Repeal "Reproductive Freedoms"

[Stellonia]

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #286: Reproductive Freedoms (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Acknowledging that General Assembly Resolution #286, "Reproductive Freedoms", is intended to protect the right of women to terminate their pregnancies,

Noting that said resolution legalizes sex-selective abortion,

Regretting that sex-selective abortion may result in extreme discrepancies in a nation's population, which could have disastrous consequences,

Believing that some nations may therefore have a compelling need to regulate or ban sex-selective abortions,

Also noting that said resolution legalizes abortion at all stages of pregnancy,

Concerned that this includes stages after fetal viability, a point in pregnancy when even pro-choice activists oppose abortion, as live birth is a far more practical option than abortion at that point,

Noting that General Assembly Resolution #128, "On Abortion", already legalizes abortion in instances of rape, extreme fetal abnormality, and in cases when the mother's physical and mental health may be seriously endangered,

Believing that General Assembly Resolution #286 is written too poorly to meet the ideal standards for a World Assembly resolution,

Considering that had the members of the World Assembly understood the full effects of said resolution, they would have voted against it,

Acknowledging that the termination of pregnancy is an inherently controversial topic that should not be addressed by the World Assembly,

And believing that individual nations, or political subdivisions thereof, should be invested with the power to make their own laws concerning the termination of pregnancy,

The World Assembly hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #286, "Reproductive Freedoms."

[Frisbeeteria]

Acknowledging that the termination of pregnancy is an inherently controversial topic that should not be addressed by the World Assembly,

Whatever else anyone says about this proposal, that's a HORRIBLE argument. If it wasn't controversial, you probably wouldn't need resolutions about it.

[Stellonia]

If it wasn't controversial, you probably wouldn't need resolutions about it.

My proposal states that the subject of the termination of pregnancy is inherently controversial, meaning that it is so controversial that the World Assembly should allow each nation to determine how it should regard the subject.
The issue of whether genocide should be allowed, for instance, is not inherently controversial, as a vast majority of all nations oppose genocide. The World Assembly, therefore, is obliged to issue a resolution to ban genocide, as a few extremely radical nations on NationStates may seek to commit systematic killings against a particular ethnic group.
The World Assembly only acts, or ideally, should only act to guarantee people fundamental rights. A fundamental right is a right that belongs to all people, such as the right to free speech, so that tyrannical governments may not suppress writings against themselves, the right to a fair trial, so that people may only be punished if it has been proven that they have committed a particular crime, and the right to not be subjected to discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, etc., so that all people may have an equal opportunity to succeed. The right to terminate one's pregnancy, however, is not universally considered to be a fundamental right; a large percentage of all people, much larger than those that oppose free speech, fair trials, and equality, hold convictions against such a right. This percentage is so large that the right to terminate one's pregnancy should no longer be forced upon all nations as a fundamental right; each nation should have the right to determine whether women have a fundamental right to terminate their pregnancies, and in what cases it is acceptable for them to terminate their pregnancies.

[Stellonia]

I also don't understand why so many people state that they oppose any repeal of "Reproductive Freedoms" without providing any valid reasoning. Perhaps they think that any repeal of the resolution would be inherently anti-choice.

[Byrrazan]

Approved

[Alqania]

If it wasn't controversial, you probably wouldn't need resolutions about it.

My proposal states that the subject of the termination of pregnancy is inherently controversial, meaning that it is so controversial that the World Assembly should allow each nation to determine how it should regard the subject.
The issue of whether genocide should be allowed, for instance, is not inherently controversial, as a vast majority of all nations oppose genocide. The World Assembly, therefore, is obliged to issue a resolution to ban genocide, as a few extremely radical nations on NationStates may seek to commit systematic killings against a particular ethnic group.
The World Assembly only acts, or ideally, should only act to guarantee people fundamental rights. A fundamental right is a right that belongs to all people, such as the right to free speech, so that tyrannical governments may not suppress writings against themselves, the right to a fair trial, so that people may only be punished if it has been proven that they have committed a particular crime, and the right to not be subjected to discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, etc., so that all people may have an equal opportunity to succeed. The right to terminate one's pregnancy, however, is not universally considered to be a fundamental right; a large percentage of all people, much larger than those that oppose free speech, fair trials, and equality, hold convictions against such a right. This percentage is so large that the right to terminate one's pregnancy should no longer be forced upon all nations as a fundamental right; each nation should have the right to determine whether women have a fundamental right to terminate their pregnancies, and in what cases it is acceptable for them to terminate their pregnancies.

"So Your Excellency's argument is basically that human rights should be subject to the tyranny of majority through democratic vote?" surmised Lord Raekevik. "That the justification for international intervention is a universal multiversal consensus? The Queendom is vehemently opposed to this view and rejects it in the strongest terms."

"Also, Your Excellency's use of the word 'inherent' seems off. How does the current popularity of a certain issue make it 'inherently' uncontroversial? Something that is 'inherent' is a part of the basic nature, the constitution, the essential character. Clearly, the popularity, support or approval of something is an external factor, not a part of the issue's basic nature. It could be argued that abortion is inherently controversial because of what abortion entails, but to argue that it is inherently controversial based on its current approval rate throughout the multiverse is clearly nonsensical."

Considering that had the members of the World Assembly understood the full effects of said resolution, they would have voted against it,

"The Queendom wonders whether it is legal to include this argument in a repeal. We would prefer if it were not."

[Stellonia]

I apologize if my argument was not clear. I did not intend to state that anything is inherently controversial because a certain percentage of the population supports or opposes it. I meant to state that the fact that a certain percentage of the population supports or opposes something is evidence as to whether it is inherently controversial. Not good evidence, but evidence nonetheless.

[The Mediterranean Republic]

Tear it down. I'm for some abortion, but sex selective is utterly evil.

[Separatist Peoples]

Tear it down. I'm for some abortion, but sex selective is utterly evil.

"What is substantially different between aborting a fetus because it is unwanted and aborting a fetus because it does or doesn't have a penis? Both are elective."

[Frustrated Franciscans]

"What is substantially different between aborting a fetus because it is unwanted and aborting a fetus because it does or doesn't have a penis? Both are elective."

Both are an abomination to God, but that is not the issue here. The later can be exceptionally dangerous to the entire welfare of all the nations in the World Assembly. The killing of people based on a completely random criteria (because an "unwanted" person could be male or female, smart or average, strong or weak) produces no statistical impact on a nation's population, assuming that the criteria is indeed completely random. However the killing of people based on a specific criteria that is based on the person being killed produces a significant reduction of such people in the population with this criteria. Let's remember that entire religions were torn asunder because a child lacked a penis. In significant numbers (as is happening in some parts of the world, I'm told) overpopulation of people with penises looking for people without penises results in economic and political turmoil and eventually outright invasions of nations populated with people sans penises. It could also result in the complete elimination of such populations because it takes both people with penises and people without penises in order to perpetuate the population.

[Stellonia]

Repeal "Reproductive Freedoms"

First Draft

Understanding that General Assembly Resolution #286, "Reproductive Freedoms", is intended to protect the right of women to terminate their pregnancies,

Noting that the term "abortion" is defined as "the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy",

Concluding, therefore, that abortion and the termination of pregnancy are the same thing,

Noting that said resolution legalizes sex-selective abortion,

Regretting that sex-selective abortion may result in extreme discrepancies in a nation's population, which could have disastrous consequences,

Acknowledging that nations therefore have a compelling need to regulate or ban sex-selective abortions,

Also noting that said resolution legalizes abortion at all phases of pregnancy,

Concerned that this includes phases after fetal viability, when even pro-choice activists oppose abortion, as live birth is a far more practical option than abortion at that point,

Also concerned that nations may circumvent this law by banning all medical procedures that have a risk or complexity similar to that of abortion,

Noting that General Assembly Resolution #128, "On Abortion", already legalizes abortion in instances of rape, extreme fetal abnormality, and in cases when the mother's physical and mental health may be seriously endangered,

Believing that General Assembly Resolution #286 is written too poorly to meet the ideal standards for a World Assembly resolution,

Considering that had the members of the World Assembly understood the full effects of said resolution, they would have voted against it,

Understanding that abortion is an inherently controversial topic, due to the circumstances that are associated with it,

Noting that the clause, "ACKNOWLEDGING that individuals may have cultural or religious misgivings regarding termination of pregnancy" implies that people who are opposed to abortion are less educated or intelligent than people who approve of abortion,

Regretting that said clause contradicts the ideals of diversity and impartiality that the World Assembly is founded upon,

And believing that individual nations, or political subdivisions thereof, are fully capable of creating and implementing appropriate legislation concerning the topic of abortion,

The World Assembly hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #286, "Reproductive Freedoms."

[Stellonia]

Please state your opinions, questions, and suggestions below, and I will be happy to answer them.

[Frisbeeteria]

Don't start a new thread for each new draft. Threads merged.

[Stellonia]

Could you please separate these two threads?

[Defwa]

Could you please separate these two threads?

Traditionally all drafting occurs in a singular thread. Is there any particular reason you need multiple?

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Could you please separate these two threads?

Why? Just edit you new draft into the OP, and spoiler the old one. Problem solved.

[Kryozerkia]

Could you please separate these two threads?

No. One thread for all your proposal drafts on this topic.

[Synkomdi]

Whilst Synkomdi greatly supports the rights of women, this proposal raises interesting concerns over sex-selective terminations. Thus, so various nations can be better informed, can we have a link to, or the text of "Reproductive Freedoms" added to this thread?

[The Dark Star Republic]

Acknowledging that the termination of pregnancy is an inherently controversial topic that should not be addressed by the World Assembly,

Whatever else anyone says about this proposal, that's a HORRIBLE argument. If it wasn't controversial, you probably wouldn't need resolutions about it.

OOC: It doesn't seem a million miles away from your own argument.

[Caracasus]

Whilst the ambassador makes a good point regarding the potential for sex-selective termination, Caracasus is of the view that a nation not wanting to encourage sex-selective termination would do better to encourage pregnant women to carry babies of a sex not wanted by the mother to term, and provide adoption (as outlined under the current legislation)

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.

Failing that, said nations should probably pursue social and educational policies that promote equality across genders, thus reducing potential demand for sex-selective termination.

Caracasus feels that whilst sex-selective termination is an issue, the negative effects of this would be far outweighed by the removal of this resolution. It is unfortunate, but any policy aimed at legislating anything will most certainly have negative consequences. There is no such thing as a perfect legislation. We feel that in this instance, the rare examples of sex selected termination do not justify undoing the good that this resolution has done.

EDIT - For the poster above, and many more here is the resolution: viewtopic.php?p=19281778#p19281778

A final note, we were under the impression it was considered good form to link to the resolution being repealed within the original post. Is this not the case?

[Stellonia]

We feel that in this instance, the rare examples of sex selected termination do not justify undoing the good that this resolution has done.

Could you please explain what good this resolution has done? This resolution has simply changed the World Assembly from a neutral, impartial assembly to an assembly that favors pro-choice nations and their views on abortion over pro-life nations and their views on abortion.

[Defwa]

We feel that in this instance, the rare examples of sex selected termination do not justify undoing the good that this resolution has done.

Could you please explain what good this resolution has done? This resolution has simply changed the World Assembly from a neutral, impartial assembly to an assembly that favors pro-choice nations and their views on abortion over pro-life nations and their views on abortion.

The WA has pretty much always been about personal rights and getting nations out of people's life choices.

[Caracasus]

We feel that in this instance, the rare examples of sex selected termination do not justify undoing the good that this resolution has done.

Could you please explain what good this resolution has done? This resolution has simply changed the World Assembly from a neutral, impartial assembly to an assembly that favors pro-choice nations and their views on abortion over pro-life nations and their views on abortion.

The good? Well, it has stopped nations effectively outlawing terminations. We will support, and continue to support WA resolutions that give more civil rights to individual citizens. We refuse to be drawn into the moral arguments surrounding this debate, as we feel this is not the forum for it.

[Hirota]

We feel that in this instance, the rare examples of sex selected termination do not justify undoing the good that this resolution has done.

Could you please explain what good this resolution has done? This resolution has simply changed the World Assembly from a neutral, impartial assembly to an assembly that favors pro-choice nations and their views on abortion over pro-life nations and their views on abortion.

Think about it this way - your complaint is that the World Assembly is forcing you to allow women the choice. I'd argue your government isn't the one carrying around a collection of cells in it's womb - so it shouldn't be the final authority on the matter.

If your government is pro-life, and reflects the will of your people - which any half-decent democracy should do - the vast majority of your population will be pro-life and not feel compelled to contradict that belief.

As for the sex-selective issue - I have some degree of sympathy for these kind of exceptions, but really all it will accomplish if we outlawed sex-selective abortion would be sparking a renewed coat hanger industry...

[Stellonia]

I'd argue your government isn't the one carrying around a collection of cells in it's womb - so it shouldn't be the final authority on the matter.

Funny that you should say so! Former Stelloni president Jody Smith was elected president while pregnant. She was a pro-lifer.