[Defeated] Repeal "Reproductive Freedoms"

[The New California Republic]

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

"We grant our citizens abortion on demand, granted abortion is extremely expensive due to our creative compliance."

Making them so expensive so as to make them nigh on impossible to obtain is de facto noncompliance.

[The Unfounded]

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

No, you are NOT compliant. Your ‘insanely expensive’ bit rather specifically runs counter to the portion of 286 that precludes one from introducing any impediment to abortion access that is not applied to other medical procedures.

[Youssath]

"We are in support of this repealment of the resolution "Reproductive Freedoms", not because we want to deprive women from having the choice for abortion (in fact, we actually are pro-choice - too many people in an island!), but rather because of the legality misinterpretation given by the resolution a long time ago. MG, you have our support for this repealment to allow for a better interpretation towards this resolution, although everyone in this very council will be hating on you for an eternity."

"Also, The Republic of Youssath does not recognize the non-compliance status on The Constitutional Republic of Germany if the nation has met all requirements as expressly stated in accordance with the resolution at hand. It does seem that other members of this august council want to impose their way of life upon other equal members, which is completely unacceptable towards us. Don't be too afraid of being called "non-compliant" and being hit by international condemnation, we take it as a badge of honour that we are preserving our own way of life and we are promoting a more just and diverse community within a world in which we all share."

"Until the World Assembly can address non-compliance more directly and properly with actual punishments, we see no reason why nations labelling each other as 'non-compliant' should matter to this august council."

[Bananaistan]

"We are in support of this repealment of the resolution "Reproductive Freedoms", not because we want to deprive women from having the choice for abortion (in fact, we actually are pro-choice - too many people in an island!), but rather because of the legality misinterpretation given by the resolution a long time ago. MG, you have our support for this repealment to allow for a better interpretation towards this resolution, although everyone in this very council will be hating on you for an eternity."

"Also, The Republic of Youssath does not recognize the non-compliance status on The Constitutional Republic of Germany if the nation has met all requirements as expressly stated in accordance with the resolution at hand. It does seem that other members of this august council want to impose their way of life upon other equal members, which is completely unacceptable towards us. Don't be too afraid of being called "non-compliant" and being hit by international condemnation, we take it as a badge of honour that we are preserving our own way of life and we are promoting a more just and diverse community within a world in which we all share."

"Until the World Assembly can address non-compliance more directly and properly with actual punishments, we see no reason why nations labelling each other as 'non-compliant' should matter to this august council."

"The WA can and has addressed non-compliance with actual punishments. See GAR#440."

[Kenmoria]

“Your ‘believing’ and ‘concerned’ clauses are very similar, so could easily be combined into one, more concise statement.”

[Liberimery]

I have concerns about the parental permission issue. Namely that we use it to ensure that parents or legal guardians of a child are informed properly so that their role in a child’s medical history is fully informed in the event of possible complications arising from other medical procedures. This is purely for the benefit of informed medical decisions of the parents and all non-emergency medical procedures of legal minors must have a legal guardian informed.

[Marxist Germany]

I have concerns about the parental permission issue. Namely that we use it to ensure that parents or legal guardians of a child are informed properly so that their role in a child’s medical history is fully informed in the event of possible complications arising from other medical procedures. This is purely for the benefit of informed medical decisions of the parents and all non-emergency medical procedures of legal minors must have a legal guardian informed.

OOC:But the "my body my choice" argument falls apart if we involve parents in abortion. What if the parent decides their daughter shouldn't get an abortion despite her wanting it?

[Kenmoria]

“You now have a weird fragment in the ‘believing’ clause. I suspect you have forgotten to remove it when editing the draft.”

[Liberimery]

I have concerns about the parental permission issue. Namely that we use it to ensure that parents or legal guardians of a child are informed properly so that their role in a child’s medical history is fully informed in the event of possible complications arising from other medical procedures. This is purely for the benefit of informed medical decisions of the parents and all non-emergency medical procedures of legal minors must have a legal guardian informed.

OOC:But the "my body my choice" argument falls apart if we involve parents in abortion. What if the parent decides their daughter shouldn't get an abortion despite her wanting it?

OOC: We don’t allow minors to exercise the freedoms of making a contract without there parents knowledge nor do we allow any child to vote before age of enfranchisement. Then there’s the issue of age of sexual consent to consider. I hardly expect you to argue on those limitations in a minors human rights to choose for themselves. In the case of medical choice, we would prefer a situation where the legal guardian is informed and their lack of consent may be legally challenged by an emergency court injunction than the situation where they are in the dark about their child’s medical situation as that can complicate future medical procedures. It is not the place of the government of Liberimery to legislate the beliefs of its citizens and how they choose to raise their minor children so long as provable injury. Although you may not like the choices of some parents we respect the right of all people to be wrong.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC:But the "my body my choice" argument falls apart if we involve parents in abortion. What if the parent decides their daughter shouldn't get an abortion despite her wanting it?

OOC: We don’t allow minors to exercise the freedoms of making a contract without there parents knowledge nor do we allow any child to vote before age of enfranchisement. Then there’s the issue of age of sexual consent to consider. I hardly expect you to argue on those limitations in a minors human rights to choose for themselves. In the case of medical choice, we would prefer a situation where the legal guardian is informed and their lack of consent may be legally challenged by an emergency court injunction than the situation where they are in the dark about their child’s medical situation as that can complicate future medical procedures. It is not the place of the government of Liberimery to legislate the beliefs of its citizens and how they choose to raise their minor children so long as provable injury. Although you may not like the choices of some parents we respect the right of all people to be wrong.

OOC:I added that argument to satisfy the Pro choice camp, since some of them believe that a raped teenager should have the right to an abortion without parent interference.

[Araraukar]

OOC:I added that argument to satisfy the Pro choice camp, since some of them believe that a raped teenager should have the right to an abortion without parent interference.

OOC: If you don't want this to devolve into an abortion debate, I suggest keeping inflammatory comments like that to a minimum.

[Sachsen-Osterreich]

Bravo

[Marxist Germany]

OOC:I added that argument to satisfy the Pro choice camp, since some of them believe that a raped teenager should have the right to an abortion without parent interference.

OOC: If you don't want this to devolve into an abortion debate, I suggest keeping inflammatory comments like that to a minimum.

OOC:How is this inflammatory?

[Wallenburg]

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

Ambassador Juthlief speaks, calmly. She is Lotharia's best known Feminist-and is Pro-Life to the core as most Lotharian Feminists. A former working class single mother and rape victim, she was given Lotharia's best support due to that and became famous for her writings on the need for increased education spending through stories and analyses.
"Backwards nations and players who can't be bothered to participate in the WA respectfully are free to leave.

To call the interpretation that people have the basic human right to exist without someone terminating it willingly when their basic genetic structure has been solidified and even then not getting into the moral fact that it generally will become human, backwards is some serious right-wing fascist language as well as horrific insinuation, and our left-wing government condemns your state and expel any Diplomats you have in our country unless you stop such Barbarism.

OOC: I'm a right wing fascist? If you had any idea how fucking absurd that assertion is you would never have said it. I'm a solid leftist.

If we are to get into such petulant insults, then we call you, the nation which used such uncivilized rhetoric, barbaric and in need of humiliation. We will continue to accept your migrants however and anyone fleeing suffering and death as we see life and freedom to economic prosperity which our government provides to any citizen-especially pregnant and rape victims and single mothers-as human rights.

Unlike you barbarians we don't call nations that don't share our abortion or immigration views backwards and this is personal due to my own experience, my citizenship, pride in our national programs and national progressive feminist views, and how insulting your bronze age language is." She was remarkably able to deliver those lines with calm, bringing an eery tension to the room rather than a heated anger.

Don't flame, it's against the rules.

[Liberimery]

OOC: If you don't want this to devolve into an abortion debate, I suggest keeping inflammatory comments like that to a minimum.

OOC:How is this inflammatory?

I fail to see why a legal guardian should not be informed of their child’s status as a victim of a crime, especially a vile one such as the one you described here.

[Araraukar]

OOC:How is this inflammatory?

OOC: Talking about raped teenagers in a way that makes you appear dismissive of that being even a problem and some people instead just being nitpicky about nothing? You're flamebaiting. You're essentially wanting me and other pro-choice people to call you things that would get the mods' attention.

OR alternatively, you're trying to turn this into a general OOC debate about the rights of raped individuals, and NSGesque abortion debate, which is threadjacking, so in other words you're trying to get others to break the rules, that's just plain baiting.

Either way, you're just making yourself sound like a horrible fascist individual who doesn't think being raped is a big issue or that teenagers/children should have any rights, and so forth. I sincerely hope they're not your actual opinions and that you're simply baiting people to get mean at you so you can go cry at the moderators about how mean we are.

So are you going to submit this or not? The sooner it gets destroyed at vote, the sooner we're done with this nonsense again.

[Dirty Americans]

Somewhere a large whale is falling through a planetary atmosphere and thinking "not again."

I oppose this for a very simple reason. You know if we do repeal this we are only going to get something WORSE.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC:How is this inflammatory?

OOC: Talking about raped teenagers in a way that makes you appear dismissive of that being even a problem and some people instead just being nitpicky about nothing? You're flamebaiting. You're essentially wanting me and other pro-choice people to call you things that would get the mods' attention.

OOC:That isn't what I meant, I was just explaining why I added the clause, apologies if it was flamebaitey because I didn't mean it.

So are you going to submit this or not? The sooner it gets destroyed at vote, the sooner we're done with this nonsense again.

I'm submitting it sometime in September.

[Losthaven]

I remember liking Reproductive Freedoms when it was enacted because there was a new target for pro-lifers and I didn't have to listen to the same tired arguments against On Abortion.

That said, Reproductive Freedoms made some silly language decisions including defining "termination of pregnancy" as a medical procedure. It is a brute fact about reality that pregnancy can terminate in a number of ways in the complete absence of any medical procedure: birth and miscarriage immediately spring to mind. It was an odd choice to take a phrase with a general, neutral, non-technical meaning and turn it into a euphemism for abortion. Since then, I have seen many abortion opponents claim that they honor the right to "termination of pregnancy" by allowing mothers to terminate their pregnancy though the "safe, openly accessible procedure" of... wait for it... giving birth. Since Reproductive Freedoms never explicitly says that termination of pregnancy needs to be immediate upon request, I can't necessarily say those pro-life nations are wrong in that interpretation.

I also never really understood the provision which "DEMANDS that Member Nations prohibit any impediment to the termination of pregnancy that is not applied to medical procedures of similar risk and complexity." Suffice to say, it is difficult to conceptualize exactly what this refers to. Obviously, pro-choice nations have interpreted it to mean that you can't impose waiting periods on abortion that you wouldn't impose on, say, a heart surgery or removal of a cancerous tumor. But the risks involved in termination of pregnancy include a consideration unique to abortion: the risk of harm to the fetus. Whether you consider the fetus a "person" is not the point - there are risks to the fetus (person or not) in medically-induced termination of pregnancy that simply don't exist for other medical procedures. There is room in this provision to distinguish abortion (aka termination of pregnancy) procedures from other medical procedures and impose tighter "impediments" in the name of mitigating the unique risks to the fetus which are not found in any other medical procedures.

And, I very much disliked (and still dislike) the added insult of spelling "BABY" out with the first letters of the preamble clauses. The pro-choice lobby obviously holds a majority in this assembly and their will gets to control this issue. But it is ignorant to pretend that pro-life nations are all just misogynists who resent feminism and wish to permanently subjugate the rights of women. Pro-life nations conceive of themselves (sorry, couldn't resist the pun) as protecting the rights of an unborn baby. Whether or not you accept that conception, it is what many pro-life nations believe in good-faith that they are pursuing. It was a needless act of spite to mock abortion opponents with such a reference in a resolution which permits killing fetuses before they have the opportunity to become babies. The final clause - which references a common cliche of the pro-choice community that abortion opponents should adopt all the unwanted children who have been born before they complain about abortion - was also a quite needless and distasteful addition. If I was going to support a repeal of Reproductive Freedoms, it would be on these grounds.

I am sure what I just said has probably upset certain pro-choice nations to the point of voiding my life insurance policy. So I do wish to make clear that, even with those deficiencies in my mind, I would not support a repeal of Reproductive Freedoms without a replacement draft in the works to address them. Losthaven is itself a pro-choice nation which views abortion as a very hard, personal decision which no person would ever want to make, but which must be an option nonetheless in order to respect the privacy and bodily autonomy rights of women. At present, Reproductive Freedoms allows pro-choice nations to smile at the progressiveness of the implied existence of WA-wide on-demand abortion access, while also providing several dodgy clauses which pro-life nations may weasel about to find loopholes. That seems like a good enough compromise for me, and I certainly wouldn't want to remove the good done by Reproductive Freedoms in the name of chasing a "better" law that does not exist.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC:
Your suggestion on adding an argument about the final clause has been taken into consideration and will most likely be added.

[Separatist Peoples]

"This delegation will vote in favor if the author promises to support our replacement."

[Marxist Germany]

"This delegation will vote in favor if the author promises to support our replacement."

"May I acquire a copy please?"

[The New California Republic]

"This delegation will vote in favor if the author promises to support our replacement."

"May I acquire a copy please?"

I don't think you'll like it, as it is far more in favour of abortion rights than the thing you are trying to repeal. It has been mentioned in another thread if I remember rightly.

[Separatist Peoples]

"This delegation will vote in favor if the author promises to support our replacement."

"May I acquire a copy please?"

"We haven't written it yet, but the title will be something like "Abortionplexes for All"."

[Marxist Germany]

"May I acquire a copy please?"

"We haven't written it yet, but the title will be something like "Abortionplexes for All"."

"Unfortunately the circumstances do not allow me to support such proposal, however, your jokes have been noted."