[DEFEATED] Repeal Reproductive Freedoms

[United Massachusetts]

Telegram We're Sending:

Code: Select all

[b]Dear Delegate %NATION%[/b]:

I am requesting your approval for a legislation entitled "Repeal Reproductive Freedoms," which would [b]repeal[/b] a disastrous WA resolution that [u][i][b]forces[/b][/i][/u] WA nations to legalize abortion in every single circumstance. Though it was originally drafted to protect the rights of women to receive abortions, which many nations consider a noble cause, Reproductive Freedoms has unfortunately led to radical and unintended consequences, shoving measures many nations consider to be immoral down the throats of the Assembly in a fit of moral superiority. Let's examine the effects of GAR #286 and ask the nations of this august body whether this was the best the WA could do for women and their families:[list]
[*][i]Forces[/i] the legalization of [b]Partial Birth Abortions[/b], some of the most violent, gruesome, and medically unneeded procedures facing the world, of which many nations disapprove
[*][i]Forces[/i] the legalization of [b]Abortions up to the Very Date of Birth[/b], by which time a fetus is already viable and capable of living on its own outside the womb
[*][i]Forces[/i] the legalization of [b]Sex-Selective Abortions[/b], which inherently violate the rights of women everywhere
[*][i]Forces[/i] the legalization of [b]Abortions for [i]any[/i] reason, at [i]any[/i] time, and in [i]any[/i] way[/b], which is reprehensible to many nations here.[/list]

The World Assembly deserves better than this. We need a reasonable compromise to protect the rights of women, ensure the moral opinions of nations are respected, and a reasonable right exists for this Assembly to put rational limits on abortion.

[b]The elites of the World Assembly will fight to the death for their radical legislation, but we have to stand up and stop them. That's what this repeal does. Please, help us fight back and approve the resolution below
https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_view_proposal/id=united_massachusetts_1497641342[/b]

Repeal GAR Resolution #286: Reproductive Freedoms

The World Assembly,

COGNIZANT of the inherent rights of individuals to terminate their pregnancies without government interference and not wishing to violate said rights in most circumstances,

HOWEVER NOTING the significant ethical objections to the termination of pregnancies held by many nations and believing that these ought to be respected as such,

ANNOYED by the blatant dismissal of these objections in GAR 286 as being "codified without regard to the freedom of individuals", which is an inherently circular argument, considering the objections are grounded in the belief that no legitimate freedom exists to terminate a pregnancy in the first place,

FRUSTURATED by the vague wording of the resolution, which forces member nations to legalize, among other procedures:

• Dilation and Extraction (D&X) procedures, commonly known as partial-birth abortions, some of the most gruesome, bloody, and medically unneeded abortion procedures, in which a living and viable fetus is destroyed,
• The termination of pregnancies up to the very date of birth, by which time, a human fetus has a beating heart and all of its major organs, often in a state of viability,
• The termination of viable fetuses which are able to survive on their own,

APPALLED that Reproductive Freedoms allows termination of pregnancy for any reason, including selection of offspring on account of sex, skin color, disability, or other discriminatory reasons, justifications which this august Assembly ought to be eradicating, rather than promoting,

CONCERNED that, despite its well-formed intentions, GAR #286's vagueness leads to radical and unintended consequences,

REMINDING itself that other pieces of legislation already, in much clearer terms, establish the right to terminate pregnancies in certain circumstances, and that the repeal of GAR #286 would merely allow a more reasonable compromise to be reached whilst still protecting reproductive rights,

URGING member nations to look beyond the misleading title of this resolution,

REPEALS GAR #286, Reproductive Freedoms.

OOC: I don't think this is a NatSov only repeal. I talk about the existence of On Abortion, sex-selective abortions, and the vague wording of the proposal. Thoughts?

[Wealthatonia]

Ambassador, if it's not your body, it's not your business. and if you want the children to be born so badly, why don't you adopt them?

[Vamenlac]

[Wealthatonia]

(Image)

What an asshole.

[Vulcan Confederacy]

Repeal GAR Resolution #286: Reproductive Freedoms

The World Assembly,

COGNIZANT of the inherent rights of individuals to terminate their pregnancies without government interference and not wishing to violate said rights,

HOWEVER NOTING the significant ethical objections to the termination of pregnancies held by many nations and believing that these ought to be respected as such,

ANNOYED by the blatant dismissal of these objections in GAR 286 as being "codified without regard to the freedom of individuals", which is an inherently circular argument, considering the objections are grounded in the unfortunate belief that no right exists to terminate a pregnancy in the first place,

ENRAGED by the vague wording of the resolution, which may very well force member nations to legalize, among other procedures:

• Dilation and Extraction (D&X) procedures, commonly known as partial-birth abortions, some of the most gruesome, violent, and medically unneeded abortion procedures, in which a living and viable fetus is destroyed
• The termination of pregnancies up to the very date of birth, by which time, a human fetus has a beating heart and all of its major organs, often in a state of viability
• Gender or disability-selective abortions, procedures which, by their very nature, feed a cycle of sexism and ableism which this Assembly ought to stamp out rather than promote

CONCERNED that, despite its well-formed intentions, GAR #286's vagueness leads to radical and unintended consequences,

REMINDING itself that other pieces of legislation already, in much clearer terms, establish the right to terminate pregnancies, and that the repeal of GAR #286 would merely allow a more reasonable compromise to be reached whilst still protecting reproductive rights,

URGING member nations to look beyond the misleading title of this resolution,

REPEALS GAR #286, Reproductive Freedoms.

(Image)(Image) Ambassador Mitchell Sullivan @MAintheWA GAR #286 is a radical bill that violates every principle the WA holds dear. #NatSov RETWEETSFAVORITES 2035412 (Image)

OOC: I don't think this is a NatSov only repeal. I talk about the existence of On Abortion, sex-selective abortions, and the vague wording of the proposal. Thoughts?

The Vulcan Confederacy would support this proposal to repeal. The use of later term baby killing and abortion as a means of birth control, is as immoral as it is sickening. In our nation condoms, birth control, IUDs and the morning after pill are safe, cheap and ubiquitous. If a couple aren't intelligent enough to use any one or a combination thereof, they should have the child and place it for adoption. We don't have this situation here, but this legislation needs to go as it is a violation of human rights.

[Wealthatonia]

Repeal GAR Resolution #286: Reproductive Freedoms

The World Assembly,

COGNIZANT of the inherent rights of individuals to terminate their pregnancies without government interference and not wishing to violate said rights,

HOWEVER NOTING the significant ethical objections to the termination of pregnancies held by many nations and believing that these ought to be respected as such,

ANNOYED by the blatant dismissal of these objections in GAR 286 as being "codified without regard to the freedom of individuals", which is an inherently circular argument, considering the objections are grounded in the unfortunate belief that no right exists to terminate a pregnancy in the first place,

ENRAGED by the vague wording of the resolution, which may very well force member nations to legalize, among other procedures:

• Dilation and Extraction (D&X) procedures, commonly known as partial-birth abortions, some of the most gruesome, violent, and medically unneeded abortion procedures, in which a living and viable fetus is destroyed
• The termination of pregnancies up to the very date of birth, by which time, a human fetus has a beating heart and all of its major organs, often in a state of viability
• Gender or disability-selective abortions, procedures which, by their very nature, feed a cycle of sexism and ableism which this Assembly ought to stamp out rather than promote

CONCERNED that, despite its well-formed intentions, GAR #286's vagueness leads to radical and unintended consequences,

REMINDING itself that other pieces of legislation already, in much clearer terms, establish the right to terminate pregnancies, and that the repeal of GAR #286 would merely allow a more reasonable compromise to be reached whilst still protecting reproductive rights,

URGING member nations to look beyond the misleading title of this resolution,

REPEALS GAR #286, Reproductive Freedoms.

(Image)(Image) Ambassador Mitchell Sullivan @MAintheWA GAR #286 is a radical bill that violates every principle the WA holds dear. #NatSov RETWEETSFAVORITES 2035412 (Image)

OOC: I don't think this is a NatSov only repeal. I talk about the existence of On Abortion, sex-selective abortions, and the vague wording of the proposal. Thoughts?

The Vulcan Confederacy would support this proposal to repeal. The use of later term baby killing and abortion as a means of birth control, is as immoral as it is sickening. In our nation condoms, birth control, IUDs and the morning after pill are safe, cheap and ubiquitous. If a couple aren't intelligent enough to use any one or a combination thereof, they should have the child and place it for adoption. We don't have this situation here, but this legislation needs to go as it is a violation of human rights.

Ambassador, those forms of birth control are not 100% effective in all situations, and I agree abortion is wrong, but what about forcing an unwanted child on unready parents who wouldn't care for that child as well as they should? they would only hurt the poor thing through pysical abuse or neglect.

[Frisbeeteria]

What an asshole.

That's not IC. *** Warned for flaming. ***

[Wealthatonia]

What an asshole.

That's not IC. *** Warned for flaming. ***

OOC: while I get your point, that is genuinely in character for my ambassador and I get why i'm getting warned.

[Bakhton]

"No."

[Covenstone]

which may very well force member nations to legalize,

this is the most fluffy, vague and inaccurate language I have seen in a legal document in a long while. Surely if you are going to repeal something, you should have a definitive reason, not just because "it may" do something.

i can not support something that has the potential to possibly do some bad, when - at the moment - it does so much good. If you can come back with definitive, absolute proof then i would reconsider my position. but right now this just seems to be a case of "i don't like something and my view is far more important than the view of the entire World Assembly, so I am going to make you do it my way" which is really not how democracy works.

if you really don't like this resolution and its effects, may I suggest resigning from The World Assembly? that way you can ban abortion to your hearts content.

[United Massachusetts]

which may very well force member nations to legalize,

this is the most fluffy, vague and inaccurate language I have seen in a legal document in a long while. Surely if you are going to repeal something, you should have a definitive reason, not just because "it may" do something.

i can not support something that has the potential to possibly do some bad, when - at the moment - it does so much good. If you can come back with definitive, absolute proof then i would reconsider my position. but right now this just seems to be a case of "i don't like something and my view is far more important than the view of the entire World Assembly, so I am going to make you do it my way" which is really not how democracy works.

if you really don't like this resolution and its effects, may I suggest resigning from The World Assembly? that way you can ban abortion to your hearts content.

1. The ambiguity is the issue. In the past, Reproductive Freedoms has been interpreted to mean everything I've listed. Look at the text of the resolution- it says that any method of impeding abortion is to not be impeded upon in any way. For instance, the first "Child Destruction Ban"/"Protection of the Partially Born, which I coauthored, was removed for being contradictory to RF.
2. This isn't just my way. This is the view of a lot of people, many of whom have posted here.
3. I don't wish to resign from the WA as I wish to help keep it from sinking to its lowest common denominator. I find it funny how any nation who tries to enact change on existing legislation in the WA is just told to resign.

[United Massachusetts]

Ambassador, if it's not your body, it's not your business. and if you want the children to be born so badly, why don't you adopt them?

Sir, I've made an argument on the grounds that the resolution is vague, radical, and unneeded. I just hope we reach a more reasonable compromise on this

[Covenstone]

which may very well force member nations to legalize,

this is the most fluffy, vague and inaccurate language I have seen in a legal document in a long while. Surely if you are going to repeal something, you should have a definitive reason, not just because "it may" do something.

i can not support something that has the potential to possibly do some bad, when - at the moment - it does so much good. If you can come back with definitive, absolute proof then i would reconsider my position. but right now this just seems to be a case of "i don't like something and my view is far more important than the view of the entire World Assembly, so I am going to make you do it my way" which is really not how democracy works.

if you really don't like this resolution and its effects, may I suggest resigning from The World Assembly? that way you can ban abortion to your hearts content.

1. The ambiguity is the issue. In the past, Reproductive Freedoms has been interpreted to mean everything I've listed. Look at the text of the resolution- it says that any method of impeding abortion is to not be impeded upon in any way. For instance, the first "Child Destruction Ban"/"Protection of the Partially Born, which I coauthored, was removed for being contradictory to RF.
2. This isn't just my way. This is the view of a lot of people, many of whom have posted here.
3. I don't wish to resign from the WA as I wish to help keep it from sinking to its lowest common denominator. I find it funny how any nation who tries to enact change on existing legislation in the WA is just told to resign.

have you ever considered that what you consider to be the lowest common denominator some of us might consider to be the highest possible form? that some nations appreciate the freedom to allow us to do what we wish with our bodies, and do not appreciate strangers telling us that they know what is better for us than we do?

and i think you will find that i do not oppose repeals in general, or on principle. just repeals on topics where someone thinks they have more of a right to tell me what i can and cannot do with my vagina, what with it being my vagina and not theirs.

[Covenstone]

firstly - i apologise for bringing my genitals into the conversation. However, past experience tells me that discussing this in the abstract - abortion - sometimes leads to people overlooking the fact that you are talking about the most intimate parts of people's anatomy and claiming the right to tell me what i should do with it. to me that is the most offensive thing possible, and it kind of bugs me.

still - if I caused offence, my apologies.

but now - to my argument :-

REMINDING itself that other pieces of legislation already, in much clearer terms, establish the right to terminate pregnancies, and that the repeal of GAR #286 would merely allow a more reasonable compromise to be reached whilst still protecting reproductive rights,

i do not believe this to be true.

GAR #286
REQUIRES Member Nations to ensure protection from targeted animosity to providers and patients of the procedures covered by this resolution,

this line is not repeated in any other resolutions relating to abortions or the like. so if it were repealed, then nations, governments or states could, if they were so inclined, arranged protests and groups to put pregnant women off having abortions without breaking the law. this would weaken all the other resolutions because their effects could easily be limited if not negated by crowds of angry mobs being arranged outside hospitals, clinics and so forth yelling "baby-killer", "slut" and other epithets that might put women off getting abortions (as is their legal right).

ENRAGED by the vague wording of the resolution, which may very well force member nations to legalize, among other procedures:
- Dilation and Extraction (D&X) procedures, commonly known as partial-birth abortions, some of the most gruesome, violent, and medically unneeded abortion procedures, in which a living and viable fetus is destroyed
- The termination of pregnancies up to the very date of birth, by which time, a human fetus has a beating heart and all of its major organs, often in a state of viability
- Gender or disability-selective abortions, procedures which, by their very nature, feed a cycle of sexism and ableism which this Assembly ought to stamp out rather than promote

i do not believe this to be true either. I believe it may *allow* member nations to legalise these procedures, but would not force them to. and while i accept that some of these might be considered a tragedy, even by my government, it is not the place of my government to legislate the morals of other nations.

GAR #286
DEMANDS that Member Nations prohibit any impediment to the termination of pregnancy that is not applied to medical procedures of similar risk and complexity,

we have a series of requirements for surgery. before someone can undergo an operation, it must be medically necessary, legal and medically safe (amongst other things). depending on the scope of the surgery (medically safe for nasal draining is different to medically safe for open heart surgery, obviously). but the key thing here is that it has to be legal. if your country did not permit certain types of abortion (based on the predicted IQ of the child) before this resolution i do not see why they would need to permit it now.

URGING member nations to look beyond the misleading title of this resolution,

how is the title misleading? You have a right to choose whether to reproduce or not - that choice should not be forced upon you by anyone.

may i ask a series of questions?

do you plan to submit a replacement?
if you can repeal this, do you plan to repeal GAR #128?
given that - from what i can tell - this resolution does not require you extend your laws, or your definition of abortion outside of that defined in GAR #128, why do you want to repeal it? do you want to impose your morality across the whole of the general assembly?

my government does not permit abortions based on characteristics - sex, IQ and so forth. that would be repellent to almost all of my people. however I understand there are nations to who it might be entirely acceptable, and while I find that somewhat offensive, it is their nation, their culture and their people. who am I to tell them what to do?

or, to put it another way, would you want me passing a resolution legalising all forms of abortion, including selective abortions, and making it mandatory for children with a certain IQ? or would you find that horrifically offensive and wrong? because if you find that idea so wrong and bad, can't you see why people would find your ideas wrong and offensive as well?

[Wealthatonia]

Ambassador, if it's not your body, it's not your business. and if you want the children to be born so badly, why don't you adopt them?

Sir, I've made an argument on the grounds that the resolution is vague, radical, and unneeded. I just hope we reach a more reasonable compromise on this

Oh I think I am being reasonable, why should you be in control of someone's body when you won't support them at all?

[Paradise Island Nation]

Her Royal Majesty Queen Hippolyta, supports the Repeal of Reproductive Freedoms. Cause we care for the rights and life of the unborn Children too be.

Paradise Island Nation,

[Parcia]

The Empire takes pride in the civil freedoms it's citizens enjoy, the freedom of speech, expression, and reproductive rights among other things and officially declares that it does not support this resolution.

The Empire is a secular nation, meaning we have a principle similar to Separation of Church and state that means Religious or Spiritual authority have not bearing in Government matters. It acknowledges that Birth Control items such as Condoms, IUDs, and the pill it self, while widely and freely available, are not 100% effective. Due to this reasoning, the Empire fully supports the act of Abortion and even offers to cover the costs as long as it falls with in a set of guidelines:

1. The child may be aborted if it directly threatens the life of the mother.
2. Expanding on item 1, it also allows for the operation if the Child is likely to not survive the pregnancy (that's a 30% or less chance to live).
3. If the child is the result of sexual assault/incest.
Unless one of the above requirements is met, the parent(s) are fully responsible for payment for the procedure. Repetitive abortions are also prohibited in order to prevent it becoming a "Crutch" or sort for couples who do not use appropriate measures to prevent pregnancy in the first place.

For those who choose to give birth but are not able to support the child, the state offers to put the child up for adoption, how ever, said adoption is a "closed" adoptions, meaning the parents sign away their rights to the child upon releasing it to the agency.

It is due to resolutions like this one, as well as a few others, that the Empire will formally be withdrawing from the World Assembly immediately.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

"I Silver Zephyr, representing The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp can not support removing such a freedom giving bill and will fight against any attempt to remove it."

[States of Glory WA Office]

ENRAGED by the vague wording of the resolution, which may very well force member nations to legalize, among other procedures:

• Gender or disability-selective abortions, procedures which, by their very nature, feed a cycle of sexism and ableism which this Assembly ought to stamp out rather than promote

Fairburn: You seem to want to ban sex-selective abortions, or at least allow member states to ban them. While this is a noble goal, it is completely impractical. How the hell would such a law even be enforced? Go up to the woman and ask her if she's undergoing abortion based on the foetus' gender? I can't possibly see any loopholes!

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

Teran Saber: "While we accept your points as valid, albeit somewhat farfetched in a few cases, The Greater Siriusian Domain does NOT believe that the issues you have presented outweigh the benefits of the legislation you are trying to repeal. Furthermore, the Greater Siriusian Domain had made efforts in support of the resolution you are attempting to repeal when it was being drafted, and supporting your repeal would be counterproductive to us."

"Opposed in full."

[Draconae]

Marcus Valorus stands. "While I may not know what I am getting into, I must register Draconae's support for this resolution. In Draconae, we have managed to reach a consensus that GA #128 'On Abortion' articulates the only acceptable reasons for an abortion, and so we officially oppose any expansion of that right. This resolution explicitly allows any form of abortion as long as the individual wants it terminated, which basically mandates that all forms of abortion are legalized. Also, the resolution allows for sex-selective or other forms of discriminatory abortion, which should be ended. We have passed a civil rights law that bans all forms of arbitrary discrimination, yet allow for arbitrary discrimination before inhabitants of our nations become inhabitants. This must stop."

HOWEVER NOTING the significant ethical objections to the termination of pregnancies held by many nations and believing that these ought to be respected as such,

ANNOYED by the blatant dismissal of these objections in GAR 286 as being "codified without regard to the freedom of individuals", which is an inherently circular argument, considering the objections are grounded in the unfortunate belief that no right exists to terminate a pregnancy in the first place,

"Agreed. Many sapient beings have beliefs that are against abortion, yet too often they are dismissed out of hand, without any consideration. We should take them into account."

ENRAGED by the vague wording of the resolution, which may very well force member nations to legalize, among other procedures:

• Dilation and Extraction (D&X) procedures, commonly known as partial-birth abortions, some of the most gruesome, violent, and medically unneeded abortion procedures, in which a living and viable fetus is destroyed
• The termination of pregnancies up to the very date of birth, by which time, a human fetus has a beating heart and all of its major organs, often in a state of viability
• Gender or disability-selective abortions, procedures which, by their very nature, feed a cycle of sexism and ableism which this Assembly ought to stamp out rather than promote

"Your wording here is a bit vague. While we believe this resolution does mandate the first two, it does not force nations to legalize the third. We would prefer it to be reworded to take a more concrete stance on the first two issues and then say something like this: "APPALLED that Reproductive Freedoms allows termination of pregnancy for any reason, including selection of offspring for sex, intelligence, skin color, disability, or other discriminatory characteristics," In fact, there has been one nation who has admitted to doing this. In another drafting thread, Ambassador Bell stated:"

"Opposed. The C.D.S.P. has a tax incentive program to encourage parental termination of pregnancies that screen positive for certain detectable developmental disabilities. We view the willful propagation of disabilities to be against public policy by creating an entirely avoidable drain on our social safety net. We have no interest in spending more resources than we already have to."

REMINDING itself that other pieces of legislation already, in much clearer terms, establish the right to terminate pregnancies, and that the repeal of GAR #286 would merely allow a more reasonable compromise to be reached whilst still protecting reproductive rights,

i do not believe this to be true.

"Why not? GA #128 does an excellent job, and repealing this resolution would lead to either a better replacement or GA #128 remaining, which I believe is a better outcome either way."

GAR #286
REQUIRES Member Nations to ensure protection from targeted animosity to providers and patients of the procedures covered by this resolution,

this line is not repeated in any other resolutions relating to abortions or the like. so if it were repealed, then nations, governments or states could, if they were so inclined, arranged protests and groups to put pregnant women off having abortions without breaking the law. this would weaken all the other resolutions because their effects could easily be limited if not negated by crowds of angry mobs being arranged outside hospitals, clinics and so forth yelling "baby-killer", "slut" and other epithets that might put women off getting abortions (as is their legal right).

"That is true, and that no one should be called those things. However, I believe that the elimination of sex-selective abortions and the other types mentioned outweighs, and we can pass a replacement to remedy that. I believe that we are dealing with, at the very least, potential lives here, and we should keep that in mind."

ENRAGED by the vague wording of the resolution, which may very well force member nations to legalize, among other procedures:
- Dilation and Extraction (D&X) procedures, commonly known as partial-birth abortions, some of the most gruesome, violent, and medically unneeded abortion procedures, in which a living and viable fetus is destroyed
- The termination of pregnancies up to the very date of birth, by which time, a human fetus has a beating heart and all of its major organs, often in a state of viability
- Gender or disability-selective abortions, procedures which, by their very nature, feed a cycle of sexism and ableism which this Assembly ought to stamp out rather than promote

i do not believe this to be true either. I believe it may *allow* member nations to legalise these procedures, but would not force them to.

"I disagree in part, except for the above."

...and while i accept that some of these might be considered a tragedy, even by my government, it is not the place of my government to legislate the morals of other nations.

"Wait. Hold on for a second. Most of the WA's job is legislating on morals. The entire Human Rights category, one of the most prolific, is premised on regulating morals. To get rid of all of that would be absurd. That's why my rule of thumb is that the WA should give more latitude to other nations on very controversial topics, like this one."

GAR #286
DEMANDS that Member Nations prohibit any impediment to the termination of pregnancy that is not applied to medical procedures of similar risk and complexity,

we have a series of requirements for surgery. before someone can undergo an operation, it must be medically necessary, legal and medically safe (amongst other things). depending on the scope of the surgery (medically safe for nasal draining is different to medically safe for open heart surgery, obviously). but the key thing here is that it has to be legal. if your country did not permit certain types of abortion (based on the predicted IQ of the child) before this resolution i do not see why they would need to permit it now.

my government does not permit abortions based on characteristics - sex, IQ and so forth. that would be repellent to almost all of my people. however I understand there are nations to who it might be entirely acceptable, and while I find that somewhat offensive, it is their nation, their culture and their people. who am I to tell them what to do?

"However, as reproductive freedoms mandates that nations legalize all abortions up until birth, a nation under that rule would not be complying with the resolution. The only restrictions allowed are restrictions that are applied to procedures of a similar risk or complexity, which are generally not based on IQ, and if based on IQ would be based on the IQ of the mother, not the child."

or, to put it another way, would you want me passing a resolution legalising all forms of abortion, including selective abortions, and making it mandatory for children with a certain IQ? or would you find that horrifically offensive and wrong? because if you find that idea so wrong and bad, can't you see why people would find your ideas wrong and offensive as well?

"Look, I know that this is a sensitive topic. I will do my best to be sensitive to the beliefs of others in this debate. I hope everyone else will too and we can have a productive discussion."

ENRAGED by the vague wording of the resolution, which may very well force member nations to legalize, among other procedures:

• Gender or disability-selective abortions, procedures which, by their very nature, feed a cycle of sexism and ableism which this Assembly ought to stamp out rather than promote

Fairburn: You seem to want to ban sex-selective abortions, or at least allow member states to ban them. While this is a noble goal, it is completely impractical. How the hell would such a law even be enforced? Go up to the woman and ask her if she's undergoing abortion based on the foetus' gender? I can't possibly see any loopholes!

"How do you feel about COCR, then? How is it enforceable under this scenario?"

[Araraukar]

"How do you feel about COCR, then? How is it enforceable under this scenario?"

OOC: CoCR is for individuals, not growths inside individuals.

Also, to anyone who wants to ban sex-selective abortion, what about in situations where the couple's genetics (think things inherited only with the mother's X chromosome, like hemophilia) are such that if a child is of a certain gender, it will be or has a very high likelyhood of being sick or disabled? For the good of all concerned, both the parents and the possible child, it would be best if they were allowed to abort based on the gender, rather than doom them or their future offspring to a life-crippling/shortening condition.

[Covenstone]

Marcus Valorus stands. "While I may not know what I am getting into, I must register Draconae's support for this resolution. In Draconae, we have managed to reach a consensus that GA #128 'On Abortion' articulates the only acceptable reasons for an abortion, and so we officially oppose any expansion of that right. This resolution explicitly allows any form of abortion as long as the individual wants it terminated, which basically mandates that all forms of abortion are legalized. Also, the resolution allows for sex-selective or other forms of discriminatory abortion, which should be ended. We have passed a civil rights law that bans all forms of arbitrary discrimination, yet allow for arbitrary discrimination before inhabitants of our nations become inhabitants. This must stop."

HOWEVER NOTING the significant ethical objections to the termination of pregnancies held by many nations and believing that these ought to be respected as such,

ANNOYED by the blatant dismissal of these objections in GAR 286 as being "codified without regard to the freedom of individuals", which is an inherently circular argument, considering the objections are grounded in the unfortunate belief that no right exists to terminate a pregnancy in the first place,

"Agreed. Many sapient beings have beliefs that are against abortion, yet too often they are dismissed out of hand, without any consideration. We should take them into account."

While I (clearly) cannot speak for the entire world, I do not dismiss their views out of hand or without consideration. However you should also take into account that by arguing the other side YOU are placing YOUR belief - that you have the right to say what I can do with my body - above the fact it is MY body. And I am not forcing anyone who is against abortion, to have an abortion. However by limiting options and restricting choices, those are are against abortion could well be forcing me to go through with a pregnancy against my will. To me that is a far greater attack on freedom of choice than dismissing someone's views.

REMINDING itself that other pieces of legislation already, in much clearer terms, establish the right to terminate pregnancies, and that the repeal of GAR #286 would merely allow a more reasonable compromise to be reached whilst still protecting reproductive rights,

i do not believe this to be true.

"Why not? GA #128 does an excellent job, and repealing this resolution would lead to either a better replacement or GA #128 remaining, which I believe is a better outcome either way."

I go on to demonstrate why I do not believe that. You have quotes in your post in which I do it.

GAR #286
REQUIRES Member Nations to ensure protection from targeted animosity to providers and patients of the procedures covered by this resolution,

this line is not repeated in any other resolutions relating to abortions or the like. so if it were repealed, then nations, governments or states could, if they were so inclined, arranged protests and groups to put pregnant women off having abortions without breaking the law. this would weaken all the other resolutions because their effects could easily be limited if not negated by crowds of angry mobs being arranged outside hospitals, clinics and so forth yelling "baby-killer", "slut" and other epithets that might put women off getting abortions (as is their legal right).

"That is true, and that no one should be called those things. However, I believe that the elimination of sex-selective abortions and the other types mentioned outweighs, and we can pass a replacement to remedy that. I believe that we are dealing with, at the very least, potential lives here, and we should keep that in mind."

And I think we should keep in mind we are dealing with actual lives. The lives of the women who are being yelled at, called names and - quite possibly - being threatened, assaulted and having the life scared out of them by angry, torch wielding mobs on the way to clinics and hospitals. For me those lives are far more important than what even you admit are only "potential lives." And while the argument that "we can pass a replacement" might sound good, think of all the lives that will be completely ruined in the time between a repeal and a replacement, assuming one even gets passed and doesn't get stopped by the same people trying to repeal this. (Not that I am suggesting people have ulterior motives for attempting to repeal this.)

ENRAGED by the vague wording of the resolution, which may very well force member nations to legalize, among other procedures:
- Dilation and Extraction (D&X) procedures, commonly known as partial-birth abortions, some of the most gruesome, violent, and medically unneeded abortion procedures, in which a living and viable fetus is destroyed
- The termination of pregnancies up to the very date of birth, by which time, a human fetus has a beating heart and all of its major organs, often in a state of viability
- Gender or disability-selective abortions, procedures which, by their very nature, feed a cycle of sexism and ableism which this Assembly ought to stamp out rather than promote

i do not believe this to be true either. I believe it may *allow* member nations to legalise these procedures, but would not force them to.

"I disagree in part, except for the above."

Not sure what you mean by this. Sorry.

...and while i accept that some of these might be considered a tragedy, even by my government, it is not the place of my government to legislate the morals of other nations.

"Wait. Hold on for a second. Most of the WA's job is legislating on morals. The entire Human Rights category, one of the most prolific, is premised on regulating morals. To get rid of all of that would be absurd. That's why my rule of thumb is that the WA should give more latitude to other nations on very controversial topics, like this one."

I think this will just have to be a difference of opinion. I believe that there are certain things that are wrong and should be banned throughout the known world - slavery, child prostitution, child pornography, human trafficking and so forth. And I believe that there are inalienable "human rights" (sentient/sapient rights?) that every being should have - including the right to be allowed to determine what happens to their own body. However once those rights are assured, I think The World Assembly should, quite frankly, keep its nose out unless there is a compelling reason to intervene. And for me, while I find the idea morally repulsive, I do not believe that stopping other nations deciding where they draw the line on what constitutes a good reason for abortion to be a compelling reason.

Also - my government is not The World Assembly. (Would that it were!)

GAR #286
DEMANDS that Member Nations prohibit any impediment to the termination of pregnancy that is not applied to medical procedures of similar risk and complexity,

we have a series of requirements for surgery. before someone can undergo an operation, it must be medically necessary, legal and medically safe (amongst other things). depending on the scope of the surgery (medically safe for nasal draining is different to medically safe for open heart surgery, obviously). but the key thing here is that it has to be legal. if your country did not permit certain types of abortion (based on the predicted IQ of the child) before this resolution i do not see why they would need to permit it now.

my government does not permit abortions based on characteristics - sex, IQ and so forth. that would be repellent to almost all of my people. however I understand there are nations to who it might be entirely acceptable, and while I find that somewhat offensive, it is their nation, their culture and their people. who am I to tell them what to do?

"However, as reproductive freedoms mandates that nations legalize all abortions up until birth, a nation under that rule would not be complying with the resolution. The only restrictions allowed are restrictions that are applied to procedures of a similar risk or complexity, which are generally not based on IQ, and if based on IQ would be based on the IQ of the mother, not the child."

I don't believe it does mandate that, as I have repeatedly said. Let me see if I can explain this, since my last attempt clearly did not go that well.

Imagine I wanted to have my leg amputated, because I didn't like the way my knee looked. (Imagine I am a crazy person as well.) I would go to the doctors, and ask them. They would give me their medical opinion, which would be "Are you crazy? That is not medically necessary - go away." (They might also refer me to a psychiatrist, but that is beside the point.)

Now imagine I was pregnant, but I wanted to have an abortion because the child was going to be male and I wanted a daughter. I would go to the doctors, and ask them. Under Covenstone medical ethics laws, they would say "Sorry - that is not a reason for an abortion - it is not medically necessary, so we are not permitted to grant you an abortion." So I would not be permitted to have one, because it is against the law since it is not medically necessary nor is it legal. This fits right in with GAR #286 as it is defined, and does not violate that resolution.

So I do not see what your problem is with it.

or, to put it another way, would you want me passing a resolution legalising all forms of abortion, including selective abortions, and making it mandatory for children with a certain IQ? or would you find that horrifically offensive and wrong? because if you find that idea so wrong and bad, can't you see why people would find your ideas wrong and offensive as well?

"Look, I know that this is a sensitive topic. I will do my best to be sensitive to the beliefs of others in this debate. I hope everyone else will too and we can have a productive discussion."

I thought I was being productive, however if in someway my comments were offensive or inappropriate then please accept my regrets.

[Wealthatonia]

Her Royal Majesty Queen Hippolyta, supports the Repeal of Reproductive Freedoms. Cause we care for the rights and life of the unborn Children too be.

Paradise Island Nation,

So what are your plans to adopt those children that aren't wanted or to help the parents who many not afford to have a child?

[Draconae]

OOC: I don't have much time today, so I won't be able to respond to much. However, I do want to clear something up.

"Look, I know that this is a sensitive topic. I will do my best to be sensitive to the beliefs of others in this debate. I hope everyone else will too and we can have a productive discussion."

I thought I was being productive, however if in someway my comments were offensive or inappropriate then please accept my regrets.

"I'm sorry, that was not what I meant at all. I was just expressing my hope that we could all have a productive and appropriate discussion. I don't think that anything you've said was offensive, so please accept my apologies for the misunderstanding."