[PASSED] Repeal Reduction of Abortion Act

by **Studly Penguins** » Sun Apr 28, 2013 11:32 am

2nd Draft

To People of the World Assembly:

APPLAUDING the author’s intention of helping reduce abortion rates worldwide.

APPALLED that this resolution has been allowed to stand due to the fact that it has done nothing to reduce abortions.

Examples from GAR #44:
STRONGLY URGES member states to research, invest in, and provide universal access to abortion reduction services

FURTHER ENCOURAGES member states to provide financial aid to pregnant individuals and parents to reduce or remove economic reasons for abortion and economic barriers to childbirth

This resolution should have required the state to provide stated services if there ever was any real intent to reduce abortion. Also it only guarantees a right to information, but not the right to receive anything from a decision derived from such information.

FURTHERMORE Without requiring member states to provide all the options or guaranteeing this right to its citizenry; it opens the door to more abortions or unwanted births and/or pregnancies. Clause #6 does nothing to help those living in countries where abortions are illegal or heavily restricted.

ADDITIONALLY Hopes future legislation can be passed that allows a universal right to choose.

I want to draft a solid effective repeal. Have at it!

by **Laeriland** » Sun Apr 28, 2013 11:44 am

It's intent is to reduce the need for abortions, so we are against this repeal.

by **Studly Penguins** » Sun Apr 28, 2013 11:50 am

Laeriland wrote:It's intent is to reduce the need for abortions, so we are against this repeal.

While yes we do understand that it intent is to reduce them, said resolution does nothing to do so.

In your humble opinion, how does having an intent equal actually accomplishing that aim??? This repeal does not make any new law here so I do not understand your opposition to this.

by **Araraukar** » Sun Apr 28, 2013 12:37 pm

Studly Penguins wrote:While yes we do understand that it intent is to reduce them, said resolution does nothing to do so.

In your humble opinion, how does having an intent equal actually accomplishing that aim??? This repeal does not make any new law here so I do not understand your opposition to this.

So are you against abortions, since you're so much against the fact that the target resolution doesn't (in your opinion) make them less frequent?

by **Studly Penguins** » Sun Apr 28, 2013 6:41 pm

Araraukar wrote:
Studly Penguins wrote:While yes we do understand that it intent is to reduce them, said resolution does nothing to do so.

In your humble opinion, how does having an intent equal actually accomplishing that aim??? This repeal does not make any new law here so I do not understand your opposition to this.

So are you against abortions, since you're so much against the fact that the target resolution doesn't (in your opinion) make them less frequent?

Actually Im Pro-Choice. While having my belief I feel as if the author of the resolution in question really wanted to reduce the number of abortions, they would have put some guaranteed some relief to the socioeconomic factors. Also some sort of guaranteed help to actually allow someone to have a choice, especially in a place where the abortion is outlawed or heavily restricted.

by **Araraukar** » Sun Apr 28, 2013 7:54 pm

Studly Penguins wrote:Also some sort of guaranteed help to actually allow someone to have a choice, especially in a place where the abortion is outlawed or heavily restricted.

...are WA nations even allowed to ban abortion? And I don't mean non-compliance stuff.

by **Omigodtheykilledkenny** » Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:17 pm

Araraukar wrote:
Studly Penguins wrote:Also some sort of guaranteed help to actually allow someone to have a choice, especially in a place where the abortion is outlawed or heavily restricted.

...are WA nations even allowed to ban abortion? And I don't mean non-compliance stuff.

Yes. Apart from mandates set by On Abortion, which requires legalized abortions in cases of rape, endangering the life of the mother, or severe fetal abnormalities, nations are free to set all the restrictions they like on terminating pregnancies.

by **United Federation of Canada** » Sun Apr 28, 2013 10:14 pm

Please, please PLEASE for the love of the force, let this fucking issue DIE once and for all.

The question of abortion is a ethical and moral issue that we will never get a consensus on. This blocker that you are trying to repeal, ON THE NAME ALONE, was the best alternative to a horrible, bloody series of debates that turned into nothing more than a giant flame war.

Please for everyones sanity, cease and desist with this? If you want to start a contentious issue, let's go back to arguing toothpaste again.

by **Araraukar** » Sun Apr 28, 2013 11:56 pm

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Yes. Apart from mandates set by On Abortion, which requires legalized abortions in cases of rape, endangering the life of the mother, or severe fetal abnormalities, nations are free to set all the restrictions they like on terminating pregnancies.

OOC: Then why are the anti-abortion nations complaining all the time?

IC: I'm sure that if some of our population planners heard that, they'd have multiple heart-attacks, the lot of them. In Araraukar breeding without licence is forbidden and will be enforced with loss of future breeding capabilities, should it happen despite all the education and free preventatives - and that's why, usually, if someone finds themselves pregnant without a licence, their first trip is to an abortion clinic, free of charge, of course.

OOC EDIT: The "loss of future breeding capabilities" goes for both the male and female in question, not just one of them.

by **Studly Penguins** » Mon Apr 29, 2013 2:27 am

United Federation of Canada wrote:Please, please PLEASE for the love of the force, let this fucking issue DIE once and for all.

The question of abortion is a ethical and moral issue that we will never get a consensus on. This blocker that you are trying to repeal, ON THE NAME ALONE, was the best alternative to a horrible, bloody series of debates that turned into nothing more than a giant flame war.

Please for everyones sanity, cease and desist with this? If you want to start a contentious issue, let's go back to arguing toothpaste again.

I'm not here to start a giant flame war or start a debate on the merits of abortion. I'm not breaking any new ground and I'm aiming to take a useless law off the books. If I was trying to stir up a pro-life/pro-choice debate I would have went after GAR# 128 as well so more comprehensive legislation could be put there. I don't b/c there is no reason to repeal that particular resolution.

I say USELESS because the resolution in question does NOTHING more than "ENCOURAGE" "STRONGLY URGE",etc. All it does is say "We really would like for you to do something about this, please. Only if you want to(and yes I understand the Nat-Sov part of how #44 was written)." This resolution doesn't do a fucking thing. It doesn't protect any definition of life. It doesn't protect anyone's or anything's rights. Hell it doesn't even give a fucking definition of what life even is!

If this were another on any other topic or issue, repeals more than likely would've been proposed or passed by now just simply because GAR #44 does nothing. Also we can re-coup the money from all the 'research' on how we can give out money and such to help the poor that I don't have to give out solely because the law says "Only if I want to......"

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:
Araraukar wrote:...are WA nations even allowed to ban abortion? And I don't mean non-compliance stuff.

Yes. Apart from mandates set by On Abortion, which requires legalized abortions in cases of rape, endangering the life of the mother, or severe fetal abnormalities, nations are free to set all the restrictions they like on terminating pregnancies.

Which is why this resolution must go. GAR 128 "On Abortion" covered most of the instances I feel that the author had intended to cover when GAR# 44 was written. Additionally, with that said and with still allowing Nations to do what they want to do in regards to abortion, there is no need to have #44 in place.

Araraukar

IC: I'm sure that if some of our population planners heard that, they'd have multiple heart-attacks, the lot of them. In Araraukar breeding without licence is forbidden and will be enforced with loss of future breeding capabilities, should it happen despite all the education and free preventatives - and that's why, usually, if someone finds themselves pregnant without a licence, their first trip is to an abortion clinic, free of charge, of course.

So what happens if they don't have a license and opt to keep this "illegal" pregnancy?

by **Araraukar** » Mon Apr 29, 2013 6:24 am

Studly Penguins wrote:So what happens if they don't have a license and opt to keep this "illegal" pregnancy?

OOC: Keep in mind that the following is IC text, which is nowhere near my RL ideals or opinions.

IC: Since you asked, the child, upon birth, will be taken from them and they and their partner in committing this crime will both be sterilized, unless the partner can prove that they had a previous vasectomy or other sterilization procedure carried out on them previously. Any previous breeding licences will also be rescinded and, depending on the particular conditions surrounding their particular situation, this may involve any previous children being adopted out.

Part of the breeding licence (this goes for adoptions too, not only biological children) application process is the ability to prove that you can provide for the child you wish to have, not only monetarily - there the government will take care of quite a lot of needs, such as healthcare and education - but also mentally and emotionally. Every child should have a loving parent - preferably two - to care for them. If you're going to want to break the law, but also have children, don't choose the Breeding Licence Program Act as the law to break.

by **Omigodtheykilledkenny** » Mon Apr 29, 2013 10:52 am

The Federal Republic rises in opposition to this proposal. As the WA has made no concrete commitment to abortion rights (in part because practically no two nations can agree on anything regarding the subject), we should not be repealing legislation on the basis that the proposal is less than fulsome in its support for abortion. If the WA itself does not support abortion rights, then there's precious little cause to repeal resolutions that supposedly do not support them. Apart from that, the author of the original resolution was himself a staunch supporter of abortion rights, so to suggest that he only introduced this legislation to denigrate said rights is silly in the extreme.

There are several contradictions at play in the repeal author's reasoning -- for example, his contention that the resolution is harmful to abortion rights, even though he insists it does nothing but "encourage," etc. Does the representative want more alternatives to abortions, or doesn't he? Also, the irony of a repeal author calling himself pro-choice, but when a resolution comes along giving women just that -- a choice -- he can do nothing but wail and moan about reducing access to abortion.

Moreover, we find nothing in the resolution On Abortion -- a document the repeal author claims accomplishes more than the Reduction of Abortion Act -- that even comes close to providing alternative birth-control choices for women. All On Abortion does is regulate abortions; it does not provide any of the access or information about birth-control alternatives that Reduction of Abortion Act does, so we see very little reason to repeal the latter on supposed "redundancy" grounds.

by **Studly Penguins** » Mon Apr 29, 2013 7:46 pm

I just don't see how the resolution in question even does anything period, which is why I believe it should go. I never said the author didn't support abortion rights, I just think they did a bad job of doing so. Thus another reason as to why I believe it should be repealed.

Also I don't want to reduce anyone's right to choose. To say that the WA hasn't done anything concrete is somewhat off the mark. There is a "Pro-Life" trend. There is # 44 which is there to 'help" reduce the number of them and # 128 to say what and when an abortion is legal /or necessary. Of all things, there is not much contradiction in my arguments. I am not wailing and moaning, wanting to reduce choice, I think #44 sucks in its entirety.

"Encourage" is there because the bill in question does nothing concrete than to politely ask you to do or not to do something. It is not written as "We are encouraging you" or "We are giving you an option"Again making #44 more and more toothless. Its written as you as your national leader are encouraged to do this, but I won't make you.

All of those things in that bill should have been mandates and guarantees if you're really serious about giving someone an option. Access and choice is reduced when half of the equation can be outlawed before you even get to examine that option. Also we believe abortions are being reduced due to the pain in the ass process laid out in GAR 128.

****Draft has been edited.****

by **Greater Pokarnia** » Mon Apr 29, 2013 8:13 pm

I just don't see how the resolution in question even does anything period, which is why I believe it should go.

If it doesn't do anything then it's harmless and therefore having the WA vote on it would only slow it down from actually doing things. The only argument I can think of for repealing a resolution which does nothing is efficiency, but when considering the way the WA works doing so actually hinders efficiency.

by **Studly Penguins** » Mon Apr 29, 2013 8:15 pm

***NEW DRAFT***

To People of the World Assembly:

APPLAUDING the author’s intention of helping reduce abortion rates worldwide.

APPALLED that this resolution has been allowed to stand due to the fact that it has done nothing to reduce abortions.

Examples from GAR #44:
STRONGLY URGES member states to research, invest in, and provide universal access to abortion reduction services

FURTHER ENCOURAGES member states to provide financial aid to pregnant individuals and parents to reduce or remove economic reasons for abortion and economic barriers to childbirth

2. AFFIRMS the right of individuals to access information regarding abortion reduction services;

5. EXPANDS the mission of the World Health Authority and its offices in WA member states to include:

a. providing universal access to abortion reduction services in accordance with national and local laws,

6. DECLARES that nothing in this resolution shall affect the power of member states to declare abortion legal or illegal or to pass legislation extending or restricting access to abortion.

This resolution should have required the state to provide stated services if there ever was any real intent to reduce abortions. Also it only guarantees a right to information, but not the right to receive anything from a decision derived from such information.

FURTHERMORE Without requiring member states to provide all the options or guaranteeing these rights to its citizenry; it opens the door to more abortions or unwanted births and/or pregnancies. Article #6 does nothing to help those living in countries where abortions are illegal or heavily restricted.

ADDITIONALLY Article 5 section A and Article 6 render this whole law useless. In Article 5, section A if applicable national and local laws forbid it; then there is no way legally that it expands "universal" access. Also with Article 6 there is nothing there guarantee help of any kind as the Nation is free to still do as it pleases.

by **Araraukar** » Tue Apr 30, 2013 10:08 am

In the first post of the thread, put the old draft into a spoiler and post the new draft there. That way people don't have to look through the thread for the newest draft.

by **Omigodtheykilledkenny** » Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:46 pm

I think it should be obvious by now that the author, having completely misread and misunderstood the proposal before, is now fishing for reasons to repeal this. Whereas before, the resolution was bad, it's now good, just not good enough. Before, the resolution did too much to denigrate abortion; now it doesn't do enough to reduce it. Before, it was redundant; now not only is it not redundant, but it can stand to do more. Can we just admit that author's lurching bleeding heart was simply offended by the "antiabortion" title and jumped into this before he had a thorough understanding of the subject matter? Reduction of Abortion Act was intended to expand the remit of the WHA to include providing family-planning services to nations that have need for them. Very little often, when the World Assembly offers services to nations, does it force them to accept them. (WHA itself is full of mild "encourages" directives, as is the resolution creating the WA meteorological agency, and several others.) The WA has yet to pass a resolution declaring a universal right to birth control, so why in seven hells would we need to require nations to provide something the WA does not even mandate they make legally available?? The WA offers the "Mild" proposal strength for a reason, you know. For just this type of proposal, to provide essential services to needy nations, without wanting to put too many demands on them.

by **Ardchoille** » Tue Apr 30, 2013 4:31 pm

Thank you all for keeping at least this thread on topic, ie, about the proposal. For reference, here is the original resolution's debate thread.

by **Studly Penguins** » Tue Apr 30, 2013 6:57 pm

Ardchoille wrote:Thank you all for keeping at least this thread on topic, ie, about the proposal. For reference, here is the original resolution's debate thread.

You are welcome and I am even pleased at how on topic this has stayed.

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:I think it should be obvious by now that the author, having completely misread and misunderstood the proposal before, is now fishing for reasons to repeal this. Whereas before, the resolution was bad, it's now good, just not good enough. Before, the resolution did too much to denigrate abortion; now it doesn't do enough to reduce it. Before, it was redundant; now not only is it not redundant, but it can stand to do more. Can we just admit that author's lurching bleeding heart was simply offended by the "antiabortion" title and jumped into this before he had a thorough understanding of the subject matter? Reduction of Abortion Act was intended to expand the remit of the WHA to include providing family-planning services to nations that have need for them. Very little often, when the World Assembly offers services to nations, does it force them to accept them. (WHA itself is full of mild "encourages" directives, as is the resolution creating the WA meteorological agency, and several others.) The WA has yet to pass a resolution declaring a universal right to birth control, so why in seven hells would we need to require nations to provide something the WA does not even mandate they make legally available?? The WA offers the "Mild" proposal strength for a reason, you know. For just this type of proposal, to provide essential services to needy nations, without wanting to put too many demands on them.

No I am basing my repeal solely on my interpretation of the resolution in question. As to your complaints of how my drafts have changed; isn't that the reason why folks post here? To submit their ideas to peer review and make changes accordingly?? I have read your comments and I have made some changes based on that and those from other nations whether here or outside of this forum. Also then what is the basis for why someone would write a repeal if it isn't because someone thinks a law is inadequate, redundant, discriminate, etc. Oh yeah, that's why people write those crazy little things called repeals.

All I have been saying is that but you keep seeming to miss is the problem I have with it not requiring anything. I see your position but you have to make a start somewhere, and no I am not implying that the WA or any member of its body has enough appetite to tackle a universal right to birth control.

The "mild encourages" were put there for winning over the "Nat-Sov" crowd so someone could say "hey, I got something passed"; rather than "well that sucked." It tamps down the fears of those who believe the WA and those that inhabit it are trying to run the world.

Also you neglect tell us how this doesn't make #44 null and void???
5. EXPANDS the mission of the World Health Authority and its offices in WA member states to include:

a. providing universal access to abortion reduction services in accordance with national and local laws,

6. DECLARES that nothing in this resolution shall affect the power of member states to declare abortion legal or illegal or to pass legislation extending or restricting access to abortion

If your "needy nation" has outlawed it; there's nothing there to make them distribute the help that you claim the author is intending to give.

by **Omigodtheykilledkenny** » Wed May 01, 2013 1:25 pm

Again, the WA has yet to declare a universal right to birth control, meaning nations may still ban it if they please. Why should the WA be distributing birth control products in nations where it's banned? It doesn't make any sense. If you want to make birth control a universal right, you can still pass a separate resolution making it so - this resolution's not stopping you. But please don't keep carrying on as though you actually care about this resolution's effectiveness. You only want to repeal it because of the title.

by **Cardoness** » Wed May 01, 2013 1:55 pm

We are of the opinion that, for the sanity of everyone in this building, this issue should be dropped down the deepest darkest hole and covered with a huge immovable something. The ambassador is correct, this resolution doesn't do much. However, we believe this is the best of a plethora of really bad options. Furthermore, we are not keen to see the debates that will follow its repeal as everyone Troyes to pass their own replacement resolution.

by **Studly Penguins** » Thu May 02, 2013 2:26 am

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Again, the WA has yet to declare a universal right to birth control, meaning nations may still ban it if they please. Why should the WA be distributing birth control products in nations where it's banned? It doesn't make any sense. If you want to make birth control a universal right, you can still pass a separate resolution making it so - this resolution's not stopping you. But please don't keep carrying on as though you actually care about this resolution's effectiveness. You only want to repeal it because of the title.

You are only half right. If it was only based on a title I would have a repeal list miles long because I think the titles suck. For me I only am after the resolutions effectiveness, and YES I know you dont agree with me and I dont agree with you here. I am not naive enough to believe that it's gonna change. And besides people have repealed things for less legitimate reasons other than its a non-effective resolution.

Cardoness wrote:We are of the opinion that, for the sanity of everyone in this building, this issue should be dropped down the deepest darkest hole and covered with a huge immovable something. The ambassador is correct, this resolution doesn't do much. However, we believe this is the best of a plethora of really bad options. Furthermore, we are not keen to see the debates that will follow its repeal as everyone Troyes to pass their own replacement resolution.

I am not writing anything at the moment that would be a replacement. Not to say someone else down the road may, but as of now I just want to see this law repealed.

by **Cardoness** » Thu May 02, 2013 12:05 pm

Studly Penguins wrote:
Cardoness wrote:We are of the opinion that, for the sanity of everyone in this building, this issue should be dropped down the deepest darkest hole and covered with a huge immovable something. The ambassador is correct, this resolution doesn't do much. However, we believe this is the best of a plethora of really bad options. Furthermore, we are not keen to see the debates that will follow its repeal as everyone Troyes to pass their own replacement resolution.

I am not writing anything at the moment that would be a replacement. Not to say someone else down the road may, but as of now I just want to see this law repealed.

You may not be, but if you manage to repeal GAR#44, then that will be the only thing the GA will talk about for weeks. Until, finally, a group of ambassadors get together and pass something very similar to what we have here just to get something passed, but that won't stop the discussion. No, first there will be a half dozen attempts to repeal the new resolution because it is too strong, or not strong enough, or it doesn't do anything. None of these will work, because most of us will be too tired to deal with it anymore, but that won't stop some from beating the dead horse. It will take, not days or weeks, but months to find our way out of the "abortion" debates and back to some kind of normal operation. You are right and you are wrong. The name is misleading. It doesn't do much to reduce abortions. The title should be "Reduction of Abortion Legislation Act". That is it's true purpose, to curb debate on this stupid topic never ends well. For the most part it works. Which is why it should stay. As you pointed out, it doesn't do anything. If it doesn't do anything, then it's not hurting anyone. If it's not hurting anyone and it allows us to go about our business in the WA without having to talk about abortion everyday for months on end, then what is your problem with it? I recommend an abortion of this repeal proposal.

by **Omigodtheykilledkenny** » Fri May 03, 2013 2:02 pm

Studly Penguins wrote:
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Again, the WA has yet to declare a universal right to birth control, meaning nations may still ban it if they please. Why should the WA be distributing birth control products in nations where it's banned? It doesn't make any sense. If you want to make birth control a universal right, you can still pass a separate resolution making it so - this resolution's not stopping you. But please don't keep carrying on as though you actually care about this resolution's effectiveness. You only want to repeal it because of the title.

You are only half right. If it was only based on a title I would have a repeal list miles long because I think the titles suck. For me I only am after the resolutions effectiveness, and YES I know you dont agree with me and I dont agree with you here. I am not naive enough to believe that it's gonna change. And besides people have repealed things for less legitimate reasons other than its a non-effective resolution.

Well, you sure as hell can't make it more effective by forcing nations to allow the WA to distribute illegal products within their borders. If you want to make family planning products legal everywhere, you can always pass another resolution; you really don't need to repeal this one. This resolution was always about improving access to family planning (you'll notice the category is Social Justice and the strength is Mild), not addressing the legality of it.

Of course, I already said all of this in the course of this discussion, but you haven't responded to any of it. "Agree to disagree" is not an argument.

by **Studly Penguins** » Sun May 05, 2013 6:01 am

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:
Studly Penguins wrote:
You are only half right. If it was only based on a title I would have a repeal list miles long because I think the titles suck. For me I only am after the resolutions effectiveness, and YES I know you dont agree with me and I dont agree with you here. I am not naive enough to believe that it's gonna change. And besides people have repealed things for less legitimate reasons other than its a non-effective resolution.

Well, you sure as hell can't make it more effective by forcing nations to allow the WA to distribute illegal products within their borders. If you want to make family planning products legal everywhere, you can always pass another resolution; you really don't need to repeal this one. This resolution was always about improving access to family planning (you'll notice the category is Social Justice and the strength is Mild), not addressing the legality of it.

Of course, I already said all of this in the course of this discussion, but you haven't responded to any of it. "Agree to disagree" is not an argument.

Yes I have. No my argument is not agree to disagree. The point to your latest "rebuttal" is this, we simply have different definitions of access and how effective we each think these mild encouragement mean and are carried out. I don't like the bill in question. I may or may not submit this for consideration I haven't decided yet.

So would such a bill whether written by myself or someone else;

If you want to make family planning products legal everywhere, you can always pass another resolution; you really don't need to repeal this on.

be legal if this resolution was not repealed first? It(#44) kinda seems like a blocker to bills like the ones that I would like to see tackled.

[PASSED] Repeal Reduction of Abortion Act

[PASSED] Repeal Reduction of Abortion Act

Who is online