[DEFEATED] Repeal "Reproductive Freedoms"

[Brilliant Equestria]

"Flimsy arguments? The author is likely perfectly aware of that, consider they refused to offer it for debate in the first place. We do not find the presented arguments to be at all compelling and remain opposed".

[Defwa]

The issue of fetal personhood is not one I would bring to this floor in my most suicidal dreams.

In Defwa, we do not see this as a problem. We subsidize people who seek to customize their children (as much as our limited technology allows). We do away with dozens of these things at a time because of unacceptable eye color. We would definitely not find fault in someone choosing to abort based on the gender.
It comes down to the simple idea that no person should be forced to host something they don't really want in their body.

[Sanctaria]

It is the position of this delegation, and the Sanctarian government, that the issue of abortion and legislation regarding obstetrics should be dealt with at a national level. As such I will be supporting this repeal.

[Normlpeople]

"I must thank the Margnolian ambassador, I now owe Ambassador Alex a drink for that amusement. That is another topic however. Back on topic at hand, my take is this: A collection of cells or tissue does not have a gender. There is no gender until said collection becomes a person. The "life begins in the womb" is an argument whose pony has been taken outside, beaten, whipped, repeatedly beaten, killed, corpse beaten, and is now mummified, and still being beaten, just waiting to be put to rest. We all have our opinions on that, and none are likely to change.

The fact the author used untruthful, very dramatic language, a straw-man argument, designed to tug at heartstrings only, and has refused to come to these chambers to defend their opinion shows exactly where they stand on it. Again, my take is there is no gender till birth, so gendercide (spelled wrong in the resolution by the way) cannot occur. This is simply another pro-lifer spinning a take on this.

Any widespread issue with preventing female births is, in my opinion, already dealt with by article 1(2) of GAR #38 (Convention against genocide). Again, simply extremist language, designed to yank heartstrings.

[Defwa]

Do we know who's puppet this is? Regardless of the fact it creates a false issue and misuses the word gender where 'sex' is the accurate term, its otherwise well written for its intent.

[Chester Pearson]

Do we know who's puppet this is? Regardless of the fact it creates a false issue and misuses the word gender where 'sex' is the accurate term, its otherwise well written for its intent.

My initial thoughts were Christian Democrats, or Auralia, but CD is still a member, and Auralia's puppet is still a member sooo....

(not like this has stopped people *no names mentioned* from multying to submit a resolution before)

[Normlpeople]

Do we know who's puppet this is? Regardless of the fact it creates a false issue and misuses the word gender where 'sex' is the accurate term, its otherwise well written for its intent.

OOC: I have idea's but no evidence... Even if you look at the two they have currently in the Queue, one is FAR different from the other, almost as if it was written by a different person....

IC: "Thing is, the intent is completely incorrect. Even if 'Reproductive Freedoms' is repealed, 'On Abortion' still permits it to occur, and if you accept their argument that a pile of fetal cells is a person with a gender, there is still nothing to prevent it from being aborted. I stand by my previous opinion, its another pro-lifer that is simply trying a extreme alarmist twist on this issue."

[Defwa]

Do we know who's puppet this is? Regardless of the fact it creates a false issue and misuses the word gender where 'sex' is the accurate term, its otherwise well written for its intent.

My initial thoughts were Christian Democrats, or Auralia, but CD is still a member, and Auralia's puppet is still a member sooo....

(not like this has stopped people *no names mentioned* from multying to submit a resolution before)

OOC
It does feel like Auralias style but I doubt it with all the other work he's taken up lately.
I haven't heard from CD in a while. It it were him, he'd probably show up on his main too.
Its too good to be the Flood or Marlanta. I don't recall any violent opposition outside of that off the top of my head.

Could the admins check the IP?
For multiple reasons I want this thing to backfire and go down in flames.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

Do we know who's puppet this is? Regardless of the fact it creates a false issue and misuses the word gender where 'sex' is the accurate term, its otherwise well written for its intent.

OOC: Let us consider the basic facts of the nation in question.

• 3 days 4 hours ago: Alchemic Queendom was founded in The North Pacific.
• 3 days 4 hours ago: Alchemic Queendom applied to join the World Assembly.
• 3 days 4 hours ago: Alchemic Queendom was admitted to the World Assembly.
  
• 1 day 13 hours ago: Alchemic Queendom submitted a proposal to the General Assembly Repeals Board entitled "Repeal "Reproductive Freedoms"".
• 1 day 12 hours ago: Alchemic Queendom submitted a proposal to the General Assembly Repeals Board entitled "Repeal "Reproductive Freedoms"".
• 1 day 7 hours ago: Alchemic Queendom submitted a proposal to the General Assembly Repeals Board entitled "Repeal "Reproductive Freedoms"".

In short, no clue. But did they actually submit the proposal three times in a row? (or is that a bug in the activity logging system)

IC: While we are always in favor of any resolution that repeals resolutions, especially a repeal of "Reproductive Freedoms" ... a term we object most strongly, the notion of the repeal being only on the basis of gendercide while ignoring all the other infinite horrors of this ungodly resolution is an insult to all holy men and women everywhere.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

My initial thoughts were Christian Democrats, or Auralia, but CD is still a member, and Auralia's puppet is still a member sooo....

(not like this has stopped people *no names mentioned* from multying to submit a resolution before)

OOC
It does feel like Auralias style but I doubt it with all the other work he's taken up lately.
I haven't heard from CD in a while. It it were him, he'd probably show up on his main too.
Its too good to be the Flood or Marlanta. I don't recall any violent opposition outside of that off the top of my head.

Could the admins check the IP?

This is not the proper forum for those kind of requests.

[Defwa]

OOC
It does feel like Auralias style but I doubt it with all the other work he's taken up lately.
I haven't heard from CD in a while. It it were him, he'd probably show up on his main too.
Its too good to be the Flood or Marlanta. I don't recall any violent opposition outside of that off the top of my head.

Could the admins check the IP?

This is not the proper forum for those kind of requests.

OOC
Not placing the request yet. Just trying to figure out if its possible or not

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

The mods can run a multi-check, if you can provide a compelling reason to suspect a player is cheating.

[Ardchoille]

Could the admins check the IP?

The mods can run a multi-check, if you can provide a compelling reason to suspect a player is cheating.

What Kenny said. Curiosity is not a compelling reason. Please address the proposal.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

The Charter of Civil Rights only applies to private entities in the specific cases listed in the resolution, which do not include abortion.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

"Charter of Civil Rights prohibits nations from systematic discrimination of a person based on their gender, orientation, ethnicity, race or otherwise."

WA Ambassador
~Sia Hedishi

We find it terribly convenient that the side that flatly denies the personhood of a fetus can somehow turn that status on and off whenever they see fit. The fetus is either a person endowed with certain internationally protected rights (beyond not being targeted based on gender), or it isn't. It cannot be both.

[Defwa]

"Charter of Civil Rights prohibits nations from systematic discrimination of a person based on their gender, orientation, ethnicity, race or otherwise."

WA Ambassador
~Sia Hedishi

We find it terribly convenient that the side that flatly denies the personhood of a fetus can somehow turn that status on and off whenever they see fit. The fetus is either a person endowed with certain internationally protected rights (beyond not being targeted based on gender), or it isn't. It cannot be both.

No government is discriminating. The pregnant individual is just choosing.
As long as no government or entity specifically endorses targeting certain sexes for abortion, I see no compliance issue nor contradiction

We don't hold our beliefs about abortion because we deny fetuses rights. We give all individuals equal right to decide for themselves if they consent to keeping someone else alive with their body.

[Sciongrad]

"Charter of Civil Rights prohibits nations from systematic discrimination of a person based on their gender, orientation, ethnicity, race or otherwise."

WA Ambassador
~Sia Hedishi

We find it terribly convenient that the side that flatly denies the personhood of a fetus can somehow turn that status on and off whenever they see fit. The fetus is either a person endowed with certain internationally protected rights (beyond not being targeted based on gender), or it isn't. It cannot be both.

"I think the argument here is that the fetus is an inhabitant, but not necessarily a person. Which opens up a whole new can of worms where non-person inhabitants would logically be protected by GAR#35. Either way, arguing that a fetus is an inhabitant of a member nation is engaging in semantic gymnastics in the extreme. Reproductive Freedom certainly permits sex-selective abortion without any restriction, and GAR#35 doesn't do anything to affect that. That, alone, is reason to repeal it."

[Chester Pearson]

As expected this has made quorum....

For the life of me I cannot find an illegality to have this yanked. Could a different pair of eyes please comb this over and (hopefully) find an illegality somewhere so we don't have to rehash this same shit all over again?

[Defwa]

There is not yet a rule against making arguments that are only tangentially related to the initial resolution. We don't have enough evidence to figure out who's puppet this is.

A significant portion of the electorate should turn this down just by being "repeal reproductive freedoms" but I think it will be closer than the last attempt.

[Fendon]

[box]Repeal "Reproductive Freedoms"

As this is well on its way to quorum, and the author (puppet) has indicated they have no intentions of posting this on the forum, I WILL!

Needless to say The Federation opposes this bullshit....

I was getting ready to say "Not again... How many times do we have to do this?"...

That was until I read the end of your post

[Elke and Elba]

As expected this has made quorum....

For the life of me I cannot find an illegality to have this yanked. Could a different pair of eyes please comb this over and (hopefully) find an illegality somewhere so we don't have to rehash this same shit all over again?

Hmm, let's see how we can go around doing this:

Noting that World Assembly Resolution #286, “Reproductive Freedoms”, creates a totally unrestricted right to obtain an abortion at any stage of a pregnancy

(Isn't this more targeted to OA than RP? RP doesn't create the "right")

Disgusted that Resolution #286 prohibits legislation to prevent sex-selective abortion,

Mistruth, misunderstanding of RP. One can simply just pass a bill saying "Member states are mandated to refuse to divulge information of the baby's sex before birth or blah)

Applauding previous World Assembly legislation attempting to address gender-based discrimination, while recognising that this is an unfinished project,

Acknowledging that in many cultures economic and social norms have led to prejudices against female children and to discrimination in favour of male children,

Erm, doesn't CoCR cover this?

Can't this be removed under "Bloody Stupid" or just "Honest Mistakes"?

[Sciongrad]

Mistruth, misunderstanding of RP. One can simply just pass a bill saying "Member states are mandated to refuse to divulge information of the baby's sex before birth or blah)

"This is the most roundabout way of solving that issue you could possibly come up with. Instead of banning sex-selective abortion, you prevent all parents, regardless of whether or not the practice is prevalent in that nation or region, from finding out the birth of their child before it's born. The World Assembly should act with conviction against "gendercide," it shouldn't come up with a poor "solution" after the fact."

[Defwa]

Mistruth, misunderstanding of RP. One can simply just pass a bill saying "Member states are mandated to refuse to divulge information of the baby's sex before birth or blah)

"This is the most roundabout way of solving that issue you could possibly come up with. Instead of banning sex-selective abortion, you prevent all parents, regardless of whether or not the practice is prevalent in that nation or region, from finding out the birth of their child before it's born. The World Assembly should act with conviction against "gendercide," it shouldn't come up with a poor "solution" after the fact."

If you believe it is an issue, how would you do it?
Do you make female fetuses immune to abortion? Do you ban abortion the moment the parents find out about the sex?
Sure you could ban people from aborting if they say its just because the fetus is female, but how enforceable is that? Could they not also say that they just don't want a child at all?

Regardless, I feel it is a clear breach in bodily integrity to force a person to play host to another person they don't want there. They should be able to choose to terminate the arrangement under any circumstance.

[Sciongrad]

Do you make female fetuses immune to abortion? Do you ban abortion the moment the parents find out about the sex?
Sure you could ban people from aborting if they say its just because the fetus is female, but how enforceable is that? Could they not also say that they just don't want a child at all?

"There's no simple solution - sex-selective abortion is a tricky issue for exactly the reasons you've provided. But a comprehensive resolution that focuses on regions specifically impacted by sex-selective abortion is preferable to simply saying 'women should be able to get an abortion always no matter way.'"

Regardless, I feel it is a clear breach in bodily integrity to force a person to play host to another person they don't want there. They should be able to choose to terminate the arrangement under any circumstance.

"A person's right to their own body is not absolute, and sex-selective abortion has calamitous demographic impacts which regularly result in dangerously skewed sex ratios and subsequent economic crises. Just because a woman lives in a culture that would rather kill daughters than raise them does not mean she's entitled to an abortion."

[Defwa]

Do you make female fetuses immune to abortion? Do you ban abortion the moment the parents find out about the sex?
Sure you could ban people from aborting if they say its just because the fetus is female, but how enforceable is that? Could they not also say that they just don't want a child at all?

"There's no simple solution - sex-selective abortion is a tricky issue for exactly the reasons you've provided. But a comprehensive resolution that focuses on regions specifically impacted by sex-selective abortion is preferable to simply saying 'women should be able to get an abortion always no matter way.'"

Regardless, I feel it is a clear breach in bodily integrity to force a person to play host to another person they don't want there. They should be able to choose to terminate the arrangement under any circumstance.

"A person's right to their own body is not absolute, and sex-selective abortion has calamitous demographic impacts which regularly result in dangerously skewed sex ratios and subsequent economic crises. Just because a woman lives in a culture that would rather kill daughters than raise them does not mean she's entitled to an abortion."

A woman is entitled to an abortion anytime she wants to stop being pregnant. You can't force a woman to be pregnant because its beneficial to an economy. And in this case, probably more than any other, removing the option to seek legitimate abortion will only force people who really don't want to have children of a specific sex to seek illegitimate methods- especially if its a strong social force we're talking about that discourages the birth.

The only justifiable path I see is to encourage, in other ways, not aborting via subsidizing targeted children or ensuring quality orphan care.

[Sciongrad]

"There's no simple solution - sex-selective abortion is a tricky issue for exactly the reasons you've provided. But a comprehensive resolution that focuses on regions specifically impacted by sex-selective abortion is preferable to simply saying 'women should be able to get an abortion always no matter way.'"



"A person's right to their own body is not absolute, and sex-selective abortion has calamitous demographic impacts which regularly result in dangerously skewed sex ratios and subsequent economic crises. Just because a woman lives in a culture that would rather kill daughters than raise them does not mean she's entitled to an abortion."

A woman is entitled to an abortion anytime she wants to stop being pregnant. You can't force a woman to be pregnant because its beneficial to an economy. And in this case, probably more than any other, removing the option to seek legitimate abortion will only force people who really don't want to have children of a specific sex to seek illegitimate methods- especially if its a strong social force we're talking about that discourages the birth.

The only justifiable path I see is to encourage, in other ways, not aborting via subsidizing targeted children or ensuring quality orphan care.

OOC: I don't want to sound condescending, but you need to do some research on the effects of sex-selective abortion in southeast Asia and the northwestern Middle East, because it has seriously devastating consequences. Research estimates that approximately 160 million girls have been aborted in that region as a result of son preference and not out of other, legitimate reasons for abortion. Studies have shown in China, which is historically notorious for its "gendercide" measures, that certain regions boast a sex ratio of 126 males for every 100 females. This is not an issue of choice, because deeply entrenched misogyny is not a justification for abortion.