NationStates

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Podrovny wrote: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."

"Ambassador, if your nation openly flouts WA law, why should we value your argument here? Regardless of the repeals success, nothing in your nation changes. So, why should we accommodate your position? Especially when you entertain one of the greatest civil rights violations known to the world by forcing individuals into bondage? Not even the fun kind."

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:"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."

"Ambassador, if your nation openly flouts WA law, why should we value your argument here? Regardless of the repeals success, nothing in your nation changes. So, why should we accommodate your position? Especially when you entertain one of the greatest civil rights violations known to the world by forcing individuals into bondage? Not even the fun kind."

"My government does not make it its policy to flout WA law. The Havenic government does not demand of its provinces that they follow WA law; it is of course Havenic government policy not to do so, however we do not enforce this around our many and scattered holdings around the world."

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Ambassador, if your nation openly flouts WA law, why should we value your argument here? Regardless of the repeals success, nothing in your nation changes. So, why should we accommodate your position? Especially when you entertain one of the greatest civil rights violations known to the world by forcing individuals into bondage? Not even the fun kind."

"My government does not make it its policy to flout WA law. The Havenic government does not demand of its provinces that they follow WA law; it is of course Havenic government policy not to do so, however we do not enforce this around our many and scattered holdings around the world."

"Right. So why should we consider your input if you dont enforce WA law as membership requires? You've nothing at stake. Theres no point to compromise with such an entity."

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Podrovny wrote: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."

"I have to agree with the Ambassador representing Separatist Peoples. The WA currently mandates that member states legalize abortion. Why should the WA allow you to have a say in its policies if your nation is neither a WA member nor interested in following WA law? If you wish to have a say in WA policy? It would behoove you to actually join and comply with the organization whose policy you wish to influence."

I will look at reproductive freedoms to no what ur trying to accomplish in this resolution.

Prydania wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:"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."

"I have to agree with the Ambassador representing Separatist Peoples. The WA currently mandates that member states legalize abortion. Why should the WA allow you to have a say in its policies if your nation is neither a WA member nor interested in following WA law? If you wish to have a say in WA policy? It would behoove you to actually join and comply with the organization whose policy you wish to influence."

((OOC: The GVH is a WA member. However for gameplay reasons I can't put my WA on this account, I need to edit my signature to show that actually so thanks for reminding me.))

Prydania wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:"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."

"I have to agree with the Ambassador representing Separatist Peoples. The WA currently mandates that member states legalize abortion. Why should the WA allow you to have a say in its policies if your nation is neither a WA member nor interested in following WA law? If you wish to have a say in WA policy? It would behoove you to actually join and comply with the organization whose policy you wish to influence."

"Concerned that due to the often times deep-seated opposition many nations feel to the practice of abortion, some otherwise compliant and moderate nations have resorted to outright non-compliance with GA 286 and others to simply resigning from the World Assembly,"

Areulder wrote:

Prydania wrote:"I have to agree with the Ambassador representing Separatist Peoples. The WA currently mandates that member states legalize abortion. Why should the WA allow you to have a say in its policies if your nation is neither a WA member nor interested in following WA law? If you wish to have a say in WA policy? It would behoove you to actually join and comply with the organization whose policy you wish to influence."

"Concerned that due to the often times deep-seated opposition many nations feel to the practice of abortion, some otherwise compliant and moderate nations have resorted to outright non-compliance with GA 286 and others to simply resigning from the World Assembly,"

"Ceding to the noncompliant is a piss poor reason to change the law. Otherwise we would permit slavery so slavers might feel up to joining!"

Ok against u don't need to specify means of abortion. Doctors will ensure safe ways for abortion better than a woman seeking it in the streets or an unlicensed physician. The risk of danger to fetuses r unnecessary because it's already terminating pregnancy. Also arguments that abortion is murder is a pro life argument. It is an appeal on emotion for using the word murder rather than ending human life. Also how do u know that there r many nations morally non compliant with the reproductive freedom resolution? If it's a problem they can resign simple. If the WA needs them to keep enough members I think the government is the problem. The opinions of pro life government officials should not be used to serve their constituents. Rather the government should respect individual rights to know that ending a pregnancy is not taken lightly. Women have conscience and they have right to privacy when taking in this decision when giving birth.

Against

Areulder wrote:

Prydania wrote:"I have to agree with the Ambassador representing Separatist Peoples. The WA currently mandates that member states legalize abortion. Why should the WA allow you to have a say in its policies if your nation is neither a WA member nor interested in following WA law? If you wish to have a say in WA policy? It would behoove you to actually join and comply with the organization whose policy you wish to influence."

"Concerned that due to the often times deep-seated opposition many nations feel to the practice of abortion, some otherwise compliant and moderate nations have resorted to outright non-compliance with GA 286 and others to simply resigning from the World Assembly,"

“Forgive me Ambassador, your eye roll wasn’t sufficiently explanatory. Why is it in this assembly’s best interests to allow itself to be held hostage by those who don’t wish to comply with its own legislation?”

United Massachusetts wrote:

Uan aa Boa wrote:How is this different to suggesting that human rights legislation be repealed to avoid driving repressive dictatorships out of the Assembly? Or that free trade legislation be repealed out of regard for the sensibilities of communist nations?

Is there actually more to this than a repeal on the grounds of national sovereignty>

The two are rather different. Abortion is a controversial issue on which moderate voices, who would otherwise participate fully in the WA (we have enough resolutions to basically make dictatorship and communism impossible here already), are not. There is a way to stand for human rights, and I support passing plenty of human rights legislation. But there was never any hope that pro-life nations were actually going to comply with a resolution they thought to be murder. And that appears to be the case. A recent poll taken in Right to Life found that 100% of respondents in the WA don't comply with GA 286.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=poll/p=123142

Frankly, 286 is an unproductive piece of legislation. It's not being complied with, and actually undermines the World Assembly. In short, it must be repealed, because nothing will make these nations comply or rejoin.

OOC: From what I understand you aren't allowed to roleplay refusal to abide by WA resolutions. If you are in you must abide by WA resolutions.

"Both national sovereignty and non-compliance are non-arguments. Non-compliance doesn't mean we have to change the law. That's absolutely absurd. If people don't keep to the speed limit, should we abolish the speed limit? No. We should enforce our law, instead of abolishing it because some whining fu-, ahem, some honourable ambassadors decide to become member of the WA and then not comply with its resolutions. If you don't want to comply, don't join, Mr Ambassador.

That leaves, for me, as ambassador of The United Socialist States Of New Min, only the national sovereignty argument, which on its own, is not enough to repeal this resolution. Against, against, against."

(OOC: Against, against, against, etc.)

Isla Bucanero wrote:

United Massachusetts wrote:The two are rather different. Abortion is a controversial issue on which moderate voices, who would otherwise participate fully in the WA (we have enough resolutions to basically make dictatorship and communism impossible here already), are not. There is a way to stand for human rights, and I support passing plenty of human rights legislation. But there was never any hope that pro-life nations were actually going to comply with a resolution they thought to be murder. And that appears to be the case. A recent poll taken in Right to Life found that 100% of respondents in the WA don't comply with GA 286.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=poll/p=123142

Frankly, 286 is an unproductive piece of legislation. It's not being complied with, and actually undermines the World Assembly. In short, it must be repealed, because nothing will make these nations comply or rejoin.

OOC: From what I understand you aren't allowed to roleplay refusal to abide by WA resolutions. If you are in you must abide by WA resolutions.

((OOC: That's not true, plenty of people (including me) roleplay noncompliance with WA resolutions. Can probably find some examples. I rp a nation that is incapable of enforcing WA resolutions, or indeed much else, on its far more powerful state governments though.))

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Isla Bucanero wrote:
OOC: From what I understand you aren't allowed to roleplay refusal to abide by WA resolutions. If you are in you must abide by WA resolutions.

((OOC: That's not true, plenty of people (including me) roleplay noncompliance with WA resolutions. Can probably find some examples. I rp a nation that is incapable of enforcing WA resolutions, or indeed much else, on its far more powerful state governments though.))

OOC:From the guide to the GA "However, as far as we're concerned, flat-out non-compliance with both the letter and spirit of a resolution is utterly impossible. Going back to the previous example, you might make the penalties for patent infringement laughably lenient, but you still must enact and enforce those laughably lenient laws."
For your nation not being able to enforce any laws is at least consistent. However those other right to life nations I assume at least some of them roleplay having the capability to allow abortion.

Isla Bucanero wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:((OOC: That's not true, plenty of people (including me) roleplay noncompliance with WA resolutions. Can probably find some examples. I rp a nation that is incapable of enforcing WA resolutions, or indeed much else, on its far more powerful state governments though.))

OOC:From the guide to the GA "However, as far as we're concerned, flat-out non-compliance with both the letter and spirit of a resolution is utterly impossible. Going back to the previous example, you might make the penalties for patent infringement laughably lenient, but you still must enact and enforce those laughably lenient laws."
For your nation not being able to enforce any laws is at least consistent. However those other right to life nations I assume at least some of them roleplay having the capability to allow abortion.

((OOC: Hate to be too disrespectful, but the WA is often not given a lot of love throughout rp circles. It's barely, if ever, mentioned in most rps.))

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Isla Bucanero wrote:
OOC:From the guide to the GA "However, as far as we're concerned, flat-out non-compliance with both the letter and spirit of a resolution is utterly impossible. Going back to the previous example, you might make the penalties for patent infringement laughably lenient, but you still must enact and enforce those laughably lenient laws."
For your nation not being able to enforce any laws is at least consistent. However those other right to life nations I assume at least some of them roleplay having the capability to allow abortion.

((OOC: Hate to be too disrespectful, but the WA is often not given a lot of love throughout rp circles. It's barely, if ever, mentioned in most rps.))

OOC: Don't worry about that I wouldn't interpret that as disrespectful. Obviously in rp outside of the WA I wouldn't expect it to come up. But we're in the WA right now. Where blatantly not following resolutions seems to be frowned upon.

Isla Bucanero wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:((OOC: Hate to be too disrespectful, but the WA is often not given a lot of love throughout rp circles. It's barely, if ever, mentioned in most rps.))

OOC: Don't worry about that I wouldn't interpret that as disrespectful. Obviously in rp outside of the WA I wouldn't expect it to come up. But we're in the WA right now. Where blatantly not following resolutions seems to be frowned upon.

(OOC: I agree. There are ways of noncomplying respectfully, to model the way real-world nations don't always follow international treaties. However, taking that too far and doing it too blatantly can come off as irritating.

That said, this resolution is one of the most frequently noncomplied, and this can be done very well, so repealing it isn't out of the question.)

I have significantly amended this resolution.

While I am very content, if not grateful, with United Massachusetts' passed international legislation to outlaw the cruel practice of Conversion Therapy to minors within the WA's hallowed halls, I am extremely displeased with this proposal - not only by the simple act of repealing a resolution promoting women's freedoms and choice, but by the bare-bones reasoning provided for such a repeal.

Concerned that due to the often times deep-seated opposition many nations feel to the practice of abortion, some otherwise compliant and moderate nations have resorted to outright non-compliance with GA 286 and others to simply resigning from the World Assembly, hampering the effectiveness and authority of the World Assembly in either case,

Beyond a biased poll taken from the region, Right To Life, there is no concrete evidence of extensive non-compliance within the World Assembly towards GAR 286.

Believing that, in enacting legislation legalising abortion on-demand, the World Assembly has overstepped its sovereign ability and thus actually hampered the cause of human rights, by advancing strong legislation where only more mild legislation would be effective,

National sovereignty, especially in the case where human rights is involved, is not a valid or proper reason to repeal a piece of legislation. Certainly, if this legislation was intrusive to the point where it acts to the great detriment of member nations, that reasoning may be grounds for a repeal, but I cannot see how a resolution simply giving women the choice to terminate a pregnancy is what your proposal makes out as some sort of objective evil with devastating effects towards a nation's stability and prosperity.
Also, could you please elaborate on how this has "actually hampered the cause of human rights?" At this point, this and other open-ended clauses and commentary within your proposal seem more like flowery language with no purpose beyond trying to fill up a page, rather than valid, thought-provoking reasoning.

Noting that, even on top of this, the authoring delegation themselves have acknowledged that the resolution only requires member nations to permit individuals to terminate their pregnancies, without specifying a specific means (ie. abortion) by which they are permitted to do so,

Excuse me? Certainly, there many not be a step-by-step guide on abortion nor some definition of "abortion" within GAR#286's contents, but surely no nation would be confused by what sort of procedure this resolution is referring to, and I don't see how nations can purposely try to exploit this ambiguity as a way to prevent permitting abortions within their borders.

Further concerned that because 286 GA "recognises that the termination of pregnancy is a medical procedure," it permits member nations to require parental consent for any abortion procedure, as per the mandates of 29 GA § IX, thus hampering the ability of nations to protect the privacy of women seeking abortion,

GAR#29 requires a legal guardian to be informed of a medical procedure "if the patient is under the age of majority, or is an adult unable to understand their rights." I don't see how this is anywhere near a gross and unethical violation of women's privacy. If anything, GAR#286 has been exceptional in trying to protect the privacy of women undergoing an abortion, especially with the following clause: "REQUIRES Member Nations to ensure protection from targeted animosity to providers and patients of the procedures covered by this resolution."

Contending that there exist legitimate circumstances in which abortion should be limited, particularly in order to prevent sex-selective abortion, a practice which stands repugnant to the very values of this Assembly,

As with the "Concerned" clause within your repeal, this sounds like a terribly exaggerated and overblown issue that stands as very rare in most nations.

Finally, while this is not included in the proposed legislation's text, I find it laughable for the United Massachusetts delegation to share an outright biased poll to make some sort of "point" about non-compliance with GAR 286, with the delegation claiming that "a recent poll taken in Right to Life found that 100% of respondents in the WA don't comply with GA 286." Excuse my brashness, but finding nine nations planted in a region founded on pro-life principles not complying with GAR 286 is not-at-all shocking nor constructive towards your argument.

United Massachusetts wrote:Further concerned that because 286 GA "recognises that the termination of pregnancy is a medical procedure," it permits member nations to require parental consent for any abortion procedure, as per the mandates of 29 GA § IX, thus hampering the ability of nations to protect the privacy of women seeking abortion,

"This is the closest thing to a good reason to repeal #286 that we've ever seen. I won't commit support at this time, but you might well be on your way."


OOC: 1. At the very least you should include §VIII there, as that's the section defining legal guardians as "patients" for some purposes. 2. Part of me wants to classify that as an honest mistake, but (should you clarify that you're specifically talking about pregnant minors) you're in the clear. Some nations will absolutely use that interpretation. Good find.

A replacement has been proposed. We are willing to negotiate on its terms.

I'm very interested to see this replacement

lol, maybe a bit too quick to be talking about a replacement when this and every prior iteration of it has been slaughtered at vote.

For, time to put an end to this.

Auze wrote:For, time to put an end to this.

It’s hilarious, because that’s what most of the WA says about attempts to repeal Reproductive Freedoms.