NationStates Jolt Archive

*snip*

I am aware that the wording takes a slight anti-choice stance Abassador. What I am geting at is this section in particular:

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.

Clearly this leaves it at the national level. Now I know there are stipulations mentioned later in the text, but I'm not seeing how this is denying women the right to pro-choice as you are implying. I'm also slightly confused that you are saying this doesn't protect the nation's right to choose their stance while your co-author from Aundotutunagir says differently. Am I just being dense about this whole thing and making a gross oversight?

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 legislation

That's not what a blocker is Ambassador. What this means is you can't put a clause in your proposal that says something to the effect of "Hereby declares this resolution will not be eligable for repeal." Or, "Declares that abortion may not be extended to include dogs or other living animals by a future resolution."

Technically all resolutions prohibit types of legislation because a new proposal could be seen as either duplicating or contravening a resolution that has already been passed.

We aren't co-authoring this statute honoured Ambassador we are fundamentally opposed to it in every possible way, and we never said it did not protect member state's the right to deprive their female citizens of freedom over their own bodies, indeed that is the whole reason we oppose it.


Yours,

My apologies, but I thank you for clearing that up. A conversation you has very early on in this discussion led me to believe you had co-authored.

The stipulation that this would allow nations to make that decision based on their own morals is exactly why we would support this if it comes to vote. I suppose we will have to sit on opposite ends of the spectrum on this one.

The stipulation that this would allow nations to make that decision based on their own morals is exactly why we would support this if it comes to vote. I suppose we will have to sit on opposite ends of the spectrum on this one.
We will have to agree to disagree on this one, as we still feel that through the enforceable provisions and tone of the rest it still pushes nations to go in certain directions, not allows them to fully make the decision based on their morals.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

We will have to agree to disagree on this one, as we still feel that through the enforceable provisions and tone of the rest it still pushes nations to go in certain directions, not allows them to fully make the decision based on their morals.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

If a government is unable to make a decision based on their own morals it's their own damn fault. If a nation's morals are strong enough they will make the decision based on merit and not by the provisions of this proposal. If they are so easily persuaded, the question of how strong their morals really are comes into play.

If a government is unable to make a decision based on their own morals it's their own damn fault. If a nation's morals are strong enough they will make the decision based on merit and not by the provisions of this proposal. If they are so easily persuaded, the question of how strong their morals really are comes into play.
If they had those strong morals they would probably vote no on this anyway, but that isnt the point. There are 2 points that would be seen as enforceable (from a WA view) which would be seen as tying hands on the issue anyway, and even if they dont enact them, nations could feel the WA is condemning them by the wording of the rest in some form or other.

I can clearly see we will never see eye to eye on this, which is the reason why the people of Tai Lao chose to take their stance on moral-based resolutions to begin with. We will leave it at that.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

I can clearly see we will never see eye to eye on this, which is the reason why the people of Tai Lao chose to take their stance on moral-based resolutions to begin with. We will leave it at that.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

Now that's the smartest thing you've said during this whole discussion. And not just partially, but the WHOLE thing.

Now that's the smartest thing you've said during this whole discussion. And not just partially, but the WHOLE thing.


Ah so the honoured Ambassador's silence about his perfectly moral objections to this deeply immoral resolution is satisfaction to you, honoured Ambassador, is it ?

Yours,

The People's Republic of Jamahiriyastan fails to see how the protection of innocent life is immoral. Perhaps the Urgenchi would prefer a resolution binding us all by cold, hard atheism and callous disregard for precious life?

After the string of accusations he's made, most without merit, I gladly welcome the silence.

And seeing as how nation's may still freely excercise their moral obligations, I'm not inclined to say that this is immoral. And before you give me a string of arguments about how it is let me say this.

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.

These are the two sections you two are having trouble with correct? Forced abortions can be anything from a husband chaining his wife to a bed and hacking her open with a chainsaw to sedating her against her will and aborting in that way. I can't see how someone that claims to have decent morals would oppose this.

2.) If she's unconscious and having the fetus will cause her death, the medical proxy would be the one to make the call. How immoral is that. Someone just saved her life, but you seem to forget there is a chance the fetus will survive.

3.) As someone who just succesfully passed an Civil Rights charter I assume you could possibly sympathise with this.

Maybe drafting a proposal on the rights of fetuses will solidify the issue, oh wait it would get repealed so quickly my head would spin. Damn.

The People's Republic of Jamahiriyastan fails to see how the protection of innocent life is immoral. Perhaps the Urgenchi would prefer a resolution binding us all by cold, hard atheism and callous disregard for precious life?


No we would not.


Yours,

Very well then, the people of Jamahuriyastan and the people of Urgench have found something to agree upon. However, if that is so, we must ask why the Urgenchi would allow such disregard for the lives of the innocent to continue, rather than supporting this draft's proposition and eventual approval by the WA?

After the string of accusations he's made, most without merit, I gladly welcome the silence.

And seeing as how nation's may still freely excercise their moral obligations, I'm not inclined to say that this is immoral. And before you give me a string of arguments about how it is let me say this.



These are the two sections you two are having trouble with correct? Forced abortions can be anything from a husband chaining his wife to a bed and hacking her open with a chainsaw to sedating her against her will and aborting in that way. I can't see how someone that claims to have decent morals would oppose this.

2.) If she's unconscious and having the fetus will cause her death, the medical proxy would be the one to make the call. How immoral is that. Someone just saved her life, but you seem to forget there is a chance the fetus will survive.

3.) As someone who just succesfully passed an Civil Rights charter I assume you could possibly sympathise with this.

Maybe drafting a proposal on the rights of fetuses will solidify the issue, oh wait it would get repealed so quickly my head would spin. Damn.


What gives you the impression that we disagree with the proscription of forced abortion honoured Ambassador ?


We object to this statute because it will legally protect a state's decision to ban abortion. Considering that we believe that a person has the right to decide what happens to their own body and that no one has the right to force them to go through physical processes which they have not consented to, how could we support this resolution honoured Ambassador ?


Yours,

Very well then, the people of Jamahuriyastan and the people of Urgench have found something to agree upon. However, if that is so, we must ask why the Urgenchi would allow such disregard for the lives of the innocent to continue, rather than supporting this draft's proposition and eventual approval by the WA?


We highly doubt we have agreed upon anything honoured Ambassador.


Yours,

Since when are fetuses considered an organ of the human body? They are not. We believe it is common knowledge that a child and a mother do not constitute one body, both before and after birth.

Since when are fetuses considered an organ of the human body? They are not. We believe it is common knowledge that a child and a mother do not constitute one body, both before and after birth.

Eaxctly what is the honoured Ambassador talking about ?


Yours,

On the issue of illegalities:
I have known proposals in the past which have been thrown out just because one section violates this, like it does in this proposal.
It isn't illegal. Watch this, I'll submit it. (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=abortion) Let's see if it gets deleted.

We highly doubt we have agreed upon anything honoured Ambassador.


Yours,

Your continued belligerent attitude prevents our two nations from moving beyond any animosity.

Eaxctly what is the honoured Ambassador talking about ?


Yours,

The esteemed ambassador of the Urgenchi Khanate proclaimed that individuals have the right to decide what they do with their own body, which is true; however, I believe the esteemed ambassador meant to imply that the fetus constitutes part of the mother's body, which it does not.

Hm. I have to agree partly with Ambassador Lynxkind. While Ambassador Arororugul is parading this legislation around as nation's rights legislation, the wording makes it obvious that the legislation condemns abortion altogether. If the bias overtones were removed, it would be half way to an acceptable piece of legislation.

This late in the game, and considering our diplomatic relationships with the author, I don't expect any great heed to be taken to my concerns, but I shall list them anyways.

My first concern is the condemning of third-trimester abortions. No reasons are given, so I'm led to assume that it's based purely on religious or moral grounds, rather than scientific grounds. What's worrying is that this urging could actually result in the banning of third-trimester abortions, without ever considering why women get them in the first place. In a study found in a rather prominent international medical journal, it was found that almost three-quarters of women that requested abortions did so because they did not recognize that they were pregnant, or they misjudged gestation. This is how over 420 women responded to a survey asking why they did not request an abortion earlier in their pregnancies:

71% didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
48% found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
33% was afraid to tell her partner or parents
24% took time to decide to have an abortion
8% waited for her relationship to change
8% were pressured to not have abortion
6% something changed after woman became pregnant
6% didn't know timing is important
5% didn't know she could get an abortion
2% a fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
11% other

Furthermore, third-trimester abortions that result in the fetus still being alive are usually performed with the intact dilation and extraction method (IDX). When late-term abortions are performed using the dilation and evacuation method (D&E), however, partial-birth is not possible, as foeticide generally occurs. I would find it acceptable to discourage the use of the IDX method, but not the D&E method. I would not find it acceptable to sweepingly encourage nations to outlaw late-term abortion, when, more often then not, IDX is not used.

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

We object to this statute because it will legally protect a state's decision to ban abortion. Considering that we believe that a person has the right to decide what happens to their own body and that no one has the right to force them to go through physical processes which they have not consented to, how could we support this resolution honoured Ambassador ?


Yours,

Then is this not better than a resolution that will outrigth ban it across the board? And what physical process are you refering to, labor or the abortion itself? Because labor is the result of of someone consenting to an act that would result in pregnancy, otherwise it's rape which is another matter of its own accord.

By the way, in Zarquon Froods, doctors take an oath that they will do everything within their power to see that a patient survives. If that patient becomes unconscious for whatever reason, their proxy gives their consent on their behalf. Since medical proxies are named by the patient, or the next of kin if not specified, techincally they have consented.

Your continued belligerent attitude prevents our two nations from moving beyond any animosity.

There is no "belligerent attitude" on our part merely genuine incomprehension of your rather opaque and off point statement honoured Ambassador.



The esteemed ambassador of the Urgenchi Khanate proclaimed that individuals have the right to decide what they do with their own body, which is true; however, I believe the esteemed ambassador meant to imply that the fetus constitutes part of the mother's body, which it does not.

Please do not haruspicate over our words and read meanings into them that are not there. We meant exactly what we said and nothing more. We certainly do not need the honoured Ambassador of Jamahiriyastan to interpret for us in any case.

Yours,

After the string of accusations he's made, most without merit, I gladly welcome the silence.We believe that they are with merit, and will stand by that.

And seeing as how nation's may still freely excercise their moral obligationsWe disagree, as some parts enforce a line, and others are still condemning if nations dont take that line of action. For a nation to freely exercise their moral obligations, a proposal on this topic shouldnt even be contemplated. Again, we ask:

Why should the WA legislate on moral issues?

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

We believe that they are with merit, and will stand by that.

Believing they are is one thing, being able to prove they are is quite another.


Why should the WA legislate on moral issues?

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

Why not? It's already done so here, (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13835666&postcount=6) here, (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13835796&postcount=11) here, (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14065467&postcount=21) here, (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14140556&postcount=25) here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14306361&postcount=29) and here. (http://www.nationstates.net/10966/page=WA_past_resolutions/start=34)

So :p

Believing they are is one thing, being able to prove they are is quite another.



Why not? It's already done so here, (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13835666&postcount=6) here, (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13835796&postcount=11) here, (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14065467&postcount=21) here, (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14140556&postcount=25) here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14306361&postcount=29) and here. (http://www.nationstates.net/10966/page=WA_past_resolutions/start=34)

So :p

Besides, if we are going to legislate on morality isn't it best to do so in a way that doesn't force nations to compromise their principles?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Besides, if we are going to legislate on morality isn't it best to do so in a way that doesn't force nations to compromise their principles?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

This statute does not do that though honoured and esteemed Ambassador Flibble.


Yours,

This statute does not do that though honoured and esteemed Ambassador Flibble.


Yours,
With the exception of banning forced abortions and infanticide that is exactly what it does. Would you prefer that I left those up to national prerogative as well?

With the exception of banning forced abortions and infanticide that is exactly what it does. Would you prefer that I left those up to national prerogative as well?


And what exactly do banning forced abortion, which is in fact an extreme form of violent physical assault, and banning a from of murder in which a mother kills her child, have to do with the vague but nonetheless offensive insults to nations who allow abortion contained in this statute noble General ?

To be clear, you have included two forms of crime against the person which have nothing to do with abortion in a statute which pretends to protect the life of the foetus, which in fact does not do, while it does offend many nations which do not share its anti-woman bias ?

The second of these crimes is already illegal under international law, and doubtless both are illegal under most national laws in any case.

Seriously noble General, even you must admit that this resolution is nothing but a blocker with some unrelated window dressing and offensive verbiage attached to it mustn't you ?


Yours,

To be clear, you have included two forms of crime against the person which have nothing to do with abortion
So neither banning forced abortions nor protecting infants that have managed to survive an attempted abortion have anything to do with abortion? I see.

So neither banning forced abortions nor protecting infants that have managed to survive an attempted abortion have anything to do with abortion? I see.


Simply make it illegal to force abortions on the female citizens of member states, and you will have our support. The second issue is already covered by w.a. legislation and it would be unecessary to further legislate for it..

But what all this has to do with the other foolishness contained in this statute is beyond us.


Yours,

Believing they are is one thing, being able to prove they are is quite another.



Why not? It's already done so here, (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13835666&postcount=6) here, (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13835796&postcount=11) here, (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14065467&postcount=21) here, (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14140556&postcount=25) here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14306361&postcount=29) and here. (http://www.nationstates.net/10966/page=WA_past_resolutions/start=34)

So :pLets see...

Human Rights, Human Rights, Human Rights, Human Rights, Furtherment of Democracy and Human Rights. Nice try.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

Lets see...

Human Rights, Human Rights, Human Rights, Human Rights, Furtherment of Democracy and Human Rights. Nice try.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

Are Human Rights not moral issues?:eek:

Are Human Rights not moral issues?:eek:

No

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

No

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

Then what are they Ambassdor? I'm sure if you were to poll those who voted for all those resolutions I'm sure they would disagree.

Abortion problem come up in Glog land lately. Cause many fights. Much shouting. SHOUTING BAD!!! Here part of debate. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ll-lia-FEIY)

Glog Firemaker, son of Glog Crushdogskullwithrock
WA Ambassador

Then what are they Ambassdor? I'm sure if you were to poll those who voted for all those resolutions I'm sure they would disagree.

Well, it's not a common argument, but it can be said that morals change from group to group, while human rights are universal.

Clearly, what is moral in Glen-Rhodes is not moral in the author's nation, as we do not view abortion in any way immoral.

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

Well, it's not a common argument, but it can be said that morals change from group to group, while human rights are universal.

Thank you, Dr Castro, for putting what we also believe in our absence. Rights are rights where as morals are choices.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

Thank you, Dr Castro, for putting what we also believe in our absence. Rights are rights where as morals are choices.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador


Balderdash! Rights are only rights if someone gives them to you, an they can be taken from you just as easily. You aren't born with them despite what you believe. The only reason you have them is because somebody granted them to you on a piece of paper. You two say there is a difference between rights and morals and I say they are one in the same.

Balderdash! Rights are only rights if someone gives them to you, an they can be taken from you just as easily. You aren't born with them despite what you believe. The only reason you have them is because somebody granted them to you on a piece of paper. You two say there is a difference between rights and morals and I say they are one in the same.

Human Rights can only be taken, Ambassador, usually without the choice of the individuals. Morals, on the other hand are choices made by the individuals. That is the difference.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

This debate on rights vs. morals is certainly very interesting....

....well no, actually it isn't, and it probably should be continued in the General forum.

It is in the "Moral Decency" category because that is the category it fits in. If the category were called "Ethical Wholesomeness" instead of "Moral Decency" it would still be in that category.

This debate on rights vs. morals is certainly very interesting....

....well no, actually it isn't ...

It should be, considering the entire basis of your argument is whether or not it's moral to have an abortion.

There's a reason why the World Assembly has yet to pass a resolution with the category of Moral Decency. The category is inherently flawed because the simple fact that morals are not homogeneous.

Not even a single resolution that has been cited as being based on morals was submitted as a Moral Decency resolution; almost all of them were human rights, because the concept of human rights is universal. They do not change from nation to nation, from culture to culture.

You would have a much better argument, although one that would still be ludicrously bias and one that we would still not agree with, if you argued that unborn children have human rights, too, and reflected that stance within the resolution itself, instead of overtly chiding those of us that do not believe abortions are immoral.

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

You would have a much better argument, although one that would still be ludicrously bias and one that we would still not agree with, if you argued that unborn children have human rights, too, and reflected that stance within the resolution itself, instead of overtly chiding those of us that do not believe abortions are immoral.I remember more than a few abortion issues boiling down to that question and turning into a horrible discussion.

Because of course, this is almost dignified. :)

Of course, it's interesting you suggest Aundotutunagir presents a case that unborn children are human beings, yet it look to my untrained eye that in his preamble he is suggesting that exact thing, but in the active clauses only has personhood bestowed upon them at birth...it strikes me it was an effort to compromise, but the preamble doesn't quite fit the active clauses.

Of course, it's interesting you suggest Aundotutunagir presents a case that unborn children are human beings, yet it look to my untrained eye that in his preamble he is suggesting that exact thing, but in the active clauses only has personhood bestowed upon them at birth...it strikes me it was an effort to compromise, but the preamble doesn't quite fit the active clauses.

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,
I see no human rights arguments in here. What I do see is the preamble correctly noting that the resolution is in no way a compromise.

Let me make it clear that I do support a ban on IDX abortions (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14486158&postcount=269), which almost always result in the fetus still being alive upon extraction, and foeticide immediately takes place, as per the entire idea of an abortion. What I do not support is a sweeping ban on late-term abortions, especially when there are safe ways of going about them, and the criminalizing of foeticide in regards to partial-birth abortions.

It's all a thinly-veiled attempt to push pro-life morals on nations that neither view abortion or late-term abortion immoral.

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

It should be, considering the entire basis of your argument is whether or not it's moral to have an abortion.
But all of that's what the point is not. The point's that yourself and the Tai Lao delegation are attempting to spark a generalized discussion on the definition of "morals" vs. the definition of "rights".

If you want to discuss whether or not it's moral to have an abortion, that's fine.

But all of that's what the point is not. The point's that yourself and the Tai Lao delegation are attempting to spark a generalized discussion on the definition of "morals" vs. the definition of "rights".

Rather, a discussion on whether or not the World Assembly should consider morals to be legally actionable, especially in the case of abortions.

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

Rather, a discussion on whether or not the World Assembly should consider morals to be legally actionable, especially in the case of abortions.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes
The World Assembly considers morals to be legally actionable otherwise the Moral Decency category would not exist. If you consider the category flawed and want it removed then take it up with the Mods.

The World Assembly considers morals to be legally actionable otherwise the Moral Decency category would not exist. If you consider the category flawed and want it removed then take it up with the Mods.

The existence of a category does not implicitly translate to the acceptability of legislation. The debates about and the votes given for the legislation will tell us whether or not the nations of the World Assembly are comfortable with Aundotutunagir pushing it's moral bias on them.

I notice that you address my accusations on morality (more so, you've told me to take my comments elsewhere...), but have not even bothered to address my suggestions on the differences between IDX abortions and D&E abortions. Maybe this says something? Maybe it doesn't.

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

Simply make it illegal to force abortions on the female citizens of member states, and you will have our support.
I may do just that, Khan of Kashgar. The blocking aspects of this could be saved for another day, another Resolution. There doesn't seem to be any serious movement afoot to legalize abortion WA-wide. If such an effort were to spring up I could get a blocking resolution to quorum fairly easily.

The second issue is already covered by w.a. legislation and it would be unecessary to further legislate for it..
I'm not so sure that the Child Protection Act would cover all newborns under all circumstances. Consider a nation that legally recognizes a child as a "child" that has been "born" only after the umbilical is cut. Or a nation that refuses to legally recognize fetuses that are delivered as part of an abortion procedure as "children". It is gruesome to think about but there are ways in which newborns could be killed in circumvention of the Child Protection Act.

But what all this has to do with the other foolishness contained in this statute is beyond us.
Could you accept any regulation of late-term abortions? Bans on certain of the more barbaric procedures or regulation of which circumstances a late-term abortion could be performed under?

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".

I apologize for not reading this entire thread and jumping in. Please excuse me if my questions/points are repetitive.

1. What exactly do The Aundotutunagirian People think this resolution achieves? What problem does it solve?

2. Why make the third trimester a cut-off point, rather than the far more relevant point of viability?

3. Why make the presumption that third trimester abortions be illegal, but states can make exceptions? As opposed to simply legislating the possibility of exceptions?

4. Why should states be free to ban abortions "in cases of rape, incest, severe fetal abnormality, or severe medical risk to the life of the mother" at all?

5. Why only allow an exception for "severe medical risk to the life" of the mother? What about lesser risks to the life of the mother? What about harm to the health of the mother?

Having now read the 20-pages of anti-abortion screed (with a few exceptions of posts by those that actually consider women to be persons with rights), let me update my comments to address the most recent version of the abomination of a resolution.

STATING its commitment to the protection of innocent life,

Utter bullshit. Any WA member state that allows its citizens to eat meat or even vegetables fails to protect "innocent life." Not everything that is alive has a right to life. Unborn humans -- particularly in the early stages of preganacy -- have a less convincing case of personhood and/or a right to life than chimps, dolphins, or pigs.

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

The unborn have residency?

Why does the resolution not seek instead to protect the female residents of WA member states and trust in their ability to make rational, ethical decisions?

Treating unborn humans as if they have greater rights that born female humans is simply sexism.

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

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

Exactly how does this resolution propose a compromise? It allows WA member states to deprive women of fundamental rights throughout a pregnancy?

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,

How many member states allow the unborn to be killed at advantaged stages of their development -- except in extenuating circumstances like a threat to the life or health of the mother, severe fetal deformity, or rape?

Do The People of Aundotutunagir have such distrust of its female population that it expects them to go around killing the unborn willy-nilly?


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.

Perhaps if the tone of the resolution wasn't clearly anti-abortion this provision would seem less ominious. Regardless, this provision clearly relegates women to second-class citizenship without the right to control their own bodies.

Further, why should WA member states be allowed to make abortion illegal in the early stages of pregnancy? Why should WA member states be allowed to make abortion illegal even when the life of the mother is endangered?

Once again, I ask: what does this seek to achieve? What harm does it solve?

Finally, I suggest that attempts to ban or restrict abortion are counter-productive. Repressive states still have abortions, just ones that are later in pregnancy AND less safe for the woman. If one truly wishes to reduce abortion, then there are better means than depriving women of rights.

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.

Rather unobjectionable, although it begs the question of whether involuntary abortions are really a problem that needs to be addressed.

Why should abortion be treated differently in this respect than other medical procedures that may be necessary for any number of reasons when the patient is unable to 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.

Much improved. But what about cases of danger to the life or health of the mother, severe fetal deformity, rape, or incest? Should these not be universal exceptions?

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.

Again, I question the necessity or need for this provision, especially in light of existing WA resolutions. I believe the author is seeking to address a fictional problem and using a sledgehammer, when a flyswatter will do.

Further, the last sentence equates intentional killing with mere negligence. This is an unnecessary, objectionable wholesale change in the homicide statutes of The Cat-Tribe and undoubtedly most other WA member states. Given the content of the first two sentences, the last sentence is superfluous anyway.

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.

These are excellent ideas. If the resolution focused on these and similar provisions, it would truly be worthwhile.

I would add the following comments from an old post of mine:

I would yield to no one in my opposition to any ban or limitation on the availability of abortion. As someone wise said: "No touchie the right of the human to do as the human wishes to the human's own body." I hold that sacred.

My suggestions for making abortion rarer would be along the lines of:

universal access to contraceptives
sharing of contraceptive technology
investiment in contraceptive technology -- seek to make it more effective, safer, usable by both (all?) genders
universal access to family planning
universal access to pre-natal, obstretic, and post-natal services
sharing of pre-natal, obstretic, and post-natal technology
investment in pre-natal, obstretic, post-natal technology
universal sex education (and sharing, investment, etc)
financial aid to remove economic reasons for abortion (i.e., remove economic barriers to childbirth)
education, awareness, prevention, and counseling programs to prevent rape and incest


These are some off-the-cuff ideas. I am sure they will cause mass hysteria. But if one truly wishes to stop abortions then one should work on removing unwanted pregancies and other causes of abortion.

My suggestions for making abortion rarer would be along the lines of:

universal access to contraceptives
sharing of contraceptive technology
investiment in contraceptive technology -- seek to make it more effective, safer, usable by both (all?) genders
universal access to family planning
universal access to pre-natal, obstretic, and post-natal services
sharing of pre-natal, obstretic, and post-natal technology
investment in pre-natal, obstretic, post-natal technology
universal sex education (and sharing, investment, etc)
financial aid to remove economic reasons for abortion (i.e., remove economic barriers to childbirth)
education, awareness, prevention, and counseling programs to prevent rape and incest


All excellent suggestions. Perhaps a piece of counter-legislation should be drafted that seeks to achieve these goals, rather than ban abortions outright?

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

All excellent suggestions. Perhaps a piece of counter-legislation should be drafted that seeks to achieve these goals, rather than ban abortions outright?

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

Then why doesn't his high holiness from Glenn-Rhodes draft it instead of constantly attacking this measure? I've only seen one other person actually attempt to write another proposal.

Then why doesn't his high holiness from Glenn-Rhodes draft it instead of constantly attacking this measure? I've only seen one other person actually attempt to write another proposal.Well, I did just recently conclude a three-month debate on a piece of education legislation. Longer, if you count the debates of its predecessors.

However, if I find that I wish to go through the process again, and I contact the Cat-Tribe delegation, and if they give me permission to use their ideas as a foundation, then perhaps I will draft a proposal on the subject.

On a side note: I vehemently disagree with this legislation. Of course I'm going to rally against it. Also, 'holy' the last word I would use to describe myself, given by secular humanist nature... but, I digress.

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

Having now read the 20-pages of anti-abortion screed (with a few exceptions of posts by those that actually consider women to be persons with rights), let me update my comments to address the most recent version of the abomination of a resolution.
I admire your courage and determination for reading the entire thread. I also forgive you for your earlier post commenting on the first draft which is approximately 100 years old.

Utter bullshit. Any WA member state that allows its citizens to eat meat or even vegetables fails to protect "innocent life."
Vegetables, ambassador?

Not everything that is alive has a right to life. Unborn humans -- particularly in the early stages of preganacy -- have a less convincing case of personhood and/or a right to life than chimps, dolphins, or pigs.
I'm hoping that this bit of rubbish is just you trying to get a rise out of those of us who oppose abortion. Unfortunately, I fear that these are your actual sentiments and that they are shared by certain other delegations of this assembly.

The unborn have residency?
Well, yes. Would you rather I had used "citizens" or "nationals"?

Why does the resolution not seek instead to protect the female residents of WA member states and trust in their ability to make rational, ethical decisions?
Because they might make irrational and unethical decisions.

Treating unborn humans as if they have greater rights that born female humans is simply sexism.
1. Where does the Resolution treat unborn humans (you admit they're human?) as if they have greater rights than born female humans?

2. If the unborn human is female is it still sexism?

Exactly how does this resolution propose a compromise? It allows WA member states to deprive women of fundamental rights throughout a pregnancy?
It also allows WA member states to grant full access to abortions with no restrictions at all, if they so choose.

How many member states allow the unborn to be killed at advantaged stages of their development -- except in extenuating circumstances like a threat to the life or health of the mother, severe fetal deformity, or rape?
How many member states don't? I'm not sure such statistics are kept by the WA or have been compiled yet. It would be interesting to know though...

Do The People of Aundotutunagir have such distrust of its female population that it expects them to go around killing the unborn willy-nilly?
No. Aundotutunagirian women would not be likely to do such a thing. It is the immoral and Godless foreigners who have been led astray by polluted doctrines that we worry about.

Perhaps if the tone of the resolution wasn't clearly anti-abortion this provision would seem less ominious. Regardless, this provision clearly relegates women to second-class citizenship without the right to control their own bodies.
I'm just not seeing this "anti-woman" tone. This has been pointed out by the heathens from Urgench as well and I am frankly dumbfounded by the accusation.

Further, why should WA member states be allowed to make abortion illegal in the early stages of pregnancy?
Well why should they be allowed to make it legal? I'm leaving the option open. Nations may either legalize or outlaw or regulate voluntary abortions as they see fit. Naturally I would prefer if they banned them outright, or at least applied some sensible regulations, but it is left up to them in the end.

Why should WA member states be allowed to make abortion illegal even when the life of the mother is endangered?
And again, why should they be allowed to legalize it in those circumstances?

Once again, I ask: what does this seek to achieve? What harm does it solve?
Simply put, it does three things:

1. Blocks future WA legislation on the subject of voluntary abortion. It leaves the matter up to the discretion of national governments and prevents WA interference in that decision.

2. It outlaws forced abortions, something I'm sure you oppose.

3. It protects born-alive infants.

The rest are just urging and strongly urging clauses.

Finally, I suggest that attempts to ban or restrict abortion are counter-productive. Repressive states still have abortions, just ones that are later in pregnancy AND less safe for the woman. If one truly wishes to reduce abortion, then there are better means than depriving women of rights.
I'm certain you would classify Aundotutunagir as a "repressive state", yet there are no abortions performed there. So your theory collapses.

Rather unobjectionable, although it begs the question of whether involuntary abortions are really a problem that needs to be addressed.
You wonder if forced abortions are really a problem? I suppose not, unless you happen to be a woman who is forced to undergo one....

Why should abortion be treated differently in this respect than other medical procedures that may be necessary for any number of reasons when the patient is unable to consent?
I'm still working on the medical consent part of that clause. That wording will be the refined by the final draft.

Much improved. But what about cases of danger to the life or health of the mother, severe fetal deformity, rape, or incest? Should these not be universal exceptions?
Possibly. Remember that this is still a work in progress and as I mentioned to the Urgenchi delegation I may break parts of it off into a resolution dealing with infanticide and forced abortion only. The preamble, the blocking clause, and the clause dealing with late-term abortions could be reserved for a later resolution.

Again, I question the necessity or need for this provision, especially in light of existing WA resolutions. I believe the author is seeking to address a fictional problem and using a sledgehammer, when a flyswatter will do.
I don't question the necessity or need for this provision. There are many ways in which infanticide of this nature could be, and probably are, carried out. In any case, what harm would it do to extend this protection to all born-alive infants considering that some of them, in some nations, might not be covered by the Child Protection Act?

Further, the last sentence equates intentional killing with mere negligence. This is an unnecessary, objectionable wholesale change in the homicide statutes of The Cat-Tribe and undoubtedly most other WA member states. Given the content of the first two sentences, the last sentence is superfluous anyway.
You may be right. As I said, the born-alive infant provisions are likely to end up in a different Resolution and will be expanded upon and refined.

These are excellent ideas. If the resolution focused on these and similar provisions, it would truly be worthwhile.
Thank you. They were suggested by the Quintessence of Dust delegation and will doubtless find their way into a proposal attempting to legalize abortion WA-wide, which I will be forced to prevent with a blocking resolution similar to this one.

I would add the following comments from an old post of mine:

I would yield to no one in my opposition to any ban or limitation on the availability of abortion. As someone wise said: "No touchie the right of the human to do as the human wishes to the human's own body." I hold that sacred.

My suggestions for making abortion rarer would be along the lines of:

universal access to contraceptives
sharing of contraceptive technology
investiment in contraceptive technology -- seek to make it more effective, safer, usable by both (all?) genders
universal access to family planning
universal access to pre-natal, obstretic, and post-natal services
sharing of pre-natal, obstretic, and post-natal technology
investment in pre-natal, obstretic, post-natal technology
universal sex education (and sharing, investment, etc)
financial aid to remove economic reasons for abortion (i.e., remove economic barriers to childbirth)
education, awareness, prevention, and counseling programs to prevent rape and incest


These are some off-the-cuff ideas. I am sure they will cause mass hysteria. But if one truly wishes to stop abortions then one should work on removing unwanted pregancies and other causes of abortion.
Yes, all of those would decrease the abortion rate. I wouldn't disagree with you.

I'll try to get back to your more trivial responses later, but I have a few immediate comments.


Vegetables, ambassador?

I'm hoping that this bit of rubbish is just you trying to get a rise out of those of us who oppose abortion. Unfortunately, I fear that these are your actual sentiments and that they are shared by certain other delegations of this assembly.

Yes, Ambassador. Would you deny that plants are alive? That cows, sheep, pigs, and other animals are alive? Have they committed some crime? If not, then killing and eating them is destruction of "innocent life." So, I repeat my claim that your asserted desire to protect all innocent life is bullshit.

Please enlighten us on what grounds some entities have a right to life and how one determines what entities do not have a right to life.

We have no problem explaining that it is persons (regardless of species) that are entitled to a right to life and other rights. Late-term fetuses may arguably be persons (although they are rarely aborted and almost exclusively for medical reasons), but zygotes and embryos lack compelling claims to personhood.

Where does the Resolution treat unborn humans (you admit they're human?) as if they have greater rights than born female humans?

You are giving the unborn greater rights to the body of the mother than you are to the mother herself. You take from the one and give to the other.

How many member states don't? I'm not sure such statistics are kept by the WA or have been compiled yet. It would be interesting to know though...

Perhaps when Aundotutunagir has done it's homework and can show there is actually a problem here needing to be addressed, you can justify impinging on national sovereignty and individual rights.


I'm just not seeing this "anti-woman" tone. This has been pointed out by the heathens from Urgench as well and I am frankly dumbfounded by the accusation.

A woman has the right to self-ownership, to control over her own body. This is a fundamental liberty not to be lightly dismissed. To focus on illusory "babies" is to ignore the only undeniably living, human, person with rights in the situation.

Moreover, women are moral agents. If you trust women to have children, then you must trust them to make decisions about their pregancies. It is an unbelievably arrogant to assume you know better. To deprive women of choice is simple tyranny.

Systematically depriving one gender of rights is sexism. QED.


I'm certain you would classify Aundotutunagir as a "repressive state", yet there are no abortions performed there. So your theory collapses.

Really, can you prove that? Your nation may be an exception to the rule, but it is a rule nonetheless.

Yes, all of those would decrease the abortion rate. I wouldn't disagree with you.

But you won't commit to any of them. Because your agenda is not really to decrease abortion, but to impose your moral view and deprive WA citizens of rights. So much for caring about innocent lives.

Well, I did just recently conclude a three-month debate on a piece of education legislation. Longer, if you count the debates of its predecessors.

However, if I find that I wish to go through the process again, and I contact the Cat-Tribe delegation, and if they give me permission to use their ideas as a foundation, then perhaps I will draft a proposal on the subject.

On a side note: I vehemently disagree with this legislation. Of course I'm going to rally against it. Also, 'holy' the last word I would use to describe myself, given by secular humanist nature... but, I digress.

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

For the record, I take no pride of ownership in the ideas I suggested to truly reduce abortions. Anyone is free to use them in a proposal.

Yes, Ambassador. Would you deny that plants are alive? That cows, sheep, pigs, and other animals are alive? Have they committed some crime? If not, then killing and eating them is destruction of "innocent life." So, I repeat my claim that your asserted desire to protect all innocent life is bullshit.

Please enlighten us on what grounds some entities have a right to life and how one determines what entities do not have a right to life.
Well I would think that protecting the unborn members of one's own species would take precedence over protecting the "rights" of plants, cows, sheep, pigs, and other animals. But that's just me.

We have no problem explaining that it is persons (regardless of species) that are entitled to a right to life and other rights. Late-term fetuses may arguably be persons (although they are rarely aborted and almost exclusively for medical reasons), but zygotes and embryos lack compelling claims to personhood.
That is only your opinion, ambassador. I could make the counter claim that personhood begins at the moment of conception, with about as much chance of proving it as you would have of disproving it.

You are giving the unborn greater rights to the body of the mother than you are to the mother herself. You take from the one and give to the other.
How?

Article 1 allows national governments to make that decision concerning voluntary abortions. Not me. Not you. Not the WA. National governments. This is as it should be.

Article 2 outlaws forced abortions. How does that give the unborn greater rights to the body of the mother than the mother herself?

Article 3 urges that late-term abortions be outlawed. It doesn't mandate it.

Article 4 protects born-alive infants.

Articles 5 and 6 also merely urge, but they urge things that you have indicated that you support.

How do any of the active clauses give the unborn greater rights to the body of the mother than the mother herself?

Perhaps when Aundotutunagir has done it's homework and can show there is actually a problem here needing to be addressed, you can justify impinging on national sovereignty and individual rights.
Perhaps you should do your homework and show that there isn't a problem. Two can play this game.

Oh and, national sovereignty? If you were truly concerned about national sovereignty you would support this because of Article 1 alone.

A woman has the right to self-ownership, to control over her own body. This is a fundamental liberty not to be lightly dismissed. To focus on illusory "babies" is to ignore the only undeniably living, human, person with rights in the situation.
Babies are not illusory, ambassador. I have seen them. They are real.

Moreover, women are moral agents. If you trust women to have children, then you must trust them to make decisions about their pregancies. It is an unbelievably arrogant to assume you know better. To deprive women of choice is simple tyranny.
It is equally arrogant to assume that they will always make the correct decision in these matters simply because they are women. Furthermore, it is naive to assume that they won't be pressured, cajoled and even forced to make incorrect decisions by others.

Systematically depriving one gender of rights is sexism. QED.
Indeed it would be, but I have not proposed doing so.

Really, can you prove that? Your nation may be an exception to the rule, but it is a rule nonetheless.
I admit that it is exceptional and few other nations would have such an exemplary record.

But you won't commit to any of them. Because your agenda is not really to decrease abortion, but to impose your moral view and deprive WA citizens of rights. So much for caring about innocent lives.
I don't commit to them in this particular resolution, but I would not oppose them in another.

Well I would think that protecting the unborn members of one's own species would take precedence over protecting the "rights" of plants, cows, sheep, pigs, and other animals. But that's just me.

You may want to beware of the sapient bears, ambassador.

I'm certain you would classify Aundotutunagir as a "repressive state", yet there are no abortions performed there. So your theory collapses.

(OOC: Unless this is meant to be similar to Ahmadinejad and his saying that there are no gays in Iran, this is godmodding. Either way, though, it's a completely invalid as an argument)

You may want to beware of the sapient bears, ambassador.
If they are sapient then that is another matter.



(OOC: Unless this is meant to be similar to Ahmadinejad and his saying that there are no gays in Iran, this is godmodding. Either way, though, it's a completely invalid as an argument)
OOC: You have no sense of humor.

OOC: You have no sense of humor.

This is the WA, there is no such thing as a sense of humor.

[OOC: Unfortunately it's not very easy to tell if you're joking or deadly serious.]

I'm certain you would classify Aundotutunagir as a "repressive state", yet there are no abortions performed there. So your theory collapses.Well, you mean no abortions performed that you know of. Which means that either the underground medical industry is getting a lot of trade, or you are just not looking hard enough. Probably both.

It's naivety at best claiming no abortions happen in your nation, and outright ignorance and stupidity at worst.

I suspect there is a booming coat hanger industry in your nation.

*snip*

I see no point in continuing a serious debate if you intend to answer first questions with snarky remarks and evasions. You come at this debate from a certain viewpoint, but appear to be unwilling to actually defend that viewpoint. I think that alone should give WA members pause about jumping on your bandwagon.

I will grant that your proposal as it now stands isn't actively sexist. Your agenda, however, is anti-abortion and I maintain that is sexist. At a minimum, your blocking agenda is intended to protect the ability of WA nations to systematically deprive women of rights. So sexism once removed at best.

I do question how many embryos or zygotes the Ambassador has personally seen and can assure us are real "babies." :wink:

I have two final points:

(1) Many of your responses to my primary critique were "it's a work in progress and may be changed." I hope you do follow through on such changes and I believe the criticisms stand until you do so.

(2) You never really answered how allowing states to ban early stage pregnancies even in cases of a threat to the life of the mother, severe deformity, rape or incest is a good thing. It is no answer to say your resolution does not require such laws. The question is why we should adopt a blocking resolution specifically intended to allow such laws.

OOC: You have no sense of humor.

I am sad that the Ambassador considers the subject of illegal and unsafe abortions to be humorous. Tens of thousands of women die each year in repressive states due to unsafe abortions. Repressive laws are both abhorrent and counter-productive.

I will grant that your proposal as it now stands isn't actively sexist. Your agenda, however, is anti-abortion and I maintain that is sexist.

So depriving the "right" of people to murder unborn children is now sexist. Wow, who knew? I wasn't aware any particular gender had a right to murder.

At a minimum, your blocking agenda is intended to protect the ability of WA nations to systematically deprive women of rights. So sexism once removed at best.

Again, one can dispute the notion that there is some inherent "right" to kill unborn children for whatever reason one wishes. It is a so-called "right" my nation would certainly dispute.

I do question how many embryos or zygotes the Ambassador has personally seen and can assure us are real "babies." :wink:

Cute. I question what proof you have to offer that they are not living beings who have their own inherent right to life.

The Federation was leaning against supporting this measure because of the fact that we felt it made too many concessions to the baby-mangling industry. However, we may well have to change our stance, in order to protect our cultural and national belief that simply tossing babies in a trash bin because they're an inconvenience is a bad thing.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

So depriving the "right" of people to murder unborn children is now sexist. Wow, who knew? I wasn't aware any particular gender had a right to murder.

Again, one can dispute the notion that there is some inherent "right" to kill unborn children for whatever reason one wishes. It is a so-called "right" my nation would certainly dispute.

Cute. I question what proof you have to offer that they are not living beings who have their own inherent right to life.

The Federation was leaning against supporting this measure because of the fact that we felt it made too many concessions to the baby-mangling industry. However, we may well have to change our stance, in order to protect our cultural and national belief that simply tossing babies in a trash bin because they're an inconvenience is a bad thing.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

The Cat-Tribe asks the Ambassador to read up the thread a few posts and discover where we have already said:

A woman has the right to self-ownership, to control over her own body. This is a fundamental liberty not to be lightly dismissed. To focus on illusory "babies" is to ignore the only undeniably living, human, person with rights in the situation.

Moreover, women are moral agents. If you trust women to have children, then you must trust them to make decisions about their pregancies. It is an unbelievably arrogant to assume you know better. To deprive women of choice is simple tyranny.

Systematically depriving one gender of rights is sexism. QED.


And:

Yes, Ambassador. Would you deny that plants are alive? That cows, sheep, pigs, and other animals are alive? Have they committed some crime? If not, then killing and eating them is destruction of "innocent life." So, I repeat my claim that your asserted desire to protect all innocent life is bullshit.

Please enlighten us on what grounds some entities have a right to life and how one determines what entities do not have a right to life.

We have no problem explaining that it is persons (regardless of species) that are entitled to a right to life and other rights. Late-term fetuses may arguably be persons (although they are rarely aborted and almost exclusively for medical reasons), but zygotes and embryos lack compelling claims to personhood.

Further, The Cat-Tribe finds it sad that The Altan Steppes has such a low view of it's female citizens that it believes they "simply toss[] babies in a trash bin because they're an inconvenience."

EDIT: The Cat-Tribe reemphasizes that repressive laws enslave and endanger women but fail to actually stop abortions. Women are simply forced into unsafe abortions. On the other hand, the suggestions made by The Cat-Tribe regarding contraception, sex education, etc, would actually drastically reduce abortion without infringing on anyone's rights or causing the death of women.

I find it humorous and rather telling of the state of this proposal that the delegations of the Altan Steppes, Hirota, and Aundotutunagir have resorted to insults, jabs, generalizations, and facetiously mocking those of us who support women's rights over imaginative embryonic rights, in an attempt to seemingly paint us as idiots.

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

It has just about been agreed that, with the exception of the 'forced abortions' article, this proposal is nothing more than a blocker with a bunch of extraneous, useless "urge" articles.

The Peoples of Sasquatchewain would simply wish an answer to the following question:
Given how forced abortions do not have so much to do with the (arguable) rights of the fetus, but rather with the rights of the woman, it is evident that pre-existent WA laws can be applied to her without doubt (as opposed to children who survive botched abortions, as the ambassador for Aundotutunagir has somewhat suggested).

However, wouldn't a woman already be protected against forced abortions by Resolution #35, The Charter of Civil Rights, more precisely Article 2b: "Unprovoked violence against or intimidation of any person on the grounds outlined in clause c) of article 1 of this resolution shall be a civil cause and criminal offense in all member states?" In the case of "gender," this therefore means that violence or intimidation of a woman is a criminal offense.

Doesn't this, in and of itself, protect women against forced abortions, which occur either by force or through coercion?

Or, should that not be enough or too indirect, Resolution #29, Patient's Right Act, article III: "(III) Patients have the right to be involved in decisions concerning their care [...]" A woman can not be non-violently coerced into having an abortion if she is not allowed to be involved into decisions concerning the medical treatment that is an abortion. Sure, she might just be saying yes to it all in order to not get beaten when she gets home, but that is merely a form of marital (or otherwise) abuse, which is also illegal according to Resolution #35. Plus, how could this possibly be legislated? How could a doctor possibly know this is the case?

In fact, the only somewhat-valid argument for the maintenance of this proposal is non-violent forced abortions. Violently forced abortions (where the woman is forced to do so not because she has been coerced into doing so but because she is being held down during the procedure) are, by very nature, illegal, either according to Resolution #35 (which bans violence or intimidation of one by their gender) or by Resolution #29 (which prohibits doctors from taking decisions for their patients without the patients' consent). And, it is reasonable (remembering the idea of "Reasonable Nations") to assume that sticking a needle (or worse) into another without said person's consent is, at very least, assault.

However, as I've already mentioned, even coerced abortions are a weak argument either by Resolution #35 (bans intimidation), Resolution #29 (requires the patient to accept the treatment by her own free will), and indirectly by Resolution #30 (Freedom of Expression, which prohibits the stifling of the woman's right to object to the treatment).

So... if forced abortions are already de facto protected by WA law, doesn't that bring this proposal down to a blocker and "urges?"

Further, The Cat-Tribe finds it sad that The Altan Steppes has such a low view of it's female citizens that it believes they "simply toss[] babies in a trash bin because they're an inconvenience."

Don't put words in my mouth, Ambassador. I never said that my government views its citizens that way:

However, we may well have to change our stance, in order to protect our cultural and national belief that simply tossing babies in a trash bin because they're an inconvenience is a bad thing.

In other words, our female citizens do not tend to do such things. That's what I meant when I was referring to a cultural belief, since that apparently was not clear.

EDIT: The Cat-Tribe reemphasizes that repressive laws enslave and endanger women but fail to actually stop abortions. Women are simply forced into unsafe abortions. On the other hand, the suggestions made by The Cat-Tribe regarding contraception, sex education, etc, would actually drastically reduce abortion without infringing on anyone's rights or causing the death of women.

We would have no problem at all with education, contraception or other methods of birth control that emphasize responsibility rather than abortion. Such education and methods are already offered to Federation citizens through our national healthcare program. However, we simply do not see the desirability in accomodating a practice we find barbarous and akin to murder.

I wouldn't go so far as to claim that illegal abortions never occur in the Federation. They are, however, rare, as our cultural beliefs do not accomodate the practice of abortion as I have already stated. And when they do occur, yes, the people that seek them out put themselves at risk. They are the ones who choose to undertake risky medical procedures under less than ideal conditions, and the responsibility for the consequences falls on them, not upon the Federation or its government. We see no compelling argument against this proposal rooted in some patently ridiculous idea that governments who choose to outlaw abortion are responsible for the consequences when a citizen chooses to break the law. Perhaps we take personal responsibility a little more seriously than your citizens do, however. We simply do not accept the notion that we should allow something undesirable or distasteful in our nation simply because someone might break the law to do it. Should we remove all laws in our nation that a citizen might decide to break?

I find it humorous and rather telling of the state of this proposal that the delegations of the Altan Steppes, Hirota, and Aundotutunagir have resorted to insults, jabs, generalizations, and facetiously mocking those of us who support women's rights over imaginative embryonic rights

Both the esteemed Glen-Rhodes and Cat Tribe ambassadors seem attached to this idea of "illusory babies" or "imagined rights" pertaining to the unborn. What I find amusing is their refusal to acknowledge that one could just as easily argue that the "right" to kill an unborn child that they champion is itself an imagined or illusory "right".

I am also weary, frankly, of the red herring of sexism that keeps getting trotted out. There is nothing discriminatory about wanting to protect a nation's right to choose its own policies in this matter. In the Federation, no one has the right to kill a child. No woman, no man, no purple flying donkey - no one. There is nothing whatsoever gender-related about this. We don't sit around tables in dark rooms plotting how to disenfranchise women; women in the Federation have as many rights as men, and quite possibly more rights than many of the nations arguing so vociferously against this proposal. We find the idea of a right to kill an unborn child just because you're the one carrying it far more "imagined" or "illusory" than the right of an unborn child, whose existence is tangible, to actually live.

While this proposal is far from the ideal we seek, it is increasingly apparent that it is necessary to protect a far more important "right to choose" than the one certain delegations here keep bleating about: the right of nations and cultures to decide their own policy on these matters.

in an attempt to seemingly paint us as idiots.

With all due respect, Ambassador Castro, you may want to look in the mirror to see who's really wielding that paintbrush.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

I see no point in continuing a serious debate if you intend to answer first questions with snarky remarks and evasions.
What I said, in the post you quoted but snipped, was:

Well I would think that protecting the unborn members of one's own species would take precedence over protecting the "rights" of plants, cows, sheep, pigs, and other animals. But that's just me.
How is that snarky or evasive?

*snip*

I have two final points:

(1) Many of your responses to my primary critique were "it's a work in progress and may be changed." I hope you do follow through on such changes and I believe the criticisms stand until you do so.
Noted.

(2) You never really answered how allowing states to ban early stage pregnancies even in cases of a threat to the life of the mother, severe deformity, rape or incest is a good thing. It is no answer to say your resolution does not require such laws. The question is why we should adopt a blocking resolution specifically intended to allow such laws.
Why should we adopt a resolution either outlawing or legalizing voluntary abortions? Isn't it better to leave that decision to national governments?

I am sad that the Ambassador considers the subject of illegal and unsafe abortions to be humorous. Tens of thousands of women die each year in repressive states due to unsafe abortions. Repressive laws are both abhorrent and counter-productive.
But you haven't even heard the punch line...

Resolution #29, Patient's Right Act
The author of PRA is a known communist and I wouldn't assign much value to any of his work.

*snip*

*snip*

I will come back to what is presented as "argument" in these posts, but I finding it telling that the illustrious Ambassadors from Aundotutunagir and The Altan Steppes deliberately skip over any discussion the question of the ethics of abortion and merely assume it is outrageous for a woman to control her own body. The failure to engage speaks volumes about the merits of their position.

Well I would think that protecting the unborn members of one's own species would take precedence over protecting the "rights" of plants, cows, sheep, pigs, and other animals. But that's just me.

1. You are the one who raised the emotional red herring of "innocent life." Thank you for confirming you could give a shit about it.

2. Why is "protecting the unborn members of one's own species" ethically compelling?

3. Why is "protecting the unborn member of one's own species" more important than protecting the self-ownership, bodily integrity, etc, of adult members of one's own species?

That is only your opinion, ambassador. I could make the counter claim that personhood begins at the moment of conception, with about as much chance of proving it as you would have of disproving it.

1. This evasion ignores the fact that you are advocating the power of WA member states to deprive women of control over their own bodies. Unless you believe adult women are not persons, you are thereby undeniably depriving persons of fundamental rights. Decent nations might think there would be some burden on you to justify that.

2. Pray tell, by what criteria can you say personhood begins at conception?

3. I can go into more detail if necessary, but a mere lump of cells is rather obviously not a person. Yes, it is alive. Yes, it is human. Those aren't particulary relevant points. It is not sentient, aware, sapient, etc... It has no duties and has no rights.

4. Even if an unborn is a person from the moment of conception, it does not thereby gain a superior claim to the use of the mother's body. She has every right to eject it.

Perhaps you should do your homework and show that there isn't a problem. Two can play this game.

Again, you are the one suggesting their is a problem requiring legislation by the World Assembly. One might feel some obligation to show such legislation is necessary and/or desirable.

You are also the one making a claim that there is a need 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." It seems to The Cat-Tribes that few abortions anywhere involve killing the unborn "at advantaged stages of their development" -- except in extenuating circumstances like a threat to the life or health of the mother, severe fetal deformity, or rape.

Women are not superior or flawless, but they are no less moral creatures than the Ambassador from Aundotutunagir. Just as they can be trusted to bear and raise children, they can generally be trusted to make ethical decisions regarding abortion. Your resolution is unecessary and potentially harmful.

Don't put words in my mouth, Ambassador. I never said that my government views its citizens that way:

In other words, our female citizens do not tend to do such things. That's what I meant when I was referring to a cultural belief, since that apparently was not clear.

So your female citizens are not rampant murders with no ethical constraints, but female humans generally are?

The Cat-Tribe has reason to believe that as many as one out of three women will have an abortion at some point in their life. You would characterize one-third of a gender as depraved murderers, but insist you aren't being sexist.

We would have no problem at all with education, contraception or other methods of birth control that emphasize responsibility rather than abortion. Such education and methods are already offered to Federation citizens through our national healthcare program. However, we simply do not see the desirability in accomodating a practice we find barbarous and akin to murder.

Pray tell, Ambassador, why is abortion more "barbarous and akin to murder" than eating meat, removing a tumor, or expelling a parasite?

I wouldn't go so far as to claim that illegal abortions never occur in the Federation.

Good. You are not totally delusional, then.

And when they do occur, yes, the people that seek them out put themselves at risk. They are the ones who choose to undertake risky medical procedures under less than ideal conditions, and the responsibility for the consequences falls on them, not upon the Federation or its government. We see no compelling argument against this proposal rooted in some patently ridiculous idea that governments who choose to outlaw abortion are responsible for the consequences when a citizen chooses to break the law. Perhaps we take personal responsibility a little more seriously than your citizens do, however. We simply do not accept the notion that we should allow something undesirable or distasteful in our nation simply because someone might break the law to do it. Should we remove all laws in our nation that a citizen might decide to break?

You emphasize a notion of responsibility, but when making a policy decision you advocate an option that (1) won't work, (2) deprives women of rights, and (3) will (albiet indirectly) cause adult citizens to die over options that (1) will work, (2) protect rights, and (3) endanger no one. Meethinks I smell a hypocrite.


Both the esteemed Glen-Rhodes and Cat Tribe ambassadors seem attached to this idea of "illusory babies" or "imagined rights" pertaining to the unborn. What I find amusing is their refusal to acknowledge that one could just as easily argue that the "right" to kill an unborn child that they champion is itself an imagined or illusory "right".

One could. You, of course, seem incapable of articulating such an argument.

Regardless, the right of human beings to control their own bodies is hardly imagined or illusory. What right could be more fundamental?


I am also weary, frankly, of the red herring of sexism that keeps getting trotted out. There is nothing discriminatory about wanting to protect a nation's right to choose its own policies in this matter. In the Federation, no one has the right to kill a child. No woman, no man, no purple flying donkey - no one. There is nothing whatsoever gender-related about this. We don't sit around tables in dark rooms plotting how to disenfranchise women; women in the Federation have as many rights as men, and quite possibly more rights than many of the nations arguing so vociferously against this proposal.

What laws does the Federation have that deprive men of privacy, self-ownership, control over thier own bodies, etc?

And calling a zygote or embryo a "child" is no more compelling and is less accurate than calling it a parasite.

We find the idea of a right to kill an unborn child just because you're the one carrying it far more "imagined" or "illusory" than the right of an unborn child, whose existence is tangible, to actually live.

Um. Women are tangible. They are persons. They have rights. Do you deny these things?

Then on what grounds do you argue the rights of these tangible persons to control their own bodies should be taken away?

You never really answered how allowing states to ban early stage pregnancies even in cases of a threat to the life of the mother, severe deformity, rape or incest is a good thing. It is no answer to say your resolution does not require such laws. The question is why we should adopt a blocking resolution specifically intended to allow such laws. Why should we adopt a resolution either outlawing or legalizing voluntary abortions? Isn't it better to leave that decision to national governments?

Your "answer" still does not actually address the question. That is two strikes. You get one more at bat. :wink:

Why should any woman of any nation be criminally punished for aborting a 8-week old embryo that threatens her life?

Why should any woman of any nation be prevented from aborting a zygote that is the product of rape?

I am also weary, frankly, of the red herring of sexism that keeps getting trotted out. There is nothing discriminatory about wanting to protect a nation's right to choose its own policies in this matter.
You're wasting your breath, Ambassador Krytellin. They're not listening.

You're wasting your breath, Ambassador Krytellin. They're not listening.

Says the Ambassador with both fingers in his ears and mumbling to himself. :eek::wink:

So your female citizens are not rampant murders with no ethical constraints, but female humans generally are?

You do love to put words in peoples' mouths. I never made such a characterization; your penchant for exaggeration exceeds reality.

The Cat-Tribe has reason to believe that as many as one out of three women will have an abortion at some point in their life.

And the Federation has just as much reason to believe that you pulled that number out of somewhere other than your briefcase.

You would characterize one-third of a gender as depraved murderers, but insist you aren't being sexist.

Despite your histrionics, I never made such a characterization. I would, however, characterize someone who chooses to kill an unborn child, without legitimate and compelling reason to do so, as such. Most abortions do not qualify as having "legitimate and compelling reason". And for the record, anyone who killed an unborn child without legitimate reason would be a depraved murderer in my book. Gender, again, has not a damn thing to do with it.

Pray tell, Ambassador, why is abortion more "barbarous and akin to murder" than eating meat, removing a tumor, or expelling a parasite?

Animals bred for consumption are not human. Nor are parasites. Don't be childish.

And before you belabor your tiresome claim yet again concerning claims of "all innocent life", please note that I never made any such argument. The Federation's only concern and interest in this matter is sentient beings and their treatment.

You emphasize a notion of responsibility, but when making a policy decision you advocate an option that (1) won't work, (2) deprives women of rights, and (3) will (albiet indirectly) cause adult citizens to die over options that (1) will work, (2) protect rights, and (3) endanger no one. Meethinks I smell a hypocrite.

What in the seven hells are you babbling about? There is no hypocrisy whatsoever in setting clear and just laws, expecting all citizens to abide by them equally, and expecting them to accept the consequences that befall them if they do not. We also disagree with the contention that our laws against abortion deprive women of their rights, as other rights take a greater consideration which we will go into greater detail on at the end of this statement. We also disagree with the contention that our laws "won't work", as they have been working for us just fine. You also ignore the fact that my nation does provide for options such as contraception, adoption, education and foster care, which aid our citizens without having to turn our healthcare centers into baby abbatoirs.

One could. You, of course, seem incapable of articulating such an argument.

Actually, I believe I articulated the argument when I made the point in the first place. You chose, however, to ignore the point, instead glossing over it with cute remarks and thinly veiled insults. I think that demonstrates very clearly that you have no answer to it.

Regardless, the right of human beings to control their own bodies is hardly imagined or illusory. What right could be more fundamental?

The right to live, ambassador; I will go into more detail on the Federation's stance in this regard in a moment.

What laws does the Federation have that deprive men of privacy, self-ownership, control over thier own bodies, etc?

Are you not aware of how the law works? Any law that could send you to prison, or subject you to punishment, could potentially deprive you of privacy, self-ownership, control over your bodies, etc. If you get sent to jail, for example, privacy and control over your body go right out the window. If your nation jails people, you're depriving them of privacy and control over their bodies every day. No doubt you're just totally shocked.

And calling a zygote or embryo a "child" is no more compelling and is less accurate than calling it a parasite.

In reference to humans, "embryo" is defined as "the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception". Parasite is defined as "an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism (an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds; especially : one in which a parasite obtains benefits from a host which it usually injures)", or "something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return". The fact that you equate an embryo with something that "injures" its parent, or that makes no "useful or adequate return", merely demonstrates your nation's intellectual and moral bankruptcy, in our estimation.

Um. Women are tangible. They are persons. They have rights. Do you deny these things?

I never did deny those things. Perhaps you were too obsessed with verbal trickery to notice.

Then on what grounds do you argue the rights of these tangible persons to control their own bodies should be taken away?

Now we get to the fundamental difference of opinion here. The stance of the Federation on this matter is very simple. The Cat-Tribe ambassador seems to believe that the rights of adult parents should trump those of children in all circumstances. It makes us despair for the children of that unfortunate state.

The Federation believes that rights can, and should, be exercised up to a point. It was expressed by someone else this way: your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. In other words, when the exercise of your rights infringes upon, or deprives another living being of, their rights, you have done wrong. Abortion, in most cases, is a perfect example of someone exercising their "rights" by depriving another living and sentient being of their most fundamental right, the right to live. That is why we have no tolerance for the whole tiresome "sexism-right to control our bodies" claptrap that certain delegations here keep spouting.

You're wasting your breath, Ambassador Krytellin. They're not listening.

I know, but the Federation takes pride in its educational system, and part of that is attempting to educate and enlighten the less fortunate. It was worth a try, at least. Nevertheless, we have made our points, and if this legislation comes to vote, we will see who prevails. It goes without question we will support this as the best possible compromise that protects the Federation's right to legislate as our culture and values demand on this matter.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

The Federation's only concern and interest in this matter is sentient beings and their treatment.

As I ruminate on the proper response to the Ambassador's contentions (and whether such a response is worth the effort), I have a pressing question: By what criteria are human zygotes or embryos sentient beings?

As I ruminate on the proper response to the Ambassador's contentions (and whether such a response is worth the effort), I have a pressing question: By what criteria are human zygotes or embryos sentient beings?

If you have proof that they're not sentient beings, by all means, bring it before us. Otherwise, you have as much chance proving that they're not, than anyone else has proving that they are. This questioning is just stalling the debate at hand.

I actually have no problem with this particular piece of legislation. It is very well written and puts the decision in the hands of individual nations which is where it belongs. The only thing it forbids is forced abortion.

Granted, I know nothing of your nation, but unless your people are hiding something, you should be pleased with this. So, tell us. Is your nation forcing your women to have abortions? If the answer is no, then you have nothing to fear from this legislation. It will merely allow each nation to decide on the issue for themselves.

If you think you can write a better proposal that stands a chance in the seven hells of getting approved? By all means, write it.

Paula Jenner

I find it humorous and rather telling of the state of this proposal that the delegations of the Altan Steppes, Hirota, and Aundotutunagir have resorted to insults, jabs, generalizations, and facetiously mocking those of us who support women's rights over imaginative embryonic rights, in an attempt to seemingly paint us as idiots.

Having just read the transcripts of the last few days of debate, Ambassador, we can state with some confidence that no paint appears to be necessary.

:)

If you have proof that they're not sentient beings, by all means, bring it before us.

Okey, dokey.

Sentience would require a functioning brain -- presumably one more advanced than that of most animals -- but functioning at a minimum.

As for when an unborn human has a functioning brain:

Development of the fetal neocortex begins at 8 weeks gestation, and by 20 weeks each cortex has a full complement of 109 neurons. The dendritic processes of the cortical neurons undergo profuse arborizations and develop synaptic targets for the incoming thalamocortical fibers and intracortical connections. The timing of the thalamocortical connection is of crucial importance for cortical perception, since most sensory pathways to the neocortex have synapses in the thalamus. Studies of primate and human fetuses have shown that afferent neurons in the thalamus produce axons that arrive in the cerebrum before mid-gestation. These fibers then "wait" just below the neocortex until migration and dendritic arborization of cortical neurons are complete and finally establish synaptic connections between 20 and 24 weeks of gestation (Fig. 1).

Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and a neonatal electroencephalographic patterns, studies of cerebral metabolism, and the behavioral development of neonates. First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks. By 30 weeks, the distinction between wakefulness and sleep can be made on the basis of electroencephalo- graphic patterns. Cortical components of visual and auditory evoked potentials have been recorded in preterm babies (born earlier than 30 weeks of gestation), whereas olfactory and tactile stimuli may also cause detectable changes in electroencephalograms of neonates. Second, in vivo measurements of cerebral glucose utilization have shown that maximal metabolic activity in located in sensory areas of the brain in neonates (the sensorimotor cortex, thalamus, and mid brain- brain-stem regions), further suggesting the functional maturity of these regions. Third, several forms of behavior imply cortical function during fetal life. Well-defined periods of quiet sleep, active sleep, and wakefulness occur in utero beginning at 28 weeks of gestation. In addition to the specific behavioral responses to pain described below, preterm and full-term babies have various cognitive, coordinative, and associative capabilities in response to visual and auditory stimuli, leaving no doubt about the presence of cortical function.

--K.J.S. Anand and P.R. Hickey, Pain and its effects on the human neonate and fetus (http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/anand/), THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, Volume 317, Number 21: Pages 1321-1329, 19 November 1987 (emphasis added, footnotes omitted)


So, embryos (unborn humans with eight of less weeks of gestation) have not even begun to develop a neocortex. No brain = not sentient.

Granted, the above suggests late-term fetus are sentient. But such are almost never aborted except in cases of a threat to the life of the mother or severe fetal deformity. Women don't simply struggle through six months of pregnancy to then kill the fetus on a whim.

THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
What is this? The ambassador from Rutianas asked for proof, not some obscure medical journal from a dying region that few of us have ever heard of. (http://www.nationstates.net/page=display_region/region=new%20england)

That is two strikes. You get one more at bat. :wink:
But we're playing football...

What is this? The ambassador from Rutianas asked for proof, not some obscure medical journal from a dying region that few of us have ever heard of. (http://www.nationstates.net/page=display_region/region=new%20england)

Alright, this really takes the cake. Quite frankly, while he may not be the best debator, he's made far more of an effort to defend his argument than you have. You've been continually condescending and dismissive to the point of being insulting, and frequently reply to valid points with mockery and ridicule. You persist in this even after it was pointed out to you that this was not the best way to win friends and influence people, and I find it very disappointing that other ambassadors we had otherwise held in esteem have decided to join in.

Okay, that's that. I realise that my opinion is probably invalid because I am idiotic, immoral, cretinous, barbarous, a murderer, kick puppies all day long and look forward to a meal of human fetuses when I go home after work. However, I suggest that the proposal, in reference to its form on page 14, would be far less objectionable and thus more likely to pass, while still retaining its intended effect, if the following lines were deleted.


STATING its commitment to the protection of innocent life,

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

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,


I must go now for my weekly unicorn-bludgeoning session. Good day.

The author of PRA is a known communist and I wouldn't assign much value to any of his work.

The Peoples of Sasquatchewain are not in the least interested in how much value you assign to the author of the resolution. Neither should any other member of this Assembly.

Resolution #29 has been passed within the confines of the WA. Whether you like it or not, you are bound to follow and obey the laws imposed by it. If you have a problem with it, repeal it. Until then, suck it up and take it like a man.

Resolutions #29 and #35 (as well as the laws expected by the theory of Reasonable Nations) already protect women from forced abortions, making the relevant article within this proposal moot. Without this one active clause, the remainder of the proposal is a blocker with bravado.

*snippage of dense medical journal quotations*

One article from a medical journal alone does not constitute evidence that embryos do not possess sentience. If I was sufficiently motivated, no doubt I could find "evidence" to present the opposite opinion. Even if one buys the notion that unborn children less than 8 weeks old are not sentient, which I do not, it cannot be denied that they at least have the potential for sentience, and thus terminating their existence at any stage denies them the chance to live and contribute. That is a tragedy, as far as we are concerned.

Without this one active clause, the remainder of the proposal is a blocker with bravado.

Even if one buys your argument, which I am loath to do given the labyrinthine means by which you arrived at it, there's nothing illegal about what this proposal is attempting to do. And given that it would prevent nations such as my own from passing legislation that would hinder your precious "right" to slaughter children wholesale just as much as it would protect the right of nations like mine not to be forced to allow said "right", I can't see why you'd object.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

But we're playing football...

:D

Fine. You just used your third down. Are you going to answer the question(s) posed or are you punting?

What is this? The ambassador from Rutianas asked for proof, not some obscure medical journal from a dying region that few of us have ever heard of. (http://www.nationstates.net/page=display_region/region=new%20england)

One article from a medical journal alone does not constitute evidence that embryos do not possess sentience. If I was sufficiently motivated, no doubt I could find "evidence" to present the opposite opinion.

Thank you for reminding me why it has been so long since I have participate in the WA (or its not-to-be-named predecessor).

You care not for evidence or logic, but merely the reinforcement of your own prejudices and misguided beliefs. Reality has no place in your discussions.

I was asked to provide evidence that human embryos are not sentient. Simple biology would tell you that something that has not yet developed a brain is not sentient, but I went above and beyond and presented a peer-reviewed medical article clearly stating how and when unborn humans develop brain forms and functions. But such evidence is simply dismissed out of hand -- despite the lack of any evidence that human embryos are sentient.

I wish the Ambassador from The Altan Steppes good luck in trying to find contrary medical evidence. It doesn't exist.

The Ambassador from Aundotutunagir's complaint about the source is childish and facile.

Even if one buys the notion that unborn children less than 8 weeks old are not sentient, which I do not, it cannot be denied that they at least have the potential for sentience, and thus terminating their existence at any stage denies them the chance to live and contribute. That is a tragedy, as far as we are concerned.

You emphasized more than once that what mattered was sentience. Faced with evidence that a human embryo is not sentient, you move the goalposts.

Potential for sentience is an utterly different argument. I agree that has some ethical appeal, but you'll have to explain how one entity's mere potential for rights outweighs an actual, breathing human being's right to control her own body.

As I've discussed in my earlier post, I understand that references to facts outside the world of the World Assembly are verboten. Nonetheless, I do wish to show to whomever may be interested that I am not making up the numbers or assertions I have made. Read at your own risk:


On the basis of current abortion rates, one in three American women will have had an abortion by age 45. link (http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/incidence.html)


One in five pregnancies worldwide and one in three in Europe ends in abortion. On average, 90% of women worldwide will have an abortion before the age of 45 (i.e. in their reproductive lifetime, aged 15-44 years) based on 2003 data. link (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-10/l-oif101007.php)


According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5609a1.htm), about 60% of abortions in the U.S. occur in the first 8 weeks of gestation (embryonic stage) and about 90% within the first 12 weeks of gestation. Almost no abortion occur beyond 21 weeks:

In 2004, for women from areas where weeks of gestation at the time of abortion were adequately reported (44 reporting areas), 61% of reported legal induced abortions were known to have been obtained at <8 weeks' gestation and 87% at <12 weeks (Table 6). Overall (41 reporting areas), 28% of abortions were known to have been performed at <6 weeks' gestation, 18% at 7 weeks, and 15% at 8 weeks (Table 7). Few reported abortions were known to have occurred after 15 weeks' gestation: 3.7% at 16--20 weeks and 1.3% at >21 weeks.

See, e.g., 2003 (http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1.htm) ("Of all abortions for which gestational age was reported, 61% were performed at <8 weeks' gestation and 88% at <13 weeks. "), 2002 (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5407a1.htm) ("Of all abortions for which gestational age was reported, 60% were performed at <8 weeks' gestation and 88% at <13 weeks. "), 2001 (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm) ("Of all abortions for which gestational age was reported, 59% were performed at <8 weeks' gestation and 88% at <13 weeks."), 2000 (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm) ("Fifty-eight percent of all abortions for which gestational age was reported were performed at <8 weeks of gestation, and 88% were performed before 13 weeks.").

Similar numbers exist for Canada and Western European nations with "lax" abortion laws.


Here (http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/10/11/abortion.global.ap/index.html) and here (http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2007/10/11/index.html) are articles about one study of global abortion laws and their effects which makes clear that abortion is just as common but far more dangerous where abortion is outlawed. And here (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS014067360761575X/abstract) is a link to the study itself (but I think a free subscription is required to read it).


The fact that abortion is just as common -- but far, far more dangerous -- where abortion is outlawed is an independent reason why abortion should be legal. (Note: legal abortion is among the safest of surgical procedures, but illegal abortions kill about 70,000 women every year!)


"The findings presented here indicate that unrestrictive abortion laws do not predict a high level of abortion, and by the same token, highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with low abortion incidence."link (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-10/l-oif101007.php)


"In all the available data, one fact stands out: safe and legal abortion saves women's lives and protects their health. There is no acceptable reason to allow women to die, fall ill, or become infertile as a result of unsafe abortion when the world community has both the knowledge and the means to prevent these deaths."link (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-10/l-oif101007.php)

I know, but the Federation takes pride in its educational system, and part of that is attempting to educate and enlighten the less fortunate. It was worth a try, at least. Nevertheless, we have made our points, and if this legislation comes to vote, we will see who prevails. It goes without question we will support this as the best possible compromise that protects the Federation's right to legislate as our culture and values demand on this matter.

The Cat-Tribe appreciates the patience of the Ambassador and your attempt to educate us on this topic. We obviously must agree to disagree and see no real point in continuing a point-by-point exchange. We realize our demeanor is somewhat abrasive and apologize for any offense.

Although we disagree strongly with you on this subject, we do recognize that your intent is not to be repressive and that your government is generally one we admire.

:D

Fine. You just used your third down. Are you going to answer the question(s) posed or are you punting?

I don't think he's talking about western football.

For those that have insisted that personhood and a right to life begin at conception, I have a thought experiment borrowed from some of my friends:

Suppose you are in a fertility clinic. in the room with you is a sleeping toddler and a cooler labeled "2 human blastocysts, ready for implantation" which contains a petri dish with said blastocysts on it.

Oh, and the fertility clinic is on fire.

You only have time to save either the cooler or the toddler but not both on your way out before the flames and smoke overwhelm the joint and the roof collapses and everybody dies.

Which do you save?

I don't think he's talking about western football.

Good point. Then the last penalty kick would be the best analogy I could come up with. :D

My stance on this issue will remain that I would rather leave the right to make it legal or illegal to the member nations, which this does. I'm not advocating for and I'm not advocating against as I wouldn't support a proposal that granted either. This is pricesly why I would support this one.

I wish the Ambassador from The Altan Steppes good luck in trying to find contrary medical evidence. It doesn't exist.

Really? A very cursory search doesn't seem to back that up. This source (http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,4548,00.html) cites week 3 of pregnancy as the period when the brain and spinal cord begin to develop. This one (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm) also cites week 3. This one (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112) claims it is week 4, as does this one (http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/Notes/week4_4.htm). I could probably find more, but I'm not really bothered to do so at this point. The fact of the matter is that your claim that an embryo has no brain development before 8 weeks is suspect. Therefore, your claim that an embryo earlier than 8 weeks could not have begun to develop a brain, and the beginnings of sentience, is also suspect.

I'm guessing your next argument will be that my sources are questionable, but realistically, they're no more or less so than your one source. This is an issue that has not, and probably never will be, proven to anyone's satisfaction. In such a situation, we Altani prefer not to take a chance that we might deprive a sentient being of life.

You emphasized more than once that what mattered was sentience. Faced with evidence that a human embryo is not sentient, you move the goalposts.

Again, your "evidence" is something that can be disputed.

Potential for sentience is an utterly different argument. I agree that has some ethical appeal, but you'll have to explain how one entity's mere potential for rights outweighs an actual, breathing human being's right to control her own body.

I've already tried explaining the Federation's stance on this matter to you at length. With all due respect, if you didn't get it then, you won't get it now. This discussion is rapidly degenerating into a repetitive cycle that doesn't resolve anything. We will work to ensure that reasonable legislation such as this is passed, or barring that, nothing at all. We appreciate the stance taken by the Cat-Tribe ambassador in regards to other issues, and are just going to leave it at that.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Really? A very cursory search doesn't seem to back that up. This source (http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,4548,00.html) cites week 3 of pregnancy as the period when the brain and spinal cord begin to develop. This one (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm) also cites week 3. This one (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112) claims it is week 4, as does this one (http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/Notes/week4_4.htm). I could probably find more, but I'm not really bothered to do so at this point. The fact of the matter is that your claim that an embryo has no brain development before 8 weeks is suspect. Therefore, your claim that an embryo earlier than 8 weeks could not have begun to develop a brain, and the beginnings of sentience, is also suspect.

I'm guessing your next argument will be that my sources are questionable, but realistically, they're no more or less so than your one source. This is an issue that has not, and probably never will be, proven to anyone's satisfaction. In such a situation, we Altani prefer not to take a chance that we might deprive a sentient being of life.

Again, your "evidence" is something that can be disputed.

I've already tried explaining the Federation's stance on this matter to you at length. With all due respect, if you didn't get it then, you won't get it now. This discussion is rapidly degenerating into a repetitive cycle that doesn't resolve anything. We will work to ensure that reasonable legislation such as this is passed, or barring that, nothing at all.

That this has become tiresome and pointless is agreed.

I will note that I do not dispute the quality of your sources. In fact, some of them are ones I use myself. But they rather clearly state that an embryo barely begins developing a brain and spinal cord at 3-4 weeks. Read closely they confirm my source's contention that an embryo lacks anything close to a functioning brain.

Alright, this really takes the cake. Quite frankly, while he may not be the best debator, he's made far more of an effort to defend his argument than you have. You've been continually condescending and dismissive to the point of being insulting, and frequently reply to valid points with mockery and ridicule. You persist in this even after it was pointed out to you that this was not the best way to win friends and influence people, and I find it very disappointing that other ambassadors we had otherwise held in esteem have decided to join in.
Hence why we withdrew from this debate, as this has been their modus operandi for pretty much the entirety. We understood, or maybe that should be misunderstood, to be a sensible discussion on the issue but we found ourselves either talking to brick walls or being abused in this manner.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

Against my better judgment, I cannot bring myself not to simply walk away without addressing a few of Ambassador Krytellin's points

Regardless, the right of human beings to control their own bodies is hardly imagined or illusory. What right could be more fundamental?The right to live, ambassador; I will go into more detail on the Federation's stance in this regard in a moment.

Perhaps the Ambassador is unfamiliar with the following sentiments:


"Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils."

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

"Ελευθερια η Θανατος"

"Слобода или Смрт" -

"Libertad o Muerte"

"Independência, ou morte!"


Are you not aware of how the law works? Any law that could send you to prison, or subject you to punishment, could potentially deprive you of privacy, self-ownership, control over your bodies, etc. If you get sent to jail, for example, privacy and control over your body go right out the window. If your nation jails people, you're depriving them of privacy and control over their bodies every day. No doubt you're just totally shocked.

That the Ambassador compares the rights of pregnant women to those of convicted criminals speaks for itself. Clearly, in the absence of a criminal offense, a human being in The Altan Steppes has a right to control his/her own body (and associated rights like privacy, self-ownership, etc) -- except if you are female and become pregnant!

And calling a zygote or embryo a "child" is no more compelling and is less accurate than calling it a parasite.
In reference to humans, "embryo" is defined as "the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception". Parasite is defined as "an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism (an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds; especially : one in which a parasite obtains benefits from a host which it usually injures)", or "something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return". The fact that you equate an embryo with something that "injures" its parent, or that makes no "useful or adequate return", merely demonstrates your nation's intellectual and moral bankruptcy, in our estimation.

Just for the record, by point was neither language like "baby abbatoirs" or "parasite" are very helpful or compelling.

But, to be technical, a pregnancy usually does involve some injury to the woman. And, although, a child may be its own reward, the unborn provides no useful or adequate return during the pregnancy. Thus, although I would eschew the prejorative label, "parasite" is an accurate description.

Now we get to the fundamental difference of opinion here. The stance of the Federation on this matter is very simple. The Cat-Tribe ambassador seems to believe that the rights of adult parents should trump those of children in all circumstances. It makes us despair for the children of that unfortunate state.

Nice strawman. The Cat-Tribe believes and adheres in practice to the notion that born children (even unborn children that have the characteristics of personhood) are entitled to the same rights as adults. But we are talking here about unborn children that are almost always aborted long before they approach personhood.

The Federation believes that rights can, and should, be exercised up to a point. It was expressed by someone else this way: your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. In other words, when the exercise of your rights infringes upon, or deprives another living being of, their rights, you have done wrong. Abortion, in most cases, is a perfect example of someone exercising their "rights" by depriving another living and sentient being of their most fundamental right, the right to live. That is why we have no tolerance for the whole tiresome "sexism-right to control our bodies" claptrap that certain delegations here keep spouting.


1. We obviously disagree about whether a embryo is a "living and sentient being" with a right to live.

2. Even if we did not, does that right to life not end when it infringes upon or deprives another person of rights? Although the fist/nose expression is crude, it has a kernel of truth, but one you missapply to give the unborn greater rights to control a woman's body than the woman herself.

The Cat-Tribe believes and adheres in practice to the notion that born children (even unborn children that have the characteristics of personhood) are entitled to the same rights as adults. But we are talking here about unborn children that are almost always aborted long before they approach personhood.

Perhaps that is true in your nation, however, I would ask that you remember that we are all different here. As such our nations views on this topic may be different. Personhood for the Republic is defined by our Emperor as the time of natural conception or willing implantation.

The Republic believes that abortion is an act of greatest evil. However, we do allow for it in certain cases, including medical reasons, rape, incest. We do not allow it as a form of birth control. Our own studies have shown that with each abortion a woman receives, irreparable damage is being done. While this may not ring true in other nations, it does in ours. Keep in mind that while the majority of us may look human, the citizens of the Republic, are indeed, not human. So, with that in mind, abortion may be outlawed for very good reasons.

Krytellin stands up to respond, but before he can, his phone rings. He walks off to answer it, and a look of irritation crosses his face. He is overheard cursing into the phone in Altanari, before shoving it back into his pocket. He confers briefly with his deputy and walks out. Irina Misheli then stands up.

Um....on behalf of the Federation, the State Department would like to apologize for some of the opinions expressed by Ambassador Krytellin. While they do reflect our nation's belief that abortion is not right, the words he used are not exactly diplomatic, and do not reflect our genuine desire for cooperating with the international community. We apologize for any insult that may have been perceived.

For the record, the Federation remains opposed to abortion in almost all circumstances. We do agree with Ambassador Jenner of Rutianas that there are good reasons a nation may choose to outlaw such a practice. We must also state our rejection, once again, of the principle that an unborn child, at any stage of development, is not a person, or not worthy of the same rights as its parent. However, it is obvious we will never agree with some delegations on these principles, so instead, I will turn to the proposal rather than an abstract debate on abortion's morality or lack thereof.

This proposal, which some are deriding as a blocker, would let individual nations decide for themselves what they want to do in regards to abortion. Whether we agree on abortion or not is an....interesting....debate, but misses the point. We firmly believe that legislation which would prevent either the pro-abortion or anti-abortion side from imposing their views on the other would be preferable to the alternative. We are confused still as to why anyone would object to that.

-Irina Misheli, Deputy Ambassador

Says the Ambassador with both fingers in his ears and mumbling to himself. :eek::wink:

Alright, this really takes the cake.
OOC: Okay, I should probably admit to the both of you that I'm just RPing. A couple of things:

1. The Aundotutunagirians are batshit insane. Try not to get too worked up over General Arororugul's ravings.

2. Do you have any idea how hard it has been to remain IC with this character? :p

I now return you to the regularly scheduled Aundotutunagirian insanity, already in progress...

One article from a medical journal alone does not constitute evidence that embryos do not possess sentience. If I was sufficiently motivated, no doubt I could find "evidence" to present the opposite opinion. Even if one buys the notion that unborn children less than 8 weeks old are not sentient, which I do not, it cannot be denied that they at least have the potential for sentience, and thus terminating their existence at any stage denies them the chance to live and contribute. That is a tragedy, as far as we are concerned.

As the Ambassador for the Cat-Tribe mentioned, potential of sentience is an odd argument. Every individual sperm and egg has the potential for sentience. They're just one step behind the zygote. However, their potential remains.

Even if one buys your argument, which I am loath to do given the labyrinthine means by which you arrived at it, there's nothing illegal about what this proposal is attempting to do. And given that it would prevent nations such as my own from passing legislation that would hinder your precious "right" to slaughter children wholesale just as much as it would protect the right of nations like mine not to be forced to allow said "right", I can't see why you'd object.

Labyrinthine?
Resolution #29 is actually quite clear: the patient must consent to any medical treatment performed on his/her/its body or being. At the very least that bans coerced abortions. It can also be easily stated that it blocks physically forced abortions since, well, the woman isn't allowed to say "no" to the procedure. Or, well, she is, but it will have no effect.
As well, violently forced abortions are covered by the Reasonable Nations Theory, since it is reasonable to assume no (or a very precious few) nation legalizes violence between it's citizens.

What's so labyrinthine about it?

This proposal, which some are deriding as a blocker, would let individual nations decide for themselves what they want to do in regards to abortion.

Funny... the Peoples of Sasquatchewain were of the belief that anything not addressed in WA Resolutions was already left to national sovereignty. We were not aware that we needed the WA to tell us that we had the right to legislate on abortion. Any article that states that "nations may choose to do A or B," when A and B are the entire set of options (there is no possible C) is a waste of space, since that is already implied by the lack of WA resolutions on the matter.

With the dubious exception of the forced abortions clause, this proposal does nothing but give nations a right which they already had.

Funny... the Peoples of Sasquatchewain were of the belief that anything not addressed in WA Resolutions was already left to national sovereignty. We were not aware that we needed the WA to tell us that we had the right to legislate on abortion. Any article that states that "nations may choose to do A or B," when A and B are the entire set of options (there is no possible C) is a waste of space, since that is already implied by the lack of WA resolutions on the matter.

With the dubious exception of the forced abortions clause, this proposal does nothing but give nations a right which they already had.
This same argument/discussion takes place every time blocking legislation is proposed. The purpose of a "blocker" isn't to give rights to your nation. Obviously your nation already has those rights. The purpose of a "blocker" is to prevent the WA from taking those rights away.

I find it humorous and rather telling of the state of this proposal that the delegations of the Altan Steppes, Hirota, and Aundotutunagir have resorted to insults, jabs, generalizations, and facetiously mocking those of us who support women's rights over imaginative embryonic rights, in an attempt to seemingly paint us as idiots.I'm pro-choice, kiddo. Always have been.

I find it humourous and rather telling of the state of this proposal that the delegation of Glen-Rhodes has resorted to making stuff up in his head and trying to use it to have a moan.

Get your facts right before talking about Hirota, lest I make you look even stupider than you made yourself.

Also, I find it very funny that people are resorting to medical and scientific wank to try and prove something that is simply unproven by all parties.....kinda like how I said it always turns out with this debate

The science won't get you anywhere people.

Also, I find it very funny that people are resorting to medical and scientific wank to try and prove something that is simply unproven by all parties.....kinda like how I said it always turns out with this debate

The science won't get you anywhere people.

I find it both funny and sad that some people simply ignore the medical evidence when making claims about the sentience of unborn humans.

I also find it both funny and sad that some people declare such things unprovable without any substantive discussion of personhood or rights.

Finally, I find it both funny and sad that, assuming the status of the human unborn is unprovable, some nations still insist on infrining upon the inalienable human rights of the one undeniably living, sentient entity involved in any pregnancy or abortion -- the mother. A women has a right to control her own body including the right to choose.

A women's right to choose is essential to the right of self-ownership, without which there is no freedom. A women's right to choose is also intextricably bound with a host of other fundamental rights including the right to privacy, the right to reproductive freedom, to bodily integrity, to patient-client privilege, etc.

Even if you assume a embryo, zygote, fetus, fertilized egg, or whatever is a life, that does not end the equation. There is still another entity's rights at stake -- one with a superior claim to its own body. Perhaps more importantly, the mother is a moral agent with a superior claim to the state's as to who shall resolve any conflict between her rights and that of the unborn.

(I know, I know, this is "just" a blocking resolution. Blocking what? The fundamental rights of women!)

Perhaps that is true in your nation, however, I would ask that you remember that we are all different here. As such our nations views on this topic may be different. Personhood for the Republic is defined by our Emperor as the time of natural conception or willing implantation.

The Republic believes that abortion is an act of greatest evil. However, we do allow for it in certain cases, including medical reasons, rape, incest. We do not allow it as a form of birth control. Our own studies have shown that with each abortion a woman receives, irreparable damage is being done. While this may not ring true in other nations, it does in ours. Keep in mind that while the majority of us may look human, the citizens of the Republic, are indeed, not human. So, with that in mind, abortion may be outlawed for very good reasons.

In studies conducted by The Cat-Tribe, abortions create pink unicorns and lead to perpetual youth and health. In the absence of proof to the contrary, we can only assume the same is true in every WA nation, including The Republic.

This same argument/discussion takes place every time blocking legislation is proposed. The purpose of a "blocker" isn't to give rights to your nation. Obviously your nation already has those rights. The purpose of a "blocker" is to prevent the WA from taking those rights away.

Which is what this resolution does, since as pointed out, the other effectual parts of this resolution are already covered elsewhere

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

Which is what this resolution does,
Well...yeah...
since as pointed out, the other effectual parts of this resolution are already covered elsewhere
It has been argued that forced abortions are covered by PRA. I'd like to give that some more thought and hear some more input on the idea. It has also been argued that all born-alive infants are covered by CPA. I'm wholly unconvinced of that.

Nevertheless, the blocking portions of this proposal and the other parts are to be split into separate proposals. When I have time I'll start a new thread on forced abortions and born-alive infants. We can continue to discuss the blocking resolution in this thread and I'll post a new draft (incorporating Kelssek's suggestion to redo the preamble) later this weekend.

Well...yeah...

It has been argued that forced abortions are covered by PRA. I'd like to give that some more thought and hear some more input on the idea. It has also been argued that all born-alive infants are covered by CPA. I'm wholly unconvinced of that.

Nevertheless, the blocking portions of this proposal and the other parts are to be split into separate proposals. When I have time I'll start a new thread on forced abortions and born-alive infants. We can continue to discuss the blocking resolution in this thread and I'll post a new draft (incorporating Kelssek's suggestion to redo the preamble) later this weekend.

While we are still against any resolution to do with abortion, we would be interested to see what you come up with for the Forced Abortion issue. Also, we are actually looking forward to seeing the one about born-alive infants, as that should be an interesting read as well

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

I find it both funny and sad that some people simply ignore the medical evidence when making claims about the sentience of unborn humans.

*(snip)*

Finally, I find it both funny and sad that, assuming the status of the human unborn is unprovable, some nations still insist on infringing upon the inalienable human rights of the one undeniably living, sentient entity involved in any pregnancy or abortion -- the mother.I simply find it sad that some of the diplomatic missions around here haven't yet realised that not all WA member nations are inhabited by humans...

I simply find it sad that some of the diplomatic missions around here haven't yet realised that not all WA member nations are inhabited by humans...

Fair point. Although I believe that both sides of the debate here have drifted into talking about humans, the Ambassador for The Cat-Tribe apologizes for his specieist remarks.

That said, I would note that the fact that there are non-human citizens of the WA makes the question of personhood all the more relevant to the abortion debate and makes the "OMG, we must protect human life from conception arguments" particularly absurd.

Further, I would be curious to know the specific nature of any WA species that makes abortion an issue for that species but makes the following revised comments inapposite:

I find it both funny and sad that some people simply ignore the medical evidence when making claims about the sentience of the unborn.

I also find it both funny and sad that some people declare such things unprovable without any substantive discussion of personhood or rights.

Finally, I find it both funny and sad that, assuming the status of the unborn is unprovable, some nations still insist on infringing upon the inalienable rights of the one undeniably living, sentient entity involved in any pregnancy or abortion -- the mother*. A mother has a right to control her own body including the right to choose.

An enitity's right to choose is essential to the right of self-ownership, without which there is no freedom. An entity's right to choose is also intextricably bound with a host of other fundamental rights including the right to privacy, the right to reproductive freedom, to bodily integrity, to patient-client privilege, etc.

Even if you assume a embryo, zygote, fetus, fertilized egg, or whatever is a life, that does not end the equation. There is still another entity's rights at stake -- one with a superior claim to its own body. Perhaps more importantly, the mother is a moral agent with a superior claim to the state's as to who shall resolve any conflict between her rights and that of the unborn.

(I know, I know, this is "just" a blocking resolution. Blocking what? The fundamental rights of pregnant entities!)

*Mother is used above to designate any entity which carries an unborn within it's body until it is aborted or born alive.

In studies conducted by The Cat-Tribe, abortions create pink unicorns and lead to perpetual youth and health. In the absence of proof to the contrary, we can only assume the same is true in every WA nation, including The Republic.

Ahh, with that statement, I can see just how closed minded your people are.

I believe I'd stated in my original comment the phrase while this may not ring true in other nations which clearly states that we are very aware that other nations have different views and likely different studies on abortion. We are also aware that some nations will control information and tell people exactly what they wish for them to believe.

Paula Jenner

Ahh, with that statement, I can see just how closed minded your people are.

I believe I'd stated in my original comment the phrase while this may not ring true in other nations which clearly states that we are very aware that other nations have different views and likely different studies on abortion. We are also aware that some nations will control information and tell people exactly what they wish for them to believe.

Paula Jenner

First, my point was and is that any nation -- as you yourself point out -- can make claims about secret studies the details of which they don't share with the World Assembly.

Further, Ambassador Jenner, it is contrary to our views to deny pregnant entities the right to control their own bodies based on a paternalistic concern that, even if provided your "studies," they would choose to do themselves irreperable harm for no good reason.

We don't apologize for believing all persons have fundamental rights that should not be denied.

First, my point was and is that any nation -- as you yourself point out -- can make claims about secret studies the details of which they don't share with the World Assembly.

Further, Ambassador Jenner, it is contrary to our views to deny pregnant entities the right to control their own bodies based on a paternalistic concern that, even if provided your "studies," they would choose to do themselves irreperable harm for no good reason.

We don't apologize for believing all persons have fundamental rights that should not be denied.

That's fine for you to believe that. I'm not saying you have to change your own views. What I did not tell you was the extent of the irreparable damage that abortion does to Rutians. We are not human. As such, abortion does not have the same impact on us that it does to others. Furthermore, since you do not have access to a group of Rutians who would be willing to be tested for you to do your own studies, there is little chance of you ever being able to perform studies on our people to confirm or deny our claims. The same goes for us. We can't confirm or deny your claims. What I do find unacceptable is your patronizing what is a valid concern in this debate. There is no call for that kind of behaviour.

My point was that there may be reasons for abortion being illegal that go beyond the whole 'right to life' belief. There may be very valid medical reasons.

Paula Jenner

That's fine for you to believe that. I'm not saying you have to change your own views. What I did not tell you was the extent of the irreparable damage that abortion does to Rutians. We are not human. As such, abortion does not have the same impact on us that it does to others. Furthermore, since you do not have access to a group of Rutians who would be willing to be tested for you to do your own studies, there is little chance of you ever being able to perform studies on our people to confirm or deny our claims. The same goes for us. We can't confirm or deny your claims. What I do find unacceptable is your patronizing what is a valid concern in this debate. There is no call for that kind of behaviour.

My point was that there may be reasons for abortion being illegal that go beyond the whole 'right to life' belief. There may be very valid medical reasons.

Paula Jenner

Understood.

I am curious, however. If a proposal was made that would legalize abortions prior to the point of viability and/or sentience AND in cases of rape, incest, or a serious threat to the life or health of the motehr EXCEPT where the abortion posed a serious threat to the life or health of the mother, would you support it?

If not, why not?

Understood.

I am curious, however. If a proposal was made that would legalize abortions prior to the point of viability and/or sentience AND in cases of rape, incest, or a serious threat to the life or health of the motehr EXCEPT where the abortion posed a serious threat to the life or health of the mother, would you support it?

If not, why not?

I have already stated previously in this debate that we do accept it in those cases only. It is a rare instance when this happens though and typically it is for the latter situation. We have progressed far enough socially that rape and incest are rare. Serious threat to the life and/or health of the mother isn't rare, but it's not common either. It happens and the mother is given a choice. A very informed choice. Our medicine is advanced, but even with that, the child cannot often be saved. It depends on the stage of pregnancy. Sometimes we can save both mother and child. Sometimes not.

Paula Jenner

Further, I would be curious to know the specific nature of any WA species that makes abortion an issue for that species but makes the following revised comments inapposite:

[INDENT]I find it both funny and sad that some people simply ignore the medical evidence when making claims about the sentience of the unborn.

I also find it both funny and sad that some people declare such things unprovable without any substantive discussion of personhood or rights.

Finally, I find it both funny and sad that, assuming the status of the unborn is unprovable,
How about our actually having proof -- not just belief, but actual proof that meets scientific standards for validity -- that our people (at least, although obviously we can't speak for every nation's inhabitants...) possess immortal souls, and that these typically enter the embryonic body about a third of the way through gestation although some individual variation in that timing can occur?
Yes, seriously.

What difference does it make if there's a soul or not? I don't understand how that would impact this argument in anyway. Ignoring the blatant wank, of course.

How about our actually having proof -- not just belief, but actual proof that meets scientific standards for validity -- that our people (at least, although obviously we can't speak for every nation's inhabitants...) possess immortal souls, and that these typically enter the embryonic body about a third of the way through gestation although some individual variation in that timing can occur?
Yes, seriously.

What difference does it make if there's a soul or not? I don't understand how that would impact this argument in anyway. Ignoring the blatant wank, of course.

Heere we go...

OOC: As this proposal has effectively been shelved (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14509913&postcount=358) is there any point to continuing this mess any further?

Sorry. Didn't realise.

Sorry. Didn't realise.
It's alright. There doesn't seem to be a push for either pro or anti abortion legislation at this time, so the blocker is unnecessary. I may return to the born-alive infant topic later, but if I do I'll start a new thread.