[PASSED] Access to Abortion

[La Xinga]

"Why should we be forced to allow people to kill babies just because it's "convenient"?

Why should babies have to be killed because of them being the result of rape?

Why should babies be allowed to be killed just because they have Down syndrome?"

Ooc: if you want to ban abortion, you need to write a few repeals. This draft does not legalize abortion because other resolutions do that. As such, your concerns are off topic. You should read the GA Rules and the General Advice threads if you wish to repeal GAR#128 and GAR#286.

If he/she wants to do that, if this passes this one will need to be repealed first. You can't repeal a resolution that allows abortion before a resolution that makes abortion free.

It may cost $10,000,000, but if the rest of stuff cost 2$, that's obviously not normal. It would be a break of WA leg.

Ooc: you mean law? Ideally not, but some nations are willing to make some procedures very hard to obtain in order to also block abortion. That's why this proposal exists.

People smarter than you and I have tried to address similar issues in similar ways. They have failed.

What do you mean it wouldn't break legislation?

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: if you want to ban abortion, you need to write a few repeals. This draft does not legalize abortion because other resolutions do that. As such, your concerns are off topic. You should read the GA Rules and the General Advice threads if you wish to repeal GAR#128 and GAR#286.

If he/she wants to do that, if this passes this one will need to be repealed first. You can't repeal a resolution that allows abortion before a resolution that makes abortion free.

Ooc: yes. You can. There is nothing preventing you from doing so.

Ooc: you mean law? Ideally not, but some nations are willing to make some procedures very hard to obtain in order to also block abortion. That's why this proposal exists.

People smarter than you and I have tried to address similar issues in similar ways. They have failed.

What do you mean it wouldn't break legislation?

Ooc: I mean that it wouldn't break extant law. Abortions have to be equally accessible to other similar procedures of similar risk and complexity. Most abortions are accomplished by oral medication, or, at worst, outpatient surgery. Thus, if a nation wishes to make prescription medication and outpatient surgery extremely expensive and inaccessible, they could technically ban abortion.

It would literally kill their people, but they could do it. And some nations are comfortable with this.

[La Xinga]

If he/she wants to do that, if this passes this one will need to be repealed first. You can't repeal a resolution that allows abortion before a resolution that makes abortion free.

Ooc: yes. You can. There is nothing preventing you from doing so.

What do you mean it wouldn't break legislation?

Ooc: I mean that it wouldn't break extant law. Abortions have to be equally accessible to other similar procedures of similar risk and complexity. Most abortions are accomplished by oral medication, or, at worst, outpatient surgery. Thus, if a nation wishes to make prescription medication and outpatient surgery extremely expensive and inaccessible, they could technically ban abortion.

It would literally kill their people, but they could do it. And some nations are comfortable with this.

1. True, but it just wouldn't make sense.
2. True again, but this resolution among others doesn't allow that.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: yes. You can. There is nothing preventing you from doing so.


Ooc: I mean that it wouldn't break extant law. Abortions have to be equally accessible to other similar procedures of similar risk and complexity. Most abortions are accomplished by oral medication, or, at worst, outpatient surgery. Thus, if a nation wishes to make prescription medication and outpatient surgery extremely expensive and inaccessible, they could technically ban abortion.

It would literally kill their people, but they could do it. And some nations are comfortable with this.

1. True, but it just wouldn't make sense.
2. True again, but this resolution among others doesn't allow that.

1. Possibly. Possibly not. That is a question of political strategy, not of law. It is legal to repeal earlier resolutions.

2. No, this proposal is intended to solve that problem by avoiding it entirely and making sure states cover it. So, if the state wishes to make abortions extremely expensive, they only harm themselves.

[Draganisia]

OOC: I am only in the WA because of regional security at this point since we are a founderless region and can't change that.

In IC however:

Any attempt to force this proposal along with GA 128 and 286 will be met with force as it is a huge personal breach of National Sovereignty even compared to others that have been passed.

And apparently I am not the only nation that would be against any attempt to enforce them.

Consider this your only warning.

[The New California Republic]

OOC: I am only in the WA because of regional security at this point since we are a founderless region and can't change that.

In IC however:

Any attempt to force this proposal along with GA 128 and 286 will be met with force as it is a huge personal breach of National Sovereignty even compared to others that have been passed.

And apparently I am not the only nation that would be against any attempt to enforce them.

Consider this your only warning.

You can RP noncompliance of previous abortion-related resolutions, as some other nations do, but expect to be smacked with some sanctions by the WA if you do.

[La Xinga]

OOC: I am only in the WA because of regional security at this point since we are a founderless region and can't change that.

In IC however:

Any attempt to force this proposal along with GA 128 and 286 will be met with force as it is a huge personal breach of National Sovereignty even compared to others that have been passed.

And apparently I am not the only nation that would be against any attempt to enforce them.

Consider this your only warning.

You can RP noncompliance of previous abortion-related resolutions, as some other nations do, but expect to be smacked with some sanctions by the WA if you do.

Who controls the WA to level sanctions? Also, nations of non-compliance can just go together and trade with each other.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

OOC: I am only in the WA because of regional security at this point since we are a founderless region and can't change that.

In IC however:

Any attempt to force this proposal along with GA 128 and 286 will be met with force as it is a huge personal breach of National Sovereignty even compared to others that have been passed.

And apparently I am not the only nation that would be against any attempt to enforce them.

Consider this your only warning.

Congratulations on making yourself a joke.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I am only in the WA because of regional security at this point since we are a founderless region and can't change that.

In IC however:

Any attempt to force this proposal along with GA 128 and 286 will be met with force as it is a huge personal breach of National Sovereignty even compared to others that have been passed.

And apparently I am not the only nation that would be against any attempt to enforce them.

Consider this your only warning.

"Good for you, ambassador. Enjoy the ACA enforcement fines and inevitable embargoes."

[Separatist Peoples]

You can RP noncompliance of previous abortion-related resolutions, as some other nations do, but expect to be smacked with some sanctions by the WA if you do.

Who controls the WA to level sanctions? Also, nations of non-compliance can just go together and trade with each other.

Ooc: it's all roleplay. And while that's true, it still leaves you out of one of the most cohesive blocs of trade in the NSmultiverse, since WA nations have access to very lucrative trade preferences. Can a nation survive? Yeah probably. Thrive? Eh. Hard to say. Iran would probably like to see some embargoes go.

[La Xinga]

Who controls the WA to level sanctions? Also, nations of non-compliance can just go together and trade with each other.

Ooc: it's all roleplay. And while that's true, it still leaves you out of one of the most cohesive blocs of trade in the NSmultiverse, since WA nations have access to very lucrative trade preferences. Can a nation survive? Yeah probably. Thrive? Eh. Hard to say. Iran would probably like to see some embargoes go.

OOC: When a WA nation goes on Global E&T, I don't think people are going to check if he's in compliance with every GA resolution.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: it's all roleplay. And while that's true, it still leaves you out of one of the most cohesive blocs of trade in the NSmultiverse, since WA nations have access to very lucrative trade preferences. Can a nation survive? Yeah probably. Thrive? Eh. Hard to say. Iran would probably like to see some embargoes go.

OOC: When a WA nation goes on Global E&T, I don't think people are going to check if he's in compliance with every GA resolution.

Ooc: GA roleplay only matters in the GA forum, really. You may see it in II, but it's not an enforceable rule outside the GA forum. We are a self-contained community.

[La Xinga]

OOC: When a WA nation goes on Global E&T, I don't think people are going to check if he's in compliance with every GA resolution.

Ooc: GA roleplay only matters in the GA forum, really. You may see it in II, but it's not an enforceable rule outside the GA forum. We are a self-contained community.

OOC: ok thx

[Shazbotdom]

OOC: I am only in the WA because of regional security at this point since we are a founderless region and can't change that.

In IC however:

Any attempt to force this proposal along with GA 128 and 286 will be met with force as it is a huge personal breach of National Sovereignty even compared to others that have been passed.

And apparently I am not the only nation that would be against any attempt to enforce them.

Consider this your only warning.

"Ambassador, GA Resolutions 128 and 286 are already in force within your nation. Maybe if you don't want to abide by them, you should resign immediately. Or attempt to put forth Resolutions to Repeal both GA Resolutions 128 and 286."

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

This is in quorum btw.

[Tinfect]

Consider this your only warning.

OOC:
Okay!

[Quebecshire]

Based.

[Union of Sovereign States and Republics]

Based.

OOC: Based on what?

[Quebecshire]

Based.

OOC: Based on what?

Based resolution.

[Attempted Socialism]

OOC:

So in your mind this is a measured response to years of shit-faith arguments, god-moding, non-creative non-compliance etc. from the anti-choice advocates?

In reality this measure is the bad-faith argument.

Keep decorum, Ambassador, if the pro-death side knows the meaning of the word.

In conclusion, in your mind this is a measured response to years of shit-faith arguments, god-moding, non-creative non-compliance etc. from the anti-choice advocates. Good to know. Coming from the anti-choice crowd, that sounds like a ringing endorsement.
There's also a difference between IC and OOC. For instance, my proper title is not ambassador, though if you want to inflate my ego by giving me titles I don't (yet) have, may I suggest Tenured Professor and APSA Fellow?

Ooc: if there was a big issue with states deliberately making kidney transplants too expensive to get, we likely would. That has not been a policy issue in the GA.

Then IA could have just made it mandatory less expensive, why should citizens who oppose it need to pay with their tax money for it?

My RL tax money is spent on the military, police, tax rebates to millionaires, support to international companies and much more. This is morally reprehensible to me, and since there's no real, reasoned, ethical opposition to abortion, my actual outrage from my tax money being abused should have higher weight. Are you going to work on that IC? No? Then why should I ever give credence to this kind of argument IC?

I've said before that had the anti-choice crowd respected the verdict of On Abortion, and the many failed repeal attempts, that would likely have been the compromise. Since anti-choice advocates didn't, and chose to god-mod and throw it in the face of the majority, that majority chose to reiterate the relevant compromise through Reproductive Freedom. Again, rather than respecting the new state of affairs they had to flaunt their rule-breaking and god-moding. If AtA passes, it's solely because a small, vocal anti-choice group has openly and remorselessly bragged that OA and RF can be circumvented.

OOC: I am only in the WA because of regional security at this point since we are a founderless region and can't change that.

In IC however:

Any attempt to force this proposal along with GA 128 and 286 will be met with force as it is a huge personal breach of National Sovereignty even compared to others that have been passed.

And apparently I am not the only nation that would be against any attempt to enforce them.

Consider this your only warning.

Is this supposed to be serious? If you don't want to RP the WA, but you're only in for your region, feel free to ignore everything else WA, and do your own canon. This temper-tantrum (Alongside your earlier displays) serves to undermine your credibility.

IC:

"You're missing the point here. If this resolution passes, then millions of innocent Staypuftonians, and millions of innocent people of other countries, would be killed just because it's "convenient", or "I don't want to have a baby", or "It's not financially right now", or "It was conceived from rape". The only reason an abortion should be allowed is if the baby would die."

"I suggest the Ambassador consults a legal textbook or two. While millions today may suffer through dangerous and forced childbirth, this resolution will only lower that number. By definition, no innocent person and no baby can or will be killed by this resolution. You may also have to consult your own laws, Ambassador. As a WA member, I'm guessing abortion is already legal and freely accessible in your home nation."

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

[...] and since there's no real, reasoned, ethical opposition to abortion, my actual outrage from my tax money being abused should have higher weight.[...]

OOC: "Any opposition to my moral beliefs is not real, not reasoned, and not ethical, therefore, I do not have to engage them. I am absolutely correct. Oh, I love myself"...

"I suggest the Ambassador consults a legal textbook or two. While millions today may suffer through dangerous and forced childbirth, this resolution will only lower that number. By definition, no innocent person and no baby can or will be killed by this resolution. You may also have to consult your own laws, Ambassador. As a WA member, I'm guessing abortion is already legal and freely accessible in your home nation."

OOC: That depends on which definition and/or laws you consult. Not everyone has the same definitions or laws as you have... Well, I suppose everyone goes through some period of haughtiness in their lifetime.

[Attempted Socialism]

[...] and since there's no real, reasoned, ethical opposition to abortion, my actual outrage from my tax money being abused should have higher weight.[...]

OOC: "Any opposition to my moral beliefs is not real, not reasoned, and not ethical, therefore, I do not have to engage them. I am absolutely correct. Oh, I love myself"...

I'd stand by the same claim for slavery and genocide. There are a few beliefs with no credible supporting arguments, and I don't feel like legitimising them by pretending otherwise.

"I suggest the Ambassador consults a legal textbook or two. While millions today may suffer through dangerous and forced childbirth, this resolution will only lower that number. By definition, no innocent person and no baby can or will be killed by this resolution. You may also have to consult your own laws, Ambassador. As a WA member, I'm guessing abortion is already legal and freely accessible in your home nation."

OOC: That depends on which definition and/or laws you consult. Not everyone has the same definitions or laws as you have... Well, I suppose everyone goes through some period of haughtiness in their lifetime.

Given how abortion is legal in all WA nations, you have to really wreck your legal system to give personhood or citizenship to foetuses. If someone wants to RP a nation jumping off the deep end they're free to do so, but my IC ambassador does not assume so. She's also from the long, proud tradition of WA ambassadors being disliked in the home nation and an appointment to the Festering Snakepit is a decent way to get them out of the country.

[Fluvannia]

[...] and since there's no real, reasoned, ethical opposition to abortion, my actual outrage from my tax money being abused should have higher weight.[...]

OOC: "Any opposition to my moral beliefs is not real, not reasoned, and not ethical, therefore, I do not have to engage them. I am absolutely correct. Oh, I love myself"...

OOC: pretty much nails it on the head. Next step is them reasoning we aren’t people.

[Attempted Socialism]

OOC: "Any opposition to my moral beliefs is not real, not reasoned, and not ethical, therefore, I do not have to engage them. I am absolutely correct. Oh, I love myself"...

OOC: pretty much nails it on the head. Next step is them reasoning we aren’t people.

There's exactly one nation who has expressed a desire in this line of thinking, and they were anti-choice, but couldn't keep to the rules. I suggest you start with the plank in your own eye before you concern yourself with the alleged speck in mine.

[Fluvannia]

OOC: pretty much nails it on the head. Next step is them reasoning we aren’t people.

There's exactly one nation who has expressed a desire in this line of thinking, and they were anti-choice, but couldn't keep to the rules. I suggest you start with the plank in your own eye before you concern yourself with the alleged speck in mine.

My vision’s fine, thanks.