[DEFEATED] Repeal "On Abortion"

[Frisbeeteria]

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY,

REMARKING that GAR #128, "On Abortion", requires nations to legalize abortion in certain cases, including rape,

DECLARING that late-term abortions are inhumane and should generally be illegal, even in the case of rape,

CONCERNED that "On Abortion" does not make an exception for late term abortions,

RECOGNIZING that abortion is a controversial topic, and that legitimate, good-faith arguments that can be made on both sides of the debate,

BELIEVING that it is extremely unlikely that there will ever be a consensus on the issue,

CONCLUDING that the decision of whether or not to legalize abortion is best left in its entirety to individual member nations,

REPEALS GAR #128, "On Abortion".

[Albrook]

From the last thread:

Repeal "On Abortion"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA#128
Proposed by: ScienaSciena

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #128: On Abortion (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: THE WORLD ASSEMBLY,

REMARKING that GAR #128, "On Abortion", requires nations to legalize abortion in certain cases, including rape,

DECLARING that late-term abortions are inhumane and should generally be illegal, even in the case of rape,

CONCERNED that "On Abortion" does not make an exception for late term abortions,

RECOGNIZING that abortion is a controversial topic, and that legitimate, good-faith arguments that can be made on both sides of the debate,

BELIEVING that it is extremely unlikely that there will ever be a consensus on the issue,

CONCLUDING that the decision of whether or not to legalize abortion is best left in its entirety to individual member nations,

REPEALS GAR #128, "On Abortion".

Ah, someone posted it for me. I can turn it into Suwako Moriya later if it is deemed illegal.

I don't see it really as illegal, but just something I don't agree with. I'm not exactly sure what NatSov is in definition, but I've seen worse things be deemed that label. Though what makes me wonder is that this resolution was never really contested, so why is there the assumption there will never be a consensus when people have lived to comply with it?

[United Federation of Canada]

Illegal,

You are trying to repeal on the basis of your moral beliefs, which is a NatSov argument.

If you are going to try and repeal this, use an actual scientific argument, and don't just rehash the same drivel sentence, after sentence.

Regards,

[Albrook]

What I suggest is that you request this be taken out of the queue and allow people to look over it first. I know sometimes bills go in all "LEEROYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY JENKINSSSSSSSS" and stuff, but most don't make it.

So far, there has been one clause identified as restricting national sovereignty and a claim that this is only your moral beliefs. I'll edit this when I think I find parts you can change to fix this up.

EDIT:

REMARKING that GAR #128, "On Abortion", requires nations to legalize abortion in certain cases, including rape,

DECLARING that late-term abortions are inhumane and should generally be illegal, even in the case of rape,
OPINION! OPINION! OPINION! Use facts, do not use your own personal opinions! I think that stabbing someone is fine because I am a psychotic evil person! Persuade me!

CONCERNED that "On Abortion" does not make an exception for late term abortions,
Can you show where this claim is supported in the bill? It's fine to say in which clause the bill went wrong. Could it not be implied in the resolution [up for repeal]?

RECOGNIZING that abortion is a controversial topic, and that legitimate, good-faith arguments that can be made on both sides of the debate,

BELIEVING that it is extremely unlikely that there will ever be a consensus on the issue,
There won't be a consensus on whether I will only buy chocolate or vanilla ice cream either. Some facts please?

CONCLUDING that the decision of whether or not to legalize abortion is best left in its entirety to individual member nations,

REPEALS GAR #128, "On Abortion".

So far, I see this as someone went into the list of some of the older WA Resolutions and wrote up a bill. I'm not saying that I'm any better, but this wasn't very well written and shouldn't of been posted as a proposal yet.

[Sciena]

You are trying to repeal on the basis of your moral beliefs, which is a NatSov argument.

No, it isn't. All World Assembly resolutions are rooted in moral or ethical beliefs, to some degree.

What I suggest is that you request this be taken out of the queue and allow people to look over it first. I know sometimes bills go in all "LEEROYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY JENKINSSSSSSSS" and stuff, but most don't make it.

So far, there has been one clause identified as restricting national sovereignty and a claim that this is only your moral beliefs. I'll edit this when I think I find parts you can change to fix this up.

I appreciate your advice, but I don't intend to withdraw this from the queue. Repeals are allowed to use NatSov arguments; it just can't be the only argument. Further, I don't see what's wrong with a moral argument, per what I told Canada above.

[Albrook]

Edited as said. It's allright to be moral as long as you back it up with fact, not with "I think all people who wear pink are stupid." <-- Made up

[Sciena]

DECLARING that late-term abortions are inhumane and should generally be illegal, even in the case of rape,
OPINION! OPINION! OPINION! Use facts, do not use your own personal opinions! I think that stabbing someone is fine because I am a psychotic evil person! Persuade me!

I am going to assume that the average voter is not a "psychotic evil person". I don't imagine I need to convince most people that late-term abortions are inhumane. Those who I do need to convince I probably won't win over anyways.

[Albrook]

DECLARING that late-term abortions are inhumane and should generally be illegal, even in the case of rape,
OPINION! OPINION! OPINION! Use facts, do not use your own personal opinions! I think that stabbing someone is fine because I am a psychotic evil person! Persuade me!

I am going to assume that the average voter is not a "psychotic evil person". I don't really see the need to convince people that late-term abortions are inhumane.

Assumptions of who is voting for this. Major flaw; big enough to crash the Hindenburg three times over. My regional founder claims to flip a coin to decide what option to pick in the WA sometimes.

If you feel that repeals are supposed to be NatSov, please read this masterpiece here. http://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pas ... ?start=252

Notice how the author used real text from the repealed resolution to support their case and made real arguments that can be justified by more than just opinion, but situational context.

[Damanucus]

Right.

Why you didn't pass this by the Drafting Committee (OOC: that means, put up a drafting thread here) is beyond me. I'm going to guess, based on the campaign telegram that appeared in my office this morning—and in the middle of my phone call with my nation's empress, no less!—that this was drafted outside of the building itself by a small conclave of representatives. We honour your dedication to the cause, but you may have saved yourself a lot of drama, be it existent or no, by producing it to the assembly as a whole prior to submission, so we could at least remove all the questionable content.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Albrook]

Also, understand what you are repealing. I highlighted things that I feel you overlooked.

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

ACCEPTING the controversy surrounding the legality of abortion;

NEVERTHELESS CONVINCED that it is inappropriate for member states to deny abortion to any pregnant female who are at risk of death if their pregnancy is not terminated;

Therefore:

1. REQUIRES member countries to legalise abortion for cases where:
a) The pregnancy resulted from involuntary sexual activity and/or sexual activity in which at least one of the parties could not legally give consent;
b) Severe foetal abnormality would result in a child being born with an incurable condition which is fatal and/or painful;
c) There is a risk of a life-threatening physical or mental condition which would result in the death or life-long severe disability of the pregnant woman if the pregnancy continued;

2. FURTHER REQUIRES member countries to ensure that abortion facilities are easily available to patients seeking abortion in circumstances under Section 1;

3. MANDATES that such abortions may only be carried out with the informed consent of the patient without coercion: if the patient is incapacitated and unable to make their wishes known, the patient's legal next-of-kin may make the decision on their behalf;

4. FURTHER MANDATES that physicians who carry out abortions must be trained to the same accepted medical standards that all surgeons are held to, and that abortions are carried out in a way that is as painless as possible while preserving the mother's physical health;

5. DECLARES that no physician may be compelled to perform abortion against their moral stance;

6. DECLARES that it is neither a criminal offence nor a cause for civil suit to have obtained abortion for reasons under Section 1 and no inhabitant of a member country shall be subject to prosecution for having done so, nor otherwise subjected to harassment or persecution in law or at the instigation of the state in consequence;

7. INSISTS that all member nations retain the ability to legalize abortion for purposes not covered under the preceding clauses either unilaterally within their own jurisdiction or collectively through World Assembly resolution.

Right.

Why you didn't pass this by the Drafting Committee (OOC: that means, put up a drafting thread here) is beyond me. I'm going to guess, based on the campaign telegram that appeared in my office this morning—and in the middle of my phone call with my nation's empress, no less!—that this was drafted outside of the building itself by a small conclave of representatives. We honour your dedication to the cause, but you may have saved yourself a lot of drama, be it existent or no, by producing it to the assembly as a whole prior to submission, so we could at least remove all the questionable content.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

I am Ill'haress Seiga Kaku and I approve this message.

EDIT: Horrible formatting on my end, sorry for the double post all who saw it. I hit the quote button

[Sciena]

If you feel that repeals are supposed to be NatSov, please read this masterpiece here. http://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pas ... ?start=252

Notice how the author used real text from the repealed resolution to support their case and made real arguments that can be justified by more than just opinion, but situational context.

Normally I would agree with you, but abortion is a remarkably polarizing issue, much more so than freedom in medical research. Most already have solid opinions and will not be convinced by a few clauses in a proposal.

We honour your dedication to the cause, but you may have saved yourself a lot of drama, be it existent or no, by producing it to the assembly as a whole prior to submission, so we could at least remove all the questionable content.

What questionable content?

Also, understand what you are repealing. I highlighted things that I feel you overlooked.

I have read the resolution. While I appreciate the conscience clause and the fact that the legalization mandate is restricted to corner cases, the resolution is still flawed for the reasons listed in my proposal and worthy of repeal.

[Sciena]

For the record, I appreciate all of your input. If I cannot get this to quorum on the first try, I will hold an extended drafting session. But I would like to see if my proposal is sufficient as written.

[Albrook]

For the record, I appreciate all of your input. If I cannot get this to quorum on the first try, I will hold an extended drafting session. But I would like to see if my proposal is sufficient as written.

If it does reach quorum, you can expect a campaign against the passage of this resolution. I feel it is way too flawed and wish that it doesn't even get to quorum.

[Dellin]

I have read the resolution. While I appreciate the conscience clause and the fact that the legalization mandate is restricted to corner cases, the resolution is still flawed for the reasons listed in my proposal and worthy of repeal.

But, you only really list two reasons. The first being "CONCERNED that 'On Abortion' does not make an exception for late term abortions," which has already proven false, since the conscience clause certainly gives the freedom to individual institutions to ultimately make that decision. (Especially given that the original resolution is specifically targeted towards abortions that are necessitated for health reasons).

And the only other real reason you give is "RECOGNIZING that abortion is a controversial topic, and that legitimate, good-faith arguments that can be made on both sides of the debate, BELIEVING that it is extremely unlikely that there will ever be a consensus on the issue," which makes no sense. All issues are "controversial" and don't have a consensus. That's the point of voting. You could repeal anything on those terms.

[United Federation of Canada]

For the record, I appreciate all of your input. If I cannot get this to quorum on the first try, I will hold an extended drafting session. But I would like to see if my proposal is sufficient as written.

Yet, another know-it-all, who is always right, and the rest of us, are just talking out our asses.

Just so you are aware, even if you do get a quorum on this, and it isn't pulled for illegalities, I fully intend to run a counter-campaign against it.

Regards,

[Albrook]

To any WA Delegate holding an approval of this bill:

I beg of you to remove your approval of "Repeal "On Abortion""

The author, Sciena, makes a lot of statements that are in essence, pure opinion. While I agree that, being a repeal, it should offer some bias as to why the author feels it should be repealed, the author instead builds the argument solely on opinion with no cross-referencing or scientific fact.

Moreover, the issue itself states that if the physician feels any moral wrong as a result of being asked to perform the abortion, they may abstain from the deed.

This makes it so if the nation or doctor felt that late-term abortion was wrong, then it would be stopped in it's tracks then if asked for by the patient with a legitimate cause as explained in GA #128 "On Abortion".

I am not alone in the above arguments, having notable figures like Omigodtheykilledkenny stating that this resolution contains at least one National Sovereignty breaching clause. Though the author did mean well, this proposal asks for the World Assembly to directly demand of a nation without the adherence of it's sovereign rights.

Take this reference from Prometheus. Dr. Shaw was pregnant with an alien, having no knowledge of her pregnancy. She feared the effects of giving birth to an alien and quickly used an on-ship medical device to perform the abortion second before giving birth. Had this resolution been in effect in the film, it would of been an unlawful act.

I hope my arguments were sufficient enough to sway your opinions.

Regards,
-Ill'haress Seiga Kaku of Albrook

For the record, I appreciate all of your input. If I cannot get this to quorum on the first try, I will hold an extended drafting session. But I would like to see if my proposal is sufficient as written.

More like "normal sized drafting session." These half-baked proposals now adays...

Where's that NS Summer meme...

Anyway, proposals never die in the first 10 hours of posting. I'll just sit back and watch (sleep) as the inevitable happens.

[Christian Democrats]

I completely support this proposed repeal. As the author indicates, On Abortion, under a certain set of circumstances, requires that member states permit induced abortion UP UNTIL THE TIME OF BIRTH.

Will someone explain to me why the destruction of a viable fetus ought to be allowed?

You are trying to repeal on the basis of your moral beliefs

Almost all resolutions are grounded in moral beliefs, including On Abortion itself.

[Sciena]

But, you only really list two reasons. The first being "CONCERNED that 'On Abortion' does not make an exception for late term abortions," which has already proven false, since the conscience clause certainly gives the freedom to individual institutions to ultimately make that decision. (Especially given that the original resolution is specifically targeted towards abortions that are necessitated for health reasons).

Moreover, the issue itself states that if the physician feels any moral wrong as a result of being asked to perform the abortion, they may abstain from the deed.

But it doesn't give that freedom to member nations. The state has an obligation to protect unborn children.

And the only other real reason you give is "RECOGNIZING that abortion is a controversial topic, and that legitimate, good-faith arguments that can be made on both sides of the debate, BELIEVING that it is extremely unlikely that there will ever be a consensus on the issue," which makes no sense. All issues are "controversial" and don't have a consensus. That's the point of voting. You could repeal anything on those terms.

Yes, you could repeal anything based on a NatSov argument. But NatSov arguments are often legitimate, depending on the topic. And a NatSov argument is certainly legitimate in this case. In fact, the historical UN resolution on abortion took a NatSov approach to the topic.

The author, Sciena, makes a lot of statements that are in essence, pure opinion. While I agree that, being a repeal, it should offer some bias as to why the author feels it should be repealed, the author instead builds the argument solely on opinion with no cross-referencing or scientific fact.

A late-term abortion constitutes the killing of a human being. This is self-evident.

I am not alone in the above arguments, having notable figures like Omigodtheykilledkenny stating that this resolution contains at least one National Sovereignty breaching clause.

This is a lie. Kenny has no problem with the NatSov clause:

Why the fuck does this read like a NatSov?

I really don't know. Only the last argument even comes close to invoking national sovereignty. One NatSov clause is not illegal.

[Discoveria]

"This proposal itself is inhumane and should be aborted," said Matthew.

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY,

REMARKING that GAR #128, "On Abortion", requires nations to legalize abortion in certain cases, including rape,

DECLARING that late-term abortions are inhumane and should generally be illegal, even in the case of rape, We disagree that late-term abortions are inhumane. We don't consider the fetus to be a person deserving of protection. We consider that it is inhumane to compel a person to carry a fetus to term against their will, especially if the pregnancy occurred as a result of rape.

CONCERNED that "On Abortion" does not make an exception for late term abortions, There was no reason for it to do so, except to mollify those who believe in the personhood of the fetus. In the exceptional cases described in GAR#128, it does not matter if the fetus is early- or late-term.

RECOGNIZING that abortion is a controversial topic, and that legitimate, good-faith arguments that can be made on both sides of the debate, Which is true for all controversial topics...

BELIEVING that it is extremely unlikely that there will ever be a consensus on the issue, There is a general consensus that abortion should be legal in the cases described in GAR#128, which are exceptional cases in which the carriage of a fetus to term would be unethical.

CONCLUDING that the decision of whether or not to legalize abortion is best left in its entirety to individual member nations,Not when we are talking about human rights - in this case the pregnant person's right not to be compelled to carry a fetus to term.

REPEALS GAR #128, "On Abortion".

[Discoveria]

"Furthermore," Matthew continued...

The state has an obligation to protect unborn children.

We dispute this, and expect many other nations here will too. Please support your assertion.

A late-term abortion constitutes the killing of a human being. This is self-evident.

It is certainly NOT self-evident. Please support your claim.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I thought that this was a done deal long ago. If this passes, I will not be hesitant to re-propose the original resolution with only necessary changes in respect of clarity. Yes, I'm used to dealing with controversial stuff like this.

[Paper Flowers]

It is unfortunate that important legal safeguards for medical treatment are threatened by the dangerous and backwards views of a minority. We can only hope that this proposal will enjoy the same success as previous attempts to repeal GAR #128 and that failing that the author is able to put this back on the table with all due urgency.

Ambassador Saunders

[Discoveria]

I thought that this was a done deal long ago. If this passes, I will not be hesitant to re-propose the original resolution with only necessary changes in respect of clarity. Yes, I'm used to dealing with controversial stuff like this.

"We presume that a new generation of WA delegations wish to settle their minds on this issue for themselves," said Matthew. "I hope that the author will see that there are other areas of policy that would benefit from attention. The foundations for this one are quite well established by now."

[Icesun]

I do not support this - at all. Smacks of NatSov argument which is illegal. I think the current resolution of "On Abortion" is perfectly reasonable.

[Ardchoille]

Before the discussion gets too tangled about NatSov in repeals, here's the relevant part of the rule:

Furthermore, simply stating "National Sovereignty" (NatSov) is not sufficient grounds for a Repeal. Since such a stance could be used on every single Resolution, it is little more than saying "I don't like it." Religious, cultural and ethnic sovereignty also falls under the umbrella of NatSov.

This doesn't mean that you can't have any NatSov clauses at all in a repeal. It does mean that the significant argument[s] must be other than NatSov. Once the NatSov component has been discounted, there must be something left.