[DEFEATED] Repeal "Reproductive Freedoms"

[The Flood]

OOC: Just a reminder to the pro-choice players here; the pro-life equivalent to the reproductive freedoms resolution would be an absolute ban on all abortion, perhaps with some fluffy wording saying 'oh but condoms are still fine guys', so perhaps you would consider how such a biased resolution would make you feel when voting on whether or not to repeal this unsportsmanlike and gamebreaking resolution.

Many nations left the World Assembly because of the resolution, for varying reasons. Some because it ruined their RPs with it's over reaching powers, some out of moral duty. So ask yourself, why would you support a resolution that serves the sole purpose of ruining the game for people who disagree with you, especially regarding an issue that people feel so strongly about?

[Defwa]

OOC: Just a reminder to the pro-choice players here; the pro-life equivalent to the reproductive freedoms resolution would be an absolute ban on all abortion, perhaps with some fluffy wording saying 'oh but condoms are still fine guys', so perhaps you would consider how such a biased resolution would make you feel when voting on whether or not to repeal this unsportsmanlike and gamebreaking resolution.

Many nations left the World Assembly because of the resolution, for varying reasons. Some because it ruined their RPs with it's over reaching powers, some out of moral duty. So ask yourself, why would you support a resolution that serves the sole purpose of ruining the game for people who disagree with you, especially regarding an issue that people feel so strongly about?

OOC Just because an issue is divisive among a minority doesn't mean it should be ignored. Just like though some people were really against banning leaded fuel, we didn't just drop the vote.

[Hakio]

OOC: Just a reminder to the pro-choice players here; the pro-life equivalent to the reproductive freedoms resolution would be an absolute ban on all abortion, perhaps with some fluffy wording saying 'oh but condoms are still fine guys', so perhaps you would consider how such a biased resolution would make you feel when voting on whether or not to repeal this unsportsmanlike and gamebreaking resolution.

Many nations left the World Assembly because of the resolution, for varying reasons. Some because it ruined their RPs with it's over reaching powers, some out of moral duty. So ask yourself, why would you support a resolution that serves the sole purpose of ruining the game for people who disagree with you, especially regarding an issue that people feel so strongly about?

"No where in the original resolution does it ever directly legalize 3rd trimester abortions."

MANDATES that Member Nations recognise the right of all individuals to have their pregnancies terminated through safe, openly accessible procedures,

"Actually it kind of does... guys? Guys? Has our bureaucracy been able to slither past the gnomes clutches in prohibiting 3rd trimester abortions? I know that there was another resolution about abortion maybe we played word games around the definition. Oh my god, I've turned into an Auralia! NOOOO!!!" Sia Hedishi flips her desk once again as her assistants just get done organizing her stuff off of the floor again back onto the desk.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: And yet again we have a nominally in character response to a post that was clearly marked as OOC. You need to consider that what you're doing is not just bad form, but it actively makes it difficult for other players to play the game.

[Defwa]

OOC: Just a reminder to the pro-choice players here; the pro-life equivalent to the reproductive freedoms resolution would be an absolute ban on all abortion, perhaps with some fluffy wording saying 'oh but condoms are still fine guys', so perhaps you would consider how such a biased resolution would make you feel when voting on whether or not to repeal this unsportsmanlike and gamebreaking resolution.

Many nations left the World Assembly because of the resolution, for varying reasons. Some because it ruined their RPs with it's over reaching powers, some out of moral duty. So ask yourself, why would you support a resolution that serves the sole purpose of ruining the game for people who disagree with you, especially regarding an issue that people feel so strongly about?

"No where in the original resolution does it ever directly legalize 3rd trimester abortions."

MANDATES that Member Nations recognise the right of all individuals to have their pregnancies terminated through safe, openly accessible procedures,

"Actually it kind of does... guys? Guys? Has our bureaucracy been able to slither past the gnomes clutches in prohibiting 3rd trimester abortions? I know that there was another resolution about abortion maybe we played word games around the definition. Oh my god, I've turned into an Auralia! NOOOO!!!" Sia Hedishi flips her desk once again as her assistants just get done organizing her stuff off of the floor again back onto the desk.

You can mandate induced birth in most such situations. As long as it terminates (ends/finishes) the pregnancy

Edit OOC DSR oh my god you're so sensitive. Im on my phone, i forgot to add it. Sooooooooorry

[Sierra Lyricalia]

a resolution that serves the sole purpose of ruining the game for people who disagree with you

(edit: OOC reply to OOC comment)

Gonna stop you there. By definition a resolution that achieves my goal (one of them, anyway) of absolute sovereignty of every individual person over his or her own body not only does not serve "the sole purpose of ruining the game," it doesn't intend that as a purpose at all. It is literally fulfilling one of the most cherished dreams I have for (hypothetical, future, or even pretend) law (especially if internationalized), whereby all peoples and nations recognize individual civil freedoms all the way up to and including bodily sovereignty - the prohibition on coercive action affecting in any way a person's body and life. It's not my intent to "ruin the game" for you; it's my intent to make the law as much as possible the way I think it ought to be. Is that not why we are all here? Did I miss something? Every idea seeks to expand the number of its adherents; every ideology seeks to make itself the preferred political model; every person seeks to cause those who disagree with him to come around and "see the light."

The fact that this is ultimately impossible except through the most gradual individual evolution isn't a reason not to try. And the fact that voters disagree with your position means neither that you are wrong, nor that you are defeated, nor that they necessarily know what they're talking about. (I'd argue in this case they obviously do, but clearly that's because I agree with what they voted for ). Claiming a resolution "is intended solely to ruin the game" is the bitter whine of a child denied a cookie.

[Hakio]

"No where in the original resolution does it ever directly legalize 3rd trimester abortions."



"Actually it kind of does... guys? Guys? Has our bureaucracy been able to slither past the gnomes clutches in prohibiting 3rd trimester abortions? I know that there was another resolution about abortion maybe we played word games around the definition. Oh my god, I've turned into an Auralia! NOOOO!!!" Sia Hedishi flips her desk once again as her assistants just get done organizing her stuff off of the floor again back onto the desk.

You can mandate induced birth in most such situations. As long as it terminates (ends/finishes) the pregnancy

Edit OOC DSR oh my god you're so sensitive. Im on my phone, i forgot to add it. Sooooooooorry

"Oh okay then. Phew. Come on guys clean up these papers from the ground, I'm not paying you to sit back and relax." Sia Hedishi proceeds to sit back and relax before lighting up a cigar. "Ahh, the taste of possible impending lung cancer is sweet...."

OOC-edit:

OOC: And yet again we have a nominally in character response to a post that was clearly marked as OOC. You need to consider that what you're doing is not just bad form, but it actively makes it difficult for other players to play the game.

Relaaax bro. Alright sorry, I didn't see the part that mentioned this was a "game". I dunno which paragraph is IC and OOC.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

You can mandate induced birth in most such situations. As long as it terminates (ends/finishes) the pregnancy

Sorry, but no:

PERMITS Member Nations to enact policies encouraging individuals to allow live delivery of their offspring, provided such policies do not ultimately hinder the individual from terminating their pregnancy,

SUGGESTS that Member Nations encouraging live deliveries take unwanted offspring into their own care.

The resolution would not specify allowing nations to "encourage" live deliveries if they could mandate it in any case. It's the individual's choice. If the individual wants an abortion, the state must allow it.

[Defwa]

You can mandate induced birth in most such situations. As long as it terminates (ends/finishes) the pregnancy

Sorry, but no:

PERMITS Member Nations to enact policies encouraging individuals to allow live delivery of their offspring, provided such policies do not ultimately hinder the individual from terminating their pregnancy,

SUGGESTS that Member Nations encouraging live deliveries take unwanted offspring into their own care.

The resolution would not specify allowing nations to "encourage" live deliveries if they could mandate it in any case. It's the individual's choice. If the individual wants an abortion, the state must allow it.

So what you're saying is that you didn't propose this just to cause fights, but you legitimately do not understand what termination of pregnancy is.

I'll let the author handle that one. I've seen her do it enough times to know she's good at it.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

No, what I'm saying is, I understand how logic works. Why would a resolution specifically allow nations to "encourage" something if they could just mandate it? Moreover, why would a resolution suggest nations take babies into their care if they "encourage" live deliveries -- but not nations that mandate them? It makes no sense. Clearly the resolution means to mandate abortion -- at the individual's discretion -- but also to allow nations to "encourage" live delivery as an alternative. The semantic games the author likes to play with the word "terminate" does not negate the overall effect of this resolution: the legalization of abortion at any point in a pregnancy, at the individual's direction. If this were not the case, the author would no go to pains to explain in her original FAQ why the resolution "allowing late-term abortions" shouldn't be such a big concern for voting nations. Why try to explain it away when nations could effectively ban it by mandating live deliveries?

[The Flood]

OOC: Just a reminder to the pro-choice players here; the pro-life equivalent to the reproductive freedoms resolution would be an absolute ban on all abortion, perhaps with some fluffy wording saying 'oh but condoms are still fine guys', so perhaps you would consider how such a biased resolution would make you feel when voting on whether or not to repeal this unsportsmanlike and gamebreaking resolution.
Many nations left the World Assembly because of the resolution, for varying reasons. Some because it ruined their RPs with it's over reaching powers, some out of moral duty. So ask yourself, why would you support a resolution that serves the sole purpose of ruining the game for people who disagree with you, especially regarding an issue that people feel so strongly about?

OOC Just because an issue is divisive among a minority doesn't mean it should be ignored. Just like though some people were really against banning leaded fuel, we didn't just drop the vote.

OOC: People don't have strong real life opinions on leaded fuel, nor is it an issue people have invested a lot in. I left the World Assembly because the resolution forced me to. I didn't have a choice. It was either I violate the most strongly held opinion I have as well as my conscience, or leave. That's not cool, for a resolution to be like that. It's also notable that the resolution had quite a mocking town, it very well might as well have said "Recognizing that abortion is a very divisive issue, but nevertheless, fuck everyone who is against it, this resolution makes no concessions for your side and is solely 100% for the pro-choice crowd"

I also wouldn't even be surprised if the resolution was created as a means to drive out pro-life nations in order to artificially make the World Assembly more liberal biased.

It was bad sportsmanship and you know it.

[Hakio]

OOC Just because an issue is divisive among a minority doesn't mean it should be ignored. Just like though some people were really against banning leaded fuel, we didn't just drop the vote.

OOC: People don't have strong real life opinions on leaded fuel, nor is it an issue people have invested a lot in. I left the World Assembly because the resolution forced me to. I didn't have a choice. It was either I violate the most strongly held opinion I have as well as my conscience, or leave. That's not cool, for a resolution to be like that. It's also notable that the resolution had quite a mocking town, it very well might as well have said "Recognizing that abortion is a very divisive issue, but nevertheless, fuck everyone who is against it, this resolution makes no concessions for your side and is solely 100% for the pro-choice crowd"

I also wouldn't even be surprised if the resolution was created as a means to drive out pro-life nations in order to artificially make the World Assembly more liberal biased.

It was bad sportsmanship and you know it.

OOC: All scientific data on the topic of leaded fuel points to it being dangerous and hazardous to human civilians. Getting back to the point however, this proposal was passed which means it was voted for by the majority. Majority rule is more important than the will of the minority in a democracy.

[The Flood]

a resolution that serves the sole purpose of ruining the game for people who disagree with you

(edit: OOC reply to OOC comment)
Gonna stop you there. By definition a resolution that achieves my goal (one of them, anyway) of absolute sovereignty of every individual person over his or her own body not only does not serve "the sole purpose of ruining the game," it doesn't intend that as a purpose at all. It is literally fulfilling one of the most cherished dreams I have for (hypothetical, future, or even pretend) law (especially if internationalized), whereby all peoples and nations recognize individual civil freedoms all the way up to and including bodily sovereignty - the prohibition on coercive action affecting in any way a person's body and life. It's not my intent to "ruin the game" for you; it's my intent to make the law as much as possible the way I think it ought to be. Is that not why we are all here? Did I miss something? Every idea seeks to expand the number of its adherents; every ideology seeks to make itself the preferred political model; every person seeks to cause those who disagree with him to come around and "see the light."
The fact that this is ultimately impossible except through the most gradual individual evolution isn't a reason not to try. And the fact that voters disagree with your position means neither that you are wrong, nor that you are defeated, nor that they necessarily know what they're talking about. (I'd argue in this case they obviously do, but clearly that's because I agree with what they voted for ). Claiming a resolution "is intended solely to ruin the game" is the bitter whine of a child denied a cookie.

OOC: It is not my goal to force the pro-life stance on all the other nations in this game, mostly because it is impossible due to the bias of this game, so why should it be okay for you to try to force the pro-choice stance on every nation in the game? Especially when the people you are forcing this on are for more passionately against the resolution (to the point of many of them leaving the WA) then you are in favour of it.

[The Flood]

OOC: People don't have strong real life opinions on leaded fuel, nor is it an issue people have invested a lot in. I left the World Assembly because the resolution forced me to. I didn't have a choice. It was either I violate the most strongly held opinion I have as well as my conscience, or leave. That's not cool, for a resolution to be like that. It's also notable that the resolution had quite a mocking town, it very well might as well have said "Recognizing that abortion is a very divisive issue, but nevertheless, fuck everyone who is against it, this resolution makes no concessions for your side and is solely 100% for the pro-choice crowd"
I also wouldn't even be surprised if the resolution was created as a means to drive out pro-life nations in order to artificially make the World Assembly more liberal biased.
It was bad sportsmanship and you know it.

OOC: All scientific data on the topic of leaded fuel points to it being dangerous and hazardous to human civilians. Getting back to the point however, this proposal was passed which means it was voted for by the majority. Majority rule is more important than the will of the minority in a democracy.

OOC: It passed by a very slim margin, and only because of pro-choice regions using their regional power to skew it that way. It was a dirty win, that does not accurately reflect the opinions of players.

Even in Canada, a very liberal country, some 80% of the population are against late term abortion being legal. So I can't accept even remotely that the majority actually voted for Reproductive Freedoms. It won due to a combination of people voting without reading the resolution fully to understand its implications, and due to pro-choice regions using their influence to affect the vote.

[Ardchoille]

... As soon as you finish pleasuring yourself over the flames, Kenny, please do us the favor of admitting your trollistic intent."

*** Warned for flamebait. ***

Specifically, trollnaming, which is a form of flamebait. I'm disappointed to see you still making this sort of baity gaffe, which echoes the (not yet expired) warning you got from Rep back in June and sadly recalls some of your earliest days in the GA.

A Public Service Announcement from Volunteer Fire Brigade Captain Ard:

Delegates, we all know abortion debates bring out the worst in the GA, but they're like bushfires. They're going to happen, however much we dislike them. So take precautions. Clear your premises of insult, cut back overgrown emotion, have the hose permanently connected to the politeness tap, revise your take-a-break escape strategy, and stay in touch with your friendly fire control authorities. Leave has been cancelled throught the district and firefighters are on 24-hour alert.

[Lexicor]

"The Delegation of Lexicor will not support any replacement on abortion that directly infringes on national sovereignty without a legitimate logical reason for doing so."

[Bananaistan]

OOC: That last reply from the OP was the most patronising piece of shit I ever saw.

IC: rather than write our arguments off as rules lawyering, why not address the points?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

OOC: That last reply from the OP was the most patronising piece of shit I ever saw.

Oh, I'm sorry. Was that not a mod just two posts up reminding us not to be unnecessarily uncivil?

IC: rather than write our arguments off as rules lawyering, why not address the points?

Oh, do forgive us. We must have had a little too much bitch with our coffee this morning. We thought (particularly with your reference to Secretariat rulings regarding repeals misrepresenting the content of their resolutions) you were making the case for why our repeal was borderline-illegal; we were merely trying to demonstrate that it is not.

I think it goes without saying that contending a word like "termination" does not mean what everyone who speaks English takes it to mean, in order to effectively redefine it for purposes of a resolution, is cynical in the extreme. Moreover, there are serious logical gaps in the suggestion that a resolution, ostensibly written to preserve reproductive choice to women, was actually written in such a way as to allow nations to revoke that choice by forcing women to give birth to a child when they simply want their pregnancy terminated. The terms of PRA are rather clear to us in that patients have the right to undergo any procedure that is legal in their nation, and guess what? -- Reproductive Freedoms makes abortion legal. We tend to approach subjects with a certain degree of common sense when things are indisputably the way they are presented, and when a law clearly means what a law says, not what proponents wish it could have said in order to make such an extreme measure seem more "moderate" by comparison. Nay, even that a resolution supposedly allowing nations to force childbirth upon a woman seeking abortion is more "moderate" than a resolution simply protecting the individual's choice.

But alas, the last two clauses do not actually allow for such a farce. They clearly state that nations are allowed to encourage (not force) individuals to choose a live-birth procedure as an alternative to abortion. And I think that is buttressed by language in those very clauses upholding the individual's choice as the arbiter, not some Creative Solutions Agency-worthy legal sidestep.

If we were in the WA, our Creative Solutions Agency probably would be encouraging us to exploit such a ridiculously conceived loophole. Are you trying to contend that the author of this resolution is no better than a sleazy Kennyite lawyer?

...or when you contest the meaning of "termination" do you actually mean something else than Defwa's suggestion (borrowed from the author) that it could also mean a live birth?

[Nanualele]

In Nanualele, we are firm supporters of women's rights, however, we do not consider the killing of children to be a right of common citizens unless acting in self defense. While we reserve the right to kill our own citizens when they pose an immediate threat, were the WA to mandate that we must kill our own citizens for any reason we would of course declare war on the proposing nations.

Fortunately, we note a loophole in 286, in the "medical procedures of similar risk and complexity" clause. Since an abortion results in the death of a child, we consider it to be of the same level of risk and complexity as euthanasia, which is an illegal procedure in Nanualele.

Despite this, we stil find the wording of 286 to be offensive and pray for it's repeal. We may support a replacement resolution in favour of abortions when the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, possibly mandating the state provide foster care and maternity compensation when abortions are denied, as a lasting compromise to the liberal element, provided such a resolution was worded with due sensitivity to the grave nature of this subject.

[The Palentine]

... As soon as you finish pleasuring yourself over the flames, Kenny, please do us the favor of admitting your trollistic intent."

*** Warned for flamebait. ***

Specifically, trollnaming, which is a form of flamebait. I'm disappointed to see you still making this sort of baity gaffe, which echoes the (not yet expired) warning you got from Rep back in June and sadly recalls some of your earliest days in the GA.

A Public Service Announcement from Volunteer Fire Brigade Captain Ard:

Delegates, we all know abortion debates bring out the worst in the GA, but they're like bushfires. They're going to happen, however much we dislike them. So take precautions. Clear your premises of insult, cut back overgrown emotion, have the hose permanently connected to the politeness tap, revise your take-a-break escape strategy, and stay in touch with your friendly fire control authorities. Leave has been cancelled throught the district and firefighters are on 24-hour alert.

Ma'am, thanks for the PSA, but I don't think the denizens of the current Festering Snakepit can even come close to the s@@tstorm that brewed when the ALC was brought to the floor in the old World Body That Must Not Be Named. The current ambassadors can't even come close to the frothing purple faced fits of Forgottenlord , Comprendia, or Cluichistan.
<winks and tips fedora to Dicey>
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: OMGTKK/OMGTCK, do you mind editing a link to the target resolution into your OP for ease of reference?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Done.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

"No where in the original resolution does it ever directly legalize 3rd trimester abortions."

Really?

MANDATES that Member Nations recognise the right of all individuals to have their pregnancies terminated through safe, openly accessible procedures,

There is no time frame indicated, termination of pregnancies is therefore permitted for all stages of pregnancy. First, second, third, and if possible (generally it's not) fourth.

So let's consider the notion of proper definitions. I think medical sources are the best, don't you think? SOURCE

Termination of pregnancy (TOP) is a medically directed miscarriage prior to independent viability, using pharmacological or surgical means.

Or we can just look up "Abortion" in the dictionary

1.
a. Induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the embryo or fetus.
b. Any of various procedures resulting in the termination of a pregnancy. Also called induced abortion.

So what do you think TOP is? Does your definition involve pink unicorns? IT MEANS AN ABORTION!

[Wrapper]

There is no time frame indicated, termination of pregnancies is therefore permitted for all stages of pregnancy. First, second, third, and if possible (generally it's not) fourth.

Ahem....

Termination of pregnancy (TOP) is a medically directed miscarriage prior to independent viability, using pharmacological or surgical means.

prior to independent viability

Seems to me that once a fetus is viable, your definition of "termination of pregnancy" doesn't apply. So, no, the resolution does not directly legalize 3rd trimester abortions.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

Seems to me that once a fetus is viable, your definition of "termination of pregnancy" doesn't apply. So, no, the resolution does not directly legalize 3rd trimester abortions.

OOC: That was a UK site; post viable abortions are not exactly legal there and occur for a very limited number of extreme reasons.

OOC: You are also making an assumption about the term "independent viability" which is not defined on that webpage.

Once again, how you do "terminate a pregnancy" in the third trimester?

"Terminate is defined as to end, to bring to an end or to destroy."

So when I graduated college, did I "terminate" my education? Or did my education come to a completion.

Once again, how you do "terminate a pregnancy" in the third trimester?

Don't make me take my Birkenstock sandal and bang it on the podium.