[Defeated] Repeal "Reproductive Freedoms"

[Freest Freedonia]

The delegation from the Free Lands of Freest Freedonia opposes this repeal. We believe that Abortion of a pregnancy is a personal choice and is therefore none of the government’s business. Now, if someone were to try to abort someone else’s pregnancy, we would contemplate stepping in.

[Hexxon]

District-C News
Hexxon votes to ABSTAIN the controversial repeal of the Reproductive Freedoms bill.

Official Statement:
We cannot support anti-choice bills regarding abortion, as citizens have the right to choose to have a child. Forcing women to bear a child brings forth many ethical concerns, and has long lasting effects on the family on the child, and the child itself.

However, we do believe that the nations of the world should be free to determine their own agenda without World Assembly interference. Therefore we choose to abstain.

This has been District-C News, the 100% definitely reliable news source from the Capital District.

[New France and New Spain]

The Federation of New France and New Spain supports the resolution at hand. The nations of the world have the right to legalize abortion, yet the already approved resolution on "Reproductive Freedoms" seems to interfere with the nations of the world to decide their own destiny, this resolution to repeal this gives power back to the nations of the world to choose. Resolution on "Reproductive Freedoms" forces nations to legalize abortion, voting for the repeal allows nations to legalize abortion WITHOUT FORCING others to abide.

Vote for freedom, vote for!

[Andaristiva]

All of the concerns expressed about the original bill under consideration can be addressed by putting to vote subsequent bills which specifically target the relevant grievances. There is no need to repeal the whole bill and end the international right to safe abortion access just because the bill is, ostensibly, not completely perfect (assuming that we grant that the aforementioned concerns represent flaws that need to be addressed). Either way, I'm against the repeal.

Did you not read the section of the repeal that mentions resolution GA#128, or bother finding out what it meant? That resolution covered the right to abortion perfectly adequately before Reproductive Freedoms was published, and would cover it perfectly adequately if Reproductive Freedoms was repealed. It is Reproductive Freedoms that is lacking, and it is lacking because it is overly divisive. If we just repealed it, it seems to me that everything ought to be in agreement. So why haven't we?

The fact is that the disparity between the pro-life and pro-choice camps is so great that the pro-life camp's continued Sisyphian efforts are a waste of everyone's time- including their own.

The pro-life side says they need to compromise. Why should the pro-choice side compromise when they have such an overwhelming majority?

The pro-life side says that repealing Reproductive Freedoms is the only way to end the constant discussion around it- ignoring the fact that they are a vocal, tiny minority.

The pro-life side switches from argument to argument. Be it national sovereignty, to "abortion is wrong" to religious freedom to "sex should only be for procreation" to "but late term and sex-specific abortions!" It, as a faction, will do and say anything to try and get their fringe view a wider following.

All in all? I'm just sick of the pro-life side in this game. Not "IC," but OOC as well. They're a small, fringe minority. They purposefully pump themselves up to be bigger than they are to try and force an unneeded compromise or try and scare the WA into giving them what they want. When, in reality, they are so small in number that every attempt to repeal the targeted resolution falls apart like an egg splattering on a brick wall.

It isn't so much the constant repeal attempts that bother me. They all fail. It's the way the pro-life side carries itself. It's a small, fringe group of radicals who believe they have the literal G-d given right to impose their morality on a majority that wants nothing to do with them. Everything they do- from the calls for a compromise to the bluff that they'd just go away if everyone gave them what they'd want- is disingenuous.

You appear to be creating a false dichotomy between pro-lifers and people who oppose this bill. I consider myself pro-choice, but I am opposing this bill because I, like many others both 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice,' understand that sometimes it is more moral to permit abortion, and sometimes it is more moral to deny it.

Also, I object to your denigration of those who disagree with you. You complain about "the way the pro-life side carries itself", but it seems to me that you, who are supposed to be 'pro-choice,' carry yourself in much the same manner. You "pump [yourself] up to be bigger than [you] are" by dismissing those against you as a "tiny minority." If the repealers were truly a "tiny minority," then they wouldn't represent over a fifth of those who have currently voted on the repeal. They are a minority, I will admit, and too small to make the changes that may be necessary, but they are certainly not "tiny." You "switch from argument to argument" by first calling it a waste of time, then utilising the 'majority is right' fallacy- which can be used to justify genocide- before turning to attack the opposition, many of whom have many valid reasons to oppose you, all of which you utterly ignore and dismiss, purely because they wish to tell you all these reasons- it is not switching from argument to argument to just list off all the reasons why one disagrees. You "impose your morality on" those who "want nothing to do with [you]" by continually vilifying your opposition, suggesting that you consider them immoral, and therefore that only your way is moral.

Maybe standing by the repealers is a waste of time, perhaps it may even be unjust, but I'll take them over dogmatic 'pro-choice' extremists who refuse to respect the other side's democratic right to disagree with them. You make me feel ashamed to stand for rights over my own body.

[Wallenburg]

All of the concerns expressed about the original bill under consideration can be addressed by putting to vote subsequent bills which specifically target the relevant grievances. There is no need to repeal the whole bill and end the international right to safe abortion access just because the bill is, ostensibly, not completely perfect (assuming that we grant that the aforementioned concerns represent flaws that need to be addressed). Either way, I'm against the repeal.

Did you not read the section of the repeal that mentions resolution GA#128, or bother finding out what it meant? That resolution covered the right to abortion perfectly adequately before Reproductive Freedoms was published, and would cover it perfectly adequately if Reproductive Freedoms was repealed. It is Reproductive Freedoms that is lacking, and it is lacking because it is overly divisive. If we just repealed it, it seems to me that everything ought to be in agreement. So why haven't we?

The rights granted in #128 absolutely are not adequate.

Also, I object to your denigration of those who disagree with you. You complain about "the way the pro-life side carries itself", but it seems to me that you, who are supposed to be 'pro-choice,' carry yourself in much the same manner. You "pump [yourself] up to be bigger than [you] are" by dismissing those against you as a "tiny minority." If the repealers were truly a "tiny minority," then they wouldn't represent over a fifth of those who have currently voted on the repeal. They are a minority, I will admit, and too small to make the changes that may be necessary, but they are certainly not "tiny." You "switch from argument to argument" by first calling it a waste of time, then utilising the 'majority is right' fallacy- which can be used to justify genocide- before turning to attack the opposition, many of whom have many valid reasons to oppose you, all of which you utterly ignore and dismiss, purely because they wish to tell you all these reasons- it is not switching from argument to argument to just list off all the reasons why one disagrees. You "impose your morality on" those who "want nothing to do with [you]" by continually vilifying your opposition, suggesting that you consider them immoral, and therefore that only your way is moral.

Maybe standing by the repealers is a waste of time, perhaps it may even be unjust, but I'll take them over dogmatic 'pro-choice' extremists who refuse to respect the other side's democratic right to disagree with them. You make me feel ashamed to stand for rights over my own body.

Apparently we should repeal all resolutions that don't enjoy more than 80% support at any given time, because doing otherwise wouldn't "respect the other side's democratic right to disagree". That's certainly a novel idea.

[Andaristiva]

Apparently we should repeal all resolutions that don't enjoy more than 80% support at any given time. That's certainly a novel idea.

I didn't say that less than 80% support is enough to justify repealing. Just enough that the dissenters can't be called a "tiny minority."

[The New California Republic]

Maybe standing by the repealers is a waste of time, perhaps it may even be unjust, but I'll take them over dogmatic 'pro-choice' extremists who refuse to respect the other side's democratic right to disagree with them. You make me feel ashamed to stand for rights over my own body.

They get a Repeal to vote on, so we do respect their democratic right to disagree. What more do you want?

[Separatist Peoples]

Apparently we should repeal all resolutions that don't enjoy more than 80% support at any given time. That's certainly a novel idea.

I didn't say that less than 80% support is enough to justify repealing. Just enough that the dissenters can't be called a "tiny minority."

"Its fairly tiny. Not even enough to stop a supermajority."

[Boscaza]

"THEY MADE ABORTIONS LEGAL FOR ALL NATIONS AS A MANDATE? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! I swear to Violet, I'm gonna go abort the World assembly staff!"
- Quote from Boxan Carza, Grand Organizer of Boscaza.
-----------------------------
Upon reading the resolution this new resolution seeks to repeal, a near-universal reaction among generals and ministers was a state of being apalled.
While the state government of Boscaza cares little for what their civilians individually do, the Reproductive Freedoms forces a law
on all nations, some or all of whom may not want to have their own internal policy dominated by a tyrannical outside group.
Thus, Boscaza is firmly for this repealing resolution.

[Ave Gloriana]

We believe that this resolution is the least worst option. We therefore support the repeal of mandated infanticide-on-demand.

[Wallenburg]

"THEY MADE ABORTIONS LEGAL FOR ALL NATIONS AS A MANDATE? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! I swear to Violet, I'm gonna go abort the World assembly staff!"
- Quote from Boxan Carza, Grand Organizer of Boscaza.
-----------------------------
Upon reading the resolution this new resolution seeks to repeal, a near-universal reaction among generals and ministers was a state of being apalled.
While the state government of Boscaza cares little for what their civilians individually do, the Reproductive Freedoms forces a law
on all nations, some or all of whom may not want to have their own internal policy dominated by a tyrannical outside group.
Thus, Boscaza is firmly for this repealing resolution.

That's what all resolutions do. If we only passed laws that everyone agreed with, 1) we'd have no laws and 2) there wouldn't be a point to the WA, since all member states would already have passed those laws nationally.

[Araraukar]

We believe that this resolution is the least worst option. We therefore support the repeal of mandated infanticide-on-demand.

OOC: If you think it's the best of bad options, why do you support the repeal of it?

IC: "Against, once more and yet again."

[Imperium Anglorum]

ELSIE MORTIMER WELLESLEY: I think those ambassadors complaining about the state of majority rule are confused as to their location. They are in the General Assembly, not some Polish Parliament.

[Outer Sparta]

We believe that this resolution is the least worst option. We therefore support the repeal of mandated infanticide-on-demand.

Define "least worst option."

[Eastern Midwest States]

OOC: Is there a way I can search for the two resolutions that have been frequently mentioned?

[Goldenson]

Vote For. All life must be protected. This means we should prevent the death penalty as well. We should also allow fetal eviction upon viability and support of it through external incubation paid for by the female, responsible male, and/or the state.

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: Is there a way I can search for the two resolutions that have been frequently mentioned?

OOC: Yes: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30

[Prydania]

You make me feel ashamed to stand for rights over my own body.

I really don't care. I'm over the "I agree with you but why do you have to be so mean?" concern-speak. Sometimes things are right because they're right, and I don't feel the need to couch my language to avoid offending people I feel are just wrong. Especially when that group is a fringe minority who won't let us move from a settled issue.

You "pump [yourself] up to be bigger than [you] are" by dismissing those against you as a "tiny minority." If the repealers were truly a "tiny minority," then they wouldn't represent over a fifth of those who have currently voted on the repeal. They are a minority, I will admit, and too small to make the changes that may be necessary, but they are certainly not "tiny."

This repeal attempt- and most past repeal attempts- have shown that of the active WA voters? ~80% are pro-choice/support Reproductive Freedoms. ~20% are pro-life/anti-Reproductive Freedoms. If you are part of a group and hold a position that only 20% of the group holds? You're tiny minority. You're a fringe minority. No two ways about it.
Usually in a democracy a 80-20 result on something would be seen as pretty damn definitive and even the supporters of the minority view would concede defeat and focus on other issues. Here though? That 20% won't let it go. And they constantly pump themselves up to appear bigger than they are in an attempt to trick the 80% that is against them. Calls for a "compromise" and "if you just repeal it the discussion will stop" are just that- a 20% minority trying to trick the 80% majority that they're bigger than just 20%

You "switch from argument to argument" by first calling it a waste of time, then utilising the 'majority is right' fallacy- which can be used to justify genocide- before turning to attack the opposition, many of whom have many valid reasons to oppose you, all of which you utterly ignore and dismiss, purely because they wish to tell you all these reasons- it is not switching from argument to argument to just list off all the reasons why one disagrees. You "impose your morality on" those who "want nothing to do with [you]" by continually vilifying your opposition, suggesting that you consider them immoral, and therefore that only your way is moral.

I don't impose my morality on anyone. Here's the thing about the pro-choice side. It's PRO-CHOICE!
I'm actually anti-abortion personally, for religious reasons. I just recognize that I don't have the right to impose my own religious viewpoints on people who don't share them. Further? I'm a guy. I cannot get pregnant. So it seems silly for me to tell a woman what she should do in that situation. Even if I were the father. I'd like to think I'd have some input but ultimately I'm not the one whose body is going to be strained by the process.

Beyond that though, it's about choice, as I said. I'm not imposing anything on anyone. By supporting the pro-choice side I merely support giving women the right to choose what's best for herself.
Reproductive Freedoms doesn't force women to have abortions. It merely gives them that choice if they need it. People go "oh my country is very religious how dare you force us to legalize abortion" to which I say 1) your nation, IC, is realistically not a hive mind and 2) if its population was broadly very religious? Then good news. Being forced to legalize abortion via Reproductive Freedoms won't impact much because the vast majority of women in your religious society would choose not have abortions!

So no. There's no morality being imposed here. This is a simple matter of liberty vs a lack of it. People will always have their own personal morality when it comes to abortion, and women will choose to do what they want for personal reasons that include their own health, their own financial situation, and yes, their own moral code. If 80% of women who got pregnant just decided to never have abortions? That's their right, and one I would respect and celebrate. That doesn't mean I don't think the option should be there, however.

Maybe standing by the repealers is a waste of time, perhaps it may even be unjust, but I'll take them over dogmatic 'pro-choice' extremists who refuse to respect the other side's democratic right to disagree with them.

Whose democratic right isn't being respected? You have said this. That one guy who said that Reproductive Freedoms is meant to "silence the right" has said something similar.
No one's being silenced. No one is having their democratic right curtailed. We're having the bloody vote! You're not having your rights silenced or curtailed just because you lose, or are told that your camp is a fringe from a statistical standpoint.

And conceding one side might be wrong but standing with them because you think the side you do agree with is mean? Oh boy. That'll be a fun journey for you.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

OOC: I swear by the year 2400 CE, when the USS Enterprise cruises amongst the stars we will be opening every WA meeting with a ceremonious vote on the repeal of GA286 (if by some miraculous event NS is still ongoing that is).

[Prydania]

OOC: I swear by the year 2400 CE, when the USS Enterprise cruises amongst the stars we will be opening every WA meeting with a ceremonious vote on the repeal of GA286 (if by some miraculous event NS is still ongoing that is).

"The WA opens its session with the ceremonial voting down of a repeal for GA286. How this tradition began is a mystery to scholars, though the event draws tourists from all over the NS Multiverse."

[Inner Neptondia]

Your entire reason to repeal this bill is based on, at best, severe misunderstanding of what the Bill actually stands for. When people advocate for abortion we are not advocating for the murder of an already born infant, no matter the scenario. And, objectively speaking, abortion is literally just a medical procedure. It's the removal of a small clump of cells in a person's - because not JUST women can get pregnant, but that's a topic for another time - body. So long as the fetus is still within the parent's body, the parent has full control of what to do with it. I vote against this repeal.

[Cisairse]

Still opposed. Disappointed this met quorum.

[BlackLight Covenant]

OOC: so how many times are we gonna keep trying this until people realize that Reproductive Freedoms is up there with GAR#10 when it comes to being impossible to repeal? It feels like we're just playing the same broken record over and over again at this point, as this really ain't going anywhere.

This shouldn't be a WA issue in the first place. It's an attempt to silence the right. This should be an issue that each nations should choose to deal with as they please. The WA created this mess themselves.

OOC: fairly certain the right is free to fight against existing resolutions as they see fit, as evident from this repeal attempt. If such a fight fails because the majority of the WA doesn't agree with the presented views, then that's just the democratic process at work, not some grand conspiracy to silence ideology X or Y.

[Unibot III]

Aware that the radical approach of the target resolution has only caused division within this assembly, including 5 defeated repeal attempts

What’s divisive about 6 defeated repeal attempts? The Assembly seems pretty united on this issue.

[Varmhjarta]

Your entire reason to repeal this bill is based on, at best, severe misunderstanding of what the Bill actually stands for. When people advocate for abortion we are not advocating for the murder of an already born infant, no matter the scenario. And, objectively speaking, abortion is literally just a medical procedure. It's the removal of a small clump of cells in a person's - because not JUST women can get pregnant, but that's a topic for another time - body. So long as the fetus is still within the parent's body, the parent has full control of what to do with it. I vote against this repeal.

The resolution states abortions "until birth", it's not just a clump of cells. This bill is ridiculous, nobody cares if you're pro-life or pro-choice as long as you don't enforce your ideas on others and claim moral superiority. I'm to a certain extent pro-choice but who am I to enforce that on others when it's a highly controversial issue that most of all, is personal. The WA is not a world government it should know its limits, and some people really need to step off their pedestals and mind their own business.