[DRAFT] Preserving Life in Pregnancy

[Dos Linuos]

The content doesn't seem to have changed..... or am I overlooking something?

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

OOC: If I'm reading this correctly, this proposal is an oxymoron to any nation that isn't future-tech. How are you going to sustain the embryo or fetus outside the parent? You can't just stick it into a surrogate and hope that it survives.

[Tinfect]

OOC: If I'm reading this correctly, this proposal is an oxymoron to any nation that isn't future-tech. How are you going to sustain the embryo or fetus outside the parent? You can't just stick it into a surrogate and hope that it survives.

OOC:
The whole thing is a blatant attempt to codify the extremely disingenuous and, in my opinion, illegal, interpretation of Reproductive Freedoms that Abortions that terminate a fetus are not safe, or that forcing it to be carried to term constitutes a termination of the pregnancy.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: If I'm reading this correctly, this proposal is an oxymoron to any nation that isn't future-tech. How are you going to sustain the embryo or fetus outside the parent? You can't just stick it into a surrogate and hope that it survives.

OOC:
If it is late enough in the pregnancy that the fetus could be removed via C-section and kept alive outside the womb, this proposal would essentially mandate that nation with the"safe, openly accessible" technology to do so would have to do that.

I agree, however, in the majority of cases only PMT and FT nations with the ability to keep embryos alive after removal would be affected in any serious way.

[Tinfect]

OOC: If I'm reading this correctly, this proposal is an oxymoron to any nation that isn't future-tech. How are you going to sustain the embryo or fetus outside the parent? You can't just stick it into a surrogate and hope that it survives.

OOC:
If it is late enough in the pregnancy that the fetus could be removed via C-section and kept alive outside the womb, this proposal would essentially mandate that nation with the cost-effective technology to do so would have to do that.

OOC:
Not quite, it merely permits them to do so. Basically, with the insane interpretation of RF these people use, it allows them to completely ignore its provisions by codifying said insane interpretation.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC:
If it is late enough in the pregnancy that the fetus could be removed via C-section and kept alive outside the womb, this proposal would essentially mandate that nation with the cost-effective technology to do so would have to do that.

OOC:
Not quite, it merely permits them to do so.

This is true. However, it also encourages them to do so, and encouragements are apparently non-optional.

Basically, with the insane interpretation of RF these people use, it allows them to completely ignore its provisions by codifying said insane interpretation.

No, they are already able to completely ignore RF's provisions with insane interpretations.

This proposal merely codifies that if alternative methods that meet the demands of RF exist that preserve the life of the embryo/fetus, nations are allowed to make such methods the only legal options. Which technically they are already able to do.

[Tinfect]

This is true. However, it also encourages them to do so, and encouragements are apparently non-optional.

OOC:
Where'd you get that thought? Anything short of "Requires" or "Mandates" has never held any weight.

No, they are already able to completely ignore RF's provisions with insane interpretations.

I hold that the interpretation is a complete violation of GAR #2's 9th article. That interpretation is in no way compliance in good faith.

[Excidium Planetis]

This is true. However, it also encourages them to do so, and encouragements are apparently non-optional.

OOC:
Where'd you get that thought? Anything short of "Requires" or "Mandates" has never held any weight.

A single "Encourages" clause as the entirety of active clauses is sufficient to prevent a proposal from being illegal for Optionality. Mods have ruled thusly.

No, they are already able to completely ignore RF's provisions with insane interpretations.

I hold that the interpretation is a complete violation of GAR #2's 9th article. That interpretation is in no way compliance in good faith.

Then they still can't use it, because RF is still in place.

[Tinfect]

A single "Encourages" clause as the entirety of active clauses is sufficient to prevent a proposal from being illegal for Optionality. Mods have ruled thusly.

OOC:
And I thought Moderation was incompetent before. Damn.
Still, I've never seen any ostensibly optional clause be interpreted as Mandatory, and that's what I'm holding to.

Then they still can't use it, because RF is still in place.

Which means that either this is pulled for contradiction with RF, or it forces all Member States to accept the insane interpretation because it's more or less International Law now. Given what we've seen out of Moderation recently, and what you've recently informed me of, I'm leaning towards the latter stance being taken by Moderation. The best Mods are most certainly not the Mods that Mod the least, this nonsense is a clear example of that.

[Excidium Planetis]

A single "Encourages" clause as the entirety of active clauses is sufficient to prevent a proposal from being illegal for Optionality. Mods have ruled thusly.

OOC:
And I thought Moderation was incompetent before. Damn.
Still, I've never seen any ostensibly optional clause be interpreted as Mandatory, and that's what I'm holding to.

IA, Wrapper, SP, and Bananistan are in agreement. Encourages clauses are non-optional, because in Wrapper's words, they "request" that a nation do something. I personally disagree, but since Wrapper is now a mod, I am not confident that my amazing ability to predict moderator rulings on legality will hold up in an argument on the optionality of encourages clauses.

Which means that either this is pulled for contradiction with RF, or it forces all Member States to accept the insane interpretation because it's more or less International Law now.

Neither. It doesn't make any interpretation on RF other than that there are termination of pregnancy procedures which are not abortion (this is true in real life: C-section is considered a termination of pregnancy). It simply states that if a termination of pregnancy procedure that is safe and openly accessible (the same requirements in RF) that also saves the fetus exists, then all other methods can be made illegal. Excidium Planetis does not interpret RF to allow forcing a mother to wait until birth. But embryo-extraction and artificial wombs allow safe, accessible termination of pregnancy while preserving the embryos, so we can rule abortion illegal without violating RF. This resolution merely encourages nations with the technology we have to criminalize abortion, it does not suddenly codify a ridiculous interpretation.

This resolution also encourages nations to perform C-section or birth if a fetus is viable, rather than extremely late term abortions or "Partial Birth Abortions", which, again, does not contradict RF because birth and C-section at such a late period in the pregnancy are just as safe and openly accessible as terminating the fetus.

[Tinfect]

IA, Wrapper, SP, and Bananistan are in agreement. Encourages clauses are non-optional, because in Wrapper's words, they "request" that a nation do something. I personally disagree, but since Wrapper is now a mod, I am not confident that my amazing ability to predict moderator rulings on legality will hold up in an argument on the optionality of encourages clauses.

OOC:
Well, I think that it may have been more that an encouragement counts as the World Assembly performing an action on a Member State, rather than enforcing a recommendation.

Neither. It doesn't make any interpretation on RF other than that there are termination of pregnancy procedures which are not abortion (this is true in real life: C-section is considered a termination of pregnancy).

Still, it validates their interpretation, and I don't want these people to have any standing for their blatant noncompliance.
And for the record, I'd call a C-Section a completion of the pregnancy, rather than a termination. But at that point we're just getting into competing semantics and there is no ground to stand on for either side.

It simply states that if a termination of pregnancy procedure that is safe and openly accessible (the same requirements in RF) that also saves the fetus exists, then all other methods can be made illegal. Excidium Planetis does not interpret RF to allow forcing a mother to wait until birth. But embryo-extraction and artificial wombs allow safe, accessible termination of pregnancy while preserving the embryos, so we can rule abortion illegal without violating RF.

If you have that technology, that's never been illegal, you're right there. But the thing is, this would allow Nations like Railiana, that are engaging in creative non-compliance, to do so with the full backing of the World Assembly, and I'll not have that.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: encouraging or requesting language, while nonoptional, do not serve as mandatory clauses. If I encourage you to eat a bug, you have been encouraged, which is an action affecting you. You can still refuse to eat the bug. So, while nations may be encouraged to preserve life in these situations, they don't have to. It's sufficient to get you past the optionality rule, but not enough to force action out of a state.

[Nation of Quebec]

"The ambassador reads the resolution and shakes his head.

This is yet another proposal that seeks to be a backdoor initiative to neuter Reproductive Freedoms and we will oppose any attempt by WA nations to restrict a woman's right to choose.

Nation of Quebec, via its WA puppet state of Uchila Eru, is strongly opposed."

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

If this resolution is "a backdoor attempt to restrict a woman's right to choose," then so was Reproductive Freedoms:

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.

Besides, the very last clause makes clear that this legislation is not about restricting reproductive choice.

[Ovybia]

I think you should look into submitting this now. You effectively don't have to worry about legality concerns anymore.

[Wrapper]

I think you should look into submitting this now. You effectively don't have to worry about legality concerns anymore.

That is extremely bad advice.

[The Eleventh United Mayan Republic]

this is ridiculous, i oppose this

[Separatist Peoples]

I think you should look into submitting this now. You effectively don't have to worry about legality concerns anymore.

That is extremely bad advice.

OOC: That depends on how much interpretation the moderators plan on ruling on in regard to RF. If there is an interpretation issue, that throws serious doubt onto this and the Child Destruction Ban. Is there any chance we can get a solid stance from the moderation team on this to eliminate any possible doubt?

[Sciongrad]

That is extremely bad advice.

OOC: That depends on how much interpretation the moderators plan on ruling on in regard to RF. If there is an interpretation issue, that throws serious doubt onto this and the Child Destruction Ban. Is there any chance we can get a solid stance from the moderation team on this to eliminate any possible doubt?

OOC: I thought Mousebumples recently explicitly stated that moderators will no longer rule on interpretations? Can we get some type of official clarifying statement on this?

GA mods do not rule on "interpretation."

[Wrapper]

OOC: I thought Mousebumples recently explicitly stated that moderators will no longer rule on interpretations? Can we get some type of official clarifying statement on this?

GA mods do not rule on "interpretation."

You're taking that completely out of context. We're not dealing with a repeal here, nor an alleged "Honest Mistake" violation.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I thought Mousebumples recently explicitly stated that moderators will no longer rule on interpretations? Can we get some type of official clarifying statement on this?

You're taking that completely out of context. We're not dealing with a repeal here, nor an alleged "Honest Mistake" violation.

OOC: So, do moderators not rule on interpretation when it comes to repeals, or to Honest Mistake violations? To what situation, specifically, does the claim that "GA mods do not rule on interpretation" apply?

[Wrapper]

You're taking that completely out of context. We're not dealing with a repeal here, nor an alleged "Honest Mistake" violation.

OOC: So, do moderators not rule on interpretation when it comes to repeals, or to Honest Mistake violations? To what situation, specifically, does the claim that "GA mods do not rule on interpretation" apply?

GA mods do not rule on "interpretation." There are lots of way to interpret and read resolutions, and while the author may have intended [X], [Y] can also be a viable reading. If the scenario outlined in the repeal is possible, we let the voters decide.

Emphasis added.

[Sciongrad]

OOC: I thought Mousebumples recently explicitly stated that moderators will no longer rule on interpretations? Can we get some type of official clarifying statement on this?

You're taking that completely out of context. We're not dealing with a repeal here, nor an alleged "Honest Mistake" violation.

OOC: I honestly don't think I am. The particular context of that discussion was over a repeal violating the honest mistake rule, you're correct, but Mouse did not qualify her statement. Here's the full portion of that particular line:

GA mods do not rule on "interpretation." There are lots of way to interpret and read resolutions, and while the author may have intended [X], [Y] can also be a viable reading. If the scenario outlined in the repeal is possible, we let the voters decide.

She does specifically refer to interpretations vis a vis repeals, but for her to suggest that the moderators do not interpret resolutions only in regards to repeals would be wholly arbitrary. If I repeal a resolution or try to pass another resolution that potentially duplicates the first, and they both rely on the same interpretation of the original, why can the moderators elect to interpret the resolution in the latter case but not the former case? I trust Mousebumples considered this and do not believe she would suggest the moderators can act arbitrarily or capriciously. So while the particular conversation was about a repeal violating the honest mistake rule, the context in no way qualifies the scope of her pronouncement unless we assume that you guys actually do act arbitrarily.

ETA: In other words, moderators either interpret resolutions or they don't. You can't just choose to interpret resolutions sometimes. I'll also add that I'm not trying to be hostile, I'm actually very confused here. And I suspect I'm not the only player that doesn't understand what on earth the rules are anymore.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: So, do moderators not rule on interpretation when it comes to repeals, or to Honest Mistake violations? To what situation, specifically, does the claim that "GA mods do not rule on interpretation" apply?

GA mods do not rule on "interpretation." There are lots of way to interpret and read resolutions, and while the author may have intended [X], [Y] can also be a viable reading. If the scenario outlined in the repeal is possible, we let the voters decide.

Emphasis added.

OOC: Again, does this assertion apply to alleged Honest Mistake violations or Repeals? Because this proposal hinges on the acceptance of a particular interpretation of Reproductive Freedoms. Both are, linguistically, possible, but only one is legal. Mouse has already come into a similar proposal claiming there is a contradiction with RF, so have the moderators ruled on an interpretation of RF, or have they reversed this position in favor of not interpreting resolutions?

[Mousebumples]

Sorry for going MIA the past few days guys. Work's been keeping me busy, unfortunately. My comment regarding "not ruling on interpretation" was regarding repeals. The updated rules (which are hopefully going to drop later today) should hopefully clarify that further. Whenever it comes to judging Duplication and Contradiction on new legislation, there is - unfortunately - an inevitable amount of "interpretation" that is necessary. I'd rather keep our rulings as cut and dried as possible - and some definitely make it easy. (i.e. Branding or House of Cards, for example, are pretty straight forward.) We try to keep "interpretation" out of things as much as we can ... but there are (unfortunately) some rules that can't really be enforced unless we do some interpretation of the existing resolutions.