[DRAFT] Repeal "On Abortion"

[Stellonia]

Repeal "On Abortion"
Proposed by Stellonia

First Draft

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #128: On Abortion (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Noting that GAR #128, "On Abortion", legalizes abortion in instances of "involuntary sexual activity", severe fetal abnormality, or if the mother's mental or physical health is endangered by the pregnancy,

Recognizing that GAR #286, "Reproductive Freedoms", already legalizes all voluntary terminations of a pregnancy, including abortion, in all instances,

Understanding that this renders "On Abortion" a mere subset of said resolution,

Feeling that it is unnecessary for this Assembly to maintain redundant resolutions,

Noticing that "On Abortion" "DECLARES that no physician may be compelled to perform abortion against their moral stance,"

Fearing that this may result in individuals being denied an abortion that is essential to the protection of their lives,

And regretting that while said resolution legalizes obtaining an abortion in instances of "involuntary sexual activity", severe fetal abnormality, or if the mother's mental or physical health is endangered by the pregnancy, it does not protect the right of physicians to perform an abortion in said instances,

The World Assembly hereby repeals "On Abortion."

On Abortion
Description: The World Assembly,

ASSERTING that it is the duty to protect the health of living persons;

ACCEPTING the controversy surrounding the legality of abortion;

NEVERTHELESS CONVINCED that it is inappropriate for member states to deny abortion to any pregnant female who are at risk of death if their pregnancy is not terminated;

Therefore:

1. REQUIRES member countries to legalise abortion for cases where:
a) The pregnancy resulted from involuntary sexual activity and/or sexual activity in which at least one of the parties could not legally give consent;
b) Severe foetal abnormality would result in a child being born with an incurable condition which is fatal and/or painful;
c) There is a risk of a life-threatening physical or mental condition which would result in the death or life-long severe disability of the pregnant woman if the pregnancy continued;

2. FURTHER REQUIRES member countries to ensure that abortion facilities are easily available to patients seeking abortion in circumstances under Section 1;

3. MANDATES that such abortions may only be carried out with the informed consent of the patient without coercion: if the patient is incapacitated and unable to make their wishes known, the patient's legal next-of-kin may make the decision on their behalf;

4. FURTHER MANDATES that physicians who carry out abortions must be trained to the same accepted medical standards that all surgeons are held to, and that abortions are carried out in a way that is as painless as possible while preserving the mother's physical health;

5. DECLARES that no physician may be compelled to perform abortion against their moral stance;

6. DECLARES that it is neither a criminal offence nor a cause for civil suit to have obtained abortion for reasons under Section 1 and no inhabitant of a member country shall be subject to prosecution for having done so, nor otherwise subjected to harassment or persecution in law or at the instigation of the state in consequence;

7. INSISTS that all member nations retain the ability to legalize abortion for purposes not covered under the preceding clauses either unilaterally within their own jurisdiction or collectively through World Assembly resolution.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Sorry. I was too busy answering the other ambassador to remember your question. There is no explicit clause in either 'On Abortion' or 'Reproductive Freedoms' that would prevent such a resolution from being passed; however, it is generally assumed that such a resolution would be a duplication of 'Reproductive Freedoms.'"

"From your last attempt. If you cannot cite conflicting clauses in On abortion or Reproductive Freedoms that actively prevent legislation protecting physicians, then it is not a Duplication violation. If you honestly believe that, ambassador, you really don't have any possible clue how the Secretariat rules in legality. If this is submitted with this clause, I will submit a GHR to have it removed base on the misinterpretation of the target resolution."

[Tinfect]

OOC:
Oh for fuck's sake, can you just stop trying to propose the exact same repeal over and over?
It's not going to happen. Stop wasting everyone's time with your senseless vendetta against abortion.
If you don't like it, withdraw from the WA. Your chances of getting this to vote are minimal, your chances of getting it passed at vote are virtually nonexistent. Please, just give up already, you haven't contributed anything new, or even slightly convincing in any draft you've proposed.

[Hirota]

OOC:
Oh for fuck's sake, can you just stop trying to propose the exact same repeal over and over?

In fairness, the last thread was locked because he was being daft. So don't think of this as a fresh attempt at the same old nonsense in this particular instance.

Having said that, in the wider scheme of things, this is the same old nonsense.

[Wrapper]

Your chances of getting this to vote are minimal

OOC: Actually, no, this has a very good chance of going to vote, if the author ever submits it. Agreed, it will fail.

[Wallenburg]

OOC: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, are we? I understand you are staunchly anti-abortion IC and OOC, but this has become ridiculous.

[Silverbeach]

OOC: Eh, if he wants to keep going with this then I see no reason to get all hot and bothered about it. The entire purpose of this bit of the game is to encourage dispute and discord amongst the playerbase, right? We're going to disagree on things, especially this kind of contentious issue.

---

"It might be worth noting that the last time a repeal of GAR 128 was attempted it was the opinion of several delegates that GAR 128 should be kept on the books as a failsafe for ensuring abortion remained legal in member states in the event that GAR 286 was repealed. Please see the previous debate in the WA Archives. That particular practice is most deplorable and given the number of GA resolutions every effort should be made to reduce this sort of redundancy.

Even to ignore the fact that one is effectively a 'failsafe' of the other it is blindingly obvious that the two resolutions existing at the same time present severe difficulties for member states. In particular I refer to the following:

GAR 128 requires that a physician may refuse to perform an abortion.
GAR 286 requires that member states prohibit any impediment to the termination of pregnancy that is not applied to medical procedures of similar risk and complexity.

A member state cannot allow a physician to refuse to perform an abortion under GAR 128 because so doing allows an impediment to the termination of a pregnancy under GAR 286. GAR 285 prohibits 'any' impediment to abortion that is not applied to medical procedures of similar risk and complexity. Whether the physician refuses or not is irrelevant, by allowing the physician that choice under GAR 128 the member state creates an impediment particular to the abortion procedure that is not applied to other medical procedures of similar risk and complexity.

Both resolutions are terrible. GAR 128 is, at least, specific and clear in its intent. GAR 286, however, is an utter mess and complicates the provisions of GAR 128 that it doesn't totally supersede. The Grand Duke would support the repeal of both, but in acknowledgement of the fact that GAR 128 is at least reasonably well-intentioned to both sides of the debate would encourage that the delegate from Stellonia to focus their endeavours on the repeal of GAR 286 rather than GAR 128."

Ruarc O'Brien, Spokesman for Grand Duke Eugene Grey of Silverbeach

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Eh, if he wants to keep going with this then I see no reason to get all hot and bothered about it. The entire purpose of this bit of the game is to encourage dispute and discord amongst the playerbase, right? We're going to disagree on things, especially this kind of contentious issue.

OOC: It's more the fact that he's been doing this 'have a repeal up on the GA forum' thing for half a year now. I was first to call out that he had put it up during his region's electoral cycle probably in an attempt to win that election, but ... that fringe conspiracy theory that he's a closet liberal who actually just wants to stall all other attempts kinda makes sense now.

[Hirota]

OOC: It's more the fact that he's been doing this 'have a repeal up on the GA forum' thing for half a year now. I was first to call out that he had put it up during his region's electoral cycle probably in an attempt to win that election, but ... that fringe conspiracy theory that he's a closet liberal who actually just wants to stall all other attempts kinda makes sense now.

OOC: Using OOC and IC is known to confuse the heck out of ol' Stelly, but his regions elections are in a couple of weeks apparently.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: It's more the fact that he's been doing this 'have a repeal up on the GA forum' thing for half a year now. I was first to call out that he had put it up during his region's electoral cycle probably in an attempt to win that election, but ... that fringe conspiracy theory that he's a closet liberal who actually just wants to stall all other attempts kinda makes sense now.

OOC: Using OOC and IC is known to confuse the heck out of ol' Stelly, but his regions elections are in a couple of weeks apparently.

OOC: Back when he originally put his first draft up to repeal something having to do with abortion, Phydios was being challenged for the Delegacy in Right for Life. After looking at the forums for a few seconds, I made the connection.

[The Candy Of Bottles]

OOC: "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Albert Einstein. (Or possibly Benjamin Franklin.)

[Wallenburg]

OOC: "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Albert Einstein. (Or possibly Benjamin Franklin.)

Beat you to it.

[Bananaistan]

"We have little to add that has not already been covered. The People's Republic of Bananaistan will be against this proposed repeal."

- Ted Hornwood

[Stellonia]

OOC: Oh for fuck's sake, can you just stop trying to propose the exact same repeal over and over?

OOC: This is a different repeal.

[OOC:] It's not going to happen.

OOC: I suppose you mean the passage of my proposals. In that case, you are probably right, but it never hurts to keep trying.

[OOC:] Stop wasting everyone's time with your senseless vendetta against abortion.

OOC: Isn't it essentially a Bulverism when you assume that this has to do with a vendetta against abortion? Please refrain from re-iterating this assumption, which may be true or false, to draw away attention from the proposal at hand.

[OOC:] If you don't like it, withdraw from the WA.

OOC: Why not try to repeal "On Abortion" and/or "Reproductive Freedoms"?

[OOC:] Your chances of getting this to vote are minimal[.]

OOC: Not at all.

[OOC:] [Y]our chances of getting it passed at vote are virtually nonexistent.

OOC: Well, how many times has a repeal of "On Abortion" come to vote?

[OOC:] Please, just give up already, you haven't contributed anything new, or even slightly convincing in any draft you've proposed.

OOC: In that case, how can I help the World Assembly? Do you have any good ideas for resolutions?

OOC: Eh, if he wants to keep going with this then I see no reason to get all hot and bothered about it. The entire purpose of this bit of the game is to encourage dispute and discord amongst the playerbase, right? We're going to disagree on things, especially this kind of contentious issue.

OOC: [T]hat fringe conspiracy theory that he's a closet liberal who actually just wants to stall all other attempts kinda makes sense now.

OOC: Then I advise you to visit the RTL regional forums, create an account there, pretend to be pro-life, apply to work with the Justice Court as a prosecutor here (read pinned thread for instructions on how to do so), and ask that the Justice Court revoke my citizenship on the grounds that I am not pro-life.

"It might be worth noting that the last time a repeal of GAR 128 was attempted it was the opinion of several delegates that GAR 128 should be kept on the books as a failsafe for ensuring abortion remained legal in member states in the event that GAR 286 was repealed. Please see the previous debate in the WA Archives. That particular practice is most deplorable and given the number of GA resolutions every effort should be made to reduce this sort of redundancy.

Even to ignore the fact that one is effectively a 'failsafe' of the other it is blindingly obvious that the two resolutions existing at the same time present severe difficulties for member states. In particular I refer to the following:

GAR 128 requires that a physician may refuse to perform an abortion.
GAR 286 requires that member states prohibit any impediment to the termination of pregnancy that is not applied to medical procedures of similar risk and complexity.

A member state cannot allow a physician to refuse to perform an abortion under GAR 128 because so doing allows an impediment to the termination of a pregnancy under GAR 286. GAR 285 prohibits 'any' impediment to abortion that is not applied to medical procedures of similar risk and complexity. Whether the physician refuses or not is irrelevant, by allowing the physician that choice under GAR 128 the member state creates an impediment particular to the abortion procedure that is not applied to other medical procedures of similar risk and complexity.

Both resolutions are terrible. GAR 128 is, at least, specific and clear in its intent. GAR 286, however, is an utter mess and complicates the provisions of GAR 128 that it doesn't totally supersede. The Grand Duke would support the repeal of both, but in acknowledgement of the fact that GAR 128 is at least reasonably well-intentioned to both sides of the debate would encourage that the delegate from Stellonia to focus their endeavours on the repeal of GAR 286 rather than GAR 128."

Ruarc O'Brien, Spokesman for Grand Duke Eugene Grey of Silverbeach

"Should we meet to work on an improved draft?"

[Separatist Peoples]

"Still no response to the charge that protecting doctors and medical specialists who perform abortion wouldn't be duplication? I thought as much."

OOC: I suppose you mean the passage of my proposals. In that case, you are probably right, but it never hurts to keep trying.

OOC: because constantly keeping a repeal you know won't go anywhere up for the sole sake of riling up the local forum going population totally isn't going to cause problems.

[Silverbeach]

"The delegation from Stellonia should note that the Grand Duke won't support a repeal of GAR 128 'On Abortion', but will happily meet to discuss a redraft of a repeal of GAR 286."

Ruarc O'Brien, spokesman for Grand Duke Eugene Grey of Silverbeach



Edit: Misread something.

[Tinfect]

OOC: This is a different repeal.

OOC:
Hardly.

OOC: I suppose you mean the passage of my proposals. In that case, you are probably right, but it never hurts to keep trying.

When the only thing you've achieved is to waste everyone's time, and destroy any and all credibility you might have ever had? Yes, yes it does hurt.

OOC: Isn't it essentially a Bulverism when you assume that this has to do with a vendetta against abortion? Please refrain from re-iterating this assumption, which may be true or false, to draw away attention from the proposal at hand.

I'll reiterate it whenever I damn well please. It's certainly not a fallacy to assume that, because the only thing you have done, is single-mindedly rail against Resolutions with protections for Abortion, and come up with ever increasingly absurd arguments and scenarios to support them, that you have some vendetta against abortion.

OOC: Why not try to repeal "On Abortion" and/or "Reproductive Freedoms"?

Because, as stated, it's never going to happen, and you are just wasting everyone's time.

OOC: In that case, how can I help the World Assembly? Do you have any good ideas for resolutions?

You can hang around for a while, actually debate resolutions that pop up, and when an idea for one strikes you, write it up. That's what I've been doing. You can do pretty much anything, short of continuing this senseless crusade.

[Stellonia]

"Still no response to the charge that protecting doctors and medical specialists who perform abortion wouldn't be duplication? I thought as much."

"I never stated that. I merely claimed that a proposal protecting the rights of doctors to perform abortions would be perceived as duplication of 'On Abortion' and 'Reproductive Freedoms.'"

[Separatist Peoples]

"Still no response to the charge that protecting doctors and medical specialists who perform abortion wouldn't be duplication? I thought as much."

"I never stated that. I merely claimed that a proposal protecting the rights of doctors to perform abortions would be perceived as duplication of 'On Abortion' and 'Reproductive Freedoms.'"

"No, it wouldn't be. Not by anyone who can read. I'll still be filing a GHR if that clause is included, as this repeal clearly misinterprets OA an RF, and makes an Honest Mistake violation, for all that it is brutally dishonest."

[Stellonia]

"I never stated that. I merely claimed that a proposal protecting the rights of doctors to perform abortions would be perceived as duplication of 'On Abortion' and 'Reproductive Freedoms.'"

"No, it wouldn't be. Not by anyone who can read. I'll still be filing a GHR if that clause is included, as this repeal clearly misinterprets OA an RF, and makes an Honest Mistake violation, for all that it is brutally dishonest."

"Why would you be filing a GH-whatever thing if my proposal says nothing about 'On Abortion' and 'Reproductive Freedoms' blocking the WA from enacting a resolution protecting the right of doctors to perform abortions?"

[Separatist Peoples]

"No, it wouldn't be. Not by anyone who can read. I'll still be filing a GHR if that clause is included, as this repeal clearly misinterprets OA an RF, and makes an Honest Mistake violation, for all that it is brutally dishonest."

"Why would you be filing a GH-whatever thing if my proposal says nothing about 'On Abortion' and 'Reproductive Freedoms' blocking the WA from enacting a resolution protecting the right of doctors to perform abortions?"

it does not protect the right of physicians to perform an abortion in said instances,

"This right here? It charges a failure to the original that was never meant to be a part of it, which proves a misunderstanding of the target resolution. It's that or I run a heavy counter-campaign to explain the intellectual dishonesty you're pushing. Or you remove the charge from the proposal. Your call, "ambassador"."

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

"It's unfortunate this assembly is dominated by extremists that are unable to see how absurdly radical the reproductive freedoms resolution is. Whoever drafted it, and whoever supports it, is an ideologue, unable to see reason."

[Wallenburg]

"It's unfortunate this assembly is dominated by extremists that are unable to see how absurdly radical the reproductive freedoms resolution is. Whoever drafted it, and whoever supports it, is an ideologue, unable to see reason."

"If you really want to go on an authoritarian rant, at least show us the courtesy of ranting in the main hall. Your ridiculous comments are irrelevant here."

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

"It's unfortunate this assembly is dominated by extremists that are unable to see how absurdly radical the reproductive freedoms resolution is. Whoever drafted it, and whoever supports it, is an ideologue, unable to see reason."

"If you really want to go on an authoritarian rant, at least show us the courtesy of ranting in the main hall. Your ridiculous comments are irrelevant here."

"Authoritarian? Certainly not. Our people enjoy extensive civil freedoms, and a standard of living that is the envy of the universe."

[Wallenburg]

"If you really want to go on an authoritarian rant, at least show us the courtesy of ranting in the main hall. Your ridiculous comments are irrelevant here."

"Authoritarian? Certainly not. Our people enjoy extensive civil freedoms, and a standard of living that is the envy of the universe."

"My researchers can indeed confirm that your nation is far more authoritarian than even the average nation, let alone the glorious Republic of Wallenburg."