[DRAFT] Abortion Limitation Act

[Dobrobyt]

World Assembly Members,

REALIZING that many abortions are done due to unexpected pregnancies and lack of responsibility among parents, yet that there are a certain amount done due to possible mother death. Additionally, we recognize that abortions are the limitations on future human life, and that it is the parent taking control over a child's life.

ACKNOWLEDGING that we must reduce abortions in order to protect the child's future life, yet that we still must have exceptions for rare outcomes of pregnancies.

I present you this bill, which will push the abortion limitations to the proper line:

I. This bill establishes that abortions done due to any other reason except a possible mother death, severe foetal abnormality or pregnancy due to rape shall be a violation throughout member nations.

II. Requiring that nations promote safe sex and discourage abortions except for reasons listed above in all government-funded schools.

III. Requiring that other non-government funded established schools promote safe sex in their education.

IV. Requiring that nations close hospitals which support or offer abortions which do not align with reasons above.

_

I will be happy to hear opinions and additions on this bill. Both sides of issue appreciated.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Violates Reproductive Freedoms.

[WA Kitty Kops]

Violates Reproductive Freedoms.

OOC: To author: Which makes this proposal against the proposal rules, aka "illegal for contradiction".

[Dobrobyt]

Violates Reproductive Freedoms.

However, it would be legal to repeal that bill or modify it. This bill could be switched into a repeal of Reproductive Freedoms, then be put to action.

[Separatist Peoples]

Violates Reproductive Freedoms.

However, it would be legal to repeal that bill or modify it. This bill could be switched into a repeal of Reproductive Freedoms, then be put to action.

OOC: No, thats absolutely not the case. It would be illegal to modify Reproductive Freedoms. You have to repeal it and replace it with a separate resolution. And because the WA leans hard to reproductive autonomy, its highly unlikely to succeed.

[Greifenburg]

"After comparing Resolution #286 with this proposal, Greifenburg will oppose any attempt of repeal of Reproductive Freedoms, since it already allows for encourengement towards life deliveries and makes the suggestion that the government takes unwanted offspring into its care. It also doesn't forbid to, for example, offer the transfer of the fetus into an artificial womb as a more advanced version of abortion, if the technological level allows it. Alas, I see no reason why the ultimate choice regarding her body shouldn't lie with the woman."

[Serrus]

"After comparing Resolution #286 with this proposal, Greifenburg will oppose any attempt of repeal of Reproductive Freedoms, since it already allows for encourengement towards life deliveries and makes the suggestion that the government takes unwanted offspring into its care. It also doesn't forbid to, for example, offer the transfer of the fetus into an artificial womb as a more advanced version of abortion, if the technological level allows it. Alas, I see no reason why the ultimate choice regarding her body shouldn't lie with the woman."

IC: "Agreed, ambassador."

OOC: Even if this was legal and even if you managed to get the delegates to approve it, somehow, 90 percent, if not more, would vote it down within 30 seconds of reaching the floor.

[Belle Ilse en Terre]

Perhaps you should add a repeals and replaces clause. Also, do not use the first person. Good luck, especially if you are repealing Resolution 286

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

Perhaps you should add a repeals and replaces clause. Also, do not use the first person. Good luck, especially if you are repealing Resolution 286

OOC: You can't repeal and replace in the same proposal, as you're not allowed to legislate in a repeal. You have to write the repeal first (which I guarantee will NEVER even reach a vote) before you can attempt to pass legislation to replace the repealed resolution.

[Dobrobyt]

However, it would be legal to repeal that bill or modify it. This bill could be switched into a repeal of Reproductive Freedoms, then be put to action.

OOC: No, thats absolutely not the case. It would be illegal to modify Reproductive Freedoms. You have to repeal it and replace it with a separate resolution. And because the WA leans hard to reproductive autonomy, its highly unlikely to succeed.

Then repeal and replace will happen. This is just a draft, however. A start could be writing a repeal with explanations on why to rid of current laws, then create a new bill which enforces new laws.

[Dobrobyt]

The Act written out here could be used after the repeal of what is at the moment, Reproductive Freedoms. I will work on a repeal separately, which will soon appear as a draft. Thank you for the clarification and opinions on the current draft of the Act.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: It has been tried many times before. Perhaps you should consider an easier start to your GA career. If not, the linked threads will give you an idea of the pitfalls of previous attempts and the depth of feelings regarding Reproductive Freedoms.

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

Then repeal and replace will happen.

OOC: Slightly out of context, but... fat chance of that happening.

[The Sheika]

OOC: No, thats absolutely not the case. It would be illegal to modify Reproductive Freedoms. You have to repeal it and replace it with a separate resolution. And because the WA leans hard to reproductive autonomy, its highly unlikely to succeed.

Then repeal and replace will happen. This is just a draft, however. A start could be writing a repeal with explanations on why to rid of current laws, then create a new bill which enforces new laws.

OOC: One does not simply repeal Reproductive Freedoms. You'll have quite the bit of resistance in doing so.

[Fauxia]

However, it would be legal to repeal that bill or modify it. This bill could be switched into a repeal of Reproductive Freedoms, then be put to action.

OOC: No, thats absolutely not the case. It would be illegal to modify Reproductive Freedoms. You have to repeal it and replace it with a separate resolution. And because the WA leans hard to reproductive autonomy, its highly unlikely to succeed.

I wish their was a way to modify.

"Leans" lol. We just tried this recently and it was defeated, what, 83-17?

To the author: I'm pro-life, and would vote for this, but a) it is illegal, and b) it is a lost cause. We've learned our lesson that Reproductive Freedoms, despite it being a radical piece of legislation, cannot be repealed.

[Fauxia]

OOC: It has been tried many times before. Perhaps you should consider an easier start to your GA career. If not, the linked threads will give you an idea of the pitfalls of previous attempts and the depth of feelings regarding Reproductive Freedoms.

Geese. I had no idea it had been tried that many times.

[Tzorsland]

Violates Reproductive Freedoms.

Wrong. Violates On Abortion

1. REQUIRES member countries to legalise abortion for cases where:
a) The pregnancy resulted from involuntary sexual activity and/or sexual activity in which at least one of the parties could not legally give consent;
b) Severe foetal abnormality would result in a child being born with an incurable condition which is fatal and/or painful;
c) There is a risk of a life-threatening physical or mental condition which would result in the death or life-long severe disability of the pregnant woman if the pregnancy continued;

This would repeal clause c and therefore is illegal, possibly b as well since "incurable conditions" might be a superset of "severe foetal abnormality."

[Calladan]

World Assembly Members,

REALIZING that many abortions are done due to unexpected pregnancies and lack of responsibility among parents, yet that there are a certain amount done due to possible mother death. Additionally, we recognize that abortions are the limitations on future human life, and that it is the parent taking control over a child's life.

ACKNOWLEDGING that we must reduce abortions in order to protect the child's future life, yet that we still must have exceptions for rare outcomes of pregnancies.

I present you this bill, which will push the abortion limitations to the proper line:

I. This bill establishes that abortions done due to any other reason except a possible mother death, severe foetal abnormality or pregnancy due to rape shall be a violation throughout member nations.

II. Requiring that nations promote safe sex and discourage abortions except for reasons listed above in all government-funded schools.

III. Requiring that other non-government funded established schools promote safe sex in their education.

IV. Requiring that nations close hospitals which support or offer abortions which do not align with reasons above.

_

I will be happy to hear opinions and additions on this bill. Both sides of issue appreciated.

So aside from the fact someone must have told you that this is illegal, I am pretty sure we could get round this fairly easily. The vast majority of our doctors could be convinced to sign certificates saying that the mother might die. Any mother might die (they might get hit by a car on the way home from the hospital) during the course of the pregnancy - there is nothing in the resolution (from what I can tell) that specifies that the pregnancy would have to be the cause of death. All it says is that you can only have an abortion if the mother might die. And, if you think about it, everyone dies. Eventually.

So, yeah. Even if this passes, I don't see it changing much in Calladan

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

World Assembly Members,

REALIZING that many abortions are done due to unexpected pregnancies and lack of responsibility among parents, yet that there are a certain amount done due to possible mother death. Additionally, we recognize that abortions are the limitations on future human life, and that it is the parent taking control over a child's life.

ACKNOWLEDGING that we must reduce abortions in order to protect the child's future life, yet that we still must have exceptions for rare outcomes of pregnancies.

I present you this bill, which will push the abortion limitations to the proper line:

I. This bill establishes that abortions done due to any other reason except a possible mother death, severe foetal abnormality or pregnancy due to rape shall be a violation throughout member nations.

II. Requiring that nations promote safe sex and discourage abortions except for reasons listed above in all government-funded schools.

III. Requiring that other non-government funded established schools promote safe sex in their education.

IV. Requiring that nations close hospitals which support or offer abortions which do not align with reasons above.

_

I will be happy to hear opinions and additions on this bill. Both sides of issue appreciated.

If this is passed I will blatantly disobey this scientifically inaccurate joke of a bill

[Lauchenoiria]

This proposal is illegal, as many have already said. If somehow you managed to repeal Reproductive Freedoms, Lauchenoiria would vote against this.

[Dobrobyt]

This proposal is illegal, as many have already said. If somehow you managed to repeal Reproductive Freedoms, Lauchenoiria would vote against this.

That is in the process. This is for after that.

[Dobrobyt]

World Assembly Members,

REALIZING that many abortions are done due to unexpected pregnancies and lack of responsibility among parents, yet that there are a certain amount done due to possible mother death. Additionally, we recognize that abortions are the limitations on future human life, and that it is the parent taking control over a child's life.

ACKNOWLEDGING that we must reduce abortions in order to protect the child's future life, yet that we still must have exceptions for rare outcomes of pregnancies.

I present you this bill, which will push the abortion limitations to the proper line:

I. This bill establishes that abortions done due to any other reason except a possible mother death, severe foetal abnormality or pregnancy due to rape shall be a violation throughout member nations.

II. Requiring that nations promote safe sex and discourage abortions except for reasons listed above in all government-funded schools.

III. Requiring that other non-government funded established schools promote safe sex in their education.

IV. Requiring that nations close hospitals which support or offer abortions which do not align with reasons above.

_

I will be happy to hear opinions and additions on this bill. Both sides of issue appreciated.

If this is passed I will blatantly disobey this scientifically inaccurate joke of a bill

Science is not always right. Scientists can filter evidence from one side, keep the other to make new "evidence", and then live off of it.

[Greater Gilead]

This is a step in the right direction! I totally support this!

[The New California Republic]

Science is not always right. Scientists can filter evidence from one side, keep the other to make new "evidence", and then live off of it.

OOC: You can say that about anything. Any system can be deviated from its original tasks or goals, it is called corruption. Using the existence of corruption as a broad-brush argument against the overall values of something is a bit underhanded I think.

Also, you are wanting to repeal Reproductive Freedoms, to make way for an inferior Proposal. You will get a lot of resistance to that. A lot.

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

If this is passed I will blatantly disobey this scientifically inaccurate joke of a bill

Science is not always right. Scientists can filter evidence from one side, keep the other to make new "evidence", and then live off of it.

OOC:

From Merriam Websters Dictionary:

1
: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

2
a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study
b : something (such as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge

3
a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena

4
: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws

How can a system of of knowledge and observation be wrong? Science itself is purely objective by nature. If an individual scientist is wrong, it simply means that they failed to cover all their variables or applied faulty or invalid logic to their observations. If an individual scientist is fudging the numbers, then their data isn't even scientific in nature as it did not come from observation or experimentation.