[DEFEATED] Repeal of Reproductive Freedoms

[United Massachusetts]

Exactly. Reproductive Freedoms effectively legislates the morality of abortion into law. It's why this ought to be decided by individual nations

The legality into law, as we do with all medical legislation.

It denies nations the right to determine the morality of something. By deliberately protecting the "right" to abortion, you are acknowledging, albeit indirectly, that it is morally licit.

[Separatist Peoples]

"As usual, we oppose repeals of Reproductive Freedoms. In part because the C.D.S.P. supports the right to choose, but mostly because it twits the pro-life crowd, and that is something of a pass time for me.

"In regards to the limitations on killing a human to protect one's bodily sovereignty, it is legal in the C.D.S.P. to shoot somebody for trying to jack your car, so that position looks perfectly reasonable to those of us with robust self defense laws."

[Greifenburg]

It denies nations the right to determine the morality of something. By deliberately protecting the "right" to abortion, you are acknowledging, albeit indirectly, that it is morally licit.

"The current legislature does nothing to stop you from promoting, researching and offering alternate means to abortion. So you can still determine morality in this regard, you are just forbidden to force a woman into carrying a child she doesn't want. If your government fails to promote that morality among the population of its nation, it doesn't bode well for said morality to be a moral absolute.

Speaking of morality, that alone is not a good reason for a repeal in my opinion. WA resolution often determine morality, with the ban of slavery and hence declaring slavery as amoral as a good example."

[Bears Armed]

"In regards to the limitations on killing a human to protect one's bodily sovereignty, it is legal in the C.D.S.P. to shoot somebody for trying to jack your car, so that position looks perfectly reasonable to those of us with robust self defense laws."

"Even though the decision to 'jack your car' would have been made by the person being shot, whereas the the foetus being present within its mother is a situation into which the foetus itself had no conscious input and that -- in most cases, anyhows -- would have been at least partly due to a decision by the mother? That hardly seems a genuinely comparable situation...
"Tell me, please, if a motorist in your nation invites a hitchhiker into their car, are they then allowed to shoot that passenger even in the absence of any threats or hostile actions from the hitchhiker?"

Urrna Silvertrees,
Apprentice Voice, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

"In regards to the limitations on killing a human to protect one's bodily sovereignty, it is legal in the C.D.S.P. to shoot somebody for trying to jack your car, so that position looks perfectly reasonable to those of us with robust self defense laws."

"Even though the decision to 'jack your car' would have been made by the person being shot, whereas the the foetus being present within its mother is a situation into which the foetus itself had no conscious input and that -- in most cases, anyhows -- would have been at least partly due to a decision by the mother? That hardly seems a genuinely comparable situation...
"Tell me, please, if a motorist in your nation invites a hitchhiker into their car, are they then allowed to shoot that passenger even in the absence of any threats or hostile actions from the hitchhiker?"

Urrna Silvertrees,
Apprentice Voice, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

ARI: Perhaps not, but we personally wouldn't let a hitchhiker live in our car for nine months, so... ready or not, out you go!

[States of Glory WA Office]

We support any and every attempt to repeal so-called "Reproductive Freedoms."

Neville: Even if the repeal is the recipe for an Orange Julius?

Fairburn: All these repeals do is waste paper. Won't someone please think of the trees?

[Dobrobyt]

REVISED DRAFT
Category: Repeal

World Assembly members,
RECOGNIZING that current laws on abortion do not protect the future human lives of newborns in many countries, many of who are victims of lack of responsibility by parents. As well as REALIZING the lasting emotional pain women feel thereafter.

REALIZING that the current bill does close to nothing to reduce unnecessary abortions.

YEARNING to reduce the prevalence of abortions in circumstances where the practice thereof is unneeded,

SHOCKED that GAR #286 allows for abortion in all circumstances up until the very date of birth, when a fetus is, in almost every way, indistinguishable from its newborn counterparts.

REALIZING that there are more moral alternatives to the current bill that can be worked out to satisfy both the parent and protect the child being born.

ACKNOWLEDGING that many nations, particularly those who hold serious moral reservations about the practice of abortion, may seek other ways to deal with unwanted pregnancies while conforming to their moral compass,

SEEING that a woman controls her body.

However, SEEING that it is immoral and wrong that an individual decides the fate(life or death) of another individual, even a future one, as that is prevention of life or future life.

Yet, ACKNOWLEDGING that these options are questionable in certain life-threatening or dangerous situations, and that these rights will be worked out by the World Assembly to remain.

BELIEVING that we, the World Assembly, will work on a more moral, benefiting and sustainble replacement for Resolution #286.

Hereby repeals Reproductive Freedoms(GAR#286).

[Uinted Communist of Africa]

I agree...I wouldn't want to get killed just because someone made a stupid mistake.

[New Waldensia]

Josiah Garrett, the Delegate from New Waldensia, rises from his seat.

"New Waldensia stands in full support of repealing WAR286, the so-called "Reproductive Freedoms" act.

For one thing, I believe WAR286 violates WAR128 ('On Abortion'). For that reason alone it should be repealed.

My nation, and many others like it, is committed to protecting innocent life, that of the pre-born in particular.

To the delegates who oppose Repeal on the grounds of "legislating morality", WAR286 itself legislates a brand of morality. Every measure this body or any other legal, deliberative body passes legislates morality.

I urge my fellow delegates to support this measure."

[Separatist Peoples]

Josiah Garrett, the Delegate from New Waldensia, rises from his seat.

"New Waldensia stands in full support of repealing WAR286, the so-called "Reproductive Freedoms" act.

For one thing, I believe WAR286 violates WAR128 ('On Abortion'). For that reason alone it should be repealed.

My nation, and many others like it, is committed to protecting innocent life, that of the pre-born in particular.

To the delegates who oppose Repeal on the grounds of "legislating morality", WAR286 itself legislates a brand of morality. Every measure this body or any other legal, deliberative body passes legislates morality.

I urge my fellow delegates to support this measure."

Ooc: not how it works.

"In regards to the limitations on killing a human to protect one's bodily sovereignty, it is legal in the C.D.S.P. to shoot somebody for trying to jack your car, so that position looks perfectly reasonable to those of us with robust self defense laws."

"Even though the decision to 'jack your car' would have been made by the person being shot, whereas the the foetus being present within its mother is a situation into which the foetus itself had no conscious input and that -- in most cases, anyhows -- would have been at least partly due to a decision by the mother? That hardly seems a genuinely comparable situation...
"Tell me, please, if a motorist in your nation invites a hitchhiker into their car, are they then allowed to shoot that passenger even in the absence of any threats or hostile actions from the hitchhiker?"

Urrna Silvertrees,
Apprentice Voice, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

"If a hitchhiker refuses to leave your car, their refusal is itself a trespass. The various Territories have different laws governing this, but the end result in all of them is that you could shoot a hitchhiker. At any rate, a hitchhiker doesn't present s violation of bodily sovereignty in your example."

[New Waldensia]

Ooc: not how it works

OOC: how so?

[Wallenburg]

Even if I supported this, I would disagree that your proposal is "ready to go".

Ooc: not how it works

OOC: how so?

You can have multiple resolutions on the same topic as long as you avoid contradiction and duplication. Reproductive Freedoms extends abortion rights further than On Abortion does, so it isn't duplication. It doesn't go against any of On Abortion's clauses, so it isn't in contradiction.

[Dobrobyt]

Even if I supported this, I would disagree that your proposal is "ready to go".

I have consulted some, and revised the above-seen "Revised Draft" and I do not really see what else can be done. I modified the one sentence with a first-person perspective to make it legal, and changed wording. Do you wish to elaborate on why not? I think this will definitely satisfy pro-lifers and a decent amount of moderates as well.

[Chus Kruthe]

Chus Kruthe opposes this repeal effort strongly. Especially after having seen the authors horrid proposed replacement which would essentially outlaw abortion in most cases. We believe women have the right to an abortion and do not believe that we should allow the world assembly to legislate women's bodies.

[Dobrobyt]

Chus Kruthe opposes this repeal effort strongly. Especially after having seen the authors horrid proposed replacement which would essentially outlaw abortion in most cases. We believe women have the right to an abortion and do not believe that we should allow the world assembly to legislate women's bodies.

By repealing this, any nation or author would have the chance to make a replacement, not just Dobrobyt.

[Wallenburg]

Even if I supported this, I would disagree that your proposal is "ready to go".

I have consulted some, and revised the above-seen "Revised Draft" and I do not really see what else can be done. I modified the one sentence with a first-person perspective to make it legal, and changed wording. Do you wish to elaborate on why not? I think this will definitely satisfy pro-lifers and a decent amount of moderates as well.

To begin with, you could follow United Massachusetts's advice. They are a rather capable writer and have made rather compelling arguments against Reproductive Freedoms, even if I still don't vote for them.

[Chus Kruthe]

Chus Kruthe opposes this repeal effort strongly. Especially after having seen the authors horrid proposed replacement which would essentially outlaw abortion in most cases. We believe women have the right to an abortion and do not believe that we should allow the world assembly to legislate women's bodies.

By repealing this, any nation or author would have the chance to make a replacement, not just Dobrobyt.

We are perfectly happy with the standing resolution which protects the rights of women to control their own bodies. Any attempt to repeal it is an attempt to regress, not advance those rights.

[Dobrobyt]

I have consulted some, and revised the above-seen "Revised Draft" and I do not really see what else can be done. I modified the one sentence with a first-person perspective to make it legal, and changed wording. Do you wish to elaborate on why not? I think this will definitely satisfy pro-lifers and a decent amount of moderates as well.

To begin with, you could follow United Massachusetts's advice. They are a rather capable writer and have made rather compelling arguments against Reproductive Freedoms, even if I still don't vote for them.

I actually have changed wording in my Revised Draft(check again, I edited) to the wording he/she has suggested.

[Dobrobyt]

We support any and every attempt to repeal so-called "Reproductive Freedoms."

Fairburn: All these repeals do is waste paper. Won't someone please think of the trees?

Unnecessary and irrelevant comment.

[Dobrobyt]

Even though it says "Ready to Go", I will hold this for a little more, maybe a day or so. Additional conversation is appreciated.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: All these repeals do is waste paper. Won't someone please think of the trees?

Unnecessary and irrelevant comment.

Fairburn: Pointing out that all these repeals are a waste of paper is not irrelevant. Better authors than you have tried and failed; what's Einstein's definition of insanity again?

[Greifenburg]

By repealing this, any nation or author would have the chance to make a replacement, not just Dobrobyt.

"My office still doesn't see the need for a repeal or, even worse, a replacement that bans abortion. We are still waiting for compelling arguments why woman should be forced to go through the emotional and bodily stress of pregnancy just because someone decided that they don't deserve control over their own wombs."

[Dobrobyt]

Unnecessary and irrelevant comment.

Fairburn: Pointing out that all these repeals are a waste of paper is not irrelevant. Better authors than you have tried and failed; what's Einstein's definition of insanity again?

Mr. Fairburn, if you can realize this, new nations come in every day, with differing beliefs, so, there can always be another attempt and this may be won with a different demographic.

[Chus Kruthe]

Fairburn: Pointing out that all these repeals are a waste of paper is not irrelevant. Better authors than you have tried and failed; what's Einstein's definition of insanity again?

Mr. Fairburn, if you can realize this, new nations come in every day, with differing beliefs, so, there can always be another attempt and this may be won with a different demographic.

New nations do come in but the delegates who control a large portion of the vote in the Assembly don't change so much, this repeal will fail like many before it, the demographics having changed that much and the Assembly still leans left a great deal.

[Dobrobyt]

By repealing this, any nation or author would have the chance to make a replacement, not just Dobrobyt.

"My office still doesn't see the need for a repeal or, even worse, a replacement that bans abortion. We are still waiting for compelling arguments why woman should be forced to go through the emotional and bodily stress of pregnancy just because someone decided that they don't deserve control over their own wombs."

So, the family in that case should think twice and be responsible.