DRAFT: The Prohibition of State-Funded Abortion

[Pro Life-2017]

What do you guys think of the draft resolution below, I have not submitted it, I would love to hear your feedback on it and any suggestions on how to improve it, I would also be interested to hear any possible technicalities that would make this resolution illegal, The text of the resolution is below:

Prohibition of State-Funded Abortion

Preamble:

1. This resolution is hereby resolved because hard-working citizens should not be forced to pay for abortions, which they could find morally or ethically objectionable,
2. This resolution is hereby resolved because state (public/taxpayer) funding of abortion is not in the best interest of the state, and the people,
3. The reason why the state (public/taxpayer) funding of abortion is not in the best interest of the state and of the people is because it results in the destruction of a unborn human life,

Therefore,

4. This resolution hereby prohibits state (public/taxpayer) funding of abortion, in all cases except in the case of life of the mother,
5. The definition of state (public/taxpayer) funded abortions shall be defined as “The use of state (public/taxpayer) funds used to fund abortions”
6. This resolution does not in anyway, prevent an individuals from donating, supporting or contributing to fund an abortion,
7. This resolution does not in anyway define the beginning of life, or any other way affect any other abortion law,

[Naqil]

((OOC: First of all, thank you for actually taking it here instead of just submitting it.

Second of all: abortion is already defined as a medical procedure, as per Resolution #286: Reproductive Freedoms, so your attempt to declare it not healthcare is pretty shaky.

Thirdly: Your proposal is pretty clunky. You should separate out the whys and reasons into a preamble, and then put what the proposal actually does afterward. That makes it easier to parse.

Everything else I’ll leave up to other folks because right now I don’t feel like reading all of our health-related resolutions to look for duplications or contradictions.))

IC:

Ixhua raises her eyebrows. “Wow, this is just like the World Assembly to try to say what we can or cannot do with our tax money. I’m sure some people have objections to state-funded military action, but I don’t see you complaining about that, now do I?”

[Tinfect]

OOC:
Yeah, not going to happen.

[Wallenburg]

What do you guys think of the resolution below, I have not submitted it yet but I would love to hear your feedback on it and any suggestions on how to improve it before I send it to the General Assembly, I would also be interested to hear any possible technicalities that would make this resolution illegal, The text of the resolution is below:

A resolution prohibiting state funded abortion

This resolution shall be known as “A resolution prohibiting state funded abortion”

1. This resolution hereby prohibits state (public/taxpayer) funding of abortion, in all cases except in the case of life of the mother,
2. The definition of state (public/taxpayer) funded abortions shall be defined as “The use of state (public/taxpayer) funds used to fund abortions”

"Disregarding grammar issues, these clauses are unacceptable to the Wallenburgian delegation."

3. This resolution is hereby resolved because hard-working citizens should not be forced to pay for something they could find morally or ethically objectionable,

"Taxation is not theft."

4. This resolution is being passed because state (public/taxpayer) funding of abortion is not in the best interest of the state, and the people,

"It can be, and is in the interests of the Wallenburgian state and people."

5. The reason why the state funding of abortion is not in the best interest of the state and of the people is because it results in the destruction of a unborn human life, although, this resolution does not in anyway define the beginning of life, or any other way affect any other abortion regulations,

"That reasoning is insufficient and incorrect, particularly in states with non-human populations."

6. This resolution hereby declare that the resolutions regarding “a right to healthcare” does not apply because abortion is not healthcare.

"Amendments are illegal."

7. This resolution does not in anyway, prevent an individuals from donating, supporting, contributing to fund an abortion,
8. This resolution prevents members of the World Assembly from funding abortion through the use of state (public/taxpayer) money

"Why are you repeating yourself?"

[Kenmoria]

A resolution prohibiting state funded abortion

"Too long. I would just put 'The Prohitibition of State-Funded Abortion.'"

This resolution shall be known as “A resolution prohibiting state funded abortion”

"This line is unnecessary, everybody already knows what the draft is called. Also, put the category and strength somewhere so others can spot category errors."

"As for the rest of the proposal, it will never going to pass simply because most WA member nations will vote against. It also contains an illegality in that it is impossible to amend previous resolutions."

[Pilarcraft]

IC: "We find this is sham of a resolution the utmost insult to our national sovereignty." Yularen said, "It is not the duty of the World Assembly to dictate what a person can or can not do with their own body, much less to order a nation to do so. Fully Opposed."

OOC: Yeah, everyone have pointed out the grammatical errors and the fact it goes against an already established resolution.

[Imperial Polk County]

"Regardless of my own personal opinion on the matter, I believe this proposal contradicts GAR#286. It unequivocally classifies abortion as a medical procedure, and disallowing state funding for such a procedure yet allowing it for procedures of similar risk and complexity would classify as an impediment under the resolution's 'DEMANDS' clause."

[United Massachusetts]

I'll work with you on this, just gimme a day

[Separatist Peoples]

"Why should moral issues determine where state funds are used? Should pacifists be able to opt out of military spending? Should racists be allowed to opt out of minority initiatives? Anti-intellectuals from school funding taxes? Where do you draw the line? The underlying premise is irredeemable."

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

"Why should moral issues determine where state funds are used? Should pacifists be able to opt out of military spending? Should racists be allowed to opt out of minority initiatives? Anti-intellectuals from school funding taxes? Where do you draw the line? The underlying premise is irredeemable."

OOC: Yes, yes, and yes. The line being that at best 1 of those (military spending) is something governments should do in the first instance, but fortunately for this debate, my in character nation does not entirely share that opinion.

IC: While we deplore on-demand abortion in the strongest terms possible, we cannot help but think this contradicts the requirements imposed by the confluences of GA286, GA128, and GA#97. To wit: GA128 and GA286 together serve to legalize abortion on demand. GA286 defines abortion as a medical procedure. As a medical procedure GA97 affirmatively requires us to make abortion universally accessible (and at most literal reading requires it to be funded from taxpayer money as part of a socialized medicine scheme). We wish this were not so, and would support efforts to change this, but, alas, this resolution cannot do so within the bounds of legality.

[The New California Republic]

3. This resolution is hereby resolved because hard-working citizens should not be forced to pay for something they could find morally or ethically objectionable.

OOC: Couldn't the same argument be made for other expenses of the government that some fringe people find objectionable? For example, some proportion of tax is likely to go towards military spending, and some of it is also likely to go towards counterintelligence work of some kind. Using your logic, the military should be banned because people may find it morally or ethically objectionable.

The argument you make here is very weak.

4. This resolution is being passed because state (public/taxpayer) funding of abortion is not in the best interest of the state, and the people.
5. The reason why the state funding of abortion is not in the best interest of the state and of the people is because it results in the destruction of a unborn human life, although, this resolution does not in anyway define the beginning of life, or any other way affect any other abortion regulations.

OOC: That is open to debate. Your conclusions don't seem to sync up with your premises. The argument is not very compelling as a result.

6. This resolution hereby declare that the resolutions regarding “a right to healthcare” does not apply because abortion is not healthcare.

OOC: Dubious. Very dubious. Using an example from RL, the National Health Service in the UK provides abortions for free. Does that mean that the National Health Service is providing a service that is not related to healthcare?

8. This resolution prevents members of the World Assembly from funding abortion through the use of state (public/taxpayer) money

OOC: I sincerely doubt that you will find a majority of nations agreeing to this.

[North Eastern New England]

Let's just repeal all laws on abortion. This is not an issue that should be dealt with on the international level. It is a deeply personal and moral issue. As such it should be dealt with on a personal, or at least national level, what seems right in a "left-wing utopia" is fundamentally different from what is morally right in a "moral democracy." We can't agree on this issue, it is just unfortunate that some people so desperately want the right to abort their child, they won't take anything less, whilst others are so morally horrified by it they can't dream of allowing it. This needs to be decided on a individual, cultural level. In RL the UN would never make a resolution like this, and in the US alone there is no possible way that either side can possible make official laws guaranteeing or banning abortion.

At the very least let's repeal all international laws on abortion and then just do something we can all agree on, like requiring abortion to be an option when the mother's life is at risk, due to her pregnancy, or at more than average risk from giving birth. That is the only law that everyone can support. It allows abortion in cases when the mother is at risk, but all other cases of abortion are left up the the individual nation. If any resultion effects abortion and other matters only the parts of it effecting abortion should be repealed though.

[The New California Republic]

Let's just repeal all laws on abortion.

OOC: I don't think that you fully comprehend the disparity between the ease of saying that, and the insurmountable difficulty of actually doing it. Many have tried, and failed, to get the Resolutions relating to abortion repealed.

[The Unfounded]

This is not an issue that should be dealt with on the international level. It is a deeply personal and moral issue. As such it should be dealt with on a personal, or at least national level, what seems right in a "left-wing utopia" is fundamentally different from what is morally right in a "moral democracy." We can't agree on this issue, it is just unfortunate that some people so desperately want the right to abort their child, they won't take anything less, whilst others are so morally horrified by it they can't dream of allowing it. This needs to be decided on a individual, cultural level. In RL the UN would never make a resolution like this, and in the US alone there is no possible way that either side can possible make official laws guaranteeing or banning abortion.

At the very least let's repeal all international laws on abortion and then just do something we can all agree on, like requiring abortion to be an option when the mother's life is at risk, due to her pregnancy, or at more than average risk from giving birth. That is the only law that everyone can support. It allows abortion in cases when the mother is at risk, but all other cases of abortion are left up the the individual nation. If any resultion effects abortion and other matters only the parts of it effecting abortion should be repealed though.

"It can already be handled on a personal level. The previously passed laws that this resolution is illegal as a result of force no individual to undergo an abortion without their consent."

[United Massachusetts]

Let's just repeal all laws on abortion.

OOC: I don't think that you fully comprehend the disparity between the ease of saying that, and the insurmountable difficulty of actually doing it. Many have tried, and failed, to get the Resolutions relating to abortion repealed.

"In the name of God, and in the name of this suffering Assembly, whose laments rise to heaven each day the more tumultous, I tell you, I promise you, I vow before the high heavens to you--one day."

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I don't think that you fully comprehend the disparity between the ease of saying that, and the insurmountable difficulty of actually doing it. Many have tried, and failed, to get the Resolutions relating to abortion repealed.

"In the name of God, and in the name of this suffering Assembly, whose laments rise to heaven each day the more tumultous, I tell you, I promise you, I vow before the high heavens to you--one day."

"Fantastic, I love watching the religious fail."

[Attempted Socialism]

We can't agree on this issue, it is just unfortunate that some people so desperately want the right to abort their child, they won't take anything less, whilst others are so morally horrified by it they can't dream of allowing it. This needs to be decided on a individual, cultural level.

"Unfortunately for your assertions, we have available to us the facts. Fact number one, we did indeed agree on this issue, and the agreement is near-unanimous. Topics such as slavery are more divisive than abortion is. A few anti-choice national governments continuing to let their anti-ethical concerns get in the way of full unanimity does not make us all disagree - if so, no law could ever be passed in the World Assembly. Second, no person is given a right to abort a child, since abortion deals with foetuses, that is, pre-birth, and thus not children, who are born. Third, even if people can be morally horrified by abortion - and I'd say to me it seems like most of then are amorally horrified - they will never be forced to have abortions, so what they can and can't dream of having is up to themselves. That leads neatly to my fourth point, namely that the decisions on the subject do devolve the question to an individual level, lets it become a question for the individual pregnant woman to decide, taking into account her socio-economic status, her culture, beliefs and any other issue she may deem relevant."
The Socialist Ambassador stops for breath.
"To sum up, none of your assertions are correct or relevant as critique of the General Assembly resolutions On Abortion or Reproductive Freedom. Furthermore, in terms of politics, the pro-choice side has won the battle, and all there is left is how to deal with anti-choice protesters and the like. Any resolution on further pro-choice topics could potentially be agreed upon amongst the pro-choice nations, and presented as a fait-accompli to the anti-choice nations without ever needing their inputs. Why should we roll back our victories, when the current policy positions are near-unanimously adopted, and the questions are if and where to go further? Why should we drop the sensible, middle-ground, compromise resolutions, in favour of resolutions that fewer nations will vote for?"

[The Bible Baptist Republic]

8. This resolution prevents members of the World Assembly from funding abortion through the use of state (public/taxpayer) money

So if a woman comes to the hospital with an ectopic pregnancy she will be denied Universal Health Care Coverage of which she, a taxpayer, has paid into, or be denied services she can not afford out of pocket. The result of the no tax payer money policy thus ultimately results in her death Just how, pray tell, is that "pro-life"?

[North Eastern New England]

We can't agree on this issue, it is just unfortunate that some people so desperately want the right to abort their child, they won't take anything less, whilst others are so morally horrified by it they can't dream of allowing it. This needs to be decided on a individual, cultural level.

"Unfortunately for your assertions, we have available to us the facts. Fact number one, we did indeed agree on this issue, and the agreement is near-unanimous. Topics such as slavery are more divisive than abortion is. A few anti-choice national governments continuing to let their anti-ethical concerns get in the way of full unanimity does not make us all disagree - if so, no law could ever be passed in the World Assembly. Second, no person is given a right to abort a child, since abortion deals with foetuses, that is, pre-birth, and thus not children, who are born. Third, even if people can be morally horrified by abortion - and I'd say to me it seems like most of then are amorally horrified - they will never be forced to have abortions, so what they can and can't dream of having is up to themselves. That leads neatly to my fourth point, namely that the decisions on the subject do devolve the question to an individual level, lets it become a question for the individual pregnant woman to decide, taking into account her socio-economic status, her culture, beliefs and any other issue she may deem relevant."
The Socialist Ambassador stops for breath.
"To sum up, none of your assertions are correct or relevant as critique of the General Assembly resolutions On Abortion or Reproductive Freedom. Furthermore, in terms of politics, the pro-choice side has won the battle, and all there is left is how to deal with anti-choice protesters and the like. Any resolution on further pro-choice topics could potentially be agreed upon amongst the pro-choice nations, and presented as a fait-accompli to the anti-choice nations without ever needing their inputs. Why should we roll back our victories, when the current policy positions are near-unanimously adopted, and the questions are if and where to go further? Why should we drop the sensible, middle-ground, compromise resolutions, in favour of resolutions that fewer nations will vote for?"

If you want to talk facts, here are facts. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary abortion is "the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus." Additionally an embryo is "an animal in the early stages of growth and differentiation that are characterized by cleavage, the laying down of fundamental tissues, and the formation of primitive organs and organ systems; especially : the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception" whilst the fetus is "an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth." So, you ask. Well, also according to Merriam-Webster the term "person" refers to a "human, individual" so technically an embryo is a person, because it is a "developing" person doesn't change anything since technically we are all developing, that is a fundamental characteristic of life. Since an embryo, and therefore a fetus (which is a even more developed person) is a person and abortion causes their death, technically abortion is very immoral, the Merriam-Webster definition for murder is "the crime of unlawfully killing a person." You might say that since abortion is technically legal that means it isn't murder but let's think about this, if we passed a resolution legalizing the killing of a person for any reason, would killing a person still be murder, I am inclined to believe that it is, as such murder is "killing a person" which, I have already established, abortion is, so technically abortion is a form of murder, a form that current WA law legalizes, and the majority of WA member states support, but still murder. You might say that abortion is self defense, however since self defense is (according to Merriam-Webster's law dictionary) "an affirmative defense (as to a murder charge) alleging that the defendant used force necessarily to protect himself or herself because of a reasonable belief that the other party intended to inflict great bodily harm or death" according to this, it stands to reason abortion is only self defense, in cases where doing so is to protect oneself from "great bodily harm or death" those cases would be cases where the pregnancy is a result of rape, in which case going through with the pregnancy, and birth, can cause mental and physical trauma, or cases where the mother's life is at higher than average risk, due to an abnormality or medical disorder, it doesn't cover cases where she doesn't want to deal with a child who has a disability, as killing a disabled person is still murder, and it doesn't include cases where she just doesn't want to deal with raising a child since that is no reason to kill someone, we would never let her get away with it in any other situation, why should we here?

As you can see abortion is murder, which is amoral, and illegal, under most circumstances, the exceptions to this, I have already pointed out. I want to take a moment and say I have no hard feelings towards anyone here, I am just trying to look at this from the most logical perspective, which suggests to me, based on the reasoning I have already laid out in this comment, that abortion is murder in all cases, except when the pregnancy is a result of rape, or has a potential (due to a medical disorder of the mother/fetus) to result in a higher than average risk of death or permanent injury. Additionally, since abortion is murder, based on my above reasoning, IT is amoral, not being against it (at least, unless someone is against it regardless of if the mother is at risk of death or severe injury) therefore your accusations that being anti-choice is amoral and unethical are unfounded.

Additionally I want to point out, that I am not pro-choice, nor pro-life, I believe that, unless, as I have already stated, the mother was raped or is at above average risk of death or severe injury, that she has the right to make a choice, but should do that before having sex, and becoming pregnant, instead of afterwards, she needs to take even the smallest risk of pregnancy into consideration before she consents, not after. Therefore abortion should be illegal, unless the mother was raped or is at above average risk of death or injury, because it is killing a person that she has already consented to bringing into existence, when she consented to have sex in the first place.

Either way, I am just trying to show you my point of view, which I base on logic and reasoning. Based on that point of view this entire discussion is not about weather abortion is moral, or legal, and if it should be, this discussion is about weather or not something that is not moral, like abortion, as I have already proved, should be legal. That is our question. Should something that is immoral be legal.

My logic on this is simple, something is moral if it is right and a good, or at least okay, thing to do, whilst something is legal if the government says it is okay as far as they are concerned, logically we want the government to say all things that are moral are legal and all things that are immoral are illegal, otherwise it means having a government, or law, that says something is okay, when it isn't, and that government is, therefore, logically incorrect. Personally I find no other example, except abortion where my logic is broken, nor any example where it should be. I personally believe the current WA laws on abortion are incorrect, and all the governments that support them, because they breaks logic, and if logic is not the most important thing in writing laws, then doing so isn't worth the trouble, and we should all abandon the WA, and our governments and just go home. So I'll leave the question to you.

If something is immoral should it be legal?

[New New Serrland]

[snip]

Based on that point of view this entire discussion is not about weather abortion is moral, or legal, and if it should be, this discussion is about weather or not something that is not moral, like abortion, as I have already proved, should be legal.

I'm not sure what the whole point of this in the middle of a discussion of an illegal proposal is. Legality above all in a WA context. This is clearly not legal.

[Kenmoria]

[snip]

Based on that point of view this entire discussion is not about weather abortion is moral, or legal, and if it should be, this discussion is about weather or not something that is not moral, like abortion, as I have already proved, should be legal.

I'm not sure what the whole point of this in the middle of a discussion of an illegal proposal is. Legality above all in a WA context. This is clearly not legal.

"And, given its nature I doubt it ever will be. I would advise the author to maybe focus on an area aside from abortion."

[Pro Life-2017]

Hi guys, I have amended my resolution to take into account your guys's feedback. Please check out the amended resolution at the top of the page and give me your feedback on if the resolution has been improved.

[Tinfect]

Hi guys, I have amended my resolution to take into account your guys's feedback. Please check out the amended resolution at the top of the page and give me your feedback on if the resolution has been improved.

OOC:
It would be improved solely by putting it in a fire and walking away.

[The New California Republic]

Hi guys, I have amended my resolution to take into account your guys's feedback.

OOC: No, you really haven't. All of the points that I commented on have remained in the draft practically unchanged...

[The Unfounded]

Hi guys, I have amended my resolution to take into account your guys's feedback. Please check out the amended resolution at the top of the page and give me your feedback on if the resolution has been improved.

"That's funny... I thought it wasn't allowed to take a dump on the docket."