[Defeated] Repeal "Reproductive Freedoms"

[WayNeacTia]

"You do realize no matter how polished of a repeal you write, it is going to get blown out of the water correct? Repealing this is akin to repealing NAPA, or Rights and Duties. I do wish you the best of luck, but I do not calculate a favorable outcome for this."

Wayne.

[Kenmoria]

"You do realize no matter how polished of a repeal you write, it is going to get blown out of the water correct? Repealing this is akin to repealing NAPA, or Rights and Duties. I do wish you the best of luck, but I do not calculate a favorable outcome for this."

Wayne.

“Although what you are saying is correct, it is something others have also mentioned. The persistence is admirable, and this is an interesting exercise in WA politics. Due to the controversial nature of 286, this will easily make quorum. However, it will most likely fail at vote. I fully expect for somebody else to try within about three months of that happening.”

[WayNeacTia]

"You do realize no matter how polished of a repeal you write, it is going to get blown out of the water correct? Repealing this is akin to repealing NAPA, or Rights and Duties. I do wish you the best of luck, but I do not calculate a favorable outcome for this."

Wayne.

“Although what you are saying is correct, it is something others have also mentioned. The persistence is admirable, and this is an interesting exercise in WA politics. Due to the controversial nature of 286, this will easily make quorum. However, it will most likely fail at vote. I fully expect for somebody else to try within about three months of that happening.”

"The persistence is a waste of time and resources. If species that reproduce, wish to allow the mothers of those reproduced to abort that reproduction it is not for a government to decide. In a democracy, the state does not own the population. Until an offspring is born, it remains the property of the being that is in possession of it, and thus they are entitled to do what they want with it."

Wayne

[Wallenburg]

OOC:Bumping this because I need a legality opinion.

On what rule? What is the legality concern?

"You do realize no matter how polished of a repeal you write, it is going to get blown out of the water correct? Repealing this is akin to repealing NAPA, or Rights and Duties. I do wish you the best of luck, but I do not calculate a favorable outcome for this."

Wayne.

This except I do not wish the best of luck.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC:Bumping this because I need a legality opinion.

On what rule? What is the legality concern?

"You do realize no matter how polished of a repeal you write, it is going to get blown out of the water correct? Repealing this is akin to repealing NAPA, or Rights and Duties. I do wish you the best of luck, but I do not calculate a favorable outcome for this."

Wayne.

This except I do not wish the best of luck.

OOC:These clauses

Further frustrated that because the target resolution never mentions abortion and instead mentions "termination of pregnancy", and that because the target requires that member nations provide safe termination of pregnancy, some nations may consider abortions unsafe to foetuses and thus use birth as a method of terminating a pregnancy, rendering GA#286 useless;

Aware that the radical approach of the target resolution has only caused division within this assembly, including 5 defeated repeal attempts and 48 debates in total, and has led to many nations choosing to leave the assembly, thus reducing its power;

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: I don't see a problem with the second clause.

The first one might be more problematic. I think it's undeniable that such an interpretation would be a bad faith one (if not actually all that unlikely). But it differs from certain recent such repeal-argument interpretations that are obvious Honest Mistakes, in that it's actually related to the target resolution. The target's lack of clarity regarding "safety" of the pregnant individual vs. that of their fetus or zygote would certainly seem to be a legitimate repeal argument, so I'd have to say this clause is also OK. My colleagues may or may not want to see a slight rewording to emphasize that part and de-emphasize the outright bad faith forcing of full term birth, but I don't know that that's essential.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: I don't see a problem with the second clause.

The first one might be more problematic. I think it's undeniable that such an interpretation would be a bad faith one (if not actually all that unlikely). But it differs from certain recent such repeal-argument interpretations that are obvious Honest Mistakes, in that it's actually related to the target resolution. The target's lack of clarity regarding "safety" of the pregnant individual vs. that of their fetus or zygote would certainly seem to be a legitimate repeal argument, so I'd have to say this clause is also OK. My colleagues may or may not want to see a slight rewording to emphasize that part and de-emphasize the outright bad faith forcing of full term birth, but I don't know that that's essential.

OOC:Thanks for your opinion, we'll see what the other 5 have to say.

[Wallenburg]

On what rule? What is the legality concern?

This except I do not wish the best of luck.

OOC:These clauses

Further frustrated that because the target resolution never mentions abortion and instead mentions "termination of pregnancy", and that because the target requires that member nations provide safe termination of pregnancy, some nations may consider abortions unsafe to foetuses and thus use birth as a method of terminating a pregnancy, rendering GA#286 useless;

This interpretation has been rejected by a mod ruling. It is an honest mistake violation.

Aware that the radical approach of the target resolution has only caused division within this assembly, including 5 defeated repeal attempts and 48 debates in total, and has led to many nations choosing to leave the assembly, thus reducing its power;

Backwards nations and players who can't be bothered to participate in the WA respectfully are free to leave.

[United Massachusetts]

Backwards nations and players who can't be bothered to participate in the WA respectfully are free to leave.

This attitude summarises my biggest problem with the WA today.

[WayNeacTia]

Backwards nations and players who can't be bothered to participate in the WA respectfully are free to leave.

This attitude summarises my biggest problem with the WA today.

Coming from someone who is openly in non-compliance with how many resoultions?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Backwards nations and players who can't be bothered to participate in the WA respectfully are free to leave.

This attitude summarises my biggest problem with the WA today.

"Today"?

[Kenmoria]

“In your frustrated clause, you use the phrase ‘the term’ without actually mentioning which term it is. All the ambassadors here know what you are referring to, but one seeing the proposal for the first time might not.”

[Separatist Peoples]

Backwards nations and players who can't be bothered to participate in the WA respectfully are free to leave.

This attitude summarises my biggest problem with the WA today.

Ooc: brazen noncompliance hurts the overall roleplay. The community is better off without such players even as it excludes them.

[Araraukar]

Ooc: brazen noncompliance hurts the overall roleplay. The community is better off without such players even as it excludes them.

OOC: But noncompliance (and consequences of it) was literally written into a resolution despite arguments of this being exactly what would follow from its passage.

[The New California Republic]

Backwards nations and players who can't be bothered to participate in the WA respectfully are free to leave.

This attitude summarises my biggest problem with the WA today.

And noncompliance isn't a big problem in terms of how it makes a mockery of roleplaying? Folk in glass houses and all that. Instead of dragging one's feet the more realistic roleplaying option would be to leave if one cannot comply with what is expected.

[Araraukar]

And noncompliance isn't a big problem in terms of how it makes a mockery of roleplaying? Folk in glass houses and all that. Instead of dragging one's feet the more realistic roleplaying option would be to leave if one cannot comply with what is expected.

OOC: Noncompliance was written into a resolution along with the consequences. Roleplaying those consequences, which UM actually does is totally valid roleplaying and a realistic option.

[Wallenburg]

Backwards nations and players who can't be bothered to participate in the WA respectfully are free to leave.

This attitude summarises my biggest problem with the WA today.

So you are in favor of disrespectful behavior in the WA?

[Marxist Germany]

This attitude summarises my biggest problem with the WA today.

"Today"?

OOC: Wallys remarks were OOC whilst those were IC

[Kenmoria]

“In your cognisant clause, you don’t clarify what being covered by other resolutions actually means, merely state that it occurs. Some detail would be helpful.”

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: brazen noncompliance hurts the overall roleplay. The community is better off without such players even as it excludes them.

OOC: But noncompliance (and consequences of it) was literally written into a resolution despite arguments of this being exactly what would follow from its passage.

OOC: Noncompliance was going on already. It was written into a resolution because perfect compliance in an In Character sense is unrealistic. The argument that brazen noncompliance hurts the OOC community is entirely divorced from the IC argument that noncompliance quite obviously occurs.

Further, you're mixing up the concept of systemic noncompliance, which is not an inevitable conclusion of international law, and nonsystemic noncompliance, which can occur due to error, accident, or act of god. Some is entirely temporary. Not all IC noncompliance is harmful to the OOC community. The argument being made, and really it seems intuitively obvious, is that systemic wilful noncompliance is harmful.

[Separatist Peoples]

"As usual, we oppose this out of an unending desire to twit moralistic, theocratic representatives."

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Regarding the legal check requested by the author. Both clauses are problematic IMO. The permits clause in the target makes it entirely clear that birth cannot be used as blanket method of termination and referring to the 48 debates is suspiciously close to metagaming.

The foreign countries clause looks dodgy too. Please explain how this could occur considering the existence of GAR#456. [/(1/6 gensec)]

---

Following is personal opinion only.

My general feeling is that this is incoherent and dishonest. The author attempts to dress this up as a pro-choice initiative with several clauses despite publicly not complying with the target on pro-life grounds, while obviously the penultimate clause is not something the author believes. Other arguments target the abortion aspects despite one argument maintaining that the whole thing has nothing to do with abortion.

I look forward to seeing this destroyed like all the other repeals if it gets to vote.

[Separatist Peoples]

"As usual, we oppose this out of an unending desire to twit moralistic, theocratic representatives."

"Our opposition is not based out of theocracy, to say such things is an insult to the proud atheist feminists of Lotharia such as myself. We request an apology due to our personal fights against Theocracy being core to our nation, so it is a personal insult."

Bell rocks back his chair, balancing on the back two legs. "Whistle for it, ambassador. Not everything is directed at you."

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: Regarding the legal check requested by the author. Both clauses are problematic IMO. The permits clause in the target makes it entirely clear that birth cannot be used as blanket method of termination and referring to the 48 debates is suspiciously close to metagaming.

The foreign countries clause looks dodgy too. Please explain how this could occur considering the
existence of GAR#456. [/(1/6 gensec)]

OOC:Whoops, forgot about 456,the birth part will be removed if its causing problems. 48 debates is the most IC I could get though I will try more.

---

Following is personal opinion only.

My general feeling is that this is incoherent and dishonest. The author attempts to dress this up as a pro-choice initiative with several clauses despite publicly not complying with the target on pro-life grounds, while obviously the penultimate clause is not something the author believes. Other arguments target the abortion aspects despite one argument maintaining that the whole thing has nothing to do with abortion.

I look forward to seeing this destroyed like all the other repeals if it gets to vote.

OOC:Just as a note, because everyone seems to forget. I am creatively compliant

[Araraukar]

OOC:Just as a note, because everyone seems to forget. I am creatively compliant

OOC: Forbidding abortions or making them impossible to get, is not any kind of compliance.