[PASSED] On Abortion

[Keronians]

I'm going to make important statements for pro-lifers should this reach page 60. In bold, italic, underlined, and any other emphasising formatting I can use. This has gone on long enough! A simple repeal, and pray a resolution that leaves abortion upto individual nations and we'll be rid of it all.

[The Rich Port]

I'm going to make important statements for pro-lifers should this reach page 60. In bold, italic, underlined, and any other emphasising formatting I can use. This has gone on long enough! A simple repeal, and pray a resolution that leaves abortion upto individual nations and we'll be rid of it all.

I'm dedicating a song to the thread and "life crusaders".

[Nulono]

If you're already dead, I don't see the problem with taking organs.

We are in agreement on that point, therefore. But you do not seem to believe any living people should be required to donate their organs.

No, for abortion (as I am disagreeing with) does remove the fetus from ever being born, meaning it never does get to experience true life other than being inside of a body for a couple of weeks.

It is however personal on whether or not you wish to volunteer to have a child. If you give your consent to have unprotected sex with another and become impregnated then why is it just to be able to have an abortion?

Consent is a legal doctrine. Just as consent to sex can be withdrawn at any point, consent to pregnancy can be withdrawn at any point -- in this case, by having an abortion.

Nor should consent to sex be considered consent to pregnancy. This is in violation of logic -- leaving a safe unlocked, while rather foolish, does not mean you agree to have it burgled, and waive the ability to have the burglars prosecuted under the law.

- S.K.

1. I can consent to you being on my airplane. I can also revoke consent. That doesn't mean you can push them off the plane.
2. You consent to an action, not to the consequences. If I shoot you, I can't claim "I only consenting to pulling the trigger!". If I play baseball with my son, I can't say "I never consented to the breaking of your windows!".

I'm going to make important statements for pro-lifers should this reach page 60. In bold, italic, underlined, and any other emphasising formatting I can use. This has gone on long enough! A simple repeal, and pray a resolution that leaves abortion upto individual nations and we'll be rid of it all.

Oh, this will go beyond 60!

[Numdia]

You may also contest the morality of abortion, then, but it should also be a personal matter by your reasoning.


- S.K.

No, for abortion (as I am disagreeing with) does remove the fetus from ever being born, meaning it never does get to experience true life other than being inside of a body for a couple of weeks.

It is however personal on whether or not you wish to volunteer to have a child. If you give your consent to have unprotected sex with another and become impregnated then why is it just to be able to have an abortion?

Consent is a legal doctrine. Just as consent to sex can be withdrawn at any point, consent to pregnancy can be withdrawn at any point -- in this case, by having an abortion.

Nor should consent to sex be considered consent to pregnancy. This is in violation of logic -- leaving a safe unlocked, while rather foolish, does not mean you agree to have it burgled, and waive the ability to have the burglars prosecuted under the law.

- S.K.[/quote]

Consent to pregnancy would be regarded as signing a contract. You have signed a contract to give birth to the fetus. If the fetus has violated such terms and would place you under physical harm or is deformed then it could be terminated.

But, there should be no breaking of the contract on the mother's end either.

A mother should be able to cause such physical harm to a fetus (via abortion), much as a fetus should not able to cause physical harm to the mother (via birth).

[Nulono]

No, for abortion (as I am disagreeing with) does remove the fetus from ever being born, meaning it never does get to experience true life other than being inside of a body for a couple of weeks.

It is however personal on whether or not you wish to volunteer to have a child. If you give your consent to have unprotected sex with another and become impregnated then why is it just to be able to have an abortion?

Consent is a legal doctrine. Just as consent to sex can be withdrawn at any point, consent to pregnancy can be withdrawn at any point -- in this case, by having an abortion.

Nor should consent to sex be considered consent to pregnancy. This is in violation of logic -- leaving a safe unlocked, while rather foolish, does not mean you agree to have it burgled, and waive the ability to have the burglars prosecuted under the law.

- S.K.

Consent to pregnancy would be regarded as signing a contract. You have signed a contract to give birth to the fetus. If the fetus has violated such terms and would place you under physical harm or is deformed then it could be terminated.

But, there should be no breaking of the contract on the mother's end either.

A mother should be able to cause such physical harm to a fetus (via abortion), much as a fetus should not able to cause physical harm to the mother (via birth).[/quote]
How is being "deformed" a "breach of contract" worthy of execution?

"A mother should be able to cause such physical harm to a fetus (via abortion), much as a fetus should not able to cause physical harm to the mother (via birth)."
You mean shouldn't?

[Numdia]

Consent is a legal doctrine. Just as consent to sex can be withdrawn at any point, consent to pregnancy can be withdrawn at any point -- in this case, by having an abortion.

Nor should consent to sex be considered consent to pregnancy. This is in violation of logic -- leaving a safe unlocked, while rather foolish, does not mean you agree to have it burgled, and waive the ability to have the burglars prosecuted under the law.

- S.K.

Consent to pregnancy would be regarded as signing a contract. You have signed a contract to give birth to the fetus. If the fetus has violated such terms and would place you under physical harm or is deformed then it could be terminated.

But, there should be no breaking of the contract on the mother's end either.

A mother should be able to cause such physical harm to a fetus (via abortion), much as a fetus should not able to cause physical harm to the mother (via birth).

How is being "deformed" a "breach of contract" worthy of execution?

"A mother should be able to cause such physical harm to a fetus (via abortion), much as a fetus should not able to cause physical harm to the mother (via birth)."
You mean shouldn't?[/quote]

I wouldn't normally argue that deformity is worthy of termination but as a concession for agreement it should be allowed for compromise.

Ya I really need to fix that before some misinterprets it.

[Motuka]

1. I can consent to you being on my airplane. I can also revoke consent. That doesn't mean you can push them off the plane.
2. You consent to an action, not to the consequences. If I shoot you, I can't claim "I only consenting to pulling the trigger!". If I play baseball with my son, I can't say "I never consented to the breaking of your windows!"

All of the words in these sentences make perfect sense individually, and most of the clauses are perfectly coherent, so I am at a loss as to why I have no idea what you're talking about.

I note, however, that you are involving yourself in a discussion between myself and another delegate, rather than continuing to address our earlier discussion.

Consent to pregnancy would be regarded as signing a contract. You have signed a contract to give birth to the fetus.

Why, exactly?

If the fetus has violated such terms and would place you under physical harm or is deformed then it could be terminated.

But, there should be no breaking of the contract on the mother's end either.

A mother should be able to cause such physical harm to a fetus (via abortion), much as a fetus should not able to cause physical harm to the mother (via birth).

Again, on what do you base this proposal? Moreover, why do you oppose abortions on the basis of rape or faulty contraception when there has obviously been no consent to pregnancy in such cases?

- S.K.

[Keronians]

Right, I've drafted up the repeal I promised. I'll submit it when the voting period for this resolution ends. I drafted another one because I doubt that the other one will manage to reach quorum.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Honoured ambassadors,

Ms. Harper should reflect on what has been a historical and record breaking debate of well more than 55 pages. What began in December 2010 as a proposal by the honoured ambassador from Christian Democrats to ban abortions, after 24 weeks in most cases, has evolved to a massive and understandably heated debate with nearly a dozen proposals resolving to legislate in one way or another. She would like to say how indebted she really is to Dr. B. Castro of Glen-Rhodes for giving her that inspiration to develop this resolution, because if this resolution did not happen then we would have had to deal with something much worse or restrictive, whatever it would have been. She is also very indebted to everyone who supported and voted in favour of this resolution.

She must defend that any opposition against the legalisation of abortions in cases of life in danger, rape, et. al. are clearly unfounded because it is clearly obvious that the denial of such rights would constitute the denial of the right to one kind of live-saving operations. I do understand cultural concerns in respect to a rather brave move in most opinion but we feel that saving the life or well-being of a pregnant woman is more important than risking the loss of both the pregnant woman and the foetus, either through complications, child abuse or suicide. For those who opposed this resolution on the grounds of allowing abortion on the grounds of rape, let Ms. Harper reiterate that there is a very good reason on why this was included: for the world to be a better place to live the rape victim should never be forced to bear the unwanted offspring of such an act of appalling sexual violence if it is going to causing her extreme mental anguish, or even lead her to subject the offspring to years of abuse or commit suicide. The rape victim should also never be forced to bear the unwanted offspring if that will make her fear that she would have to make contact with the perpetrator in regards to child support, contact, etc.

Member countries should understand that in return for legalising abortion for essential cases, they retain the ability to decide the legality of abortion in more general cases such as access-on-demand and sex selection. She cannot see, in her opinion, any better deal than this. In short: it is not as bad as some of the ambassadors think. This resolution does not prevent member states from advising patients to consider other options before finalising on her decision. She hopes that most will understand that the reason for non-inclusion is that it would have duplicated clauses head-on with Resolution #44, and doing so would be against current proposal regulations.

She will be transparent on how we do it: Minoa (Charlotte Ryberg) legalises abortion and there is no absolute time limit as all cases are individually assessed to determine the best possible solutions, using both GA#128 and GA#44. She strongly calls for everyone to really consider if any future attempts at a repeal of both resolutions would actually improve on the topic in a progressive manner. She can only observe at this time that some of the current attempts to repeal this resolution would likely lead to replacements which are worse or far more restrictive than this: for example, one proposal tried to force member states to ban abortion and another seem to think that rape victims were at fault for being raped: Ms. Harper has seen that already, that's why this resolution got developed to keep such ridiculous plans out of international law.

Let's understand and defend On Abortion and Reduction of Abortion Act to the end and honour the real goal of the General Assembly:

Improving the world one resolution at a time.

- Ms. S. Harper.

[The People of Belfast]

Honoured ambassadors,

Ms. Harper should reflect on what has been a historical and record breaking debate of well more than 55 pages. What began in December 2010 as a proposal by the honoured ambassador from Christian Democrats to ban abortions, after 24 weeks in most cases, has evolved to a massive and understandably heated debate with nearly a dozen proposals resolving to legislate in one way or another. She would like to say how indebted she really is to Dr. B. Castro of Glen-Rhodes for giving her that inspiration to develop this resolution, because if this resolution did not happen then we would have had to deal with something much worse or restrictive, whatever it would have been. She is also very indebted to everyone who supported and voted in favour of this resolution.

She must defend that any opposition against the legalisation of abortions in cases of life in danger, rape, et. al. are clearly unfounded because it is clearly obvious that the denial of such rights would constitute the denial of the right to one kind of live-saving operations. I do understand cultural concerns in respect to a rather brave move in most opinion but we feel that saving the life or well-being of a pregnant woman is more important than risking the loss of both the pregnant woman and the foetus, either through complications, child abuse or suicide. For those who opposed this resolution on the grounds of allowing abortion on the grounds of rape, let Ms. Harper reiterate that there is a very good reason on why this was included: for the world to be a better place to live the rape victim should never be forced to bear the unwanted offspring of such an act of appalling sexual violence if it is going to causing her extreme mental anguish, or even lead her to subject the offspring to years of abuse or commit suicide. The rape victim should also never be forced to bear the unwanted offspring if that will make her fear that she would have to make contact with the perpetrator in regards to child support, contact, etc.

Member countries should understand that in return for legalising abortion for essential cases, they retain the ability to decide the legality of abortion in more general cases such as access-on-demand and sex selection. She cannot see, in her opinion, any better deal than this. In short: it is not as bad as some of the ambassadors think. This resolution does not prevent member states from advising patients to consider other options before finalising on her decision. She hopes that most will understand that the reason for non-inclusion is that it would have duplicated clauses head-on with Resolution #44, and doing so would be against current proposal regulations.

She will be transparent on how we do it: Minoa (Charlotte Ryberg) legalises abortion and there is no absolute time limit as all cases are individually assessed to determine the best possible solutions, using both GA#128 and GA#44. She strongly calls for everyone to really consider if any future attempts at a repeal of both resolutions would actually improve on the topic in a progressive manner. She can only observe at this time that some of the current attempts to repeal this resolution would likely lead to replacements which are worse or far more restrictive than this: for example, one proposal tried to force member states to ban abortion and another seem to think that rape victims were at fault for being raped: Ms. Harper has seen that already, that's why this resolution got developed to keep such ridiculous plans out of international law.

Let's understand and defend On Abortion and Reduction of Abortion Act to the end and honour the real goal of the General Assembly:

Improving the world one resolution at a time.

- Ms. S. Harper.

Not letting a pregnant 15 year old, who got pregnant with consensual sex with another 15 year old, have an abortion is "a the denial of the right to one kind of live-saving operation"? Not letting a female rapist? Even a rape victim suffering from no physical problems?

Abortion in the case of a live-saving procedure is fine. It is already legal in my country. But the rest goes too far Madam Ambassador. What should happen is that 128 should be repealed and replaced with a compromise, one that allows nations to make up their own mind on abortion with the exception of trully live saving procedures.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Right, I've drafted up the repeal I promised. I'll submit it when the voting period for this resolution ends. I drafted another one because I doubt that the other one will manage to reach quorum.

FFS, please consider just letting the issue die down. "On Abortion" was written with the input of both pro-life and pro-choice nations (and objections from both). It easily reached quorum and is passing overwhelmingly.

The WA is tired of this issue and would like it to go away, but it does not tend towards the narrow views of those few you find "On Abortion" completely unacceptable. Even if a repeal were to succeed, it is more likely that a more pro-choice alternative would be adopted than an anti-choice alternative.

I know that you and others have found little hypothetical nit-pick situations were abortion would occur under "On Abortion" and you (or they) find that unacceptable. Are such situations really unpreventable in your nation? Are they really significant? Does the Reduction of Abortion Act, your sovereign powers, and your imagination not give you ample tools to prevent or at least minimize the likelihood of such situations ever occuring?

Do you really need to drag the WA through more wrangling over this issue -- especially when you are almost assured of either failing OR (worse) losing ground?

[The Cat-Tribe]

Honoured ambassadors,

Ms. Harper should reflect on what has been a historical and record breaking debate of well more than 55 pages. What began in December 2010 as a proposal by the honoured ambassador from Christian Democrats to ban abortions, after 24 weeks in most cases, has evolved to a massive and understandably heated debate with nearly a dozen proposals resolving to legislate in one way or another. She would like to say how indebted she really is to Dr. B. Castro of Glen-Rhodes for giving her that inspiration to develop this resolution, because if this resolution did not happen then we would have had to deal with something much worse or restrictive, whatever it would have been. She is also very indebted to everyone who supported and voted in favour of this resolution.

She must defend that any opposition against the legalisation of abortions in cases of life in danger, rape, et. al. are clearly unfounded because it is clearly obvious that the denial of such rights would constitute the denial of the right to one kind of live-saving operations. I do understand cultural concerns in respect to a rather brave move in most opinion but we feel that saving the life or well-being of a pregnant woman is more important than risking the loss of both the pregnant woman and the foetus, either through complications, child abuse or suicide. For those who opposed this resolution on the grounds of allowing abortion on the grounds of rape, let Ms. Harper reiterate that there is a very good reason on why this was included: for the world to be a better place to live the rape victim should never be forced to bear the unwanted offspring of such an act of appalling sexual violence if it is going to causing her extreme mental anguish, or even lead her to subject the offspring to years of abuse or commit suicide. The rape victim should also never be forced to bear the unwanted offspring if that will make her fear that she would have to make contact with the perpetrator in regards to child support, contact, etc.

Member countries should understand that in return for legalising abortion for essential cases, they retain the ability to decide the legality of abortion in more general cases such as access-on-demand and sex selection. She cannot see, in her opinion, any better deal than this. In short: it is not as bad as some of the ambassadors think. This resolution does not prevent member states from advising patients to consider other options before finalising on her decision. She hopes that most will understand that the reason for non-inclusion is that it would have duplicated clauses head-on with Resolution #44, and doing so would be against current proposal regulations.

She will be transparent on how we do it: Minoa (Charlotte Ryberg) legalises abortion and there is no absolute time limit as all cases are individually assessed to determine the best possible solutions, using both GA#128 and GA#44. She strongly calls for everyone to really consider if any future attempts at a repeal of both resolutions would actually improve on the topic in a progressive manner. She can only observe at this time that some of the current attempts to repeal this resolution would likely lead to replacements which are worse or far more restrictive than this: for example, one proposal tried to force member states to ban abortion and another seem to think that rape victims were at fault for being raped: Ms. Harper has seen that already, that's why this resolution got developed to keep such ridiculous plans out of international law.

Let's understand and defend On Abortion and Reduction of Abortion Act to the end and honour the real goal of the General Assembly:

Improving the world one resolution at a time.

- Ms. S. Harper.

[Keronians]

Honoured ambassadors,

Ms. Harper should reflect on what has been a historical and record breaking debate of well more than 55 pages. What began in December 2010 as a proposal by the honoured ambassador from Christian Democrats to ban abortions, after 24 weeks in most cases, has evolved to a massive and understandably heated debate with nearly a dozen proposals resolving to legislate in one way or another. She would like to say how indebted she really is to Dr. B. Castro of Glen-Rhodes for giving her that inspiration to develop this resolution, because if this resolution did not happen then we would have had to deal with something much worse or restrictive, whatever it would have been. She is also very indebted to everyone who supported and voted in favour of this resolution.

She must defend that any opposition against the legalisation of abortions in cases of life in danger, rape, et. al. are clearly unfounded because it is clearly obvious that the denial of such rights would constitute the denial of the right to one kind of live-saving operations. I do understand cultural concerns in respect to a rather brave move in most opinion but we feel that saving the life or well-being of a pregnant woman is more important than risking the loss of both the pregnant woman and the foetus, either through complications, child abuse or suicide. For those who opposed this resolution on the grounds of allowing abortion on the grounds of rape, let Ms. Harper reiterate that there is a very good reason on why this was included: for the world to be a better place to live the rape victim should never be forced to bear the unwanted offspring of such an act of appalling sexual violence if it is going to causing her extreme mental anguish, or even lead her to subject the offspring to years of abuse or commit suicide. The rape victim should also never be forced to bear the unwanted offspring if that will make her fear that she would have to make contact with the perpetrator in regards to child support, contact, etc.

Member countries should understand that in return for legalising abortion for essential cases, they retain the ability to decide the legality of abortion in more general cases such as access-on-demand and sex selection. She cannot see, in her opinion, any better deal than this. In short: it is not as bad as some of the ambassadors think. This resolution does not prevent member states from advising patients to consider other options before finalising on her decision. She hopes that most will understand that the reason for non-inclusion is that it would have duplicated clauses head-on with Resolution #44, and doing so would be against current proposal regulations.

She will be transparent on how we do it: Minoa (Charlotte Ryberg) legalises abortion and there is no absolute time limit as all cases are individually assessed to determine the best possible solutions, using both GA#128 and GA#44. She strongly calls for everyone to really consider if any future attempts at a repeal of both resolutions would actually improve on the topic in a progressive manner. She can only observe at this time that some of the current attempts to repeal this resolution would likely lead to replacements which are worse or far more restrictive than this: for example, one proposal tried to force member states to ban abortion and another seem to think that rape victims were at fault for being raped: Ms. Harper has seen that already, that's why this resolution got developed to keep such ridiculous plans out of international law.

Let's understand and defend On Abortion and Reduction of Abortion Act to the end and honour the real goal of the General Assembly:

Improving the world one resolution at a time.

- Ms. S. Harper.

Given that you have posted this, I feel inclined to post now instead of when we reached the 60 page mark I had stated previously.

So, here we go.

Those of you (approximately 2500 apparently) who oppose this resolution, there is good news. We can simply ignore it! Here is how to (if you hadn't figured it out already):

· Make all your physicians "morally oppose abortion". This would de facto make abortion illegal. It would be a tad oppressive so I recommend doing it through a "reform" of the education system.

· Define "severe disability" as extremely high. Also, in regards to proceedings that would confirm the life-threatening/rape/etc clauses, make them deliberately take extremely long.

· Make a change of wording. Make late-term abortion, for example, seperate from abortion in your nation. This way, you could still keep late-term abortion illegal.

I don't necessarily agree with all of that, but nations that view abortion as murder have a right to keep it illegal. I may have missed some other way to ignore this resolution, but I doubt you'll need to go any further than the first one.

[Jedi8246]

Right, I've drafted up the repeal I promised. I'll submit it when the voting period for this resolution ends. I drafted another one because I doubt that the other one will manage to reach quorum.

FFS, please consider just letting the issue die down. "On Abortion" was written with the input of both pro-life and pro-choice nations (and objections from both). It easily reached quorum and is passing overwhelmingly.

The WA is tired of this issue and would like it to go away, but it does not tend towards the narrow views of those few you find "On Abortion" completely unacceptable. Even if a repeal were to succeed, it is more likely that a more pro-choice alternative would be adopted than an anti-choice alternative.

I know that you and others have found little hypothetical nit-pick situations were abortion would occur under "On Abortion" and you (or they) find that unacceptable. Are such situations really unpreventable in your nation? Are they really significant? Does the Reduction of Abortion Act, your sovereign powers, and your imagination not give you ample tools to prevent or at least minimize the likelihood of such situations ever occuring?

Do you really need to drag the WA through more wrangling over this issue -- especially when you are almost assured of either failing OR (worse) losing ground?

It is all fine to you when you are getting your way. However this bill is not a compromise. It is a way to promote more pro choice thinking. Saying otherwise is not admitting to the effect of the bill. And while this bill does have loopholes allowing pro life nations to be able to ignore it, if this bill is not repealed then more pro choice legislation could come in the future.

[Nulono]

If this proposal merely legalized life-saving abortions, opposition wouldn't be this vehement.

Just as the mental health of the mother is not an excuse for the murder of the 4-year-old, it is not an excuse for the abortion of the 4-month-old.

The Colony of Nuloneto has no residents capable of pregnancy, but we have set a 8000-hour waiting period for elective abortions just in case.

[Keronians]

Right, I've drafted up the repeal I promised. I'll submit it when the voting period for this resolution ends. I drafted another one because I doubt that the other one will manage to reach quorum.

FFS, please consider just letting the issue die down. "On Abortion" was written with the input of both pro-life and pro-choice nations (and objections from both). It easily reached quorum and is passing overwhelmingly.

The WA is tired of this issue and would like it to go away, but it does not tend towards the narrow views of those few you find "On Abortion" completely unacceptable. Even if a repeal were to succeed, it is more likely that a more pro-choice alternative would be adopted than an anti-choice alternative.

I know that you and others have found little hypothetical nit-pick situations were abortion would occur under "On Abortion" and you (or they) find that unacceptable. Are such situations really unpreventable in your nation? Are they really significant? Does the Reduction of Abortion Act, your sovereign powers, and your imagination not give you ample tools to prevent or at least minimize the likelihood of such situations ever occuring?

Do you really need to drag the WA through more wrangling over this issue -- especially when you are almost assured of either failing OR (worse) losing ground?

I'm sick of it myself, but as a pro-lifer I should, nay, I MUST do my best to oppose this proposal. Mainly because of the faults I mentioned. Most of my repeal is made up of flaws in this resolution, not a pro-life stance. As you may have observed, I personally believe in the legalisation of abortion under these clauses (it is the law in my nation). The only matters I have is with late-term abortion and rape, and rapists citing abortions (when rapists are the ones who get pregnant). I personally won't have to change anything in my law, as I'll simply say that we regard late-term abortion seperate from abortion and keep the current laws.

Other nations, however, can't, and they have a right to pass their own legislation and deny to recognise this resolution if they (and their people) consider abortion to be murder.

[Jedi8246]

(OCC: I don't know if anyone noticed, but an add that has been playing on the side is something advertising a product that will tell you when your pregnant. Lol. Oh the irony)

[Ossitania]

· Make all your physicians "morally oppose abortion". This would de facto make abortion illegal. It would be a tad oppressive so I recommend doing it through a "reform" of the education system.

You are still required under the terms of the resolution to make abortion services easily accessible for anyone seeking an abortion under Section 1., therefore the only results of this course of action would be (a) not providing such services and getting fined by the Compliance Commission or (b) providing for pregnant individuals to go to your nearest neighbour with abortion services.

· Define "severe disability" as extremely high. Also, in regards to proceedings that would confirm the life-threatening/rape/etc clauses, make them deliberately take extremely long.

The first would require a change in all your medical legislation, which would have adverse effects on those with severe disabilities, especially in relation to proper care and welfare, quite probably leading to improper care, further illness and death. Is causing suffering and death to so many really worth your supposed moral high-ground?

In the case of the second, (1) a doctor's diagnosis is all that's needed and (2) if the proceedings went on that long, the women and the baby would probably be killed by the complications, which somewhat defeats your point and costs innocent lives for no good reason.

· Make a change of wording. Make late-term abortion, for example, seperate from abortion in your nation. This way, you could still keep late-term abortion illegal.

This just makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

I don't necessarily agree with all of that, but nations outside the WA that view abortion as murder have a right to keep it illegal and if any of us want to ignore the terms of the resolution, then we have to leave the WA because we voluntarily joined and agreed to accept all WA resolutions as legally binding on our nations.

Fixed that for you.

I may have missed some other way to ignore this resolution, but I doubt you'll need to go any further than the first one.

Actually, yeah you will have to go further. As in you'll have to leave the WA.

[Nulono]

(OCC: I don't know if anyone noticed, but an add that has been playing on the side is something advertising a product that will tell you when your pregnant. Lol. Oh the irony)

OOC: Yeah, the ads have been pregnancy-related for a while.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Honoured ambassadors,

Ms. Harper should reflect on what has been a historical and record breaking debate of well more than 55 pages. What began in December 2010 as a proposal by the honoured ambassador from Christian Democrats to ban abortions, after 24 weeks in most cases, has evolved to a massive and understandably heated debate with nearly a dozen proposals resolving to legislate in one way or another. She would like to say how indebted she really is to Dr. B. Castro of Glen-Rhodes for giving her that inspiration to develop this resolution, because if this resolution did not happen then we would have had to deal with something much worse or restrictive, whatever it would have been. She is also very indebted to everyone who supported and voted in favour of this resolution.

She must defend that any opposition against the legalisation of abortions in cases of life in danger, rape, et. al. are clearly unfounded because it is clearly obvious that the denial of such rights would constitute the denial of the right to one kind of live-saving operations. I do understand cultural concerns in respect to a rather brave move in most opinion but we feel that saving the life or well-being of a pregnant woman is more important than risking the loss of both the pregnant woman and the foetus, either through complications, child abuse or suicide. For those who opposed this resolution on the grounds of allowing abortion on the grounds of rape, let Ms. Harper reiterate that there is a very good reason on why this was included: for the world to be a better place to live the rape victim should never be forced to bear the unwanted offspring of such an act of appalling sexual violence if it is going to causing her extreme mental anguish, or even lead her to subject the offspring to years of abuse or commit suicide. The rape victim should also never be forced to bear the unwanted offspring if that will make her fear that she would have to make contact with the perpetrator in regards to child support, contact, etc.

Member countries should understand that in return for legalising abortion for essential cases, they retain the ability to decide the legality of abortion in more general cases such as access-on-demand and sex selection. She cannot see, in her opinion, any better deal than this. In short: it is not as bad as some of the ambassadors think. This resolution does not prevent member states from advising patients to consider other options before finalising on her decision. She hopes that most will understand that the reason for non-inclusion is that it would have duplicated clauses head-on with Resolution #44, and doing so would be against current proposal regulations.

She will be transparent on how we do it: Minoa (Charlotte Ryberg) legalises abortion and there is no absolute time limit as all cases are individually assessed to determine the best possible solutions, using both GA#128 and GA#44. She strongly calls for everyone to really consider if any future attempts at a repeal of both resolutions would actually improve on the topic in a progressive manner. She can only observe at this time that some of the current attempts to repeal this resolution would likely lead to replacements which are worse or far more restrictive than this: for example, one proposal tried to force member states to ban abortion and another seem to think that rape victims were at fault for being raped: Ms. Harper has seen that already, that's why this resolution got developed to keep such ridiculous plans out of international law.

Let's understand and defend On Abortion and Reduction of Abortion Act to the end and honour the real goal of the General Assembly:

Improving the world one resolution at a time.

- Ms. S. Harper.

Not letting a pregnant 15 year old, who got pregnant with consensual sex with another 15 year old, have an abortion is "a the denial of the right to one kind of live-saving operation"? Not letting a female rapist? Even a rape victim suffering from no physical problems?

Abortion in the case of a live-saving procedure is fine. It is already legal in my country. But the rest goes too far Madam Ambassador. What should happen is that 128 should be repealed and replaced with a compromise, one that allows nations to make up their own mind on abortion with the exception of trully live saving procedures.

1. Is teen sex such a rampant problem in you nation? Do you really feel the need to punish 15-year olds who become pregnant below the age of consent (so by YOUR OWN LAWS the sex wasn't "consensual") by forcing them to carry an unborn for nine months (if they are human) and give birth -- despite all the risks of pregnancy and birth to someone of that age? Do you really have no better methods in your nation for dealing with this alleged "problem"?

2. Is the rape of men by women such a rampant problem in your nation? In most nations I am familiar with, it is a problem to be taken seriously, but is nonetheless relatively infinitesimal. Most such rapes don't necessarily involve situations which would create even a risk of pregnancy, but let's assume some percentage do. Do you really think your nation or any other would be plagued by a noticeable (let alone significant) number of such cases of abortion?

3. I am truly disgusted by the ignorance and lack of empathy that continues to be shown by some nations to the trauma and often permenant harm suffered by rape victims. If you simply don't know about the subject, educate yourself. Yes, being forced to carry to birth the child of the violator who raped her would very likely cause long-term (if not permanent), severe psychological harm to a rape victim. This is not just "feeling a little sad or upset." (I'll stop typing on this subject before I pop a vein.)

I am also saddened that these same nations with so little empathy or understanding of rape victims appear to have significant numbers of rape victims who become pregnant, such that the prospect of them having the right to choose to terminate said pregnancies is worth raising such hissy fits.

Clearly, you are driven by narrow dogmatic blinders that refuse to recognize what you are saying about yourself, your nation, and your female population when you say the things you have about "On Abortion."

[The Cat-Tribe]

FFS, please consider just letting the issue die down. "On Abortion" was written with the input of both pro-life and pro-choice nations (and objections from both). It easily reached quorum and is passing overwhelmingly.

The WA is tired of this issue and would like it to go away, but it does not tend towards the narrow views of those few you find "On Abortion" completely unacceptable. Even if a repeal were to succeed, it is more likely that a more pro-choice alternative would be adopted than an anti-choice alternative.

I know that you and others have found little hypothetical nit-pick situations were abortion would occur under "On Abortion" and you (or they) find that unacceptable. Are such situations really unpreventable in your nation? Are they really significant? Does the Reduction of Abortion Act, your sovereign powers, and your imagination not give you ample tools to prevent or at least minimize the likelihood of such situations ever occuring?

Do you really need to drag the WA through more wrangling over this issue -- especially when you are almost assured of either failing OR (worse) losing ground?

It is all fine to you when you are getting your way. However this bill is not a compromise. It is a way to promote more pro choice thinking. Saying otherwise is not admitting to the effect of the bill. And while this bill does have loopholes allowing pro life nations to be able to ignore it, if this bill is not repealed then more pro choice legislation could come in the future.

Odd.

It is difficult to see how a resolution that legalizes a very, very small percentage of all abortions -- in three narrowly defined categories-- "promotes more pro-choice thinking."

Also, pro-life nations that offered some of the very language that is now being objected to or being used as loopholes were either being purposefully decietful or thought it was a compromise.

Boogeymen about what might be legislated later is rather irrelevant -- especially when such legislation is made MORE likely by a repeal of this resolution.

[Nulono]

Not letting a pregnant 15 year old, who got pregnant with consensual sex with another 15 year old, have an abortion is "a the denial of the right to one kind of live-saving operation"? Not letting a female rapist? Even a rape victim suffering from no physical problems?

Abortion in the case of a live-saving procedure is fine. It is already legal in my country. But the rest goes too far Madam Ambassador. What should happen is that 128 should be repealed and replaced with a compromise, one that allows nations to make up their own mind on abortion with the exception of trully live saving procedures.

1. Is teen sex such a rampant problem in you nation? Do you really feel the need to punish 15-year olds who become pregnant below the age of consent (so by YOUR OWN LAWS the sex wasn't "consensual") by forcing them to carry an unborn for nine months (if they are human) and give birth -- despite all the risks of pregnancy and birth to someone of that age? Do you really have no better methods in your nation for dealing with this alleged "problem"?

2. Is the rape of men by women such a rampant problem in your nation? In most nations I am familiar with, it is a problem to be taken seriously, but is nonetheless relatively infinitesimal. Most such rapes don't necessarily involve situations which would create even a risk of pregnancy, but let's assume some percentage do. Do you really think your nation or any other would be plagued by a noticeable (let alone significant) number of such cases of abortion?

3. I am truly disgusted by the ignorance and lack of empathy that continues to be shown by some nations to the trauma and often permenant harm suffered by rape victims. If you simply don't know about the subject, educate yourself. Yes, being forced to carry to birth the child of the violator who raped her would very likely cause long-term (if not permanent), severe psychological harm to a rape victim. This is not just "feeling a little sad or upset." (I'll stop typing on this subject before I pop a vein.)

I am also saddened that these same nations with so little empathy or understanding of rape victims appear to have significant numbers of rape victims who become pregnant, such that the prospect of them having the right to choose to terminate said pregnancies is worth raising such hissy fits.

Clearly, you are driven by narrow dogmatic blinders that refuse to recognize what you are saying about yourself, your nation, and your female population when you say the things you have about "On Abortion."

1. Right, instead an innocent child should be executed for his mother's mistake. That makes much more sense!
2. I'm sure infanticide is not a very common problem, but that doesn't mean it should be legal. And women certainly do rape men; it just goes underreported due to social stigma.
3. While the rape victim in the scenario I presented may be under extreme emotional pain, that does not mean she has the right to murder her four-year-old son.

It is all fine to you when you are getting your way. However this bill is not a compromise. It is a way to promote more pro choice thinking. Saying otherwise is not admitting to the effect of the bill. And while this bill does have loopholes allowing pro life nations to be able to ignore it, if this bill is not repealed then more pro choice legislation could come in the future.

Odd.

It is difficult to see how a resolution that legalizes a very, very small percentage of all abortions -- in three narrowly defined categories-- "promotes more pro-choice thinking."

Also, pro-life nations that offered some of the very language that is now being objected to or being used as loopholes were either being purposefully decietful or thought it was a compromise.

Boogeymen about what might be legislated later is rather irrelevant -- especially when such legislation is made MORE likely by a repeal of this resolution.

Well, it promotes the idea that the unborn are subhuman, so yeah, it does. And it is not "narrowly defined". The rape clause, for example, is not just "rape victims can have abortions", but "rapists can have abortions" and "statutory rape 'victims' can have abortions" and "statutory 'rapists' can have abortions".

[The People of Belfast]

1. Is teen sex such a rampant problem in you nation? Do you really feel the need to punish 15-year olds who become pregnant below the age of consent (so by YOUR OWN LAWS the sex wasn't "consensual") by forcing them to carry an unborn for nine months (if they are human) and give birth -- despite all the risks of pregnancy and birth to someone of that age? Do you really have no better methods in your nation for dealing with this alleged "problem"?

2. Is the rape of men by women such a rampant problem in your nation? In most nations I am familiar with, it is a problem to be taken seriously, but is nonetheless relatively infinitesimal. Most such rapes don't necessarily involve situations which would create even a risk of pregnancy, but let's assume some percentage do. Do you really think your nation or any other would be plagued by a noticeable (let alone significant) number of such cases of abortion?

3. I am truly disgusted by the ignorance and lack of empathy that continues to be shown by some nations to the trauma and often permenant harm suffered by rape victims. If you simply don't know about the subject, educate yourself. Yes, being forced to carry to birth the child of the violator who raped her would very likely cause long-term (if not permanent), severe psychological harm to a rape victim. This is not just "feeling a little sad or upset." (I'll stop typing on this subject before I pop a vein.)

I am also saddened that these same nations with so little empathy or understanding of rape victims appear to have significant numbers of rape victims who become pregnant, such that the prospect of them having the right to choose to terminate said pregnancies is worth raising such hissy fits.

Clearly, you are driven by narrow dogmatic blinders that refuse to recognize what you are saying about yourself, your nation, and your female population when you say the things you have about "On Abortion."

1) Teen sex and teen pregnancy is relatively under control in my country. You also massively misunderstand the intentions of the People of Belfast. The aim is not to punish 15 year olds who are pregnant. The aim is to protect their child. If we could magically make the girl not be pregnant while at the same time not risking the life of the child then we would. But unfortunately the People of Belfast have no access to that sort of ability.

2) If one child is lost due to this resolution then this resolution is a bad one. It doesn't matter if it is only a unnoticable number. An unnoticable number is still too many.

3) We don't have our laws because we don't understand the effect that carry her rapist child would have on a woman. We understand those effects. We empathise with the victims of rape and will do all (short of letting them kill their child) to help them.

[The Cat-Tribe]

1. Is teen sex such a rampant problem in you nation? Do you really feel the need to punish 15-year olds who become pregnant below the age of consent (so by YOUR OWN LAWS the sex wasn't "consensual") by forcing them to carry an unborn for nine months (if they are human) and give birth -- despite all the risks of pregnancy and birth to someone of that age? Do you really have no better methods in your nation for dealing with this alleged "problem"?

2. Is the rape of men by women such a rampant problem in your nation? In most nations I am familiar with, it is a problem to be taken seriously, but is nonetheless relatively infinitesimal. Most such rapes don't necessarily involve situations which would create even a risk of pregnancy, but let's assume some percentage do. Do you really think your nation or any other would be plagued by a noticeable (let alone significant) number of such cases of abortion?

3. I am truly disgusted by the ignorance and lack of empathy that continues to be shown by some nations to the trauma and often permenant harm suffered by rape victims. If you simply don't know about the subject, educate yourself. Yes, being forced to carry to birth the child of the violator who raped her would very likely cause long-term (if not permanent), severe psychological harm to a rape victim. This is not just "feeling a little sad or upset." (I'll stop typing on this subject before I pop a vein.)

I am also saddened that these same nations with so little empathy or understanding of rape victims appear to have significant numbers of rape victims who become pregnant, such that the prospect of them having the right to choose to terminate said pregnancies is worth raising such hissy fits.

Clearly, you are driven by narrow dogmatic blinders that refuse to recognize what you are saying about yourself, your nation, and your female population when you say the things you have about "On Abortion."

1. Right, instead an innocent child should be executed for his mother's mistake. That makes much more sense!
2. I'm sure infanticide is not a very common problem, but that doesn't mean it should be legal. And women certainly do rape men; it just goes underreported due to social stigma.
3. While the rape victim in the scenario I presented may be under extreme emotional pain, that does not mean she has the right to murder her four-year-old son.

Odd.

It is difficult to see how a resolution that legalizes a very, very small percentage of all abortions -- in three narrowly defined categories-- "promotes more pro-choice thinking."

Also, pro-life nations that offered some of the very language that is now being objected to or being used as loopholes were either being purposefully decietful or thought it was a compromise.

Boogeymen about what might be legislated later is rather irrelevant -- especially when such legislation is made MORE likely by a repeal of this resolution.

Well, it promotes the idea that the unborn are subhuman, so yeah, it does. And it is not "narrowly defined". The rape clause, for example, is not just "rape victims can have abortions", but "rapists can have abortions" and "statutory rape 'victims' can have abortions" and "statutory 'rapists' can have abortions".

Ambassador, your responses are almost entirely non-responsive to what I posted. This has happened time and time again. Except for bringing that to your attention, I see no reason to engage in further dialogue.

[Keronians]

· Make all your physicians "morally oppose abortion". This would de facto make abortion illegal. It would be a tad oppressive so I recommend doing it through a "reform" of the education system.

You are still required under the terms of the resolution to make abortion services easily accessible for anyone seeking an abortion under Section 1., therefore the only results of this course of action would be (a) not providing such services and getting fined by the Compliance Commission or (b) providing for pregnant individuals to go to your nearest neighbour with abortion services.

· Define "severe disability" as extremely high. Also, in regards to proceedings that would confirm the life-threatening/rape/etc clauses, make them deliberately take extremely long.

The first would require a change in all your medical legislation, which would have adverse effects on those with severe disabilities, especially in relation to proper care and welfare, quite probably leading to improper care, further illness and death. Is causing suffering and death to so many really worth your supposed moral high-ground?

In the case of the second, (1) a doctor's diagnosis is all that's needed and (2) if the proceedings went on that long, the women and the baby would probably be killed by the complications, which somewhat defeats your point and costs innocent lives for no good reason.

· Make a change of wording. Make late-term abortion, for example, seperate from abortion in your nation. This way, you could still keep late-term abortion illegal.

This just makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

I don't necessarily agree with all of that, but nations outside the WA that view abortion as murder have a right to keep it illegal and if any of us want to ignore the terms of the resolution, then we have to leave the WA because we voluntarily joined and agreed to accept all WA resolutions as legally binding on our nations..

Fixed that for you.

I may have missed some other way to ignore this resolution, but I doubt you'll need to go any further than the first one.

Actually, yeah you will have to go further. As in you'll have to leave the WA.

Actually, I won't. And I'll provide abortion facilities (hospitals and clinics, really), whilst making sure physicians morally oppose abortion. Again, what I put there was for the ones who want to completely ban abortion. So, your assumption is wrong. Abortion is restricted, but legal, in our nation under the clauses in the first section (rape, incest, mental health of fetus, health of fetus, fetal defects, maternal life). I don't however find rape and incest to be valid excuses for an abortion after the limit of viability (20 weeks, here in Keronians).

And yeah, I'll stay in the WA and side-step this resolution. By doing exactly what I said. What I'm going to do is simply bend it to what I consider acceptable. Since "abortion" in our nation is regarded, defined, diagnosed and treated seperately from "late-term abortion" (after the 20th week of gestation in my nation), all I'll do is keep my national law the way it is whilst still denying abortions to women/men who have been raped if they've crossed the 20th week of gestation. Even now it's hard to find a physician who will carry out a late-term abortion for you in my nation, so, yeah. I'll be bending the resolution massively, but who cares?

As far as my medical legislation is concerned, I won't have to change anything. And yes, if they want to go to my neighbour, they can. I don't restrict travel. However, they are still subject to Keronian law as Keronian citizens, and if they have an abortion in this neighbouring country then they are effectively stripped of their citizenship, and would thus become illegal immigrants in this neighbouring country.

Anyway, I'm staying in the WA, and I'm de jure accepting it whilst de facto ignoring it.

OOC: That last sentence sounded pretty confusing.