Repeal "Reproductive Freedoms"

[Caracasus]

If you really insist upon forcing your policies upon the World Assembly, I will write you a revised edition that does not mention national sovereignty or the controversy that is associated with abortion. Then you can come up with some more explanations as to why you support GAR #286 and oppose this repeal. Here is the draft that I hope you will like:

Very well. Caracasus supports GAR #286 for the following reasons:

1) We believe that the person best placed to decide if they wish to carry a baby to term is the mother.

2) There are many medical and psychological reasons why carrying a baby to term can have a severe detrimental effect on the mother and the child, the most serious being death.

3) We believe that in light of the fact that no-one has developed 100% foolproof contraceptive measures, and that if our people are anything to go by, people will continue to engage in sexual intercourse, easily available abortions allow unwanted pregnancies to be terminated before a child is born into a badly prepared and ill equipped family environment.

4) We believe that if this resolution was to be repealed, many nations would enforce their moral viewpoints of abortion on citizens, irrespective of weather the citizen in question agrees with their moral stance.

5) We believe that the resolution provides adequate leeway for nations to provide support for nations who wish to encourage prospective mothers to carry their child to term, then have it adopted.

6) On balance, we have decided we would rather allow a few cases where a fetus is aborted unnecessarily than a situation where in some nation states a woman cannot get an abortion, endangering the lives of many.

7) We believe that the perception of women who get abortions as people who put no thought into it at all other than a desire to rid themselves of a baby they did not want to be naive, backward and highly insulting to the countless numbers of women who have to make that particular decision. We would not wish legislation bought in or removed under that particular mindset.

[Mousebumples]

If you really insist upon forcing your policies upon the World Assembly, I will write you a revised edition that does not mention national sovereignty or the controversy that is associated with abortion. Then you can come up with some more explanations as to why you support GAR #286 and oppose this repeal. Here is the draft that I hope you will like:

Very well. Caracasus supports GAR #286 for the following reasons:

1) We believe that the person best placed to decide if they wish to carry a baby to term is the mother.

2) There are many medical and psychological reasons why carrying a baby to term can have a severe detrimental effect on the mother and the child, the most serious being death.

3) We believe that in light of the fact that no-one has developed 100% foolproof contraceptive measures, and that if our people are anything to go by, people will continue to engage in sexual intercourse, easily available abortions allow unwanted pregnancies to be terminated before a child is born into a badly prepared and ill equipped family environment.

4) We believe that if this resolution was to be repealed, many nations would enforce their moral viewpoints of abortion on citizens, irrespective of weather the citizen in question agrees with their moral stance.

5) We believe that the resolution provides adequate leeway for nations to provide support for nations who wish to encourage prospective mothers to carry their child to term, then have it adopted.

6) On balance, we have decided we would rather allow a few cases where a fetus is aborted unnecessarily than a situation where in some nation states a woman cannot get an abortion, endangering the lives of many.

7) We believe that the perception of women who get abortions as people who put no thought into it at all other than a desire to rid themselves of a baby they did not want to be naive, backward and highly insulting to the countless numbers of women who have to make that particular decision. We would not wish legislation bought in or removed under that particular mindset.

Very well said. I'll have to ... um ... borrow these arguments whenever the next repeal of Reproductive Freedoms hits the floor.

[Geanna]

The United Federacy opposes this Repeal, and upholds its support for GAR #286.

If you really insist upon forcing your policies upon the World Assembly, I will write you a revised edition that does not mention national sovereignty or the controversy that is associated with abortion. Then you can come up with some more explanations as to why you support GAR #286 and oppose this repeal. Here is the draft that I hope you will like:

Very well. Caracasus supports GAR #286 for the following reasons:

1) We believe that the person best placed to decide if they wish to carry a baby to term is the mother.

2) There are many medical and psychological reasons why carrying a baby to term can have a severe detrimental effect on the mother and the child, the most serious being death.

3) We believe that in light of the fact that no-one has developed 100% foolproof contraceptive measures, and that if our people are anything to go by, people will continue to engage in sexual intercourse, easily available abortions allow unwanted pregnancies to be terminated before a child is born into a badly prepared and ill equipped family environment.

4) We believe that if this resolution was to be repealed, many nations would enforce their moral viewpoints of abortion on citizens, irrespective of weather the citizen in question agrees with their moral stance.

5) We believe that the resolution provides adequate leeway for nations to provide support for nations who wish to encourage prospective mothers to carry their child to term, then have it adopted.

6) On balance, we have decided we would rather allow a few cases where a fetus is aborted unnecessarily than a situation where in some nation states a woman cannot get an abortion, endangering the lives of many.

7) We believe that the perception of women who get abortions as people who put no thought into it at all other than a desire to rid themselves of a baby they did not want to be naive, backward and highly insulting to the countless numbers of women who have to make that particular decision. We would not wish legislation bought in or removed under that particular mindset.

Caracasus hit the nail on the head - so to speak.

[Caracasus]

The delegation from Caracasus is pleased that we were finally able to summarise one of our arguments succinctly at least, and would be more than willing for any delegation to thieve, borrow, purloin or modify any of the arguments we made should it combat this kind of insanity in future.

[Stellonia]

1) We believe that the person best placed to decide if they wish to carry a baby to term is the mother.

3) We believe that in light of the fact that no-one has developed 100% foolproof contraceptive measures, and that if our people are anything to go by, people will continue to engage in sexual intercourse, easily available abortions allow unwanted pregnancies to be terminated before a child is born into a badly prepared and ill equipped family environment.

4) We believe that if this resolution was to be repealed, many nations would enforce their moral viewpoints of abortion on citizens, irrespective of weather the citizen in question agrees with their moral stance.

These issues can be solved by establishing a new resolution on abortion.

2) There are many medical and psychological reasons why carrying a baby to term can have a severe detrimental effect on the mother and the child, the most serious being death.

6) On balance, we have decided we would rather allow a few cases where a fetus is aborted unnecessarily than a situation where in some nation states a woman cannot get an abortion, endangering the lives of many.

That is why GAR #128 protects the right of women to have abortions in instances of rape, extreme fetal abnormality, and in instances when the mother's physical or mental health is seriously endangered.

5) We believe that the resolution provides adequate leeway for nations to provide support for nations who wish to encourage prospective mothers to carry their child to term, then have it adopted.

Nations will still have "adequate leeway" to encourage pregnant women to give birth and have their child be adopted without GAR #286.

7) We believe that the perception of women who get abortions as people who put no thought into it at all other than a desire to rid themselves of a baby they did not want to be naive, backward and highly insulting to the countless numbers of women who have to make that particular decision. We would not wish legislation bought in or removed under that particular mindset.

This repeal is not intended to hold that position. This repeal is intended to replace GAR #286 with a new resolution, or to enable nations or political subdivisions thereof to make their own decisions on abortion.

Very well said. I'll have to ... um ... borrow these arguments whenever the next repeal of Reproductive Freedoms hits the floor.

I don't think that that was very well said, and I wouldn't borrow these arguments if I opposed a repeal of GAR #286.

Caracasus hit the nail on the head - so to speak.

I wouldn't really say so.

The delegation from Caracasus is pleased that we were finally able to summarise one of our arguments succinctly at least, and would be more than willing for any delegation to thieve, borrow, purloin or modify any of the arguments we made should it combat this kind of insanity in future.

Your argument may be succinct, but it is inaccurate and misinformed. Do you suppose that opposing a resolution that allows abortions at 35 1/2 weeks constitutes insanity, by the way?

[Caracasus]

Given your signature and clear opinion on this issue ambassador, you will forgive us if we do not feel you should be trusted with drafting a replacement to this legislation, or indeed able to create a piece of legislation that stands a chance of getting through voting.

We have stated our argument, and you have done nothing to pacify our serious concerns regarding the restriction of civil liberties that this will bring in.

Could you answer one question for us? Do you beleive it likely that any nation would genuinely have sex selective abortions to the extent that it causes serious demographic issues without having an associated raft of social issues that would be solved by making sex-selective abortions illegal?

We stand by the fact that people will engage in sexual intercourse, and would like to add that throughout history people have sought to terminate pregnancies for many reasons. We would much prefer that citizens of WA nations can get a carefully controlled and safe medical abortion as opposed to relying on back street abortionists.

EDIT: The good ambassador does realize that abortions conducted that far into pregnancy are solely for medical reasons, yes?

[Geanna]

Given your signature and clear opinion on this issue ambassador, you will forgive us if we do not feel you should be trusted with drafting a replacement to this legislation, or indeed able to create a piece of legislation that stands a chance of getting through voting.

We have stated our argument, and you have done nothing to pacify our serious concerns regarding the restriction of civil liberties that this will bring in.

Could you answer one question for us? Do you beleive it likely that any nation would genuinely have sex selective abortions to the extent that it causes serious demographic issues without having an associated raft of social issues that would be solved by making sex-selective abortions illegal?

We stand by the fact that people will engage in sexual intercourse, and would like to add that throughout history people have sought to terminate pregnancies for many reasons. We would much prefer that citizens of WA nations can get a carefully controlled and safe medical abortion as opposed to relying on back street abortionists.

EDIT: The good ambassador does realize that abortions conducted that far into pregnancy are solely for medical reasons, yes?

In reality - I'd have to further the argument, the idea that abortions would be so rampant to actually curve the growth of a population is so hyperbolic and outlandish, that I'd have to question any administration that'd honestly take such a claim seriously - due to this, I'd have to continue to oppose the repeal because it would appear that said administration has had its position compromised, and as a result would further compromise the very integrity of established civil rights with other member states should this actually advance to the floor.

[Stellonia]

Given your signature and clear opinion on this issue ambassador, you will forgive us if we do not feel you should be trusted with drafting a replacement to this legislation, or indeed able to create a piece of legislation that stands a chance of getting through voting.

I do not intend to write any replacement for this resolution, although I may write a "Convention on Abortion", or something of the sort that, among other things, will ban abortions after fetal viability.

We have stated our argument, and you have done nothing to pacify our serious concerns regarding the restriction of civil liberties that this will bring in.
We stand by the fact that people will engage in sexual intercourse, and would like to add that throughout history people have sought to terminate pregnancies for many reasons. We would much prefer that citizens of WA nations can get a carefully controlled and safe medical abortion as opposed to relying on back street abortionists.

If you can pass a resolution that legalizes abortion in all instances (assuming that that is what you mean), than you can avoid this "restriction of civil liberties" that you speak of. However, if any proposal to legalize abortion in all instances does not pass, then you should see that the nations of the World Assembly want individual regions, nations, or political subdivisions of nations to make their own laws on abortion.

Could you answer one question for us? Do you beleive it likely that any nation would genuinely have sex selective abortions to the extent that it causes serious demographic issues without having an associated raft of social issues that would be solved by making sex-selective abortions illegal?

Some societies do have cultural views that may lead them to discriminate against fetuses or babies depending upon their sex. If such discrimination is not adequately regulated, this could result in extreme discrepancies in the male-to-female ratio of a region or country.

The good ambassador does realize that abortions conducted that far into pregnancy are solely for medical reasons, yes?

Did I not state that GAR #128 already legalizes abortions in instances of rape, extreme fetal abnormality, or instances when the mother's physical or mental health is endangered by the pregnancy?

[Caracasus]

Given your signature and clear opinion on this issue ambassador, you will forgive us if we do not feel you should be trusted with drafting a replacement to this legislation, or indeed able to create a piece of legislation that stands a chance of getting through voting.

I do not intend to write any replacement for this resolution, although I may write a "Convention on Abortion", or something of the sort that, among other things, will ban abortions after fetal viability.

We have stated our argument, and you have done nothing to pacify our serious concerns regarding the restriction of civil liberties that this will bring in.
We stand by the fact that people will engage in sexual intercourse, and would like to add that throughout history people have sought to terminate pregnancies for many reasons. We would much prefer that citizens of WA nations can get a carefully controlled and safe medical abortion as opposed to relying on back street abortionists.

If you can pass a resolution that legalizes abortion in all instances (assuming that that is what you mean), than you can avoid this "restriction of civil liberties" that you speak of. However, if any proposal to legalize abortion in all instances does not pass, then you should see that the nations of the World Assembly want individual regions, nations, or political subdivisions of nations to make their own laws on abortion.

Could you answer one question for us? Do you beleive it likely that any nation would genuinely have sex selective abortions to the extent that it causes serious demographic issues without having an associated raft of social issues that would be solved by making sex-selective abortions illegal?

Some societies do have cultural views that may lead them to discriminate against fetuses or babies depending upon their sex. If such discrimination is not adequately regulated, this could result in extreme discrepancies in the male-to-female ratio of a region or country.

The good ambassador does realize that abortions conducted that far into pregnancy are solely for medical reasons, yes?

Did I not state that GAR #128 already legalizes abortions in instances of rape, extreme fetal abnormality, or instances when the mother's physical or mental health is endangered by the pregnancy?[/quote]

The above is a response from Stellonia, below is our reply. What the hell went wrong with the formatting?


1) You did indeed state legalized abortions in cases of rape etc. So why did you feel the need to bring up 35 1/2 week abortions? Surely you are aware that no medical practitioner would authorize such a procedure as it falls well outside the guidelines of a routine medical procedure unless extreme cases prevail?

2) If a society or culture has a view regarding discrimination, then how exactly would this legislation help? If anything, surely they would be more likely to allow abortions based on sex. We do not feel that this is a realistic reason to curtail the liberties of women across the WA to choose what happens to their bodies.

3) We do not seek to legalise abortion in all instances - as you imply. Rather we do not see any issue at all with the current legislation, and fear the impact on the civil liberties of approximately 51% of the population if this repeal succeeds. You are attempting to repeal this legislation, it is up to you to justify your repeal - not up to Caracasus to draft better legislation to replace existing legislation.

[Stellonia]

1) You did indeed state legalized abortions in cases of rape etc. So why did you feel the need to bring up 35 1/2 week abortions? Surely you are aware that no medical practitioner would authorize such a procedure as it falls well outside the guidelines of a routine medical procedure unless extreme cases prevail?

Can you please be more specific by including an example?

2) If a society or culture has a view regarding discrimination, then how exactly would this legislation help? If anything, surely they would be more likely to allow abortions based on sex. We do not feel that this is a realistic reason to curtail the liberties of women across the WA to choose what happens to their bodies.

As I stated, I may write a "Convention on Abortion", which could ban abortions after fetal viability and perhaps encourage or mandate that nations ban sex-selective abortion. Besides, a repeal of GAR #286 will not curtail the liberties of women around the WA to terminate their abortions but only in nations or political subdivisions thereof that make the decision to ban abortion. Of course, no woman in the WA will have their liberties to terminate their abortions curtailed if GAR #286 is replaced.

3) We do not seek to legalise abortion in all instances - as you imply. Rather we do not see any issue at all with the current legislation, and fear the impact on the civil liberties of approximately 51% of the population if this repeal succeeds. You are attempting to repeal this legislation, it is up to you to justify your repeal - not up to Caracasus to draft better legislation to replace existing legislation.

If you do not see any issues with the current legislation, I would like to remind you that nations or political subdivisions thereof may circumvent the effects of GAR #286 simply by banning a host of medical procedures, including all that have a similar "complexity" to abortion. Do you want that to happen?

I do not understand why you want to force other nations to take the same course of action as you when faced with such a trivial "right" as abortion.

[Caracasus]

1) You did indeed state legalized abortions in cases of rape etc. So why did you feel the need to bring up 35 1/2 week abortions? Surely you are aware that no medical practitioner would authorize such a procedure as it falls well outside the guidelines of a routine medical procedure unless extreme cases prevail?

Can you please be more specific by including an example?

2) If a society or culture has a view regarding discrimination, then how exactly would this legislation help? If anything, surely they would be more likely to allow abortions based on sex. We do not feel that this is a realistic reason to curtail the liberties of women across the WA to choose what happens to their bodies.

As I stated, I may write a "Convention on Abortion", which could ban abortions after fetal viability and perhaps encourage or mandate that nations ban sex-selective abortion. Besides, a repeal of GAR #286 will not curtail the liberties of women around the WA to terminate their abortions but only in nations or political subdivisions thereof that make the decision to ban abortion. Of course, no woman in the WA will have their liberties to terminate their abortions curtailed if GAR #286 is replaced.

3) We do not seek to legalise abortion in all instances - as you imply. Rather we do not see any issue at all with the current legislation, and fear the impact on the civil liberties of approximately 51% of the population if this repeal succeeds. You are attempting to repeal this legislation, it is up to you to justify your repeal - not up to Caracasus to draft better legislation to replace existing legislation.

If you do not see any issues with the current legislation, I would like to remind you that nations or political subdivisions thereof may circumvent the effects of GAR #286 simply by banning a host of medical procedures, including all that have a similar "complexity" to abortion. Do you want that to happen?

I do not understand why you want to force other nations to take the same course of action as you when faced with such a trivial "right" as abortion.

1) No, we will not provide you with an example. You dragged up repealing perfectly good legislation surrounding abortion; if anyone is doing leg-work scrolling through pages of detail regarding abortions, that's your dubious honor ambassador.

2) The legislation does not need replacing, end of. The vast majority of people here have disagreed with you. The vast majority of nations in WA may well do so also. It is your job, when presenting a reason for a repeal, to draw up a reasonable reason to do so. You have presented us with wild hypothetical situations that strain the limits of credulity. You do not need to re-write this.

3) Another wild hypothetical. A nation that insane? They've probably done worse, on a daily basis to their citizens. Highly unlikely to be a WA member in the first place. Not going to make a real difference.

4) We do not see the ability of all women to determine what happens to their bodies in one of the most drastic and challenging periods of their lives as a trivial issue.

[Deropia]

Ambassador MacAlister sighs, tugging on the royal blue jacket of his militaty uniform. "Respected members of the World Assembly, I cant helieve that we're addressing this issue AGAIN. I would have thought that the LAST time a repeal of Reproductive Freedoms was defeated by, what, five or six THOUSAND votes it would have been a good indicator of this chambers opinion on the matter. However, the office of the High General would like to see this repeal reach quarum, just to see it utterly defeated on the floor. If I recall correctly, the last time this came to vote it almost caused a number of international incidents.""

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Your argument may be succinct, but it is inaccurate and misinformed. Do you suppose that opposing a resolution that allows abortions at 35 1/2 weeks constitutes insanity, by the way?

A life-threatening condition to either descendant or mother that requires immediate termination by emergency caesarian (because that's the only way you're going to have an "abortion") that remained undetected through thirty-five and a half fucking weeks of pregnancy is in any modern nation (FT even!) tantamount to blatant medical malpractice, given the current state of medical science. The fact that the mother did not face serious complications before week 35 is in itself a fucking miracle.
The postulated scenario is so extreme it possibly has never ever happened in recorded medical history. Summary, this is one fucking slope that is so fucking slippery it's fucking inverted after performing three thousand back-somersaults. Indeed my own mind is somersaulting back and forth in trying to construct a scenario where a 35.5 week emergency caesarian can be termed an "abortion" where the descendant dies intentionally.

[The Dark Star Republic]

The World Assembly has not forced anyone to do anything. The World Assembly has merely prohibited governments (excluding mine, which has banned abortion in direct violation of GA Resolutions #128 and #286) from protecting people from their choices. As the aforementioned Jody Smith once said during a debate, "Man's greatest enemy is sometimes his own volition."

How excellent for your female citizens that your government doesn't trust their ability to decide for themselves what's best for their bodies and their futures.

I hope all females in Stellonia are aware that should they wish to immigrate to Mousebumples, they would be more than welcome.

OOC: We eagerly await the delegation's resolution to legalise heroin in all WA member nations!

[Separatist Peoples]

If you do not see any issues with the current legislation, I would like to remind you that nations or political subdivisions thereof may circumvent the effects of GAR #286 simply by banning a host of medical procedures, including all that have a similar "complexity" to abortion. Do you want that to happen?

"Nations that are that neurotically insane are likely either not in this Assembly, or suffering a host of other issues. Worrying about that particular loophole would be like worrying that a nation will decide to re-define your punctuation to indicate that each clause means the opposite of what it actually says."

[Frisbeeteria]

"Nations that are that neurotically insane are likely either not in this Assembly ... "

"Are you talking about the same Assembly? The General Assembly? This bunch? Really?

As much as I disagree with the OP on this matter, I think your use of this argument fails on the face of it. Here or elsewhere in this highly neurotic Assembly."

MJ Donovan
CEO Emeritus, The Consolidated Oligarchy of Frisbeeterian Corporate States

[Separatist Peoples]

"Nations that are that neurotically insane are likely either not in this Assembly ... "

"Are you talking about the same Assembly? The General Assembly? This bunch? Really?

As much as I disagree with the OP on this matter, I think your use of this argument fails on the face of it. Here or elsewhere in this highly neurotic Assembly."

MJ Donovan
CEO Emeritus, The Consolidated Oligarchy of Frisbeeterian Corporate States

"We did seem to have a rash of resignations over silly things, after all, your...um...CEO-manship?"

[Stellonia]

We do not see the ability of all women to determine what happens to their bodies in one of the most drastic and challenging periods of their lives as a trivial issue.

I said a trivial right! You are making me even more suspicious of the pro-choice movement!

[Caracasus]

We do not see the ability of all women to determine what happens to their bodies in one of the most drastic and challenging periods of their lives as a trivial issue.

I said a trivial right! You are making me even more suspicious of the pro-choice movement!

That's fine. We also don't consider it a trivial right.

[Bananaistan]

We are bemused that our fellow ambassadors are entertaining this proposal while the Compliance Commission still has issues with Stellonia. While that situation remains unresolved, we will not engage in shape or fashion with Stellonia.

[The Republic of Cheseistan]

The Republic of Cheseistan would like to question Stellonia as to the nature of their participation in this argument and as to why the person chosen to represent them in front of the world has decided to play the part of the fool. Your demeanor disgraces this assembly in an outright mockery of professionalism and resorting to childish arguments. Furthermore, your rationale for repealing the bill is flawed to begin with and redundant, as multiple attempts have come before yours and all have failed.

This bill will receive no support from Cheseistan, and any positive influence Stellonia may have had is now void. Good day.

[Shazbotdom]

"If the Dishonorable ambassador from Stellonia does not like the legislation that has passed in this August Body, then they are free to Resign their position within this August Body. If it comes to that, I claim his stapler."

Mr. Antuan D. Flabberghast
Shazbotdom Ambassador to the WA

[Stellonia]

"If the Dishonorable ambassador from Stellonia does not like the legislation that has passed in this August Body, then they are free to Resign their position within this August Body. If it comes to that, I claim his stapler."

(Image)

Mr. Antuan D. Flabberghast
Shazbotdom Ambassador to the WA

I see that you regard the World Assembly as an "august body." Does the World Assembly have to be perfect in every resolution it passes to be called "august." The World Assembly has passed a number of seriously flawed resolutions, some of which are still enforced to this day.

[Geanna]

"If the Dishonorable ambassador from Stellonia does not like the legislation that has passed in this August Body, then they are free to Resign their position within this August Body. If it comes to that, I claim his stapler."

(Image)

Mr. Antuan D. Flabberghast
Shazbotdom Ambassador to the WA

I see that you regard the World Assembly as an "august body." Does the World Assembly have to be perfect in every resolution it passes to be called "august." The World Assembly has passed a number of seriously flawed resolutions, some of which are still enforced to this day.

If I were to base that off of your repeal here, I'd question your ability to hold an opinion on much. The body of the Assembly has changed quite a bit over the years, and as such, blaming some resolutions on the current body is rather unfounded. However, I agree to the point aforementioned, if the resolutions are really that much of a concern that they clash with your state's policies - then perhaps a resignation would be more applicable, at a glance it would appear that this repeal is going nowhere, and the discussion has for the most part stalled.

Resorting to more personal arguments towards other delegates perhaps displays the most about the character of the delegate of Stellonia, and the strongest indication to me, that this discussion has in fact become redundant now. Perhaps we should move onto more pressing issues now, and leave this horse as it should be left, dead and in peace.

[Shazbotdom]

I see that you regard the World Assembly as an "august body." Does the World Assembly have to be perfect in every resolution it passes to be called "august." The World Assembly has passed a number of seriously flawed resolutions, some of which are still enforced to this day.

"And there are better ways to repeal them then by the exceptionally flawed reasoning that you have put forward in your repeal. Reasoning that you seem to not realize, or not want to know, is as flawed as it is. You have shown in your drafting process that you are not willing to edit it at all through other Ambassadors comments on what, if any, changes should be made. If you are unable to take criticism from those who have drafted more proposals, resolutions, and repeals that are currently on the books, then your best bet would be to resign your position."

Mr. Antuan D. Flabberghast
Shazbotdom Ambassador to the WA