[DEFEATED] Repeal Reproductive Freedoms

[Rotovia-]

Often, our government is reminded in this assembly that the prevailing secularism of the Rotovian people is not shared by all member states, nor their constituents. In light of, we seek to moderate our positions, so that the laws of this body are that law made by consensus, and not the tyranny of force.

Therefore, in this instance, it is out opinion that while the WA cannot prescribe or prohibit states or individually holding moral views (indeed it should have no power to), the question before us is with regards to the scope of the responsibility to protect. In that regard a duty to provide medical treatment in line with a patients wishes, and a doctors best advice has consistently been established as the test which must be met.

-Dr Elaine Mountford, Director of Medical Aid, Rotovvian Delegation o the World Assembly

[United Christian]

I agree that abortion should be legalised, but the reproductive freedoms bill is most definitely poorly written and also allows for abortion in some less ethical situations, such as on the basis of race etc. Perhaps someone can present a reformed counter legislation?

According to the rules as I understand them, you have to repeal and then replace. But between the repeal date and the passing date of the new bill governments probably already denied thousands of women each. So the question is are you willing to let that happen because a bill is poorly written and doesn't do enough regulation but nothing overly major. For me, it's simply not enough to warrant the risk.

[Bananaistan]

"As always, the People's Republic of Bananaistan stands opposed to any attempt to repeal Reproductive Freedoms. We are pleased to continue to be in favour of the unrestricted rights of women to decide what, how, when, why and where their bodies are used and we shall proudly stand with the international community in defending this right."

- Ted

[Templar Republic]

Your Excellencies,

We will not support this request of repeal.

For us, women have the right to choose what to do with their own bodies and our Nation will support them with safety and medical assistance.

Sincerely yours.

[Consular]

Being pro-slavery and being pro-life do not seem entirely dissimilar to me.

"Being pro-slavery and pro-choice are exactly the same to me."

That is not what I said, ambassador. Perhaps you should focus on your own words instead of trying to manipulate mine.

I noticed you quoted me twice. While I'm flattered, that isn't going to make me get around to reading this inane thread any sooner.

I'm also amazed by some of the comments about slavery and racism in this discussion. I'm assuming some of you have no understanding of history outside where it pertains to the United States. For thousands of years slavery had very little to do with race.

[Thyerata]

Because murder requires the killing of a human being that is alive. A foetus does not, as a matter of law, fit that definition.

In what way?

Because a foetus isn't a human being

[Fauxia]

Actually, I did find proof of God approving abortion in the Bible:

29 At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well.

Apparently the Bible says we can even abort them after they come out of the womb? I wonder if there is an age limit? It does seem like it's a one strike policy though. You can abort your first child but not future ones?

That's God though, punishing the Egyptians. It's not really relevant.

[Iraines]

The difference between a nine-month-old baby in the mother's womb and an infant that has just been delivered is very marginal. Yet, why is the killing of one considered a right, while the killing of the other considered a crime?

Iraines prides itself of its secularism, and wish not to allow religion to influence its policies, but this is not about superstition or tradition; this is about human rights. To kill a fetus on a whim is barbaric and should not be confused with civil rights. If the so-called logic of "my body, my choice" should be followed, then should we also allow our free citizens to perform medical operations on themselves, or to take their own lives?

Besides secularism, Iraines also prides itself of its inclusiveness, tolerance, and respect for individual sovereignty. Each Member State should be able to decide on its own whether or not they should legalize abortion as provided in GAR #286. No external power, not even the World Assembly, should force an independent, sovereign nation, especially a theocracy or holy empire, to violate its own moral codes and constitution, in the guise of personal freedom.

Iraines is all for the legalization of abortion in cases of sexual abuse, severe congenital defects, maternal health issues, and other problems similar thereto, as well as for government-provided care and support for unwanted or relatively unsustainable children. However, it should be recognized that, even before birth, a human fetus with a beating heart and brain activity is nevertheless human and should therefore be nurtured, rather than neglected, by the government and other bodies concerned.

Thus, Iraines hereby votes for this proposal to repeal GAR #286: Reproductive Freedoms.

[Fauxia]

"Your comparison is awful. Firstly, we don't feel remorse from killing chickens because they are not humans and don't have much in the way of rights. They are not conscious beings. Plus, the growth and development is very different. Don't compare mammals to birds. We don't pay eggs (well, not really). And we are the ones who support women's rights here, because abortion favors men. GA #286 forces nations to legalize abortion even in sex-selection abortion. Which is pretty common. And does anyone abort a son because it's a son? No. They abort girls, though, because it's harder for them to do manual work (and support the mother). Do you support that? Is that a woman's right? Also, I am laughing my, well, you know what off at your GMO comment, but" OOC: That's a topic for another for another thread.

IC: "I am fighting for actual human rights. I'm fighting for the rights of human beings, and even if they aren't technically alive, they still have the right to live, because they will be alive assuming you don't murder them."

"Maybe I should settle for a compromise: Anyone who supports abortion will not be allowed to reproduce. You see, when properly applied, these things can solve themselves when used properly."

That last bit was big in the news, but the ambassador in question has yet to apologize, or even address the matter.

I felt compelled to reply to this, first off, Chickens are very much conscious beings. The definition of conscious, if I remember correctly, is 'aware of and responding to one's surroundings; awake' and when you walk up to a chicken it's gonna run away. It's lay not pay. And how is denying a woman's right to choose what she does with her body and her unborn child for woman's rights? And who cares if it favors men? If a woman wants to get an abortion then let her get one. If she doesn't want one then she doesn't have to get one, it's her right to choose. And so it makes nations legalize it, just make it extremely difficult to get one. There easy fix. And yes I support that if a woman wants to abort a female but not a male that is her right. And how does that make any sense? So because I think women should be allowed to get an abortion I can't have biological kids? Also if you're so aginst murder I guess you stand up to police brutality and western war crimes, which are a, if not the, cause of terrorism across the world. I also suppose to are strongly against capital punishment and nation building. I've noticed that a lot of pro-life supports are also for the bombing runs in the middle east. And for 'Gay-concentration camps' which either kills teens or drive them to suicide year after year. If you are so against the "murder" of an unconscious being then I also expect you to be just as against the murder of your fellow conscious humans.

"You are derailing the conversation. You are being incredibly inconsistent. You shout, "women's rights" at abortion, but are fine with sex-selective abortion. If you think this is a women's right, then support women's protection from sex-selective abortion.

About chickens, they cannot and never will be able to think in the way humans can, therefore they are lower than a fetus.

Quit the ad hominems please. You are attacking pro-lifers more than the pro-life position. I would be happy to discuss any of those issues with you." Ooc: But on a different thread please, we don't want to close this one. Also, I assure you that United Massachusetts does not support the death penalty and the other things you mentioned. I know them.

[Fauxia]

Okay, before I start this? I'd like to thank you. As far as I've seen you've kept this one civil, unlike many of the past discussions I've had like this.

I usually get flamed, told I'm wrong, that free speech no longer exists, then banned. :/

So thank you. I genuinely respect you for this.

And boy, enjoy it! Respect from Carlendale in this day and age is hard-earned.



1) I'm not saying they're all phony. But there are some publicized events wherein officers have shot "unarmed" people when those people were, in fact, armed. And they have to do what they have to do to protect their designated communities and themselves as well. Some are bad in the bucket. But most aren't.

Another thing...

I'm not faulting you for being scared, because believe me, whenever a cop wants to talk to me, I always assume the worst. But asking an officer to keep his weapon in his car is a very bad mistake; not only on your part, but on his part. If a shooting were to start, he wouldn't have his weapon in order to defend you or himself.
I'm not saying this will happen, but it likely has at least once. Assuming worst-case scenario.

I know several people of African-American ilk who have encountered police officers. The best thing to do? Comply with what they say. Show no hostile intent.
I'd suggest getting a carry license, too, as well as your own personal firearm. Which, in case it does happen to go awry and you do end up with a bad card, you can defend yourself.

I acknowledge police brutality and racism is an issue; the first step to solving a problem is recognizing there is one. But I don't feel as if we can solve the problem by getting scared whenever we speak with police officers. I'm guilty of this as well.
The best solution is to confront the issue head-on. Police departments could start thorough background checks on their officers. People as a whole could be more respectful of officers (The United States in general lacks that, unfortunately). And things like that still will occur, but really, there's no control over it.

The best we can do when the brutality occurs even with the background checks conducted and more respect of both parties is to simply convict them where they stand. Something, we, unfortunately, do not do, as you had noted.

2) So if we created ISIS, then, what do you propose we do?

Allow me to specify: do not say ally with them. That will make the issue worse. I don't know what you were going to say, but people think that's a good idea apparently. It's worse because I consider myself Republican and the idea was pitched by a Republican senator. But that's a different discussion for a different time.

Back to the subject.

If we created the monster, we should known its weakness, right? So where do we hit them where it hurts most? How can we kill it without joining it? That's my question.
I don't necessarily believe we did create ISIS per se, but what we have done are factors of their formation. But let's assume your scenario: what do we do about it?

I also have respect for you, for once I can have a sensible discussion about these issues. As for the police brutality issue, I just say this. Me carrying a weapon, even though I'll probably end up doing it anyway, is the dumbest idea I've heard in that situation. Police typically shot people because they feel their life is in danger, but Jesus actually giving them a reason to be scared is just going to cause problems.

As for ISIS we have dug ourselves into this hole and there's no way to get out of it. If you leave the region, it's thrown into a power vacuum and you either get a regional war that we have to intervene because of Russia. OR you have a new Persian empire. Both of which is bad. Like you said, you can't join them. And bombing them is just going to worsen the situation. This is an extremely dumb idea, but the only way to end this is a full blown war. Boots on the ground, declaration of war, everything. We can continue bombing the cities because NCPs are being killed only making out fight that much harder. So once the IC gets it's act together and give the joint chiefs actionable intel, boots have got to be put on the ground wipe them out. Also deal with Syra while we are there. And while we are doing that and after we are doing that, the entire western world and I mean the entire western world has got to start humanitarian aid. And I don't mean slow stuff. I mean berlin wall, post-WWII humanitarian aid.

Remind them that the big bad west, war crimes and all, are there to help.

While this is an important issue, I would advise you move this to a thread where it is more relevant.

[Fauxia]

Statement from the delegate from Alentioa:

Alentioa holds reproductive rights very seriously. Our abortion clinics are defended by police to prevent violent intrusions against the right for a mother to control her body. We absolutely believe in the right to abort out of medical necessity or for non-medical reasons before 27 weeks of pregnancy. Despite this, the government of Alentioa firmly holds that the resolution to repeal GA#286 should pass.

The focus on whether a pro-life or pro-choice position is superior seems to have taken up discussion of this issue, both in the media and in international politics. While this may be relevant to many other resolutions, but it should not be the main focus on hand. Alentioa holds that the salient part of this issue is not if women should have reproductive rights, but rather how we should ensure them.

GA#286 does not provide any exception that would allow member countries to prohibit sex-selective abortions. This could encourage a continuation of women's low status in some countries, which contradicts Alentioa's core principle of equality. By allowing all abortions, it also misses the reason why women should be allowed to have abortions: all people have the right to conduct actions that do not harm others. Abortions before 27 weeks do not harm others, while abortions after that kill a viable fetus and therefore are not supported by Alentioa. This does not contradict our support for abortions out of medical necessity at any time, as it is consistent with the principle of self sefence.

Due to its inconsistency with Alentioan values, Alentioa supports a repeal of GA#286 and replacing it with a resolution that also protects women's rights in a way that is much better.

if they were just trying to stop same sex abortions and had a resolution for it ready they might have actually had more luck with the repeal. course with the other side it is often give them an inch they will take a mile which is why this compromise was made.

You know, maybe I'll write a resolution.

[Consular]

Please don't.

[Cerian Quilor]

At this point, my general philosophy about GA resolutions is find out where Christian Democrats stands, and then do the opposite.

As such, I violently oppose this proposal.

[Istanople]

The istonaplean diplomat stands and reads from the the scroll bequeathed to him by his majesty Alexandros

"Istanople stands against this repeal as there is no propossal in place to replace it that protects the rights of women."

[United Christian]

The difference between a nine-month-old baby in the mother's womb and an infant that has just been delivered is very marginal. Yet, why is the killing of one considered a right, while the killing of the other considered a crime?

Iraines prides itself of its secularism, and wish not to allow religion to influence its policies, but this is not about superstition or tradition; this is about human rights. To kill a fetus on a whim is barbaric and should not be confused with civil rights. If the so-called logic of "my body, my choice" should be followed, then should we also allow our free citizens to perform medical operations on themselves, or to take their own lives?

Besides secularism, Iraines also prides itself of its inclusiveness, tolerance, and respect for individual sovereignty. Each Member State should be able to decide on its own whether or not they should legalize abortion as provided in GAR #286. No external power, not even the World Assembly, should force an independent, sovereign nation, especially a theocracy or holy empire, to violate its own moral codes and constitution, in the guise of personal freedom.

Iraines is all for the legalization of abortion in cases of sexual abuse, severe congenital defects, maternal health issues, and other problems similar thereto, as well as for government-provided care and support for unwanted or relatively unsustainable children. However, it should be recognized that, even before birth, a human fetus with a beating heart and brain activity is nevertheless human and should therefore be nurtured, rather than neglected, by the government and other bodies concerned.

Thus, Iraines hereby votes for this proposal to repeal GAR #286: Reproductive Freedoms.

I'm sorry, you implied that suicide is illegal in your nation, surely that's not the case. If so that is entirely cold hearted. You also implied that performing self operations is illegal, and how exactly do you plan on regulating that. I honest to God hope that these two points were just you talking out your a** and these aren't things you believe. Both IC and OOC.

[United Christian]

I also have respect for you, for once I can have a sensible discussion about these issues. As for the police brutality issue, I just say this. Me carrying a weapon, even though I'll probably end up doing it anyway, is the dumbest idea I've heard in that situation. Police typically shot people because they feel their life is in danger, but Jesus actually giving them a reason to be scared is just going to cause problems.

As for ISIS we have dug ourselves into this hole and there's no way to get out of it. If you leave the region, it's thrown into a power vacuum and you either get a regional war that we have to intervene because of Russia. OR you have a new Persian empire. Both of which is bad. Like you said, you can't join them. And bombing them is just going to worsen the situation. This is an extremely dumb idea, but the only way to end this is a full blown war. Boots on the ground, declaration of war, everything. We can continue bombing the cities because NCPs are being killed only making out fight that much harder. So once the IC gets it's act together and give the joint chiefs actionable intel, boots have got to be put on the ground wipe them out. Also deal with Syra while we are there. And while we are doing that and after we are doing that, the entire western world and I mean the entire western world has got to start humanitarian aid. And I don't mean slow stuff. I mean berlin wall, post-WWII humanitarian aid.

Remind them that the big bad west, war crimes and all, are there to help.

While this is an important issue, I would advise you move this to a thread where it is more relevant.

It's the natural progression of a conversation, making it relevant in the thread. Also, had you taken the time to read the whole conversation you would have saw the conversation ended hours ago.

[Old Hope]

The HMS Thunderchild pitches in on the debate, her voice somewhat distorted by the stolen Martian technology she is using to communicate.

"Given my nature, I may not be the greatest judge of this. But surely we must allow people the option to have control over their own bodies? I know I would want to get rid of a growth inside of my hull that I didn't know was there until now."

Oh, that is not really the core of the problem. You are surely checked/check yourself for damages and the like, no? If you do that, and remove that growth that is not really my concern here...
What would be problematic, in my opinion, if you know (or really should have known) that that growth is there, and continue to allow it to grow despite you knowing(or you being able to get that knowledge) the risks and being able to remove it...
and then, four months later, you want to remove it even if the risks you knew off did not change.
Would you still be for THAT?

[Wallenburg]

"This is certainly a well-written repeal, but we cannot support it, especially without a planned replacement."

[West by West Lothian]

I'd contest that if we base this on holy scripture, Fauxia, I'd sooner suggest Exodus 21:22-25 rather than verses in regard to the plagues. Apparently, according to the law, the miscarried child is worth akin to property, whilst the mother is considered to be applicable to the eye for an eye status. Not to say this determines the value of the would-be child, but rather, the lord himself apparently didn't much regard it to be worthy of the same rights, why then, should his mortal servants?

[Iraines]

The difference between a nine-month-old baby in the mother's womb and an infant that has just been delivered is very marginal. Yet, why is the killing of one considered a right, while the killing of the other considered a crime?

Iraines prides itself of its secularism, and wish not to allow religion to influence its policies, but this is not about superstition or tradition; this is about human rights. To kill a fetus on a whim is barbaric and should not be confused with civil rights. If the so-called logic of "my body, my choice" should be followed, then should we also allow our free citizens to perform medical operations on themselves, or to take their own lives?

Besides secularism, Iraines also prides itself of its inclusiveness, tolerance, and respect for individual sovereignty. Each Member State should be able to decide on its own whether or not they should legalize abortion as provided in GAR #286. No external power, not even the World Assembly, should force an independent, sovereign nation, especially a theocracy or holy empire, to violate its own moral codes and constitution, in the guise of personal freedom.

Iraines is all for the legalization of abortion in cases of sexual abuse, severe congenital defects, maternal health issues, and other problems similar thereto, as well as for government-provided care and support for unwanted or relatively unsustainable children. However, it should be recognized that, even before birth, a human fetus with a beating heart and brain activity is nevertheless human and should therefore be nurtured, rather than neglected, by the government and other bodies concerned.

Thus, Iraines hereby votes for this proposal to repeal GAR #286: Reproductive Freedoms.

I'm sorry, you implied that suicide is illegal in your nation, surely that's not the case. If so that is entirely cold hearted. You also implied that performing self operations is illegal, and how exactly do you plan on regulating that. I honest to God hope that these two points were just you talking out your a** and these aren't things you believe. Both IC and OOC.

Your understanding that to disallow and to illegalize are synonymous is flawed. I cannot imagine what kind of government you have, which takes no action to stop or discourage your citizens from mutilating or killing themselves. Nonetheless, it is your government, your nation, and you have the sovereignty to govern your people however you please.

Also, how convenient for you to disregard my other points and take overly literally one sentence from my four-paragraph argument, while yours is transparently flawed and self-serving. Hence, I wish not to engage further in this meaningless squabble, as neither I nor you will convince the other to change their views or vote seasonably.

My original statement was simply a declaration of my rationale, and, while diplomatic and logical arguments are welcomed, it is not my desire to have someone ridicule me or ridicule themselves before me. I respect your seniority and your right to have an opinion, but I have no want for conflict, and thus hope that we can be civil enough to respect our differences.

[Die All]

GAR #286 may be a little vague, but you're going to need a replacement for it if you want to get more people on board. If you want to persuade more voters to join you, you need to suggest a new proposal that may be a little clearer. I, like many people, believe that these people have control over what they want to do with their body. If they are aborting a child based on sex, skin color, or a deformation, do you honestly believe that the child would be better off with someone who will likely judge them based on these things or in an adoption home? If a lot of your citizens would do that, there are other ways to persuade them to be more accepting. I think abortion is sad, but sometimes it is the better option.

[Sienkahn]

While Sienkhan holds that religious beliefs regarding abortion should not be codified into law, we recognize the sound science that clearly proves that a fetus and the mother are separate persons who have separate rights. While we have not outlawed abortion, we have passed laws that explicitly prohibit hospitals run by religious organizations from being forced to perform abortions if their religion is against the practice.

Therefore, our Nation's issue with GA #286 is its blatant disregard for personal freedom of religion. Accordingly, I support this repeal on condition that the General Assembly immediately draft replacement legislation that upholds the religious freedoms of all persons.

- R. Erich, Warden of the Sienkivate

[Sereeno]

Hi I'm new to the forums

[Malachor VIII]

Hi I'm new to the forums

umm... this is not the place for that.

[Free Lesbians]

There is no way that we will ever vote for such a blatant attempt at reducing the reproductive rights of our glorious women.