Proposed: Repeal "Reproductive Freedoms"

[Confederate Poleis]

https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1511763904

What does the community think of this repeal?

[Willania Imperium]

"No draft = no support. Plus, I don't want to have another headache."

[The Unfounded]

“Not just opposed, but fire and brimstone orbital hellfire bombardment opposed.”

[The Candy Of Bottles]

OOC: Same goes for this one.

[The Sheika]

"No draft = no support. Plus, I don't want to have another headache."

"Seconded."

[NeoOasis]

Generally you post a draft so we can help you here... kinda hard to make changes on something at vote.

Would oppose anyway.

[Kenmoria]

https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_view_proposal/id=confederate_poleis_1511763904

What does the community think of this repeal?

"The community thinks it should have been drafted by the community and for that reasons the community has no support."

[Attempted Socialism]

"It's a pretty poor proposal, barely ready for drafting, and yet has been submitted. Furthermore, it's a shitty argument that seems to rely on as its basis a wrong, outdated view of womens rights to bodily sovereignty and morality in general, and that claims states should just be able to do whatever they please."
The Ambassador sighs.
"Now, the target resolution is also one of the best defended resolutions in the history of the General Assembly, where much better resolutions by better authors have tried and failed spectacularly before. This resolution is more popular than the resolution banning slavery, so there is no controversy around it. This is the World Assembly compromise, it's just that a few, loud, immoral delegations are trapped in their own bubble and ought to either adopt better morals or at some point at least sit down and shut up about their horrendous views."

[The New California Republic]

https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_view_proposal/id=confederate_poleis_1511763904

What does the community think of this repeal?

Colonel Hsu gets up to speak. "You didn't even give us a draft to look at, Ambassador, why should we even give this any attention at all? But, for the record, The New California Republic is firmly Against this proposal."

[Araraukar]

OOC: Since the author didn't even bother to post their draft, here it is for the record:

Repeal: “Reproductive Freedoms”

Category: Repeal
Resolution: GA#286

Proposed by: Confederate Poleis

General Assembly Resolution #286 “Reproductive Freedoms” (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

REMEMBERING that individuals may have cultural or religious misgivings regarding termination of pregnancy;

YEARNING to protect innocent human life against all that intend to destroy it;

DENYING that the termination of a pregnancy is merely a medical procedure;

NOTING that national sovereignty may have been violated;

REPEALS General Assembly Resolution #286 “Reproductive Freedoms”

"Cultural and religious misgivings" merely gives those people the right to not have abortions. Not everyone's population is fully or even partially human. What does "merely" mean in relation to the definition? And it's less about national sovereignty and more about personal sovereignty.

[Tzorsland]

Honestly, I'm surprised that GenSec is considering this "legal." The questioning of whether the termination of pregnancy is "merely" (a term not used in the resolution) a medical procedure, is so weak at best as to really question why this isn't a Nat Sov only repeal. It might be a 99.99999999999999999999% Nat Sov repeal but it's damn close to a Nat Sov repeal.

In any event, this repeal isn't even going to get to vote and if it got to vote will be easily killed. Most of the players don't consider anyone not yet born as anything they should give a darn about.

So let's start. Your first statement, "REMEMBERING that individuals may have cultural or religious misgivings regarding termination of pregnancy;" reflects the original statement of the resolution you wish to repeal, "ACKNOWLEDGING that individuals may have cultural or religious misgivings regarding termination of pregnancy;" which was passed with a 68.1% vote.

"YEARNING to protect innocent human life against all that intend to destroy it;" has got to be the crappiest "think of the children" argument in the past few years.

"DENYING that the termination of a pregnancy is merely a medical procedure;" is an honest mistake at best since the resolution states "RECOGNISES that the termination of pregnancy is a medical procedure, with all the rights and protections afforded to such a practice," and doesn't use that definition as a ceiling but a floor in order to grant rights and protections, so it's not "merely" in that sense of the word.

"NOTING that national sovereignty may have been violated;" ... Nat Sov Only violation. P.S. Since the nations voted in a majority to pass the resolution, the question of their sovereignty on the matter is moot because they, as sovereign nations yielded it by voting in the affirmative. The true power of Nat Sov is to resign from the WA.

[Bears Armed]

Honestly, I'm surprised that GenSec is considering this "legal."

OOC: It's the "Yearning" clause.. That seems just enough non-NatSov to let this proposal scrape through as legal.

[Xmara]

Did you even post a draft here?

[Confederate Poleis]

"No draft = no support. Plus, I don't want to have another headache."

Sorry, I'm new, this is the first time i've used the form. In the future I will give a draft. Thanks for the feedback.

[Araraukar]

"No draft = no support. Plus, I don't want to have another headache."

Sorry, I'm new, this is the first time i've used the form. In the future I will give a draft. Thanks for the feedback.

OOC: When you do, do post the draft here before even dreaming of submitting. The whole idea of drafting here is getting feedback from people on how to make it better, or to give up on the idea as it won't work and you'll just be wasting your time and effort. In the case of that particular target resolution, it's a waste of your time and effort to try to repeal it. Seriously.