[PASSED] Access to Abortion

[Bananaistan]

OOC: "A lot of resources" =/= "bottomless pit".

Also, if anything the proposal would see funds accruing to the General Fund. On the one hand, the construction (may construct ... with funds assessed by the General Accounting Office from members in which there does not exist ...) and operating costs of these clinics fall to non-compliant member states, OTOH if a lease terminates, the value of land improvements is reimbursed to the General Fund.

OOC: Humanly bottomless, as far as I'm concerned. I thought you read it, but whatever numbers Seps came up with isn't practically comparable to anything IRL, is it?

Besides, for a nation like my own, and many others, it's certainly bottomless, unless I go about declaring I am the land of leaves, population 10 trillion. For the sake of political sophistry, my ambassador declared it bottomless, and well, the ambassador is about as modern a sophist as they get.

In any case, it seemed like that to me, and I think to others too. In any case, if there was an error in judgement, apologies. Perhaps you could clarify how the funding functions actually, then, for our benefit?

OOC: Funding generally or just for this proposal? If just for this proposal, see edit to my last post.

Generally, funds must come from taxpayers in member states. ICly I always oppose profligate spending by the General Fund because the burden, even if widely spread, falls on taxpayers in member states and Bananaistan would prefer to spend its own money generally but can see that it's nice and charitable to facilitate given others a leg up when necessary.

[Riverpost]

OOC: Humanly bottomless, as far as I'm concerned. I thought you read it, but whatever numbers Seps came up with isn't practically comparable to anything IRL, is it?

Besides, for a nation like my own, and many others, it's certainly bottomless, unless I go about declaring I am the land of leaves, population 10 trillion. For the sake of political sophistry, my ambassador declared it bottomless, and well, the ambassador is about as modern a sophist as they get.


In any case, it seemed like that to me, and I think to others too. In any case, if there was an error in judgement, apologies. Perhaps you could clarify how the funding functions actually, then, for our benefit?

OOC: Funding generally or just for this proposal? If just for this proposal, see edit to my last post.

Generally, funds must come from taxpayers in member states. ICly I always oppose profligate spending by the General Fund because the burden, even if widely spread, falls on taxpayers in member states and Bananaistan would prefer to spend its own money generally but can see that it's nice and charitable to facilitate given others a leg up when necessary.

OOC: I don't mind both, as they can all have something to take for this and future resolutions.

Alright, I see for the proposal, and I concede that I was mistaken there. But for the general usage, how did the HQ come into being without a general fund? I know it's rather nitpicky, but it was something that I came across and it seemed rather incredulous to me at the time. Neither am I really for excessive spending, in particular that if this were more in line with the UN and their funding debacles, I'd probably be a lot more timid in my wishful thinking. How much has all this cost past and present with stuff such as the HQ, and resolutions (though further which I have not found to name, but only based on what I recall reading another say was true, which admittedly, is iffy of me to ascribe to) that may also draw General Funds from the WA? Unless there is none, then it's clearly overblown of me. With non-compliance fines and the General Fund around for two examples of income, how well would you say these hallowed halls to be doing in cash?

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Funding generally or just for this proposal? If just for this proposal, see edit to my last post.

Generally, funds must come from taxpayers in member states. ICly I always oppose profligate spending by the General Fund because the burden, even if widely spread, falls on taxpayers in member states and Bananaistan would prefer to spend its own money generally but can see that it's nice and charitable to facilitate given others a leg up when necessary.

OOC: I don't mind both, as they can all have something to take for this and future resolutions.

Alright, I see for the proposal, and I concede that I was mistaken there. But for the general usage, how did the HQ come into being without a general fund? I know it's rather nitpicky, but it was something that I came across and it seemed rather incredulous to me at the time. Neither am I really for excessive spending, in particular that if this were more in line with the UN and their funding debacles, I'd probably be a lot more timid in my wishful thinking. How much has all this cost past and present with stuff such as the HQ, and resolutions (though further which I have not found to name, but only based on what I recall reading another say was true, which admittedly, is iffy of me to ascribe to) that may also draw General Funds from the WA? Unless there is none, then it's clearly overblown of me. With non-compliance fines and the General Fund around for two examples of income, how well would you say these hallowed halls to be doing in cash?

OOC: GAR#8 has its own funding mechanism: rent for offices and fees for use of the toilets.

As to the rest, nobody knows. It can't be quantified. But the central point remains. The General Fund cannot engage in deficit spending. Therefore everything it spends comes from member states in some unknowable proportion between "donations" and fines. It's possible that fines might exceed the costs for the year, in which case because surpluses are returned to member states, you'd imagine member states would be in favour of both no donation and getting a reimbursement. Or if fines do not exceed the costs, they'd want to minimise their donation by keeping costs down. Either way, flahulach General Fund spending is not a wise policy from any member state's POV.

[Godular]

OOC: I don't mind both, as they can all have something to take for this and future resolutions.

Alright, I see for the proposal, and I concede that I was mistaken there. But for the general usage, how did the HQ come into being without a general fund? I know it's rather nitpicky, but it was something that I came across and it seemed rather incredulous to me at the time. Neither am I really for excessive spending, in particular that if this were more in line with the UN and their funding debacles, I'd probably be a lot more timid in my wishful thinking. How much has all this cost past and present with stuff such as the HQ, and resolutions (though further which I have not found to name, but only based on what I recall reading another say was true, which admittedly, is iffy of me to ascribe to) that may also draw General Funds from the WA? Unless there is none, then it's clearly overblown of me. With non-compliance fines and the General Fund around for two examples of income, how well would you say these hallowed halls to be doing in cash?

OOC: GAR#8 has its own funding mechanism: rent for offices and fees for use of the toilets.

As to the rest, nobody knows. It can't be quantified. But the central point remains. The General Fund cannot engage in deficit spending. Therefore everything it spends comes from member states in some unknowable proportion between "donations" and fines. It's possible that fines might exceed the costs for the year, in which case because surpluses are returned to member states, you'd imagine member states would be in favour of both no donation and getting a reimbursement. Or if fines do not exceed the costs, they'd want to minimise their donation by keeping costs down. Either way, flahulach General Fund spending is not a wise policy from any member state's POV.

OOC: I'm ICly donating a pretty hardcore amount. What is 'post-scarcity' if not being able to share?

[Riverpost]

OOC: I don't mind both, as they can all have something to take for this and future resolutions.

Alright, I see for the proposal, and I concede that I was mistaken there. But for the general usage, how did the HQ come into being without a general fund? I know it's rather nitpicky, but it was something that I came across and it seemed rather incredulous to me at the time. Neither am I really for excessive spending, in particular that if this were more in line with the UN and their funding debacles, I'd probably be a lot more timid in my wishful thinking. How much has all this cost past and present with stuff such as the HQ, and resolutions (though further which I have not found to name, but only based on what I recall reading another say was true, which admittedly, is iffy of me to ascribe to) that may also draw General Funds from the WA? Unless there is none, then it's clearly overblown of me. With non-compliance fines and the General Fund around for two examples of income, how well would you say these hallowed halls to be doing in cash?

OOC: GAR#8 has its own funding mechanism: rent for offices and fees for use of the toilets.

As to the rest, nobody knows. It can't be quantified. But the central point remains. The General Fund cannot engage in deficit spending. Therefore everything it spends comes from member states in some unknowable proportion between "donations" and fines. It's possible that fines might exceed the costs for the year, in which case because surpluses are returned to member states, you'd imagine member states would be in favour of both no donation and getting a reimbursement. Or if fines do not exceed the costs, they'd want to minimise their donation by keeping costs down. Either way, flahulach General Fund spending is not a wise policy from any member state's POV.

OOC: All fair points. I mostly looked at GAR#8 quite stringently for the purposes of the argument, as in that the precedent seems to be that resolutions go into effect immediately after being passed. Sure, it is self-sustaining now, but where did the actual construction get the money to begin with? Maybe nations made some pre-emptive contributions during the very close vote?

In any case, all good to hear, especially from someone who seems to quite well know their stuff on monies and the sort. Even so, I imagine we can ensure that our unknown budget is quite pristine in future resolutions to come, conservative and sensible spending in mind (or just imagining that it'll be so, which should work too)

OOC: I'm ICly donating a pretty hardcore amount. What is 'post-scarcity' if not being able to share?

^

[Dreadton]

"I hear a dripping sound," says Ambassador Pierce visibly irritated. "Am I the only one hearing it? Ah yes, it must be that good old bottomless abortion money pit. Drip. Drip. Drip. The sovereignty, the money, the morals. They all go 'drip, drip, drip.'"

Its kind of neat to see an Ambassador who's nation actively worked with a fascist regime to overthrow a lawfully elected democratic government, take issue with the morals of other nations.

[Union of Sovereign States and Republics]

Ok slaver.

And will you, please, tell me why stripping the mentally ill of their political and civil rights and liberties is a bad thing? What’s next, granting rights to schizophrenics?

OOC: What the actual fuck? This is on so many levels of fucked up and just plain wrong.

[South World]

Why bother to pass this only to repeal it next month?

[La Xinga]

Why bother to pass this only to repeal it next month?

Because people like it.

[Shazbotdom]

Why bother to pass this only to repeal it next month?

Because it's been tried multiple times to repeal any of the other two Abortion Legislations that were passed by this August Body. I lost count when it it 20 a piece.

All of them have failed.

[Separatist Peoples]

Why bother to pass this only to repeal it next month?

"Chances are very good that it will not be repealed, ambassador."

[Thermodolia]

Why bother to pass this only to repeal it next month?

It’s tradition to attempt and fail to repeal abortion legislation here. Just like it’s tradition for nations to send their worst to be their ambassadors, and tradition to chuck ambassadors out of windows

[Dubrana]

Why bother to pass this only to repeal it next month?

It’s tradition to attempt and fail to repeal abortion legislation here. Just like it’s tradition for nations to send their worst to be their ambassadors, and tradition to chuck ambassadors out of windows

"Although I am no longer a member of the WA defenestration is a tried and true method of expressing your displeasure with your fellow ambassador, after all throwing someone out of a window is by far one of the most expressive ways to inform someone that you despise them."

[Edlos]

It is in our opinion that an amendment to the proposal will be necessary, it being that the abortion must occur before the end of the first trimester of the pregnancy. Otherwise, according to the proposal, there's nothing stopping a mother from terminating a pregnancy well after a heartbeat and other functions have began inside the fetus. In fact, under this proposal, a mother can terminate a pregnancy just before birth.

Therefore, with the current proposal, we'll vote against.

[Godular]

It is in our opinion that an amendment to the proposal will be necessary, it being that the abortion must occur before the end of the first trimester of the pregnancy. Otherwise, according to the proposal, there's nothing stopping a mother from terminating a pregnancy well after a heartbeat and other functions have began inside the fetus. In fact, under this proposal, a mother can terminate a pregnancy just before birth.

Therefore, with the current proposal, we'll vote against.

"If I recall correctly, World Assembly resolutions cannot be amended."

[Shazbotdom]

It is in our opinion that an amendment to the proposal will be necessary, it being that the abortion must occur before the end of the first trimester of the pregnancy. Otherwise, according to the proposal, there's nothing stopping a mother from terminating a pregnancy well after a heartbeat and other functions have began inside the fetus. In fact, under this proposal, a mother can terminate a pregnancy just before birth.

Therefore, with the current proposal, we'll vote against.

"If I recall correctly, World Assembly resolutions cannot be amended."

"You are recalling correctly, Ambassador. Sooner or later the Ambassador from Edlos will learn that."

[Ardiveds]

It is in our opinion that an amendment to the proposal will be necessary, it being that the abortion must occur before the end of the first trimester of the pregnancy. Otherwise, according to the proposal, there's nothing stopping a mother from terminating a pregnancy well after a heartbeat and other functions have began inside the fetus. In fact, under this proposal, a mother can terminate a pregnancy just before birth.

Therefore, with the current proposal, we'll vote against.

"Actually Ambassador, if you have issue with abortion being allowed at any stage, you are blaming the wrong resolution."

[Union of Sovereign States and Republics]

OOC: Access to Abortion was passed 12,266 votes to 4,936.

Congratulations, IA!

[United Engiresco]

I go against this resolution with all my human morality, this is just morally wrong. There is a reason why Abortion is illegalized in so many countries, Imperium Anglorum.

[Shazbotdom]

I go against this resolution with all my human morality, this is just morally wrong. There is a reason why Abortion is illegalized in so many countries, Imperium Anglorum.

"Then you would be in violation of not one, not two, but THREE World Assembly General Assembly resolutions. Makes me wonder why you continue to want to be in the World Assembly if you are just going to be a little 'rogue' nation and not follow standing Resolutions, which are not even Optional, they are Mandatory for members."

[United Engiresco]

I go against this resolution with all my human morality, this is just morally wrong. There is a reason why Abortion is illegalized in so many countries, Imperium Anglorum.

"Then you would be in violation of not one, not two, but THREE World Assembly General Assembly resolutions. Makes me wonder why you continue to want to be in the World Assembly if you are just going to be a little 'rogue' nation and not follow standing Resolutions, which are not even Optional, they are Mandatory for members."

The only real reason I'm in the WA is because I like endorsements.

[Godular]

"Then you would be in violation of not one, not two, but THREE World Assembly General Assembly resolutions. Makes me wonder why you continue to want to be in the World Assembly if you are just going to be a little 'rogue' nation and not follow standing Resolutions, which are not even Optional, they are Mandatory for members."

The only real reason I'm in the WA is because I like endorsements.

Then while you might enjoy having endorsements, you also support the right to procure abortions...

[Christian Democrats]

The Most Holy and Grand Empire condemns this resolution. It's an affront to human dignity and human rights. Nobody has "natural rights to property" in other people. WA citizens of good conscience need to rise up and shut down the facilities that this resolution establishes.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

"So... we are now at advocating Christian Terrorism... Wunderbar."

[Christian Democrats]

"So... we are now at advocating Christian Terrorism... Wunderbar."

Ambassador, our government does not advocate violence. We support nonviolent direct action: mass demonstrations, blockades, sit-ins. National governments should respect the right of the people to engage in such action, upholding human dignity and human rights.