every other player must treat souls as demonstrably non-existent in their roleplay: Are you seriously trying to claim that Borrin isn't allowed any beliefs that differ from yours? Even if souls really can't exist in NS, not even in those nations where magic and various forms of 'supernatural' beings occur, isn't Borrin allowed to believe that they do and to argue accordingly?

Having a talking bear does not require suspending the laws of science: it simply suggests a different evolutionary pathway was taken at some point. It is possible in a 'hold your nose, close your eyes, and think of England' kind of way. Having something that is by definition supernatural present as a natural force so completely erodes the basis of knowledge that we may as well ignore proposals about energy because we've just invented a perpetual motion machine.

It is mystifyingly arrogant to assume this kind of discussion should be allowed to subsume every proposal you comment on; I am surprised it is even permitted (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=406616).
Although, in fact, the Ursines of Bears Armed didn't actually evolve: according to their own history the first of them came into existence quite suddenly, about sixteen centuries ago, when some beings that had entered hibernation as ordinary bears awoke from it in this sapient & anthropomorphic form... and other groups of bears have continued to do the same thing intermeittently throughout that history, with the most recent examples of this process actually within living memory! Whether this is due to actions by 'the Great Bear' (as many Ursines believe) or by the Human wizards who ruled this land a few centuries before the first Ursines awakened (as some sceptics suggest instead) remains unproven.
So if we're only allowed to mention ideas that you think could exist in RL, what about the magic-using nations such as Ardchoille (whose ambassador & president-for-life, as you may recall, actually called one soul -- that of Cluichstan's Sheikh Larebil -- back from the Afterworld on network televison)? What about the permanent time-warp in which Cobdenia exists? What about the gigantic monsters that over-ran the lands of The Eternal Kawaii? What about all of the Future-Tech nations that use various forms of FTL travel?

______________________________________________________

And for one thing, let's consider a week-old infant. A ten-day old infant is dependent on its caregivers for support (food, for one) without which it could not exist.
Considering children, when's somebody from your mission going to collect those two youngsters from the Bar? ;)

We concur with the delegation of Bears Armed (http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14315612&postcount=32)that perhaps the resurrection of the ALC is better.
And why does the Brutland and Norden delegation consider ALC superior to this proposal?

For comparison:

The United Nations,

REAFFIRMING Article 5 of The Universal Bill of Rights, that no one may be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment,

RECOGNISING that both scientific and moral opinion remains, and is likely to remain, irreparably divided over the issue of at what stage human life begins,

ACKNOWLEDGING that there are many societies within the NSUN that would consider a fetus, and especially a developed fetus in the third trimester, to possess human characteristics and be deserving of special protection, whilst others would not,

REGRETTING that such divisions render global resolution over abortion unlikely,

SEEKING to establish a fair compromise:

1. DECLARES that states have the right to declare abortion legal or illegal, and to pass legislation extending or restricting the right to an abortion;

2. RECOMMENDS that in cases of rape, incest, severe fetal abnormality or where the continuation of the pregnancy poses severe medical risk to the mother, states permit abortion procedures;

3. URGES states to prevent the Intact Dilation and Extraction (IDX or 'partial birth') procedure;

4. CALLS FOR increased international research in fetal development, so as to develop greater understanding of the ramifications of abortion;

5. REMINDS states that in the absence of completely reliable contraception, there may always remain a demand for abortion, and that legalisation and regulation is more likely to provide sanitary abortion possibilities.

Authored by Gruenberg

The World Assembly,

STATING its commitment to the protection of innocent life,

WISHING to extend that commitment to the unborn residents of WA member states,

ACKNOWLEDGING that irreconcilable differences exist between abortion rights proponents and opponents,

ACCEPTING that compromise on this very divisive issue is difficult, if not impossible,

NEVERTHELESS, determined to extend a modicum of protection to the unborn, who through no fault of their own currently face the possibility of death even at advanced stages of their development,

Enacts the following:

1. WA member states shall have the right to declare voluntary abortion legal or illegal. Member states may also pass legislation extending or restricting voluntary abortion rights to any degree they may find appropriate.

2. Involuntary or “forced” abortions shall be illegal in all WA member states.

-In emergency situations where the mother's life is endangered, a physician may perform an abortion without her consent only if, because of her physical or mental state, it is not possible to obtain her consent.

3. WA member states are strongly urged to outlaw abortions performed in the third trimester of fetal development.

4. Any infant that is born alive is considered a person and is entitled to full protection under WA law. Any infant that is born alive is entitled to proper medical treatment as needed. Intentionally killing such infants or allowing their death through neglect or the withholding of proper medical treatment shall be considered murder.

5. WA member states are urged to institute educational programs promoting sex education and contraception.

6. WA member states are further urged to institute policies promoting childcare, maternity leave, and family and medical leave, and opposing workplace discrimination, to reduce economic incentives to abortion.

This one outlaws forced abortions and grants protection to infants who manage to survive a botched abortion attempt, but other than that do they not do essentially the same thing?

Would Brutland and Norden be happy if this organisation insisted that instead of abortion the Foetus should be transfered to the appropriately modified body of its father, against his will ?
I can't speak for the delegation from Brutland and Norden, but the Aundotutunagirian People would support such a measure. In fact, our medical researchers are at work developing such a procedure to be implemented in Aundotutunagir.

I can't speak for the delegation from Brutland and Norden, but the Aundotutunagirian People would support such a measure. In fact, our medical researchers are at work developing such a procedure to be implemented in Aundotutunagir.



Ah so now you are advocating the murder of innocent people at the hands of the state, and the perpetual slavery of all humanity to its reproductive capacity, up to an including forced surgical procedures and forced pregnancy ?

This is a new level of immoral lunacy which your delegation is prepared to advocate honoured Ambassador.


Yours e.t.c. ,

Ah so now you are advocating the murder of innocent people at the hands of the state, and the perpetual slavery of all humanity to its reproductive capacity, up to an including forced surgical procedures and forced pregnancy ?

This is a new level of immoral lunacy which your delegation is prepared to advocate honoured Ambassador.


Yours e.t.c. ,
Who is being murdered? The woman survives the removal of the fetus, the fetus is implanted in the surgically-modified body of the father, the fetus is carried to term. Everyone lives!

Who is being murdered? The woman survives the removal of the fetus, the fetus is implanted in the surgically-modified body of the father, the fetus is carried to term. Everyone lives!



We were refering to Aundotutunagir's cavalier attitude towards the execution of innocents wrongfully convicted.



Yours e.t.c. ,

We were refering to Aundotutunagir's cavalier attitude towards the execution of innocents wrongfully convicted.



Yours e.t.c. ,
Again with this nonsense about me advocating the execution of innocent people.

As I patiently explained last night to the ambassador from Kelssek, I was simply making the case that with an adult the possibility exists that they may have committed other acts, whereas with the unborn no such possibility exists. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14351804&postcount=141)

And again, why must you cretins continuously twist my words?

Again with this nonsense about me advocating the execution of innocent people.

As I patiently explained last night to the ambassador from Kelssek, I was simply making the case that with an adult the possibility exists that they may have committed other acts, whereas with the unborn no such possibility exists. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14351804&postcount=141)

And again, why must you cretins continuously twist my words?


And we have pointed out to you that killing ostensibly guilty but infact innocent people on the basis that they may have committed other crimes for which they have not been found guilty makes as much sense as killing unborn children on the statistical likelihood of them committing crimes in the future.

Your words are not twisted by cretins honoured Ambassador, the theories they outline are twisted and cretinous to begin with, you simply don't enjoy having this made clear to you.

And we have pointed out to you that killing ostensibly guilty but infact innocent people on the basis that they may have committed other crimes for which they have not been found guilty makes as much sense as killing unborn children on the statistical likelihood of them committing crimes in the future.

Your words are not twisted by cretins honoured Ambassador, the theories they outline are twisted and cretinous to begin with, you simply don't enjoy having this made clear to you.
Yes, yes. I'm cretinous for suggesting that an unborn infant is completely innocent while the possibility exists that an adult may have committed a crime sometime in his life.

Do you have any comments on the actual proposal?

The World Assembly,

STATING its commitment to the protection of innocent life,

WISHING to extend that commitment to the unborn residents of WA member states,

ACKNOWLEDGING that irreconcilable differences exist between abortion rights proponents and opponents,

ACCEPTING that compromise on this very divisive issue is difficult, if not impossible,

NEVERTHELESS, determined to extend a modicum of protection to the unborn, who through no fault of their own currently face the possibility of death even at advanced stages of their development,

Enacts the following:

1. WA member states shall have the right to declare voluntary abortion legal or illegal. Member states may also pass legislation extending or restricting voluntary abortion rights to any degree they may find appropriate.

2. Involuntary or “forced” abortions shall be illegal in all WA member states.

-In emergency situations where the mother's life is endangered, a physician may perform an abortion without her consent only if, because of her physical or mental state, it is not possible to obtain her consent.

3. WA member states are strongly urged to outlaw abortions performed in the third trimester of fetal development.

4. Any infant that is born alive is considered a person and is entitled to full protection under national and WA law. Any infant that is born alive is entitled to proper medical treatment as needed. Intentionally killing such infants or allowing their death through neglect or the withholding of proper medical treatment shall be considered murder.

5. WA member states are urged to institute educational programs promoting sex education and contraception.

6. WA member states are further urged to institute policies promoting childcare, maternity leave, and family and medical leave, and opposing workplace discrimination, to reduce economic incentives to abortion.

Do you have any comments on the actual proposal?



Yes we do, honoured Ambassador, until now we thought that so long as our own national laws remained intact on this issue we might be able to vote for this resolution. Unfortunately this statute has moved in directions which have prompted us to vote against it instead.

We cannot assent to laws which might impair the rights and liberties of billions of women throughout the w.a. and we cannot assent to some mythological right of the foetus to enslave its mother.

We will vote no to this resolution in this form, and may well campaign against it also.

Oh and we never called you cretinous respected Ambassador despite the strong urge to do so, it is your theories which we pointed out as intellectually questionable that is all.


Yours sincerely,

Yes we do, honoured Ambassador, until now we thought that so long as our own national laws remained intact on this issue we might be able to vote for this resolution. Unfortunately this statute has moved in directions which have prompted us to vote against it instead.

We cannot assent to laws which might impair the rights and liberties of billions of women throughout the w.a. and we cannot assent to some mythological right of the foetus to enslave its mother.

We will vote no to this resolution in this form, and may well campaign against it also.


Yours sincerely,
What do you find objectionable? The prohibition against forced abortions or the protection of born-alive infants? The other clauses either urge or leave the decision entirely up to national governments. Please be more specific, Ambassador. I hope your opposition isn't based upon a personal dislike of myself. I am only a representative of my government.

What do you find objectionable? The prohibition against forced abortions or the protection of born-alive infants? The other clauses either urge or leave the decision entirely up to national governments. Please be more specific, Ambassador. I hope your opposition isn't based upon a personal dislike of myself. I am only a representative of my government.



We have nothing but professional respect for the honoured Ambassador for Aundotutunagir, and in any case the position of the Government of the Emperor of Urgench could never be based on the vagaries of personal relationships.


Our objection is to any wording which prioritises the rights of the foetus over the rights of women, and in truth we were never completely comfortable with the idea of this organisation preempting its own ability to legalise abortion throughout the its membership. Strictly speaking our government believes that the foetus should not be used anywhere as a means to manipulate and control the lives and bodies of women, this resolution allows this situation to continue and it urges the w.a. to ban third trimester abortions as though they were wrong, this is also unacceptable to us.

Naturally we have no objection to banning forced abortion or to protecting the rights of an infant once it is outside its mother's body.



Yours e.t.c. ,

I am impressed by this proposal and by the representative from Aundotutunagir. I have long believed that the issue of abortion was so divisive that there was no way it could be resolved on a WA level. It is an issue that begs to be handled on the national level. However, the ambassador and all those working on the resolution have managed to come up with a proposal that is nearly acceptable by the WA without sacrificing its functionality. Kudos!

Still, there are a couple of points that should be changed to make this resolution better.

3. WA member states are strongly urged to outlaw abortions performed in the third trimester of fetal development.

I am sorry, but although this article may have a strong moral stance attached to it, it cannot be forced upon the nations of the WA. The nations themselves must decide what their stance on legal abortion, be it third week or third trimester. I believe that this resolution would have a difficult time passing with this article, anyway.

4. Any infant that is born alive is considered a person and is entitled to full protection under WA law.

Radical idea: how about we word this as "4. Any infant that is born alive is considered a person and is entitled to full protection under national law." This way the baby is treated as all other persons under the law of that nation; and any baby who is treated as a person under national law in a WA nation will also be considered as such for the WA, anyway.

I am impressed by this proposal and by the representative from Aundotutunagir. I have long believed that the issue of abortion was so divisive that there was no way it could be resolved on a WA level. It is an issue that begs to be handled on the national level. However, the ambassador and all those working on the resolution have managed to come up with a proposal that is nearly acceptable by the WA without sacrificing its functionality. Kudos!Why not, we did it back in the UN days?

Still, there are a couple of points that should be changed to make this resolution better.

3. WA member states are strongly urged to outlaw abortions performed in the third trimester of fetal development.

I am sorry, but although this article may have a strong moral stance attached to it, it cannot be forced upon the nations of the WA. The nations themselves must decide what their stance on legal abortion, be it third week or third trimester. I believe that this resolution would have a difficult time passing with this article, anyway.Actually, the WA could force it's members to adopt this stance. But in this case it's not, it merely urging, albeit strongly, which makes this clause optional.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Why not, we did it back in the UN days?

Actually, the WA could force it's members to adopt this stance. But in this case it's not, it merely urging, albeit strongly, which makes this clause optional.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative


Indeed optional in application but still utterly unacceptable to states which believe in complete freedom of choice for women.

Why should all those states which do not hold the extreme anti-woman beliefs of the Aundotutunagirian delegation submit to the hypocrisy of endorsing them at all ?


We would not be able to justify such forked-tongued deception to the voters of the Empire. Our national laws would become completely at variance with the expressed desire and opinion of the w.a. were this statute to come into effect.


Yours e.t.c. ,

Radical idea: how about we word this as "4. Any infant that is born alive is considered a person and is entitled to full protection under national law." This way the baby is treated as all other persons under the law of that nation; and any baby who is treated as a person under national law in a WA nation will also be considered as such for the WA, anyway.
That is a very good suggestion and I will incorporate it into the text.

Indeed optional in application but still utterly unacceptable to states which believe in complete freedom of choice for women.

Why should all those states which do not hold the extreme anti-woman beliefs of the Aundotutunagirian delegation submit to the hypocrisy of endorsing them at all ?


We would not be able to justify such forked-tongued deception to the voters of the Empire. Our national laws would become completely at variance with the expressed desire and opinion of the w.a. were this statute to come into effect.


Yours e.t.c. ,

Your vile and defamatory vendetta against the Aundotutunagirian People continues, I see.

So we are now anti-woman and forked-tongued in addition to being advocates of the execution of innocent persons?

Debates involving abortion are never pretty, are they?

Venomous arguments aside, it would seem that the sticking point is going to be article 3, because that is the one that most directly indicates whether or not an abortion can be performed--and we all know how likely an agreement on that subject will be!

Therefore, if article 3 is left in, then the resolution might carry just by a majority vote; but it certainly will not result in consensus, so you better hope the votes are there! Without article 3, on the other hand, this resolution has a strong chance of being adopted.

Your vile and defamatory vendetta against the Aundotutunagirian People continues, I see.

Sir, it is you have offered direct insults, such as "cretins", and it is you who has introduced a proposal which many of us have found offensively judgemental; since you have the ALC conveniently at hand I invite you to compare its neutral tone with that of your own proposal. By no means are you solely to blame for the negative tone this discussion is taking, but you have certainly played a part in it.

Furthermore, please do not think I in any way have accepted your explanation of that absurd attempt to justify wrongful execution. I simply feel that I have adequately made my point that whether you are conscious of it or not, your position prioritises fetuses over the living person.

Your vile and defamatory vendetta against the Aundotutunagirian People continues, I see.

So we are now anti-woman and forked-tongued in addition to being advocates of the execution of innocent persons?


Your statute is anti-woman honoured Ambassador ( that much is perfectly clear ), but we did not call you forked-tongued. The act of pretending that our government endorsed your opinions on abortion would be forked tongued and hypocritical on our part, that is what we were referring to.


Yours,

since you have the ALC conveniently at hand I invite you to compare its neutral tone with that of your own proposal.

Your statute is anti-woman
So it is the tone that you object to? That can be easily fixed.

I also object to blocking a possible future resolution that would make abortion legal WA-wide, but among other things, yes.

The tone of this statute is secondary to its content in objectionablity in our eyes, honoured Ambassador.

Leave the condemnation of elective abortion out of this resolution and we may be able to abstain on it but the Federated Sublime Khanate of Urgench cannot pretend that it condemns elective abortion in the way this statute does.

Though naturally we like the honoured delegation for Kelssek would really prefer not to block future w.a. legalisation of elective abortion.


Yours e.t.c. ,

Why should all those states which do not hold the extreme anti-woman beliefs of the Aundotutunagirian delegation submit to the hypocrisy of endorsing them at all ?

We would not be able to justify such forked-tongued deception to the voters of the Empire. Our national laws would become completely at variance with the expressed desire and opinion of the w.a. were this statute to come into effect.Sovereigntism?

Though naturally we like the honoured delegation for Kelssek would really prefer not to block future w.a. legalisation of elective abortion.... or not?

We have become accustomed to the delegation from Urgench esposuing Sovereigntist views in some debates whilst rejecting them in others, but isn't it trying to follow both of those approaches within a single debate new?

Sovereigntism?

... or not?

We have become accustomed to the delegation from Urgench esposuing Sovereigntist views in some debates whilst rejecting them in others, but isn't it trying to follow both of those approaches within a single debate new?



Since the honoured Ambassador for Bears Armed seems to know our minds very well it is surprising that they seem unaware of our policy in regard to sovereignty. So for the second time in this debate we will explain it.

We are morally dedicated to the idea that the freedom of the individual is paramount, our national law is structured around this principle. We would oppose any measure this organisation introduced which would tend to substantively compromise the freedom of the individual and we would support any statute which tends to offer greater freedom to the individual.

At times our national legislation is better placed to serve our aim and at times the law of this organisation will serve it better.

It has become the habit of this organisation to think of the world as either sovereigntist or anti-sovereigntist and so everything which takes place here is viewed through the prism of this dichotomy. However there are other paradigms, ours is one such.

We view everything which takes place here through the filter of the competition between the rights of the individual and the rights of the state and we will use whatever tools are available to us to defend and extend the rights of the individual, preferably without compromising those of the state but if this is unavoidable then so be it, and if this is better achieved through maintaining the national laws of a portion of this organisation's membership rather than introducing w.a. laws which damage our aim then we will defend the national laws in question. Of course if the opposite is true then we will support any w.a. laws which tend to increase personal freedoms at the expense of national sovereignty.


This may give the appearance of self contradiction to those who only see this organisation as a battle between the rights of the state and the rights of the w.a. but it is perfectly sensible if one cares less for the rights of either and are more concerned with the rights of the individual person.



Yours e.t.c. ,

A sensible compromise on abortion rights would be a resolution allowing nations to freedom to ban or legalize abortion. I just thought I'd throw that out there if it hasn't already been said.

A sensible compromise on abortion rights would be a resolution allowing nations to freedom to ban or legalize abortion. I just thought I'd throw that out there if it hasn't already been said.
It has already been said.

1. WA member states shall have the right to declare voluntary abortion legal or illegal. Member states may also pass legislation extending or restricting voluntary abortion rights to any degree they may find appropriate.

I fully and then some support you on this matter. Non-needed Abortion (witch means for the saftey of the mother, incest, or rape victims, etc.) is an abomination on this world.

As you said before the fetus has absoultly no choice in the matter, it is a living being and no one has the right to tell it otherwise.

In all honesty, its not that hard to prevent these "unwanted" births. Go down to your local drug store and buy a box of condoms. They aren't that expensive! You shouldn't have unprotected intercourse unless you expect or want to have a child.

The Holy Empire of Bridania is fully behind this.

I fully and then some support you on this matter. Non-needed Abortion (witch means for the saftey of the mother, incest, or rape victims, etc.) is an abomination on this world.

As you said before the fetus has absoultly no choice in the matter, it is a living being and no one has the right to tell it otherwise.

In all honesty, its not that hard to prevent these "unwanted" births. Go down to your local drug store and buy a box of condoms. They aren't that expensive! You shouldn't have unprotected intercourse unless you expect or want to have a child.

The Holy Empire of Bridania is fully behind this.
Thank you for your kind (and very wise, I might add) words. It is good to know that we have a few like-minded nations out there. I have received so little in the way of encouragement from my "colleagues" here in the World Assembly that I was beginning to fear the whole world was inhabited by nothing but baby-killing madmen.

I fully and then some support you on this matter. Non-needed Abortion (witch means for the saftey of the mother, incest, or rape victims, etc.) is an abomination on this world.

As you said before the fetus has absoultly no choice in the matter, it is a living being and no one has the right to tell it otherwise.

In all honesty, its not that hard to prevent these "unwanted" births. Go down to your local drug store and buy a box of condoms. They aren't that expensive! You shouldn't have unprotected intercourse unless you expect or want to have a child.

The Holy Empire of Bridania is fully behind this.




An extreme anti-woman rant is neither persuasive nor is it intellectually grave honoured Ambassador but yours has the merit of brevity.



Yours e.t.c. ,

An extreme anti-woman rant is neither persuasive nor is it intellectually grave honoured Ambassador but yours has the merit of brevity.



Yours e.t.c. ,
And just what did the Urgenchi delegation find in the comments of the honored ambassador from Bridania to qualify them as an "extreme anti-woman rant"?

My question is if this resolution is needed at all. All I read is that this is basically saying nations can decided if it's legal or illegal, but if done in the third trimester it's illegal. I personally don't feel this should be a WA matter in that nations are widely influenced by their native cultures which would define almost exactly what you have written. Therefore, I see this as unneeded.

There is one clause which does have a place and that is the rights granted to the new born. As far as I can see, this is the only part of this whole proposal that's worth keeping. I would caution that anything introduced into the WA concerning abortion would face stiff opposition, and I feel you would be better suited drafting a proposal that grants rights to the new born.

My question is if this resolution is needed at all. All I read is that this is basically saying nations can decided if it's legal or illegal, but if done in the third trimester it's illegal.
Did you even read the latest draft? It says:

3. WA member states are strongly urged to outlaw abortions performed in the third trimester of fetal development.

I personally don't feel this should be a WA matter in that nations are widely influenced by their native cultures which would define almost exactly what you have written. Therefore, I see this as unneeded.
That is exactly why it is needed, to protect the right of nations to make those decisions.

There is one clause which does have a place and that is the rights granted to the new born. As far as I can see, this is the only part of this whole proposal that's worth keeping. I would caution that anything introduced into the WA concerning abortion would face stiff opposition, and I feel you would be better suited drafting a proposal that grants rights to the new born.
Yes, well, at least you see the need to protect the rights of the newborn.

As for your inane assertion that the rest of the proposal should be scrapped, I will take it under advisement, but we are inclined to proceed with the proposal as written.

Yes. It's worded that way so that the WA can't legislate on abortion rights. At least not without a repeal/replace. Just like with the old UN resolution (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=146) on the subject.

Did you even read the latest draft? It says:

3. WA member states are strongly urged to outlaw abortions performed in the third trimester of fetal development.

This article is much better than its predecessor, as the request to outlaw third trimester abortions is presented as optional. However, any nation that is primarily "Pro-Choice" v "Pro-Life" (I despise those terms, but what else can I say?) will find that article to be extremely offensive. This resolution will be resisted and probably shot down as long as that article is in there; and without it, the resolution is very solid and useful as a protection of newborn babies, the lives of mothers, and for preventing the need for abortions in the first place.

That is exactly why it is needed, to protect the right of nations to make those decisions.



Forgive me for thinking the draft on the first page had been updated, I simply didn't want to have to weed through 13 pages to find the latest.

If there is no law on the books that forbids its practice, then all nations within the WA have the right to make these decisions with or without this document. I do, however, see that you are trying to address specifics which would clarify things who would otherwise be oblivious to the rights they have.

There are two things that concern me. The first is you are using the terminology, "Trimester" which is humanoid concept that is based on the assumption that all preganancies are nine months long. Since the WA is made of hundreds of different races/species, this may need to be reworded, don't ask me how.

The other thing is two lines that contradict one another, "2. Involuntary or “forced” abortions shall be illegal in all WA member states." and "-In emergency situations where the mother's life is endangered, a physician may perform an abortion without her consent only if, because of her physical or mental state, it is not possible to obtain her consent."

Is the latter not a form of forced or involuntary abortion? Even if the mother's life is in danger, we assume she has told docctors beforehand that she would like the child aborted, but what if this is not the case. Even then it is left to interpretation as to what determines a mental state incapable of making a sound consent.

I'm not trying to smash this proposal to peices, but I simply don't see the need for it as it is simply going to end up as cannon fodder.

Forgive me for thinking the draft on the first page had been updated, I simply didn't want to have to weed through 13 pages to find the latest.
Some delegations continuously update the first draft as revisions are made. I prefer to keep some of the earlier versions for future reference. Also, if someone wanders into the discussion and starts babbling about something they read in the first draft I can yell at them, which I enjoy.

If there is no law on the books that forbids its practice, then all nations within the WA have the right to make these decisions with or without this document.
Yes but if someone like, oh, let's say the Urgenchis, or Quintessence of Dust, were to pass a resolution legalizing abortion WA-wide then nations would no longer have that right.

I do, however, see that you are trying to address specifics which would clarify things who would otherwise be oblivious to the rights they have.
I'm not sure what you mean. English is not my first language. Who would be oblivious? Things?

There are two things that concern me. The first is you are using the terminology, "Trimester" which is humanoid concept that is based on the assumption that all preganancies are nine months long. Since the WA is made of hundreds of different races/species, this may need to be reworded, don't ask me how.
Yes that is problematic and it will have to be addressed before submission. As it stands, the trimester references could only apply to humans and other species for whom the trimester terminology is relevant.

The other thing is two lines that contradict one another, "2. Involuntary or “forced” abortions shall be illegal in all WA member states." and "-In emergency situations where the mother's life is endangered, a physician may perform an abortion without her consent only if, because of her physical or mental state, it is not possible to obtain her consent."

Is the latter not a form of forced or involuntary abortion? Even if the mother's life is in danger, we assume she has told docctors beforehand that she would like the child aborted, but what if this is not the case. Even then it is left to interpretation as to what determines a mental state incapable of making a sound consent.
Involuntary or forced abortions are prohibited. In cases where it is impossible to obtain consent, or impossible for the mother to refuse consent, the doctor may make the decision. That language may need to be clarified as well.

It seems as though Clauses 1, 3, 5, and 6 do little concretely, though that is not a large concern.

We mainly take issue with the following:
4. Any infant that is born alive is considered a person and is entitled to full protection under national and WA law. Any infant that is born alive is entitled to proper medical treatment as needed.
Entitled to? From where? Suppose one is in a destitute nation, or in a nation completely lacking technology. Are nations obligated to provide public medical services?

The Dominion

Entitled to? From where? Suppose one is in a destitute nation, or in a nation completely lacking technology. Are nations obligated to provide public medical services?

Yes, yes you are required to provide medical services to children. Check World Assembly Resolution 19.

Yes, yes you are required to provide medical services to children. Check World Assembly Resolution 19.

The Child Protection Act only states that children are entitled to adequate medical care. It doesn't state that it must be public or free of charge. It's up to the nation to determine whether it must be paid for by the parents, insurance companies, or the state.

Paula Jenner

An extreme anti-woman rant is neither persuasive nor is it intellectually grave honoured Ambassador but yours has the merit of brevity.



Yours e.t.c. ,


How does my comment on my stance of the issue have anything to do with being anti-woman? I never said "woman are the reason for abortions" or anything to suggest so. If anything I was pro-woman by not making a rape victim accountable for a pregnancy due to the rape, among other things.

How do you see my comment anti-woman? :confused:

How does my comment on my stance of the issue have anything to do with being anti-woman? I never said "woman are the reason for abortions" or anything to suggest so. If anything I was pro-woman by not making a rape victim accountable for a pregnancy due to the rape, among other things.

How do you see my comment anti-woman? :confused:




The entire basis of your comments, honoured Ambassador, presumes that women's bodies are the domain of public policy and that their reproductive functions render them less deserving of rights over their own bodies than men.

What right do you, honoured Ambassador, have to define what is and what is not an acceptable reason for a women to terminate a physical state of her own body which she no longer wishes to submit to ?

You seriously think that it is pro-woman to say that you think that rape victims should not be held responsible for pregnancies arising from such acts of violence ? Who asked you for your permission on the subject ? It could hardly be otherwise, only the most morally reprehensible state would force rape victims to bear the offspring of their violation and yet you seem to want congratulation on your pro-female credentials for espousing what can only be presumed to be the base minimum of decency.




Yours e.t.c. ,

The Child Protection Act only states that children are entitled to adequate medical care. It doesn't state that it must be public or free of charge. It's up to the nation to determine whether it must be paid for by the parents, insurance companies, or the state.

That is the truth. The resolution we are currently debating only states that the newborn is entitled to "proper" medical care; the Child Protection Act only promises "adequate" medical care. I do not see "proper" promising anything more than "adequate" does.

So essentially, it must be available. That's rather different from "entitled to," which means they have a right to it. How odd.

The Dominion

So essentially, it must be available. That's rather different from "entitled to," which means they have a right to it.

True, Ambassador. The fine points of what must be provided to children in both this resolution and the Child Protection Act are left a little vague. Both resolutions do use the term "entitled to"; it does not say who must provide the medical care.

So essentially, it must be available. That's rather different from "entitled to," which means they have a right to it. How odd.

The Dominion

Ahh, but if the child is not given at least adequate medical care, then a nation is not in compliance with the Child Protection Act. The child has a right to it and will receive it as per the CPA.

That is the truth. The resolution we are currently debating only states that the newborn is entitled to "proper" medical care; the Child Protection Act only promises "adequate" medical care. I do not see "proper" promising anything more than "adequate" does.

If you consider that a sick newborn needs certain care, then the resolution would provide the precise care the newborn needs. The 'proper' treatment. Taking into account the fact that the CPA could one day be repealed, I believe the author is only attempting to make sure that the newborn will be given medical care even if the CPA no longer exists one day.

True, Ambassador. The fine points of what must be provided to children in both this resolution and the Child Protection Act are left a little vague. Both resolutions do use the term "entitled to"; it does not say who must provide the medical care.

No, it does not. It was left that way for the purpose of not attempting to force a national health system or an insurance system, or a privatised medical industry, or whatever, on a nation. That said, the nation still must provide care for a child, no matter who picks up the cost.

If you consider that a sick newborn needs certain care, then the resolution would provide the precise care the newborn needs. The 'proper' treatment. Taking into account the fact that the CPA could one day be repealed, I believe the author is only attempting to make sure that the newborn will be given medical care even if the CPA no longer exists one day.

It was left that way for the purpose of not attempting to force a national health system or an insurance system, or a privatised medical industry, or whatever, on a nation. That said, the nation still must provide care for a child, no matter who picks up the cost.

Agreed, agreed, and agreed. I am rather pleased with this particular article of the resolution.

We Bangladeshi's do appreciate this draft. However may I ask, does the WA have power to abort the unborn infant if it carries a hazard of any kind & is there a limit of at which a mother of the unborn infant can be aborted. For example, the unborn infant is eight (8) months old and already poses the power of the five (5) senses?


Thanking you,

Bangladesh

We Bangladeshi's do appreciate this draft. However may I ask, does the WA have power to abort the unborn infant if it carries a hazard of any kind
This Resolution would leave that decision up to national governments. The WA itself will not be aborting any infants.

& is there a limit of at which a mother of the unborn infant can be aborted. For example, the unborn infant is eight (8) months old and already poses the power of the five (5) senses?
Nations are strongly encouraged to outlaw such abortions, but again, that decision would be left to national governments.


Thanking you,

Bangladesh
You're very welcome.

Because
Upsetting
Mongkha
Pleases me.

The World Assembly,

STATING its commitment to the protection of innocent life,

WISHING to extend that commitment to the unborn residents of WA member states,

ACKNOWLEDGING that irreconcilable differences exist between abortion rights proponents and opponents,

ACCEPTING that compromise on this very divisive issue is difficult, if not impossible,

NEVERTHELESS, determined to extend a modicum of protection to the unborn, who through no fault of their own currently face the possibility of death even at advanced stages of their development,

Enacts the following:

1. WA member states shall have the right to declare voluntary abortion legal or illegal. Member states may also pass legislation extending or restricting voluntary abortion rights to any degree they may find appropriate.

2. Involuntary or “forced” abortions shall be illegal in all WA member states..

-If the mother's life is endangered an abortion may be performed without her consent if, because of emergency circumstances, including her physical or mental state, it is not possible to obtain her consent.

3. WA member states are strongly urged to outlaw abortions performed in the later stages of fetal development where the infant would be capable of surviving outside the womb.

4. Any infant that is born alive is considered a person and is entitled to full protection under national and WA law. Any infant that is born alive is entitled to proper medical treatment as needed. Intentionally killing such infants or allowing their death through neglect or the withholding of proper medical treatment shall be illegal and punishable by the highest penalty available under law.

5. WA member states are urged to institute educational programs promoting sex education and contraception.

6. WA member states are further urged to institute policies promoting childcare, maternity leave, and family and medical leave, and opposing workplace discrimination, to reduce economic incentives to abortion.

New text. I'm certain there will be outrage expressed by the usual suspects.

We are somewhat of the opinion that article 4 belongs in a different resolution, if it is believed necessary at all.

We are somewhat of the opinion that article 4 belongs in a different resolution, if it is believed necessary at all.
You may be right. I can see that being expanded into a resolution of its own.

Oh, so you're a geneticist now? And a moralist! A pity, therefore, that you would mistake murder for a preferable option to living in an orphanage.
As the representative from Tai Lao, I will respond, but first I want to address this. I find it interesting that Omigodtheykilledkenny would take this view in this situation, yet still allow abortion for rape and incest. seems a tad contradictory...

Another thing is the exception from abortion being illegal for the third trimester in cases of rape and incest. In these instances, wouldnt the victim have sought abortion well before reaching this late in the pregnancy? This also isnt accounting for those nations who's pregnancy terms do not fit in with this.

Anyway, as with most moralistic resolutions, we oppose this. There are currently some 10,721 nations (as of this reply) in the WA. That also equates to 10,721 sets of morals. Some may be similar to others, but there will be nuances that will make them different. Also, within those 10,721 nations, there will be a different moral code for each citizen, no matter how hard a nation tries to enforce one particular code. If there is one thing this past discussion has proven, is that what I have just said is correct.

The reason I say this is because we here in Tai Lao do not believe it is right to force morals on each other. It should be up to the nations themselves, both the governments and the peoples, to decide which path they shall choose to take on this issue. This is not the black and white issue that some try to make it out to be, as there are so many grey areas. This is one area that the WA should never mandate over, as the debate over it has proven neither side can really get any clear ground.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

Another thing is the exception from abortion being illegal for the third trimester in cases of rape and incest. In these instances, wouldnt the victim have sought abortion well before reaching this late in the pregnancy? This also isnt accounting for those nations who's pregnancy terms do not fit in with this.
Well it's a good thing the latest revision doesn't mention trimesters then, isn't it? You did read the entire thread and carefully examine the latest text of the proposal before commenting didn't you?

Anyway, as with most moralistic resolutions, we oppose this. There are currently some 10,721 nations (as of this reply) in the WA. That also equates to 10,721 sets of morals. Some may be similar to others, but there will be nuances that will make them different. Also, within those 10,721 nations, there will be a different moral code for each citizen, no matter how hard a nation tries to enforce one particular code. If there is one thing this past discussion has proven, is that what I have just said is correct.

The reason I say this is because we here in Tai Lao do not believe it is right to force morals on each other. It should be up to the nations themselves, both the governments and the peoples, to decide which path they shall choose to take on this issue. This is not the black and white issue that some try to make it out to be, as there are so many grey areas. This is one area that the WA should never mandate over, as the debate over it has proven neither side can really get any clear ground.
I agree. It is a good thing the first Article of the Resolution says this:

1. WA member states shall have the right to declare voluntary abortion legal or illegal. Member states may also pass legislation extending or restricting voluntary abortion rights to any degree they may find appropriate.

You didn't really read anything before commenting, did you?

As much as we abhor having to disappoint the noble General we unfortunately have no greater objection to this draft of this statute than we had to the prior draft.

Which is to say that the moral judgements on the rights a woman has over what happens to her own body of a state which has instituted the mass rape of every single fertile woman within its borders ( as has Aundotutunagir ) are of little value to a moral debate on abortion. As such we will oppose the horrific and sadistic doctrines of such a state on such issues implacably no matter how outrageously they may couch such doctrines in a resolution.

The noble Generals government should hang its head in shame rather than parade its crimes with impudent pride, and we will never see their depraved theories as legitimate under any circumstances.


Yours,

I am on the fence, leaning towards opposed here. I think it is a well-written piece from the General, I just cant get behind it even if it was perfect, same as if this were about same-sex marriage. I am a womens rights supporter, but there are too many ways to get around it.

If totally outlawed or legal in certain instances; ie rape,incest,etc; especially in the rape area, our Law Enforcement Agencies would be flooded with new 'Rape' claims b/c the woman wanted an abortion in the first place but wasnt allowed to thus reducing women who are actually raped/made pregnant as result credibility when it comes to reporting and receiving justice. It is sad but there is thousands of legit rape cases that are sitting in police files unsolved. Depending on where one is most of them by the time it is solved takes more than 9-months, so then we'd have another unwanted child.

I know theres adoption and the like. I am morally opposed to abortion, but I am of the opinion of either you ban it totally, no exceptions or make it 100% legal no exceptions.

There have to be some exceptions if you're not going to be utterly dogmatic and unreasonable. It's called compromise.

That being said, we can't support the current version. In our estimation, abortion should be banned except for cases of rape or if the mother's life is in danger. That is how existing Federation law stands on the subject. We simply feel this measure goes too far towards trying to appease pro-abortion nations.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Well it's a good thing the latest revision doesn't mention trimesters then, isn't it? You did read the entire thread and carefully examine the latest text of the proposal before commenting didn't you?


I agree. It is a good thing the first Article of the Resolution says this:

1. WA member states shall have the right to declare voluntary abortion legal or illegal. Member states may also pass legislation extending or restricting voluntary abortion rights to any degree they may find appropriate.

You didn't really read anything before commenting, did you?
Yes we did read, a lot. Pretty much the same arguments thrown back and forth from each side for 9 pages. Our position hasn't change and probably wont be convinced to be changed: Issues of morality should be left up to individual nations, not the WA, because there will never be an accepted compromise.

Also perhaps you should have put the link to the revised document in the opening posts for people who are new to the thread, such as ourselves, since 22 pages of the same back and fourth argument can get a bit long to read.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

Yes we did read, a lot.
Then why did you think it still dealt with trimesters and why were you not aware that it leaves the decision to outlaw or legalize abortion up to individual nations?

Also perhaps you should have put the link to the revised document in the opening posts for people who are new to the thread, such as ourselves, since 22 pages of the same back and fourth argument can get a bit long to read.
No. That would encourage laziness.

As much as we abhor having to dissapoint the noble General we unfortunately have no greater objection to this draft of this statute than we had to the prior draft.

Which is to say that the moral judgements on the rights a woman has over what happens to her own body of a state which has instituted the mass rape of every single fertile woman within its borders ( as has Aundotutunagir ) are of little value to a moral debate on abortion. As such we will oppose the horrific and sadistic doctrines of such a state on such issues implacably no matter how outrageously they may couch such doctrines in a resolution.

The noble General's government should hang its head in shame rather than parade its crimes with impudent pride, and we will never see their depraved theories as legitimate under any circumstances.


Yours,

*sigh*

Firstly, what possible relevance could the domestic policies of Aundotutunagir have in regards to the effectiveness of the proposal? Does it attempt to implement our "Great Leap Upwards" policy on a worldwide basis? No, it does not.

Secondly, will you please point out the specific Articles, phrases, words, punctuation or whatever else it is that you object to rather than continuing to blather about it being "anti-woman". If it is flawed that badly, tell me (in great detail if necessary) how you would like to see it altered.

In our estimation, abortion should be banned except for cases of rape or if the mother's life is in danger. That is how existing Federation law stands on the subject. We simply feel this measure goes too far towards trying to appease pro-abortion nations.
I share your sentiments ambassador, but surely you recognize that to do such a thing in this political climate would be impossible.

If the so called "Great Leap Upwards" does not motivate the Aundotutunagirian commitment to this statute then what does ? Devilment ? Some other more cynical political hypocrisy?

But we will acquiesce to your demand Noble General,


The World Assembly,

STATING its commitment to the protection of innocent life,

WISHING to extend that commitment to the unborn residents of WA member states,

This is an obnoxious and pointless elevation of the rights of the unborn which commits this organisation to the protection of a life of which it has no philosophical certainty of innocence.

We have no desire to extend any such protection to the unborn, who in any case do not reside in any member state but in fact reside within their mother's body.


ACCEPTING that compromise on this very divisive issue is difficult, if not impossible,

This statute is not a compromise, it is a fudge which blocks future effective world assembly legislation on this matter.

NEVERTHELESS, determined to extend a modicum of protection to the unborn, who through no fault of their own currently face the possibility of death even at advanced stages of their development,

And all this with no recognition of the rights the mother has over her own body ?



1. WA member states shall have the right to declare voluntary abortion legal or illegal. Member states may also pass legislation extending or restricting voluntary abortion rights to any degree they may find appropriate.

Member states already have these rights, we see no utility in reiterating them, and indeed we would object to the appropriation of discretion this phrase represents. Why bother noble General ?

2. Involuntary or “forced” abortions shall be illegal in all WA member states..

And yet involuntary impregnation and forced pregnancies remain unaddressed and your state remains free to impose such barbaric practices on its entire female population. We would find it utterly objectionable to offer protection to the infant and none to the mother.

-If the mother's life is endangered an abortion may be performed without her consent if, because of emergency circumstances, including her physical or mental state, it is not possible to obtain her consent.

Consent of the mother is nowhere respected by this statute, and it seems pointless to mention the mother's consent in this clause when this entire statute seems to operate on the basis that no such consent even exists.

3. WA member states are strongly urged to outlaw abortions performed in the later stages of fetal development where the infant would be capable of surviving outside the womb.

Naturally we cannot stress enough how much we object to the inclusion in any statute of this kind of directive, be it mandatory or not. However since the entire tone of this resolution presumes that human beings do not have rights to decide what happens to their own bodies we feel it pointless to restate the arguments against it.

However the possibility of life outside the womb is not in our opinion germane to the issue at hand. The infant in question is not entitled to live in its mother's body simply because it could live outside of it, indeed many would argue that if the mother no longer feels any desire to bear and raise this infant which could live outside her body then in many ways it resembles a parasite, using her body against her will for its own ends without her consent.

In any case we, by which we mean those of us not directly involved in the mother-foetus relationship have no right to decide which has the prior right to the mother's body and should not make force our own personal moral tastes into the midst of this relationship.

4. Any infant that is born alive is considered a person and is entitled to full protection under national and WA law. Any infant that is born alive is entitled to proper medical treatment as needed. Intentionally killing such infants or allowing their death through neglect or the withholding of proper medical treatment shall be illegal and punishable by the highest penalty available under law.

We do not object to most of this, but the underlined portion is a step too far in our opinion. Sentencing should be left to the court systems of member states, the situations and circumstances of each case being vital to the determination of sentencing the imposition of blanket sentencing guidelines is completely contrary to the concept of a due process. Change "shall" to "may" and this section could be acceptable.



5. WA member states are urged to institute educational programs promoting sex education and contraception.



6. WA member states are further urged to institute policies promoting childcare, maternity leave, and family and medical leave, and opposing workplace discrimination, to reduce economic incentives to abortion.

We have no objection to these clauses, but they seem like window dressing in a statute which ignores the reproductive rights of billions of women and is an attempt to enshrine this attitude.


Yours,

We have no desire to extend any such protection to the unborn, who in any case do not reside in any member state but in fact reside within their mother's body.
If the mother resides in a member state then surely the unborn child is at least located within a member state, is it not? Where would you say they are at, in another physical dimension?

This statute is not a compromise, it is a fudge which blocks future effective world assembly legislation on this matter.
Well yes, it also blocks effective future legislation outlawing abortion. Have you thought of that?

And all this with no recognition of the rights the mother has over her own body ?
Well if I was writing a resolution specifically protecting the rights of women would you expect me to include a clause protecting the rights of men?

Member states already have these rights, we see no utility in reiterating them, and indeed we would object to the appropriation of discretion this phrase represents. Why bother noble General ?
You know exactly why that clause is there.

I won't bother responding to the rest of your anti-infant diatribe. Listening to your hate-filled rhetoric causes me to fear for the safety of every child in the Empire of Urgench. I pray that your ravings are simply the expression of your personal opinion and not official policy of the Sublime Khanate.

After going through all the discussion and finally finding the current draft...

Her Majesty Princess Angel Lynxkind interrupts her brother...

Its a paper tiger, and possibly be illegal. On one side we have an unnecessary blocker, given that if a future resolution was put forward stating either sides case on the abortion issue and was passed, it would be by a narrow margin and would be very quickly repealed by the opposing side. On the other side there could be the technicality that section 4 is actually covered by Resolution 19 anyway, so it would have to be removed. After those two, the only solid thing this resolution does is prevent forced abortions (we would actually either like Involuntary to be removed or defined, because under the current vagueness there is a chance that a woman could be imprisoned or in some cases be put to death due to a miscarriage, or some other accidental impact through no fault of others that could cause abortion.)

Other than that, this is a paper tiger. There are a lot of urges in there which accomplish nothing. Urging nations to stop late term abortions wont stop them. Urging nations to institute sexual education wont make them. Urging nations to adopt measures of better support and recognition of families in the workforce wont make them. Hell, if the current proposal of the Charter of Civil Rights passes, which it looks to, the discrimination part of section 6 would have to be removed anyway due to technical illegality.

We in Tai Lao support the rights of individuals, then the rights of nations, but we do not support legislation which effectively does nothing. You may argue it does, and it somewhat does on one point (after removing the illegalities), but is it necessary to have such a long-winded resolution on our books that does nothing else, just for one point? I think not. Given the varying moral differences between the nations and the peoples of the World Assembly, I believe this issue is best left up to those nations and those peoples, not the World Assembly. I will now leave my brother to wrap things up.

Her Majesty Princess Angel Lynxkind leaves the floor, leaving it to Prince Ariovist Lynxkind

Ah, yeah... I dont think I could add any more.

-Ariovist Lynxkind

If the mother resides in a member state then surely the unborn child is at least located within a member state, is it not? Where would you say they are at, in another physical dimension?

Located indeed noble General but not resident.


Well yes, it also blocks effective future legislation outlawing abortion. Have you thought of that?

Yes naturally we have, and we would oppose such a resolution with as much vigour as you might imagine, but that is not a reason to ignore the basic rights of billions of inhabitants of the nations of this organisation.


Well if I was writing a resolution specifically protecting the rights of women would you expect me to include a clause protecting the rights of men?

The analogy is faulty, unless such a statute explicitly or implicitly required the rights of men to be curtailed in favour of the rights of women in which case it would be vital to make clear what the rights of men actually were in order to define the rights of women.



I won't bother responding to the rest of your anti-infant diatribe. Listening to your hate-filled rhetoric causes me to fear for the safety of every child in the Empire of Urgench. I pray that your ravings are simply the expression of your personal opinion and not official policy of the Sublime Khanate.


The empire requires no moral instruction from the representative of a regime which is accused of some of the most disgusting crimes a state can commit.


Yours in a spirit of neighbourly goodwill,

After going through all the discussion and finally finding the current draft...
Bullshit. When you made you first post the latest draft was exactly three posts above it...

Its a paper tiger, and possibly be illegal. On one side we have an unnecessary blocker, given that if a future resolution was put forward stating either sides case on the abortion issue and was passed, it would be by a narrow margin and would be very quickly repealed by the opposing side.
Blocking Resolutions are legal so long as they actually do something other than block. This one does.

On the other side there could be the technicality that section 4 is actually covered by Resolution 19 anyway, so it would have to be removed.
The purpose of Article 4 is to protect infants who have survived a botched abortion attempt. I'm not certain that such infants would be considered a "child" under the Child Protection Act. Naturally I welcome moderator opinion on this as well as the opinion of the government of Rutianas.

After those two, the only solid thing this resolution does is prevent forced abortions (we would actually either like Involuntary to be removed or defined, because under the current vagueness there is a chance that a woman could be imprisoned or in some cases be put to death due to a miscarriage, or some other accidental impact through no fault of others that could cause abortion.)
I could elaborate on "involuntary", or perhaps use another term. This is still in the drafting stage and I've never been satisfied with the wording of that Article anyway.

Other than that, this is a paper tiger. There are a lot of urges in there which accomplish nothing. Urging nations to stop late term abortions wont stop them. Urging nations to institute sexual education wont make them. Urging nations to adopt measures of better support and recognition of families in the workforce wont make them.
It is common practice to employ urging clauses when more forceful language is not desired. And in this instance it is not desired...not by me anyway.

Hell, if the current proposal of the Charter of Civil Rights passes, which it looks to, the discrimination part of section 6 would have to be removed anyway due to technical illegality.
Wrong.

We in Tai Lao support the rights of individuals, then the rights of nations, but we do not support legislation which effectively does nothing. You may argue it does, and it somewhat does on one point (after removing the illegalities),<snip>
There are no illegalities.

The purpose of Article 4 is to protect infants who have survived a botched abortion attempt. I'm not certain that such infants would be considered a "child" under the Child Protection Act. Naturally I welcome moderator opinion on this as well as the opinion of the government of Rutianas.






Or you could ask us since we were intimately involved in the writing of that statute, noble General.


Yours,

Or you could ask us since we were intimately involved in the writing of that statute, noble General.


Yours,
Well?

Actually the provisions of clause 4 do not conflict with the Child Protection Act and indeed are certainly encompassed by it, but inclusion of clause 4 within this statute still makes sense as part of a broader argument.

Clause 4 could be left in to fulfill a wider purpose, but it is technically unecessary.


Yours,

We do not object to most of this, but the underlined portion is a step too far in our opinion. Sentencing should be left to the court systems of member states, the situations and circumstances of each case being vital to the determination of sentencing the imposition of blanket sentencing guidelines is completely contrary to the concept of a due process. Change "shall" to "may" and this section could be acceptable.
I suppose I could just say "Intentionally killing such infants or allowing their death through neglect or the withholding of proper medical treatment shall be illegal", or "is outlawed", "is prohibited" or some such. It might not be necessary to mandate punishments, compliance being mandatory and all.


Actually the provisions of clause 4 do not conflict with the Child Protection Act and indeed are certainly encompassed by it, but inclusion of clause 4 within this statute still makes sense as part of a broader argument.

Clause 4 could be left in to fulfill a wider purpose, but it is technically unecessary.


Yours,
Thank you. That's what I thought. We may actually spin that Article and the one on forced abortions off into a separate anti-infanticide resolution. That decision is still pending.

Bullshit. When you made you first post the latest draft was exactly three posts above it...
We advise the ambassador to be less hostile in his approach, because it wont draw a favourable response. As for your claim, that may have been the case we made that first response, but by the time we made our following response, we had indeed read the 23, at that time, pages of discussion, including noting your perpetual hostility towards others throughout the discussion.

Blocking Resolutions are legal so long as they actually do something other than block. This one does.
Given that in reality, this actually does one other thing, then it is very borderline.

The purpose of Article 4 is to protect infants who have survived a botched abortion attempt. I'm not certain that such infants would be considered a "child" under the Child Protection Act. Naturally I welcome moderator opinion on this as well as the opinion of the government of Rutianas.
This is our understanding, given that CPA denotes a child as being under the age of consent, which in turn would be determined by the child's date of birth in some countries, whilst in others could even be date of conception, I dont see how it wouldn't cover an infant newly born, either via birthing or botched abortion.

I could elaborate on "involuntary", or perhaps use another term. This is still in the drafting stage and I've never been satisfied with the wording of that Article anyway.Perhaps add a clause defining Involuntary Abortion as being caused by others against the will of the mother, although some of this overlaps with the 'Forced' part of the article, while the rest can be a bit iffy, due to the fact that in the case where an unintended accident causes a miscarriage the person causing it could suffer a worse punishment than they deserve.


It is common practice to employ urging clauses when more forceful language is not desired. And in this instance it is not desired...not by me anyway.
Whilst that may be the case for small fragments of a resolution, when clauses like that make up the bulk of the resolution, it becomes, as my sister so put it, a paper tiger.

Wrong.
Um, right actually. They would be covered by A1Sc under "any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination" and possibly sexual discrimination based on the fact of them being women, and the possibility of them getting pregnant.

There are no illegalities.
That is what you may believe, but we still believe there are 2, possibly 3 with the passage of the current proposal under vote. And without those 3, this pretty much leaves one section that does anything, with the rest being a paper tiger. And that isnt without our concern over the opening section, but our colleague from Urgench has pretty much put across the same view of us.

And all this without you having touched on our biggest question: with the varying morals of the nations and peoples of WA, why should we consider approving of a resolution that is best left up to those nations and those people?

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

This is our understanding, given that CPA denotes a child as being under the age of consent, which in turn would be determined by the child's date of birth in some countries, whilst in others could even be date of conception, I dont see how it wouldn't cover an infant newly born, either via birthing or botched abortion.
But in some nations such a thing might not be considered a "birth", but merely a medical procedure that went awry.

Um, right actually. They would be covered by A1Sc under "any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination" and possibly sexual discrimination based on the fact of them being women, and the possibility of them getting pregnant.
Such could easily be remedied by simply removing the word "discrimination". I would like to hear the opinion of the Urgenchi delegation on this.

And all this without you having touched on our biggest question: with the varying morals of the nations and peoples of WA, why should we consider approving of a resolution that is best left up to those nations and those people?
Do you still not see that this would leave the decision up to the various national governments? That it would block future legislation which attempted to take that decision away? Do I have to draw you a diagram?

But in some nations such a thing might not be considered a "birth", but merely a medical procedure that went awry.So does that mean that those who survive those things dont have a birthday?


Such could easily be remedied by simply removing the word "discrimination". I would like to hear the opinion of the Urgenchi delegation on this.Which is exactly what we were suggesting

Do you still not see that this would leave the decision up to the various national governments? That it would block future legislation which attempted to take that decision away? Do I have to draw you a diagram?Parts 2 through to 6 either take away or can be seen to interfere (even urging can be seen as interfering) parts that make up the nations whole policy on abortion. We will admit Parts 3, 5 and 6 are already a part of our policy on abortion, as is a variant of 2, plus the encouragement of adoption and grief counselling for those who undergo the procedure, which is not an easy choice to make, but we do not feel the need to force our morals and opinions on the issue on any other nation. Whilst in some instances it may not do anything due to the usage of 'Urges', the weight of the words alone can be seen by some as condemning of their morals. Putting in that it is up to the nations is pretty worthless when you follow it up with 'But you have to do this, cant do this, and we really dont want you to this and do want you to do this, but you dont have to if you dont want to.'

As I said, and will state again, this issue is best left to be dealt with wholly by individual nations and their people

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

So does that mean that those who survive those things dont have a birthday?
Well not if their birth isn't legally considered a "birth"....

Well not if their birth isn't legally considered a "birth"....

Well what sets their birthday then? does this mean they can never make the age of consent, meaning every time they have sex well into what would be normally their forties (for a normal human being) it would be classed as statuary rape? Actually it would be interesting to see a nation which follows this position...

But nice avoidance of the rest there

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

well what sets their birthday then?
GAH!

They don't have a birthday because the abortionist kills them right there on the table or allows them to expire by withholding necessary medical care. Or they are allowed to die of exposure. These are newborns, probably premature, and they have just survived a failed abortion procedure. How difficult do you suppose it would be to kill them or just allow them to expire naturally?

But nice avoidance of the rest there
And what the fuck are you talking about? Avoidance of what?

Such could easily be remedied by simply removing the word "discrimination". I would like to hear the opinion of the Urgenchi delegation on this.




The Government of the Emperor of Urgench has instructed us not to comment on this particular matter at this time noble General, we may be able to do so in the near future however.


Yours sincerely,

GAH!

They don't have a birthday because the abortionist kills them right there on the table or allows them to expire by withholding necessary medical care. Or they are allowed to die of exposure. These are newborns, probably premature, and they have just survived a failed abortion procedure. How difficult do you suppose it would be to kill them or just allow them to expire naturally?


Technically this infant does still have a birth date, which would mean that they can be considered to have a "birthday", birthdays may be memorialised post mortem by the relatives.

Yours,

Technically this infant does still have a birth date, which would mean that they can be considered to have a "birthday", birthdays may be memorialised post mortem by the relatives.

Yours,
But what if it isn't legally considered an "infant", but leftover waste from a botched procedure?

And what the fuck are you talking about? Avoidance of what?

The second half of post 233, which you only took as small snippet from.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

The second half of post 233, which you only took as small snippet from.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador
It was just a rehash of the gibberish you were saying earlier...

The People's Republic of Jamahiriyastan applauds the esteemed delegate from Aundotutunagir for his incredible foresight in promoting such a sensible proposition that in no such way threatens the sovereignty of the independent nation states making up the WA. The Jamahiriyastani further recommend that this proposition be sent to the WA for approval into international law.

It was just a rehash of the gibberish you were saying earlier...

First off, Ambassador, it wasn't gibberish, and secondly, like before, there was no adequate response given. But since you dont seem to understand, here is a simple, straight-forward question:

Why should the WA play moral big brother on this issue?

Before you prattle on again about 'letting nations chose', there are elements that impedes that choice to a degree, and others that frown upon the choices they make. regardless of it saying it is allowing choice, it is clearly still frowning upon certain things. As I have stated, Moral issues should be best left wholly up to individual nations and their people, not the WA, either wholly or, in this case, partially.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

*snip*

Joebot™ enters the room on behalf of Zarquon.

The Emperor is unable to appear personally so he will translate through my public address system. Stand by.

Girl from Ipanema plays softly

"[static]....is damn thing working? Oh hello, Zarquon here. Terribly sorry I couldn't be there in person, but I asked Joebot here to broadcast my take on this situation.

Firstly, I actually read through and looked at the new text this time. So worry not.

Secondly, Ariovist Lynxkind, would you kindly sew your ass shut and proceed to talk from your other end. You are making straw arguments that hold about as much water as a wicker basket.

The WA is not playing "Big Brother™" on this issue. If you note the text says member nations retain the right to render this practice legal or illegal if they chose so. How is this stamping on the moral fortitude of anyone? No one is being forced to do anything. This proposal is protecting the rights of nations to choose their stance on this issue. Without it, someone is free to come up with a bill that says it's either legal or outlawed with no exceptions.

Yes, in a way, it does allow choice, which you are apparently trying to associate with Pro-Choice/Pro-Life arguments, which really don't even come into play since this isn't taking one stance or the other but simply giving nations the legal right to choose if abortions are legal or not.

Paper tiger? BAH!!

Considering the new re-write, and the removal of certain items I had previously objected to, Zarquon Froods will support this measure so long as it maintains its current objective in solidifying the rights of nations to choose.

Zarquon, out.[static]"

Secondly, Ariovist Lynxkind, would you kindly sew your ass shut and proceed to talk from your other end. You are making straw arguments that hold about as much water as a wicker basket.Which is about as much water as this resolution holds with the 'Urges' all over the place, but we digress...

The WA is not playing "Big Brother™" on this issue. If you note the text says member nations retain the right to render this practice legal or illegal if they chose so. How is this stamping on the moral fortitude of anyone? No one is being forced to do anything. This proposal is protecting the rights of nations to choose their stance on this issue. Without it, someone is free to come up with a bill that says it's either legal or outlawed with no exceptions.In which case it could be deemed a blocker, not that any proposal going either way would pass, and if it did, as we stated before, it would be quickly repealed. Also, we said Moral Big Brother. The way this is worded, while it 'urges' rather than makes, still sounds like it is condemning some areas and promoting others, actually possibly offending each side.

Yes, in a way, it does allow choice, which you are apparently trying to associate with Pro-Choice/Pro-Life arguments, which really don't even come into play since this isn't taking one stance or the other but simply giving nations the legal right to choose if abortions are legal or not.Whilst putting conditions on those choices, or pointing them in a certain direction. While the words dont have force, they do have weight.

Paper tiger? BAH!!Yes, paper tiger. Given that we still stand by 2 of the 3 things that actually does something could be seen as illegal (Blocker for one, which we definitely stand by, and duplicity for another, which we admit could be borderline but still unnecessary) leaving only one thing that does anything and the rest full of 'urges'

I guess some representatives missed one word when we have stated this should be for nations to decide, and that is wholly. Not partially like this, but the whole issue.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

Which is about as much water as this resolution holds with the 'Urges' all over the place, but we digress...

Let's start here. It uses urges, because 1.) stronger words are not needed. You can't have a mandate saying you can choose either or. Anything stronger than urges means you take one side or the other. And since you have stated so many times that you want this left at the national level, urges is the best word you can use to acheive that goal.

In which case it could be deemed a blocker, not that any proposal going either way would pass, and if it did, as we stated before, it would be quickly repealed. Also, we said Moral Big Brother. The way this is worded, while it 'urges' rather than makes, still sounds like it is condemning some areas and promoting others, actually possibly offending each side.

Why do you assume it would be quickly repealed? Is it because you personally believe this to be so, or do you have something to base this assumption off of other than it sounding like a compelling argument in your head? We have seen some very controversial resolutions that have taken several repeal attempts to finally remove them. Why you believe a resolution saying one way or the other would be repealed effortlessly is in my eyes without any solid facts. And what exactly is this condeming and promoting? Foced abortions? I'm really not seeing it in the current draft.

Whilst putting conditions on those choices, or pointing them in a certain direction. While the words dont have force, they do have weight.

What? The only conditions it applies is that "foced" abortions are illegal, and that if the mother's life is in danger, an abortion may be performed. I'm not really seeing your point here.

Yes, paper tiger. Given that we still stand by 2 of the 3 things that actually does something could be seen as illegal (Blocker for one, which we definitely stand by, and duplicity for another, which we admit could be borderline but still unnecessary) leaving only one thing that does anything and the rest full of 'urges'

OK. A blocker is not illegal, mkay? That has been said before, so let me say it one more time. Except I'll put on a pai of shades and have some dramatic music playing in the backgroud while I take them off and say it this time.

Melodramatic music plays in the background and Joebot turns towards the delegations in the room and removes his shades while Zarquon's voice comes from his PA system is a low but very serious voice.

Blockers.....aren't illegal. What makes proposals illegal is clearly outlined here. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) What exactly are you alleging this is duplicating? And again, saying "urge" is not illegal, and since the strength category on this will likely be either weak or significant, that is the only language it will be able to use.

I guess some representatives missed one word when we have stated this should be for nations to decide, and that is wholly. Not partially like this, but the whole issue.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

You are contradicting yourself. First you say you don't like it cause it urges instead of mandates. Then you don't like it cause you think it's an issue left at a national level, which by the way this does. Then you say you're fine with someone passing a resolution either making it legal or illegal because it would be quickly repealed. Then you say youragainst it because of illegalities that aren't really illegalities, just your random bitching. Now you want to say this is only "partially" taking on the issue. What the hell do you want? If it were for you'd be against it. If it were against you'd be against it. It's in the middle and you're still against it. Would you rather nobody ever had sex again we wouldn't have to bother with this? The leader of the Vitruvian race banished sex in all forms, and within 24 hours the entire race went extinct from mass suicides. Is that what you want?

Zarquon, out.

Joebot™ enters the room on behalf of Zarquon.

The Emperor is unable to appear personally so he will translate through my public address system. Stand by.

Girl from Ipanema plays softly

"[static]....is damn thing working? Oh hello, Zarquon here. Terribly sorry I couldn't be there in person, but I asked Joebot here to broadcast my take on this situation.

Firstly, I actually read through and looked at the new text this time. So worry not.

Secondly, Ariovist Lynxkind, would you kindly sew your ass shut and proceed to talk from your other end. You are making straw arguments that hold about as much water as a wicker basket.

The WA is not playing "Big Brother™" on this issue. If you note the text says member nations retain the right to render this practice legal or illegal if they chose so. How is this stamping on the moral fortitude of anyone? No one is being forced to do anything. This proposal is protecting the rights of nations to choose their stance on this issue. Without it, someone is free to come up with a bill that says it's either legal or outlawed with no exceptions.

Yes, in a way, it does allow choice, which you are apparently trying to associate with Pro-Choice/Pro-Life arguments, which really don't even come into play since this isn't taking one stance or the other but simply giving nations the legal right to choose if abortions are legal or not.

Paper tiger? BAH!!

Considering the new re-write, and the removal of certain items I had previously objected to, Zarquon Froods will support this measure so long as it maintains its current objective in solidifying the rights of nations to choose.

Zarquon, out.[static]"


With respect your Majesty your characterisation of this statute is only partially correct.

Specifically you are incorrect as to the position on Abortion this statute takes. It clearly prioritises the rights of the Foetus, from its opening phrases to its pointless urgings this statute has the Foetus's rights foremost among its concerns and nowhere does it even mention the right a women has over her own body.


This statute is designed to keep billions of women from the right to control what happens to their own bodies, in line with a policy which pretends that this right is dependent upon where these women happen to live. This statute pretends to respect the "choice" of nations in this matter, a choice which is not theirs to make, and vitiates the rights of billions of women to make such a choice.

This statute is avowedly anti-choice for billions of people, to pretend that it takes any pro-choice or neutral position is disingenuous. This statute could not hope to be neutral since it explicitly seeks to promote the rights of the Foetus at the expense of women, the fact that this statute's offensive priorities are left optional is beside the point, and the fact that it would steel plate the right of certain states to deny reproductive self determination to billions of their female citizens further proves it rampant bias.


This is not a law which protects the national sovereignty of member states of this organisation it is a document which would radically reduce the freedoms of billions of women, making them slaves to their reproductive organs, and clearly defining them as inferior in rights to men and the foetuses they carry in their bodies.


To pretend otherwise is dishonest.


Yours,

Okay I am going to start off with the last part first. No, it isnt that it says urges instead of mandates, as either way we would have opposed it, just for different reasons. No, we would not be fine with someone passing a resolution for or against, we would oppose both, and our assumption that it would be repealed easy (if it made it past the drafting stage and to quorum) because the debate on this particular issue is that tight that it would 'just' pass if a proposal was submitted, and the opponents of the passed resolution would have no problems getting a repeal brought to quorum and be passed as well.

On the issue of illegalities:
Another example of this is forbidding WA action at a future point in time -- you can't make your Resolution "Repeal-proof" or prohibit types of legislationI have known proposals in the past which have been thrown out just because one section violates this, like it does in this proposal.

As far as partially taking the issue, we believe the whole issue is best handled at a national level. The 'Urges' aside, it does take away segments from a nation, and it's people, their right to chose how to handle this issue.

Perhaps this may clear things up about our position: it is the consensus of the people of Tai Lao, and thus the mandate given to me, to oppose any legislation brought to the WA on a moral consensus, such as this issue, regardless of whether or not I as a person, or the nation itself actually agrees with it. One of the core values which we in Tai Lao hold dear is that individually we dont like the morals of others forced upon us, and thus in turn we do not force our morals on others. We do see merit in this legislation, questionable elements aside, and actually have some of it in place. However, as it is deemed a moral issue, we take this stance. We know it will be attacked, but we are firm in it.

Now, to deal with other parts, it seems that the Ambassador has misinterpreted us. Though using 'Urges' to make it seem like a choice option, it is still putting pressure on nations to follow a certain route. In some instances, the promotion of sex education and contraception could be an affront to an ideology or belief, but they would feel pressured to do so by this. Conversely, a peoples who believe that a foetus has no rights and condone the usage of abortion up until birth (not that we do) could feel pressured into having to follow something they dont believe through the words of this resolution. Though we readily accept that these are indeed optional, they do seem to lend pressure in instances, again violating our view of forcing morals upon others.

We hope that others understand our point of view, and if not, so be it. We just believe that morals are best left up to the individuals, not a bureaucratic body.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

With respect your Majesty your characterisation of this statute is only partially correct.

Specifically you are incorrect as to the position on Abortion this statute takes. It clearly prioritises the rights of the Foetus, from its opening phrases to its pointless urgings this statute has the Foetus's rights foremost among its concerns and nowhere does it even mention the right a women has over her own body.


This statute is designed to keep billions of women from the right to control what happens to their own bodies, in line with a policy which pretends that this right is dependent upon where these women happen to live. This statute pretends to respect the "choice" of nations in this matter, a choice which is not theirs to make, and vitiates the rights of billions of women to make such a choice.

This statute is avowedly anti-choice for billions of people, to pretend that it takes any pro-choice or neutral position is disingenuous. This statute could not hope to be neutral since it explicitly seeks to promote the rights of the Foetus at the expense of women, the fact that this statute's offensive priorities are left optional is beside the point, and the fact that it would steel plate the right of certain states to deny reproductive self determination to billions of their female citizens further proves it rampant bias.


This is not a law which protects the national sovereignty of member states of this organisation it is a document which would radically reduce the freedoms of billions of women, making them slaves to their reproductive organs, and clearly defining them as inferior in rights to men and the foetuses they carry in their bodies.


To pretend otherwise is dishonest.


Yours,

I believe you have presented part of our opposition better than what we have. Though it appears to give choice, the wording is full of condemnation for those that dont follow it, or at least that is how we see it.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador