[DRAFT] Repeal "Reproductive Freedoms"

[Stellonia]

DRAFT TWO

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

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

Noting that the phrase "voluntary abortion" is defined as "the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy",

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

Recognizing that many individuals are opposed to abortion for religious or scientific reasons,

Disappointed that GAR #286 fails to respect such views, but instead simply dismisses them as "misgivings",

Believing that such behavior blatantly contradicts the World Assembly's goals of promoting international co-operation and diversity,

Recognizing that GAR #286 legalizes sex-selective abortion,

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

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

Realizing that said resolution legalizes voluntary 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 due to the pain that is caused by such abortions,

Worried that nations may circumvent the intended effects of GAR #286 by banning all medical procedures of "similar risk and complexity" compared to abortion,

Noting that General Assembly Resolution #128, "On Abortion", already legalizes voluntary 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 GAR #286 is a poorly written resolution and a reckless misuse of World Assembly authority,

And considering that had the members of the World Assembly understood the full effects of GAR #286, they would have voted against it,

The World Assembly hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #286, "Reproductive Freedoms", in the hopes of pursuing more sensible and moderate legislation on the topic of voluntary abortion.

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

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

Noting that the phrase "voluntary abortion" is defined as "the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy",

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

Recognizing that many individuals are opposed to abortion for religious or scientific reasons,

Disappointed that GAR #286 fails to respect such views, but instead simply dismisses them as "misgivings",

Believing that such behavior blatantly contradicts the World Assembly's goals of promoting international co-operation and diversity,

Recognizing that GAR #286 legalizes sex-selective abortion,

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

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

Realizing that said resolution legalizes voluntary 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 due to the pain that is caused by such abortions,

Noting that General Assembly Resolution #128, "On Abortion", already legalizes voluntary 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 GAR #286 is a poorly written resolution and a reckless misuse of World Assembly authority,

And considering that had the members of the World Assembly understood the full effects of GAR #286, they would have voted against it,

The World Assembly hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #286, "Reproductive Freedoms", in the hopes of pursuing more sensible and moderate legislation on the topic of voluntary abortion.

Please post any opinions, questions, or suggestions below, so that I can make some improvements to this draft before submitting it as a proposal.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Opposed until the religious mumbo jumbo is removed. Your superstitions shouldn't overpower an individual's right to bodily sovereignty."

[Stellonia]

"Opposed until the religious mumbo jumbo is removed. Your superstitions shouldn't overpower an individual's right to bodily sovereignty."

OOC: I still object to this insistence upon describing such opposition to calling such opinions "misgivings."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Opposed until the religious mumbo jumbo is removed. Your superstitions shouldn't overpower an individual's right to bodily sovereignty."

OOC: I still object to this insistence upon describing such opposition to calling such opinions "misgivings."

OOC: misgivings is a perfectly diplomatic term for the situation.

[Stellonia]

OOC: I still object to this insistence upon describing such opposition to calling such opinions "misgivings."

OOC: misgivings is a perfectly diplomatic term for the situation.

I disagree. That particular clause sounds prejudiced in favor of atheism.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: misgivings is a perfectly diplomatic term for the situation.

I disagree. That particular clause sounds prejudiced in favor of atheism.

"Law should be secular so as to be inclusive. This is a balanced way to address a concern without taking a side."

[Stellonia]

I disagree. That particular clause sounds prejudiced in favor of atheism.

"Law should be secular so as to be inclusive. This is a balanced way to address a concern without taking a side."

"It should be noted that there is a difference between atheism and secularism in terms of legislation."

[The Planet of Oceanis]

"Opposed until the religious mumbo jumbo is removed. Your superstitions shouldn't overpower an individual's right to bodily sovereignty."

That overrides many possible state religions and offends and therefore causes international and internal friction.

I believe the goal with this is to leave it to the individual nation, rather than the WA going like:

"Hey guys, you all have to legalize abortion now."

[The Forsworn Knights]

"Ugh, is tunes like this that I wish I still had my flame thrower. Opposed."

[Tinfect]

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

"It's about time, we were about due for another one of these. Let's see if you have any new arguments this time around."

Noting that the phrase "voluntary abortion" is defined as "the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy",

"Er, yes, that does appear to be the definition. Why do you feel the need to include this?"

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

"Ah.
I am not sure I follow. What is your point with this statement?"

Recognizing that many individuals are opposed to abortion for religious or scientific reasons,

"Please enlighten me as to what "Scientific" reasons one might have to object to Abortion. However, if the Religious have a problem with Abortions, they are more than welcome to not have one. I'll not support any Resolution that supports Theocratic Governments, and neither will the Imperium."

Disappointed that GAR #286 fails to respect such views, but instead simply dismisses them as "misgivings",

"I believe the phrase is; Deal with it."

Believing that such behavior blatantly contradicts the World Assembly's goals of promoting international co-operation and diversity,

"How so?"

Recognizing that GAR #286 legalizes sex-selective abortion,

"There it is, that's an argument we have seen before."

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

"Incentivise children of the Sex you are missing. That will put a stop to them, along with social policy to remove the cultural preference either way."

NotingRealizing that said resolution legalizes voluntary abortion at all stages of pregnancy,

"Oh, Look, another argument we have seen before."

Concerned that this includes stages after fetal viability, a point in pregnancy when even pro-choice activists oppose abortion due to the pain that is caused by such abortions,

"A... Pro-Choice Activist? I am afraid you will have to explain this term to me, Ambassador. Whatever it is, it surely does not belong in International Law. In any case, I don't particularly care. That is a decision the Parents have to make, if they are fine with an Abortion at that stage, that is their own decision, and their own consequence to deal with."

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

"And?"

Believing that GAR #286 is a poorly written resolution and a reckless misuse of World Assembly authority,

"I disagree. While I do not think that this legislation is necessary myself, I will not support a Repeal so long as you continue to implicitly support Theocratic Governments."

And considering that had the members of the World Assembly understood the full effects of GAR #286, they would have voted against it,

"We have tried this several times before. It will not work now."

The World Assembly hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #286, "Reproductive Freedoms", in the hopes of pursuing more sensible and moderate legislation on the topic of voluntary abortion.

"Let's not."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Law should be secular so as to be inclusive. This is a balanced way to address a concern without taking a side."

"It should be noted that there is a difference between atheism and secularism in terms of legislation."

"So if a cavalier, uncaring atheist would use the term 'misgivings' to describe the religious opposition's principled horror at the prospect of abortion, what phrasing should a kindly open-minded secularist use?"

[The Forsworn Knights]

"Opposed until the religious mumbo jumbo is removed. Your superstitions shouldn't overpower an individual's right to bodily sovereignty."

That overrides many possible state religions and offends and therefore causes international and internal friction.

I believe the goal with this is to leave it to the individual nation, rather than the WA going like:

"Hey guys, you all have to legalize abortion now."

"If you don't like it, you are free to leave our great organisation"

[Separatist Peoples]

"Law should be secular so as to be inclusive. This is a balanced way to address a concern without taking a side."

"It should be noted that there is a difference between atheism and secularism in terms of legislation."

"How, in the name of all that is rational, is the term "misgiving" a prejudiced term?"

"Opposed until the religious mumbo jumbo is removed. Your superstitions shouldn't overpower an individual's right to bodily sovereignty."

That overrides many possible state religions and offends and therefore causes international and internal friction.

I believe the goal with this is to leave it to the individual nation, rather than the WA going like:

"Hey guys, you all have to legalize abortion now."

"Not a single soul claimed to be forcing a ideological ban on you. The WA has merely placed the right of choice in bodily sovereignty over the somehow-considered-a-right concept that one should be able to use their superstition to override others' rights. That in no way bans religion. Stow the persecution complex."

[Ovybia]

Wonderful proposal. I will vote for this proposal any day.

It seems like some of ambassadors here don't realize that a murder of an innocent person is considered wrong by most major religions and is scientifically provable to be wrong.

Also, religion is not some "superstition". I think I speak for most Christians when I say that I find that comment on religion extremely offensive.

I personally hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[Ovybia]

"If you don't like it, you are free to leave our great organisation"

"Umm...yes, ambassador. That is true. But may I kindly ask what that comment has to with this discussion?"

[Separatist Peoples]

Wonderful proposal. I will vote for this proposal any day.

It seems like some of ambassadors here don't realize that a murder of an innocent person is considered wrong by most major religions and is scientifically provable to be wrong.

"The WA has no ban on murder. Even if it did, the WA does not consider termination of pregnancy murder. Even if one repealed RF, the WA wouldn't be able to consider abortion murder."

Also, religion is not some "superstition". I think I speak for most Christians when I say that I find that comment on religion extremely offensive.

"I find the casual dismissal of the right to bodily sovereignty offensive. Clearly that hasn't stopped you. What makes your religion somehow more exempt from the thousands of other religions the WA contains? I can't imagine The Cute One seeing eye to eye with your god any more than Takhisis or Guthix would. What makes your position worthy of special consideration?"

I personally hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

"But clearly women were not, because their rights get chucked out the door when your Creator contemplates termination of pregnancy."

[The Planet of Oceanis]

That overrides many possible state religions and offends and therefore causes international and internal friction.

I believe the goal with this is to leave it to the individual nation, rather than the WA going like:

"Hey guys, you all have to legalize abortion now."

"Not a single soul claimed to be forcing a ideological ban on you. The WA has merely placed the right of choice in bodily sovereignty over the somehow-considered-a-right concept that one should be able to use their superstition to override others' rights. That in no way bans religion. Stow the persecution complex."

You grossly misinterpreted my statement. I never said it banned any religion, but overrides them. As such, and as I said earlier, this would create international and internal friction. Do you understand that once a WA resolution is passed, all member states must abide by the resolution?

As such, it often conflicts with many state religions and whatnot. I would be fine with this if there were no state religions, but there are. As such, the resolution even infringes on a nation's sovereignty if their laws stated otherwise before the resolution was passed.

I'm not even saying "Abortion should be illegal because my god said so", I'm saying that the legalization of abortion shouldn't be forced upon a nation whose morals contradict with the practice. It's simple respect. Before you start saying "You nutcases don't respect women", This could apply to ANY religion that outlaws abortion, not just ones that belittle women. Before you say "You outlaw abortion, therefore you disrespect women", let me re-explain to you that during the process of abortion, the doctor kills a baby. Somehow it's considered different by many when it's killed after birth (even by the parents). Abortion is exactly the same, except the fetus is much younger. Before you say "It doesn't count as murder", Let me say this: What is murder? It is the killing of another human being. What is abortion? The killing of another human being.

And apparently people that are against it are the bad guys.

[Separatist Peoples]

You grossly misinterpreted my statement. I never said it banned any religion, but overrides them. As such, and as I said earlier, this would create international and internal friction. Do you understand that once a WA resolution is passed, all member states must abide by the resolution?

"Why, yes, I believe that having written and passed several resolutions myself, I do indeed know how the WA works."

As such, it often conflicts with many state religions and whatnot. I would be fine with this if there were no state religions, but there are. As such, the resolution even infringes on a nation's sovereignty if their laws stated otherwise before the resolution was passed.

"There are state policies that interfere with freedom of the people constantly. There are state policies which discriminate, suppress, and denigrate their denizens. The WA doesn't give a damn about those state policies, why exactly should religion get any special treatment compared to similarly oppressive policies?"

I'm not even saying "Abortion should be illegal because my god said so", I'm saying that the legalization of abortion shouldn't be forced upon a nation whose morals contradict with the practice. It's simple respect.

"So what you're saying is that moral contradiction should be a pass for international law? "We think its morally unacceptable to ban slavery, so we should repeal the law preventing that!" You could substitute your argument for international laws regarding discrimination, restrictions on speech and expression, prevention of torture, or any number of right protected at the cost of so-called "morals". It doesn't fly."

Before you start saying "You nutcases don't respect women", This could apply to ANY religion that outlaws abortion, not just ones that belittle women. Before you say "You outlaw abortion, therefore you disrespect women", let me re-explain to you that during the process of abortion, the doctor kills a baby.

"No. The doctor terminates a fetus. Even if you disagree personally, that is the terminology enshrined in international law, as On Abortion makes a clear difference between the term "foetal"and "child" in it's provisions. If we are going to work in the complexities of law, we should be precise, and the precise term is that a doctor terminates a fetus, a group of cells that the World Assembly doesn't recognize as an individual. Therefore, your statement is wildly out of the scope of the argument."

Somehow it's considered different by many when it's killed after birth (even by the parents). Abortion is exactly the same, except the fetus is much younger. Before you say "It doesn't count as murder", Let me say this: What is murder? It is the killing of another human being. What is abortion? The killing of another human being.

And apparently people that are against it are the bad guys.

"Abortion is murder like masturbation is infanticide: it isn't. We've established that a fetus isn't considered a person, otherwise abortion would have been illegal under the same laws that prevent child abuse or age-based genocide. Therefore your definitions are wildly inaccurate. There are laws other than RF that protect the right to abortion, albeit in not so broad an application, that we can work off of. When you are ready to put down the propaganda and discuss this in the established legal terms this international body has adopted, you might have a case. Somewhere. Maybe. Until then? Leave the cries of "babykiller!" at the door."

[Ovybia]

"The WA has no ban on murder. Even if it did, the WA does not consider termination of pregnancy murder. Even if one repealed RF, the WA wouldn't be able to consider abortion murder."

I have the vague feeling that even you would admit murder is wrong.

"I find the casual dismissal of the right to bodily sovereignty offensive. Clearly that hasn't stopped you.

I couldn't agree with you more. Totally right! The baby has a right to his bodily sovereignty and it is very offensive when the very mother of the child, the person charged with a duty by God to nurture the child, attempts to murder him. The woman to an extent has a right to her own bodily sovereignty but not someone else's body.

What makes your religion somehow more exempt from the thousands of other religions the WA contains? I can't imagine The Cute One seeing eye to eye with your god any more than Takhisis or Guthix would. What makes your position worthy of special consideration?"

It happens to be that Christianity is true but that has little to do with this discussion.

But clearly women were not, because their rights get chucked out the door when your Creator contemplates termination of pregnancy."

Women are very much included because as I said all men (in the general sense of the word where it includes both male and female) are created equal. I think you also forget that the baby inside the mother could be a woman. The baby has a self-evident unalienable right to life. The baby has just has much a right to life as the mother since they are both created equal.

Science recognizes that a baby comes into existence at the point of conception i.e. when the sperm and the egg come together to form a new substance, the child. When this happens, this is the first time that all of the DNA and all of the chromosomes are present. I know my biology so don't try to argue with this.


However, we are not arguing for a ban of abortion in the WA here. We are arguing for a repeal of the so called "right to murder your child." Repealing this will make it so that in your nation, you can have abortions, but in my nation the babies will be equally protected under the law.

[Separatist Peoples]

I have the vague feeling that even you would admit murder is wrong.

"But I would never presume to conflate abortion and murder. The two are vastly different concepts."

I couldn't agree with you more. Totally right! The baby has a right to his bodily sovereignty and it is very offensive when the very mother of the child, the person charged with a duty by God to nurture the child, attempts to murder him. The woman to an extent has a right to her own bodily sovereignty but not someone else's body.

"The feotus, or fetus, if you prefer, is not a person. That is already established in WA law. Changing that precedent would require at least one more repeal beyond this. Clearly, were a feotus a person, Reproductive Freedom wouldn't have been a legal proposal, as it would have contradicted several laws regarding child welfare and systematic killing."

It happens to be that Christianity is true but that has little to do with this discussion.

"Banjo the Puppet Clown is the true lord of creation. See? I can spout myths, too. When you have proof that your superstition is anything more than a collection of stories, I'll listen to your god's tale. At least The Cute One herself has been kind enough to make an appearance every now and then. Regardless, you've narrowly avoided actually addressing my question, which is why your belief is somehow more valid than all the others who have the same level of proof you have, and in many cases, more. Why, in the name of all that is rational, should any nonbeliever be tied down to your ridiculous notion of moral truth?"

Women are very much included because as I said all men (in the general sense of the word where it includes both male and female) are created equal. I think you also forget that the baby inside the mother could be a woman. The baby has a self-evident unalienable right to life. The baby has just has much a right to life as the mother since they are both created equal.

"Stop conflating a baby and a fetus/foetus."

Science recognizes that a baby comes into existence at the point of conception i.e. when the sperm and the egg come together to form a new substance, the child. When this happens, this is the first time that all of the DNA and all of the chromosomes are present. I know my biology so don't try to argue with this.

"Science comes to recognize a fetus as coming to existence once contraception begins. A fetus is not a person, or else we would consider drinking while pregnant child abuse and ectopic pregnancies to be akin to involuntary manslaughter."

However, we are not arguing for a ban of abortion in the WA here. We are arguing for a repeal of the so called "right to murder your child." Repealing this will make it so that in your nation, you can have abortions, but in my nation the babies will be equally protected under the law.

"Stop conflating murder and a medical procedure and stick to intellectually honest arguments, and we might end up with a debate. One cannot murder a nonperson."

[Tinfect]

I couldn't agree with you more. Totally right! The baby has a right to his bodily sovereignty and it is very offensive when the very mother of the child, the person charged with a duty by God to nurture the child, attempts to murder him. The woman to an extent has a right to her own bodily sovereignty but not someone else's body.

"Ambassador, do not bring your personal mythologies into this Debate, they have no sway here. Moving on, the child, is, at most stages, entirely non-sapient, and in almost all stages an Abortion is routinely performed, little more than a collection of Cells."

It happens to be that Christianity is true but that has little to do with this discussion.

Markhov burst out laughing at that, recovering several seconds later,
"Ambassador, I don't care whether or not you think you are on a mission from the Galactic Wizard of Space and Time! Your gods have no more power here than they do in your own Nation!"

Science recognizes that a baby comes into existence at the point of conception i.e. when the sperm and the egg come together to form a new substance, the child.

"No science in the Imperium, and most Member States I would imagine, says anything of the sort, Ambassador."

[The Planet of Oceanis]

That's entirely a matter of perspective.

Although, from the standpoint of technicality, a fetus is a human being, and humans are considered people. But no, according to the WA, A=B and B=C, but A =/= C.

[Separatist Peoples]

That's entirely a matter of perspective.

Although, from the standpoint of technicality, a fetus is a human being, and humans are considered people. But no, according to the WA, A=B and B=C, but A =/= C.

"A baby is a human. Not all humans are babies. A=B. However, while a fetus develops into a baby, there is no evidence to suggest it is one, so B =/= C. Therefore, A =/=C. Your logical process is flawed, ambassador. A fetus is no more a baby than a seed is a tree.

"It could be argued that a fetus shares the genetic properties as a human, and therefore A=C, but by that logic, sperm, toenails, and dandruff are also all humans.

"I believe the point I'm getting at here is that your perspective is flat out wrong."

[Imperium Anglorum]

It happens to be that Christianity is true but that has little to do with this discussion.

Madsons, the bonkers and sarcastically mental totally crazy loony cousin of Parsons, somehow stumbles on this section in the asylum's newspaper. He starts screaming 'heresy' over and over again coupled with bawdy statements to the effect of 'get the Inquisition on them' and 'Auto-de-fe NOW'. Fortunately for the ears of the other patients, some orderlies calm him down and take him back to his room.

[Separatist Peoples]

It happens to be that Christianity is true but that has little to do with this discussion.

Madsons, the bonkers and sarcastically mental totally crazy loony cousin of Parsons, somehow stumbles on this section in the asylum's newspaper. He starts screaming 'heresy' over and over again coupled with bawdy statements to the effect of 'get the Inquisition on them' and 'Auto-de-fe NOW'. Fortunately for the ears of the other patients, some orderlies calm him down and take him back to his room.

One of the C.D.S.P. interns pipes up: "Whats an auto-da-fe´?"

"Its something you shouldn't do, but you do anyway," Bell replies rhythmically.