Draft: Repeal "Reduction of Abortions Act"

[Gaytania]

World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING the irenconsilable differences between the two opposing views on this issue

DECLARING that Word Assembly Resolution #44 poses a threat to national sovereignty and independence through its restrictions on member governments rights to self governance

RECOGNIZING the effects of overpopulation on member nation's economies and environment

HEREBY:

1)REDEFINES "abortion" as the termination of a pregnancy through the removal or expulsion of the fetus from the uterus resulting in/or caused by its death.

2)REAFFIRMS the right of woman to choose whether or not to compromise her future through the birth unwanted child.

3)RESTRICTS the ability of the World Health Authority to regulate or restrict access to abortion related services

a.withholds the World Health Authority from endorsing or funding abortion reduction services

b.ensures that the World Health Authority provides universal access to abortion related services in compliance with national and international laws.

4)REDECLARES that nothing within the repealment of World Assembly Resolution #44 should regulate or restrict access to abortion reduction services and shall not affect the power of member states to declare abortion legal or illegal through legislation to expand or restrict access to abortion.

I would like to ask the members of the World Assembly for their support for my proposal to repeal World Assembly Resolution #44 also known as "The Reduction of Abortions Act". Also feel free to improve my proposal to fit the parameters of the rules of the World Assembly. You may suggest your edits to my proposal here.

[Urgench]

Repeals cannot introduce new legislation.


Yours,

[Absolvability]

Repeals cannot introduce new legislation.

Quite right, too true, indeed, and whatever other aphorisms suffice.

That being said, I urge the author not to give up just yet... because I would very seriously support a repeal of the statute in question.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

No need to reintroduce or redefine stuff. Just write your arguments down in a general point of view and sign it off with a formal repeal clause.

[Meekinos]

We support the basis for the repeal, but not in its current form, as it is illegal due to the fact that it is proposing a new legislation when it is simply meant to be a repeal.

We will keep an eye on this because we do feel this will achieve the desired end goal if it is worded well.

[Gaytania]

World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING the irenconsilable differences between the two opposing views on this issue

DECLARING that Word Assembly Resolution #44 poses a threat to national sovereignty and independence through its restrictions that it poses on member nations right to self governance

RECOGNIZING the right of woman to choose whether or not to compromise her future through the birth of an unwanted child.

Second Draft of repeal of World Assembly Resolution #44 better known as the "Reduction of Abortion Act"
Proposed and submitted May 29, 2009 by The Queendom of Gaytania
I realize the fact that while this resolution might be imperfect in it's wording, it accomplishes the goal of the successful repealment of World Resolution #44.

[Meekinos]

The revised edition is acceptable and we would encourage our regional's delegate to support this.

[Ezuela (Ancient)]

The Republic of Ezuela supports the repeal of the Reduction of Abortions Act.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING the irenconsilable differences between the two opposing views on this issue

DECLARING that Word Assembly Resolution #44 poses a threat to national sovereignty and independence through its restrictions that it poses on member nations right to self governance

RECOGNIZING the right of woman to choose whether or not to compromise her future through the birth of an unwanted child.

Second Draft of repeal of World Assembly Resolution #44 better known as the "Reduction of Abortion Act"
Proposed and submitted May 29, 2009 by The Queendom of Gaytania
I realize the fact that while this resolution might be imperfect in it's wording, it accomplishes the goal of the successful repealment of World Resolution #44.

I don't think you understand what the resolution does. It does not restrict abortions, or infringe on a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. All it does is increase access to birth control, so fewer women will need to have one.

Your invocation of national sovereignty is therefore a false argument, making it illegal, and an invalid argument besides, since a repeal's primary argument cannot be "national sovereignty." Finally, your last clause still sounds like it is introducing new legislation (i.e., recognizing an individual right), which you have already been informed is also illegal.

[Gaytania]

World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING the irenconsilable differences between the two opposing views on this issue

DECLARING that Word Assembly Resolution #44 poses a threat to national sovereignty and independence through its restrictions that it poses on member nations right to self governance

RECOGNIZING the right of woman to choose whether or not to compromise her future through the birth of an unwanted child.

Second Draft of repeal of World Assembly Resolution #44 better known as the "Reduction of Abortion Act"
Proposed and submitted May 29, 2009 by The Queendom of Gaytania
I realize the fact that while this resolution might be imperfect in it's wording, it accomplishes the goal of the successful repealment of World Resolution #44.

I don't think you understand what the resolution does. It does not restrict abortions, or infringe on a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. All it does is increase access to birth control, so fewer women will need to have one.

Your invocation of national sovereignty is therefore a false argument, making it illegal, and an invalid argument besides, since a repeal's primary argument cannot be "national sovereignty." Finally, your last clause still sounds like it is introducing new legislation (i.e., recognizing an individual right), which you have already been informed is also illegal.

I understand that while the wording of my proposal might be flawed, it successfully accomplishes the goal of the repealment World Assembly Resolution #44. I respect your arguments on the need for some clarification of the terms in my proposal. On the question national sovereignty, while you raise a valid point, you must take that comment into context with the other terms used in the argument contained within my proposal. The last part of my argument was meant to be an declaration that the World Assembly shall not pass another resolution with the same restrictive wording as World Assembly resolution #44.

I hope my reply helps you with some of the clarification you asked for on my proposal.

[Malikov]

I do hope that you all realize that abortion is a euphimism for 'killing babies". Why would anyone be allowed to kill their children... better yet, why should anyone be allowed to kill their children. What you are suggesting is that it's okay for parents to murder their offspring. The difference between a full grown man being offed by his parents, and a baby being offed in the same manner, is that the older man can defend himself. What your suggesting is the cold-blooded murder of defensless babies. Babies need to be cared for and nourished. If you don't want your kid then put him up for adoption, and let him keep his life.

Malikov

[Secruss]

Keep this in place.

Don't repeal it.

[Rutianas]

I do hope that you all realize that abortion is a euphimism for 'killing babies". Why would anyone be allowed to kill their children... better yet, why should anyone be allowed to kill their children. What you are suggesting is that it's okay for parents to murder their offspring. The difference between a full grown man being offed by his parents, and a baby being offed in the same manner, is that the older man can defend himself. What your suggesting is the cold-blooded murder of defensless babies. Babies need to be cared for and nourished. If you don't want your kid then put him up for adoption, and let him keep his life.

Malikov

Let me say first off that the Republic has strict laws on abortion. We do not condone it.

However, claiming that abortion is a euphemism for 'killing babies' is rather harsh. Many nations have a difference of opinion on where life actually begins. Some say conception. Others may say birth. Still others may specify a time during pregnancy.

The Reduction of Abortions Act was designed to allow nations to still choose for themselves what to do about abortion. What the Act also did was to promote birth control methods so that abortion wouldn't have to be used as often.

That said, your nation still has the right to say just say no to abortions. Where's the problem?

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

[Gaytania]

I do hope that you all realize that abortion is a euphimism for 'killing babies". Why would anyone be allowed to kill their children... better yet, why should anyone be allowed to kill their children. What you are suggesting is that it's okay for parents to murder their offspring. The difference between a full grown man being offed by his parents, and a baby being offed in the same manner, is that the older man can defend himself. What your suggesting is the cold-blooded murder of defensless babies. Babies need to be cared for and nourished. If you don't want your kid then put him up for adoption, and let him keep his life.

Malikov

Thank you for your comment Malikov. While I recognize the fact that there are strong views on both sides of this issue, your definition of abortion would not be universally accepted because it is too polarizing and sees the argument from only one point of view. My proposal is not trying to do anything to promote abortion, it is only repealing and old resolution so that we can make way for a new resolution that may accurately represent both opposing points of view on this issue in a equal manner. This repealment is to help make way for further debate so we can find common ground on this issue so that we can come to a compromise on a resolution that might equally weigh each of the opposing arguments on this issue.

I respect your opinion and I want you to help me get this repealment passed so we can make way for new debate where everyone's voice may be heard. This is only the first step!

[Rutianas]

Thank you for your comment Malikov. While I recognize the fact that there are strong views on both sides of this issue, your definition of abortion would not be universally accepted because it is too polarizing and sees the argument from only one point of view. My proposal is not trying to do anything to promote abortion, it is only repealing and old resolution so that we can make way for a new resolution that may accurately represent both opposing points of view on this issue in a equal manner. This repealment is to help make way for further debate so we can find common ground on this issue so that we can come to a compromise on a resolution that might equally weigh each of the opposing arguments on this issue.

I respect your opinion and I want you to help me get this repealment passed so we can make way for new debate where everyone's voice may be heard. This is only the first step!

I fail to see why new legislation is needed.

The current one does not remove a nation's right to decide the issue for themselves.

I'm going to do something I've never done before. I'm going to ask you to trust me. The issue of Abortion has been discussed time and time again. There will never be anything that will be better and more fair than this. This went through a long and drawn out debate previously.

The problem with the repeal is that there is no viable argument to it.

RECOGNIZING the irenconsilable differences between the two opposing views on this issue

DECLARING that Word Assembly Resolution #44 poses a threat to national sovereignty and independence through its restrictions that it poses on member nations right to self governance

RECOGNIZING the right of woman to choose whether or not to compromise her future through the birth of an unwanted child.

First, it's irreconcilable. Yeah, that would be valid. There's never going to be a compromise better than WAR #44.

Second, National Sovereignty is not a valid point. Now, that said, the Resolution is all about National Sovereignty. No where in the resolution does it say, in any way, shape, or form, that every nation must allow abortion or even every nation must ban abortion. There are no restrictions on the right to self governance.

Third, all I can say is 'huh? what?' Where are you getting that from? In fact, if you, the Ambassador from Gaytania, can show me where WAR #44 denies the right of a woman to choose, I will personally buy you a drink at the Stranger's Bar. And those other Ambassadors that go there can tell you that I have never set foot in that place.

So, all said, the only valid point you make in all that is the first one. Not enough to get it repealed.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

[Osgarna]

I suggest that the honorable ambassador from Gaytania reread WAR #44. It quite clearly states that it is not restricting access to abortions in any way.

6. DECLARES that nothing in this resolution shall affect the power of member states to declare abortion legal or illegal or to pass legislation extending or restricting access to abortion.

Furthermore, all the things it legislates would be considered good by most nations regardless of their stance on abortion, and even if nations did disagree with services it encourages, they are free to provide them to whatever extent they wish, whether they be very difficult to access or impossible to avoid.

[Gaytania]

Thank you for your comment Malikov. While I recognize the fact that there are strong views on both sides of this issue, your definition of abortion would not be universally accepted because it is too polarizing and sees the argument from only one point of view. My proposal is not trying to do anything to promote abortion, it is only repealing and old resolution so that we can make way for a new resolution that may accurately represent both opposing points of view on this issue in a equal manner. This repealment is to help make way for further debate so we can find common ground on this issue so that we can come to a compromise on a resolution that might equally weigh each of the opposing arguments on this issue.

I respect your opinion and I want you to help me get this repealment passed so we can make way for new debate where everyone's voice may be heard. This is only the first step!

I fail to see why new legislation is needed.

The current one does not remove a nation's right to decide the issue for themselves.

I'm going to do something I've never done before. I'm going to ask you to trust me. The issue of Abortion has been discussed time and time again. There will never be anything that will be better and more fair than this. This went through a long and drawn out debate previously.

The problem with the repeal is that there is no viable argument to it.

RECOGNIZING the irenconsilable differences between the two opposing views on this issue

DECLARING that Word Assembly Resolution #44 poses a threat to national sovereignty and independence through its restrictions that it poses on member nations right to self governance

RECOGNIZING the right of woman to choose whether or not to compromise her future through the birth of an unwanted child.

First, it's irreconcilable. Yeah, that would be valid. There's never going to be a compromise better than WAR #44.

Second, National Sovereignty is not a valid point. Now, that said, the Resolution is all about National Sovereignty. No where in the resolution does it say, in any way, shape, or form, that every nation must allow abortion or even every nation must ban abortion. There are no restrictions on the right to self governance.

Third, all I can say is 'huh? what?' Where are you getting that from? In fact, if you, the Ambassador from Gaytania, can show me where WAR #44 denies the right of a woman to choose, I will personally buy you a drink at the Stranger's Bar. And those other Ambassadors that go there can tell you that I have never set foot in that place.

So, all said, the only valid point you make in all that is the first one. Not enough to get it repealed.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

I recognize where the wording in my repeal is flawed and needs to be improved. Furthermore World Assembly Resolution #44 force's member governments to provide access to "Abortion Reduction Services", and that is enough to be threat to national sovereignty and the ability to self govern. I never stated that World Assembly Resolution #44 placed any restrictions on the ability on member governments to ban or allow abortions. World Resolution #44 does place restrictions on the ability of member nations to control their populations through tools like abortion. While World Resolution #44 does not restrict the choice of a woman, it restricts the ability of member governments to effectively govern their people in any way they please. If a government chooses not to allow access to "Abortion Reduction Services" for religious, ethical, or social reasons, than they shall not be required to do so.

[Gaytania]

I suggest that the honorable ambassador from Gaytania reread WAR #44. It quite clearly states that it is not restricting access to abortions in any way.

6. DECLARES that nothing in this resolution shall affect the power of member states to declare abortion legal or illegal or to pass legislation extending or restricting access to abortion.

Furthermore, all the things it legislates would be considered good by most nations regardless of their stance on abortion, and even if nations did disagree with services it encourages, they are free to provide them to whatever extent they wish, whether they be very difficult to access or impossible to avoid.

The resolution fails to implicitly state your assertion.

[Osgarna]

I suggest that the honorable ambassador from Gaytania reread WAR #44. It quite clearly states that it is not restricting access to abortions in any way.

6. DECLARES that nothing in this resolution shall affect the power of member states to declare abortion legal or illegal or to pass legislation extending or restricting access to abortion.

Furthermore, all the things it legislates would be considered good by most nations regardless of their stance on abortion, and even if nations did disagree with services it encourages, they are free to provide them to whatever extent they wish, whether they be very difficult to access or impossible to avoid.

The resolution fails to implicitly state your assertion.

Well, the first assertion is certainly beyond being merely implied, but the second is quite open to interpretation by each nation, though it may verge on being explicitly non-decreeing with all that talk of "urging." However, I fail to see why it bothers you that the the resolution does not seem to be "implicit" enough.

[Rutianas]

I recognize where the wording in my repeal is flawed and needs to be improved. Furthermore World Assembly Resolution #44 force's member governments to provide access to "Abortion Reduction Services", and that is enough to be threat to national sovereignty and the ability to self govern. I never stated that World Assembly Resolution #44 placed any restrictions on the ability on member governments to ban or allow abortions. World Resolution #44 does place restrictions on the ability of member nations to control their populations through tools like abortion. While World Resolution #44 does not restrict the choice of a woman, it restricts the ability of member governments to effectively govern their people in any way they please. If a government chooses not to allow access to "Abortion Reduction Services" for religious, ethical, or social reasons, than they shall not be required to do so.

From WAR #44. I'm going to take a few sections and explain them to show why your argument isn't valid.

2. AFFIRMS the right of individuals to access information regarding abortion reduction services;

This just states that an individual should have the right to get abortion reduction services. It does not say that the government is required to provide it

3. STRONGLY URGES member states to research, invest in, and provide universal access to abortion reduction services;

Strongly urges does not mean required. A nation can easily say 'okay, they have a right to it, we're still not providing it'. There's no tampering with the way they choose to run.

4. FURTHER ENCOURAGES member states to provide financial aid to pregnant individuals and parents to reduce or remove economic reasons for abortion and economic barriers to childbirth;

Again, further encourages does not mean required.

I still fail to see how national sovereignty is at risk. Let me make it clear, the Republic does take NatSov views in debates. We did vote for WAR #44 because it did not tamper with NatSov then, and it doesn't tamper with it now.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

[Malikov]

Rutianis wrote:
There will never be anything that will be better and more fair than this.

Quite true, quite true. Abortion is a topic that is very sensitive, and thus will have many diffrent veiw points. If we leave the resolution be then everyone can go do what they want.

Malikov

[Serbian_Soviet_Union]

In the Federation of the Serbian Soviet Union, Abortion is strictly prohibitted and any form of abortion is classified as murder in the first degree and it is punishable by death or life in prison. Abortion is only allowed in most extreme cases that includes if the baby is life threatening to the mother or if the lady has been raped.

[The Emmerian Unions]

In the Federation of the Serbian Soviet Union, Abortion is strictly prohibitted and any form of abortion is classified as murder in the first degree and it is punishable by death or life in prison. Abortion is only allowed in most extreme cases that includes if the baby is life threatening to the mother or if the lady has been raped.

SSU, this died a long time ago.

[Serbian_Soviet_Union]

In the Federation of the Serbian Soviet Union, Abortion is strictly prohibitted and any form of abortion is classified as murder in the first degree and it is punishable by death or life in prison. Abortion is only allowed in most extreme cases that includes if the baby is life threatening to the mother or if the lady has been raped.

SSU, this died a long time ago.

My bad, sorry about this, i thought it was recent, i won't post in here anymore.

[Sionis Prioratus]

Such stamina. Such a waste.

I still hope this astounding stamina is diverted to better ends.

Yours,