[DRAFT] Repeal "Reproductive Freedoms"

[Separatist Peoples]

"The C.D.S.P. supports the tenants of libertarianism and national sovereignty. However, I have plenipotentiary power and no effective oversight. And I dislike religious conservatism. Twisting the tails of the faithful is basically my only true hobby these days. So I'm gonna vote against, with the sure and certain hope that my personal influence will help convince some others to do the same.

"Vote for Bell's Amusement. Vote No on Repeal 286."

[Prydania]

"Vote for Bell's Amusement. Vote No on Repeal 286."

I respect the honesty in this statement. Here here!

[Araraukar]

IC: "Against."

OOC: Against. Again.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

IC: "FOR!"

OOC: For. Again.

---

We applaud the bravery of the United Massachusetts delegation in agreeing to take on the challenge of repealing what has historically proven to be a notoriously impregnable resolution. (Pun intended.) However, during the debate, the Bay Staters should expect nothing more from us than raiding Sen Sulla's liquor cabinet, snoring loudly, making snarky remarks, and feigning shock when the repeal ultimately fails. You have been warned.

- Hugo Weasley, legislative intern

[Sacara]

Very good draft. The WA overstepped it's limitations by passing the original resolution, and I hope to see this repealed.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

OOC: I agree with the concerns about the "driving-member-states-away" argument. However logical you think it may be, many voters, including a large chunk consisting of gameplayers and others who have no sympathy for the WA, won't be swayed by it. Besides, the bit about compliance could be considered metagaming - although who knows how the current Secretariat would swing on this.

[The Candy Of Bottles]

OOC: DOA, just like the last great gross times this was attempted. Also, categorically opposed.

[The Sakhalinsk Empire]

IC: While we do not necessarily ban abortion, we have a more pro-life stance on the issue; as such, we fully support this proposal.

OOC: This nation isn't part of the WA, but my other nation is. In an IRL stance, I'm actually more pro-choice, but I fully understand the stance of pro-lifers.

[Christian Democrats]

The target resolution is an affront to fundamental rights and personal dignity. We fully support its repeal.

[Bananaistan]

"The repeal bar one clause is entirely based on national sovereignty reasons. I won't address these clauses.

"The remaining clause is based on the argument that sex selective abortions are bad. This is a ridiculous argument and is merely a means to let the grey men in grey suits dictate to women what they can use their bodies for. Just how are you going to know why someone seeks an abortion? You know, they can just lie.

"As always, the People's Republic of Bananaistan stands opposed to any attempt to repeal Reproductive Freedoms. We are pleased to continue to be in favour of the unrestricted rights of women to decide what, how, when, why and where their bodies are used and we shall proudly stand with the international community in defending this right."

- Ted

[Imperium Anglorum]

Nope.

[Kenmoria]

“The noting clause is the best one in the proposal and actually gives pro-choice nations, which make up the vast majority of the World Assembly, a reason to vote for. The ‘(ie. abortion)’ section should however be ‘(i.e. abortion)’ instead.”

[Durzan]

IC:"The Empire of Durzan finds these arguments intriguing and compelling. Here Here! You have the support of the Emperor!"

OOC: Full Support, on condition that you offer a replacement resolution afterward.

[Wallenburg]

“The noting clause is the best one in the proposal and actually gives pro-choice nations, which make up the vast majority of the World Assembly, a reason to vote for. The ‘(ie. abortion)’ section should however be ‘(i.e. abortion)’ instead.”

No, it isn't, no it doesn't, and if the proposal is submitted with that clause unedited, it will be illegal for violating the Honest Mistake rule.

[United Massachusetts]

“The noting clause is the best one in the proposal and actually gives pro-choice nations, which make up the vast majority of the World Assembly, a reason to vote for. The ‘(ie. abortion)’ section should however be ‘(i.e. abortion)’ instead.”

No, it isn't, no it doesn't, and if the proposal is submitted with that clause unedited, it will be illegal for violating the Honest Mistake rule.

No, it wouldn't.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

“The noting clause is the best one in the proposal and actually gives pro-choice nations, which make up the vast majority of the World Assembly, a reason to vote for. The ‘(ie. abortion)’ section should however be ‘(i.e. abortion)’ instead.”

No, it isn't, no it doesn't, and if the proposal is submitted with that clause unedited, it will be illegal for violating the Honest Mistake rule.

OOC: Which of the three clauses that start with the word "noting" are we talking about here? The first is arguably true by way of the GAR #2 no-army rule, the second is not terribly outlandish, and the third...

Ah. Yes, the third "Noting..." clause, subsection (b), might be problematic. It's pretty clear that "risk and complexity" of medical procedures in that clause means risk to the only person the target resolution ever names: the patient, i.e. the pregnant individual. Member states choosing to interpret it otherwise are not doing so in good faith that I can see, and I would mark a submitted resolution containing this language illegal for an Honest Mistake.

[United Massachusetts]

No, it isn't, no it doesn't, and if the proposal is submitted with that clause unedited, it will be illegal for violating the Honest Mistake rule.

OOC: Which of the three clauses that start with the word "noting" are we talking about here? The first is arguably true by way of the GAR #2 no-army rule, the second is not terribly outlandish, and the third...

Ah. Yes, the third "Noting..." clause, subsection (b), might be problematic. It's pretty clear that "risk and complexity" of medical procedures in that clause means risk to the only person the target resolution ever names: the patient, i.e. the pregnant individual. Member states choosing to interpret it otherwise are not doing so in good faith that I can see, and I would mark a submitted resolution containing this language illegal for an Honest Mistake.

Nowhere in World Assembly law does it state that member nations are required to classify fetuses as non-persons. Furthermore, nowhere in 286 does it specify to whom the risk applies. Thus, presumably, pro-life nations could restrict abortion procedures out of its risk of destroying potential fetal life. We're talking about how far people can get within the bounds of this resolution, and it's pretty clear that "TRAP" laws would be OK, under 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,

[Greater vakolicci haven]

"The Havenic position is clear. It is nobody's right to decide who lives and who dies; to suggest so istosuggest that murder should be permissible. Thus, the Greater Vakolicci Haven does not believe in abortions and urges all of its provinces to reject them also. For this reason, we support this proposal."

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Which of the three clauses that start with the word "noting" are we talking about here? The first is arguably true by way of the GAR #2 no-army rule, the second is not terribly outlandish, and the third...

Ah. Yes, the third "Noting..." clause, subsection (b), might be problematic. It's pretty clear that "risk and complexity" of medical procedures in that clause means risk to the only person the target resolution ever names: the patient, i.e. the pregnant individual. Member states choosing to interpret it otherwise are not doing so in good faith that I can see, and I would mark a submitted resolution containing this language illegal for an Honest Mistake.

Nowhere in World Assembly law does it state that member nations are required to classify fetuses as non-persons. Furthermore, nowhere in 286 does it specify to whom the risk applies. Thus, presumably, pro-life nations could restrict abortion procedures out of its risk of destroying potential fetal life. We're talking about how far people can get within the bounds of this resolution, and it's pretty clear that "TRAP" laws would be OK, under 286.

You can't consider them legally persons without violating other laws. Specifically the one that deals with Child Welfare. I can never remember the actual bloody name, but I've made this case before, and I stand by it as it pertains to Duplication/Contradiction. I agree with SL.

[United Sacredotia]

Sacredotia is a Catholic nation, therefore we will support this resolution, should it come to the vote. GA 286, is a piece of international legislation that, as already said, expects all member-states to permit abortion on demand. Not only that, but an abortion on demand up until birth, as it disallows placing any impediment, other than strictly pertaining to the technicalities of the procedure, and not its morality. Meaning that terminating life of a child is permissible, as long as said child remains in the womb.

Fellow member-states, this stance is philosophically undefendable. If an early birth of a child conceived 7 months ago happens, then life of such child is protected by the law. However, if a woman demands (for any reason) to terminate life of a child 8 months into pregnancy (therefore, life of a child conceived 8 months prior), then according to the GA 286, she should be allowed an abortion. GA 286 recognizes all objections to this as a "religious misgiving." This suffices for a cause for repeal, "Reproductive Freedoms" simply dismisses valid discussion and objections to abortion. This is not a stance that the World Assembly should adapt.

[Wallenburg]

No, it isn't, no it doesn't, and if the proposal is submitted with that clause unedited, it will be illegal for violating the Honest Mistake rule.

No, it wouldn't.

Yes, it would.

[Podrovny]

Zladny: "Once again, you let religion fly in the face of bodily sovereignty. We stand firmly opposed to this repugnant piece of legislation."

[Cekoviu]

For. Though we don't support any anti-abortion goals that this repeal could have in mind, the original resolution is too vague and open-ended, and should be repealed and replaced with a more clear-cut resolution.

[United Sacredotia]

No, it wouldn't.

Yes, it would.

I must unfortunately concur with Wallenburg here.
GA 286 recognizes abortion as a procedure where subject is the mother only. In a typical pro-choice logic (which is rather illogical, but I digress), mother is the one undergoing an abortion, therefore any concerns must be strictly about mother's own well-being, not the child's. This is clear from the wording of the resolution, e.g. "right of all individuals to have their pregnancies terminated."
Furthermore, placing any impediment, that is not placed in a procedure of a similar risk, is illegal under Reproductive Freedoms. Now, in any similar procedure there is no child, because there is no pregnancy. Therefore, life of a child cannot be a subject of concern, because it is not a subject of concern under a similar procedure. If wording of the resolution did not make clear who the subject of abortion is, then an argument could be constructed here, as follows: "Procedure of a similar risk is euthanasia. But the law (GA 285, ironically enough) places an impediment, if the consent is lacking from the subject. Therefore, abortion has the same impediment." But according to the GA 286, the subject of terminating pregnancy is the mother, not the child, so this reasoning does not hold up to disallow the abortion.

I am in support of the repeal, but better to take extra care in ensuring that it cannot be construed as illegal.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Zladny: "Once again, you let religion fly in the face of bodily sovereignty. We stand firmly opposed to this repugnant piece of legislation."

"Bodily sovereignty doesn't come into it," The delegate from the Haven, lord Andres Zahl from Celeria, was not religious in the slightest; he knew about murder though and he knew what it was.
"Representative; my own country is not what you would call religious, it has religions in it for sure but none control or influence our government to an unjust degree. However, life begins when the child is conceived, not at some arbitrary point decided upon by governments. The Haven does not regulate its provinces laws on abortion, however 34 out of the 36 ban it in cases in which the mothers life is not in danger. Likewise we do not regulate our provinces on the matter of slavery, which is widely allowed; it would be nice for a change for a havenic government to not have to openly flout WA legislation to maintain civilisation."