[REPLACEMENT] Convention on Reproductive Rights

[United Massachusetts]

“Requires member nations to forbid abortion methods when all of the following apply:
A.The potential offspring is, with proper care, viable outside of pregnancy.
B.The reason for abortion is not covered in Clause 5 of this resolution.
C.The potential offspring will have a significantly increased risk to be permanently disabled or killed due to the selected method of termination.
D.The termination of pregnancy could be achieved by other methods - to which at least one of A, B and C does not apply - with the same or lower risks of death or permanent injury for the pregnant individual.”

I do not agree with this. This totally disregards a woman’s right to choose what she wants to do with her pregnancy. Everything else is fine with me. If this is a part of the proposal, I will vote against.

That is not part of the draft

[Kiravian WA Mission]

Full support, of course.

[Wallenburg]

I am going to amend this significantly. I'd appreciate input from pro-choice individuals; I want this to be a compromise that most can get behind. Of course, some don't want to do so, but I'd be happy to take input even from them.

Here's my proposed compromise:
Full, real access to abortion, on demand, in all member states

[Kenmoria]

I am going to amend this significantly. I'd appreciate input from pro-choice individuals; I want this to be a compromise that most can get behind. Of course, some don't want to do so, but I'd be happy to take input even from them.

(OOC: It would be nice to see a guarantee of the right to have an abortion where there is a real, genuine threat to the mother during the course of pregnancy, or after rape. I think most pro-life and pro-choice people could support that. In other words, a return to the old clause 5. Also, a clause criminalising forced or coercive abortion in any circumstances, and recognition of such as a war crime if done by enemy governments.)

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I am going to amend this significantly. I'd appreciate input from pro-choice individuals; I want this to be a compromise that most can get behind. Of course, some don't want to do so, but I'd be happy to take input even from them.

(OOC: It would be nice to see a guarantee of the right to have an abortion where there is a real, genuine threat to the mother during the course of pregnancy, or after rape...

OOC: You mean along these lines?

...Also, a clause criminalising forced or coercive abortion in any circumstances, and recognition of such as a war crime if done by enemy governments.)

The former part is likewise in #128, but the war crime provision is not.

[Auze]

I am going to amend this significantly. I'd appreciate input from pro-choice individuals; I want this to be a compromise that most can get behind. Of course, some don't want to do so, but I'd be happy to take input even from them.

Here's my proposed compromise:
Full, real access to abortion, on demand, in all member states

That's not really a compromise, unless it is redefined so that an abortion procedure can be screaming "ARE YOU HAPPY WITH WHAT YOU'VE DONE?!"

[Wallenburg]

Here's my proposed compromise:
Full, real access to abortion, on demand, in all member states

That's not really a compromise, unless it is redefined so that an abortion procedure can be screaming "ARE YOU HAPPY WITH WHAT YOU'VE DONE?!"

It's a compromise with the pro-abortion crowd.

[The Republic of Squirrels]

The Representative for The Republic of Squirrels will support the legislation, in return I wish to see point number 3 to be revised to include the prohibiting of member nations from prosecuting and otherwise punishing Abortion clinics and providers, as well as individuals.

[United Massachusetts]

The Representative for The Republic of Squirrels will support the legislation, in return I wish to see point number 3 to be revised to include the prohibiting of member nations from prosecuting and otherwise punishing Abortion clinics and providers, as well as individuals.

So, you want us to legalise abortion?

[The Republic of Squirrels]

The Representative for The Republic of Squirrels will support the legislation, in return I wish to see point number 3 to be revised to include the prohibiting of member nations from prosecuting and otherwise punishing Abortion clinics and providers, as well as individuals.

So, you want us to legalise abortion?

Ah, I must of Misread that. For the Sake of preventing further arguments in the chat, let's just keep the Amendment as it is currently written. The Republic of Squirrels however still supports the Amendment.

[The Unfounded]

"Or we can retain the existing legislation and purportedly pro-life governments can find different ways to address such 'moral gray areas'."

[Greater vakolicci haven]

"It is sad to see the delegation from United Massachusetts has, sadly, taken upon itself to betray the cause of life. A woman who murders her child should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and should face the punishments that are worthy of her actions. In addition, the Haven finds that the prohibition of 'targeted harassment' of organisations assisting in murder contravenes the robust protections on freedom of expression that we put in place to maintain unrestrained discourse."

[Zone 71]

"It is sad to see the delegation from United Massachusetts has, sadly, taken upon itself to betray the cause of life. A woman who murders her child should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and should face the punishments that are worthy of her actions. In addition, the Haven finds that the prohibition of 'targeted harassment' of organisations assisting in murder contravenes the robust protections on freedom of expression that we put in place to maintain unrestrained discourse."

"I'm sorry to have another one of your tirades cut short, ambassador, because I truly enjoy hearing you drone on and on about the righteous cause of pro-choice," Rooke retorts, "but I don't believe the ambassador of United Massachusetts is quite content on having this forum congested with more debate on abortion. He made it very clear in his previous proposal."

Ambassador Rooke pauses, grabbing his copy of the repeal on "Reproductive Freedoms," indicating the bold phrase written in red on the bottom of the page: "I WILL NOT HAVE AN ABORTION DEBATE HERE. TALK ABOUT THE DRAFT..."

"And, as a tip," Rooke continues, "next time you are babbling endlessly about abortion and murder and all that, please, for the love of your God, do not use your children as pawns for your little debates or any other petty means to 'win' an argument, Zahl."

[New Min]

"It is sad to see the delegation from United Massachusetts has, sadly, taken upon itself to betray the cause of life. A woman who murders her child should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and should face the punishments that are worthy of her actions. In addition, the Haven finds that the prohibition of 'targeted harassment' of organisations assisting in murder contravenes the robust protections on freedom of expression that we put in place to maintain unrestrained discourse."

"Please, I thought we would be having a serious debate, not some emotional argument about abortion."

[Separatist Peoples]

"It is sad to see the delegation from United Massachusetts has, sadly, taken upon itself to betray the cause of life. A woman who murders her child should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and should face the punishments that are worthy of her actions. In addition, the Haven finds that the prohibition of 'targeted harassment' of organisations assisting in murder contravenes the robust protections on freedom of expression that we put in place to maintain unrestrained discourse."

"Outdated perceptions of abortion will not survive a vote in the WA. You're welcome to try, but every other attempt has failed miserably."

[Greater vakolicci haven]

((OOC:
If your IC comments are actually 'please, gvh, just stop' and are meant in an ooc fashion, I will do.))

[Great Nortend]

IC: “As an observer to this honourable assembly from a nation that is not a member thereof, and noting that hence my views count for naught, I am really quite intrigued regarding the apparent political demographics of the World Assembly. It seems that through the enactment of numerous liberal resolutions mandating the legalisation of sundry matters such as abortions, and the criminalisation of discrimination against certain religions and sexual practices, and through abusive and outwardsly hostile language towards those representatives who disagree, the World Assembly has managed to deter a the joining and silences the views of many nations that mau hold more conservative views, and thus perpetuating the cycle of continual socially-liberal policy-making.”

— His Excellency Benjamin Thomas Cane, His Erbonian Majesty's Observer to the World Assembly

[The Unfounded]

“We would like to note in turn how often more conservative nations claim disenfranchisement in the face of policies that seek to limit their disenfranchisement of others. If you think it oppressive to prevent you from oppressing others, mayhap the problem is with you.”

[Great Nortend]

“Then we must differ on what we define to be oppressive. If it is the will of the people to, as you put it, oppress certain behaviours that they believe to be against His Majesty's peace, and so morally repugnant as to deserve condemnation by law, then we shall be glad to see the day when once again, the subjects of the World Assembly decide they no longer wish to live under a super-national body that disregards their desires for the singular and narrow-minded point of view which more influential nations may take. For instance, in this case, I wonder what shall become of cultures where it is held sacred that the sole purpose of life is to be fruitful, as the Lord said, and multiply. Why, and how can a country, assert its own philosophy of the alleged rights of the mother to choose over the no-doubt equally valid philosophy of the obligation of the mother to bear? Alas, I feel it would be fruitless, if you would pardon my pun, to continue this line of reasoning with those determined that the individual is of greater importance than society as a whole.”

[Greater vakolicci haven]

“We would like to note in turn how often more conservative nations claim disenfranchisement in the face of policies that seek to limit their disenfranchisement of others. If you think it oppressive to prevent you from oppressing others, mayhap the problem is with you.”

"Peculiar. This assembly is the most discriminatory body in the world right now. It mandates that member nations commit mass slaughter of a group unable to defend themselves, unborn children."

[The Unfounded]

“Then we must differ on what we define to be oppressive. If it is the will of the people to, as you put it, oppress certain behaviours that they believe to be against His Majesty's peace, and so morally repugnant as to deserve condemnation by law, then we shall be glad to see the day when once again, the subjects of the World Assembly decide they no longer wish to live under a super-national body that disregards their desires for the singular and narrow-minded point of view which more influential nations may take. For instance, in this case, I wonder what shall become of cultures where it is held sacred that the sole purpose of life is to be fruitful, as the Lord said, and multiply. Why, and how can a country, assert its own philosophy of the alleged rights of the mother to choose over the no-doubt equally valid philosophy of the obligation of the mother to bear? Alas, I feel it would be fruitless, if you would pardon my pun, to continue this line of reasoning with those determined that the individual is of greater importance than society as a whole.”

“And yet you are invited by the existing legislation to encourage ‘multiplication’ in such a way that the individual yet retains their agreed-upon rights. Such methodologies do exist, yet they are not even asked about, instead you bemoan the ‘hegemony’ of a wholly voluntary body-politic. If you wish to remain so close-minded and uncreative in the execution of your national ego, then I suggest you go on your merry way.”

“We would like to note in turn how often more conservative nations claim disenfranchisement in the face of policies that seek to limit their disenfranchisement of others. If you think it oppressive to prevent you from oppressing others, mayhap the problem is with you.”

"Peculiar. This assembly is the most discriminatory body in the world right now. It mandates that member nations commit mass slaughter of a group unable to defend themselves, unborn children."

“Stuff your emotive appeals, as you have been told multiple times already. Your mewling serves little purpose beyond reinforcing stereotypes on conservative inflexibility.”

[Great Nortend]

“Then we must differ on what we define to be oppressive. If it is the will of the people to, as you put it, oppress certain behaviours that they believe to be against His Majesty's peace, and so morally repugnant as to deserve condemnation by law, then we shall be glad to see the day when once again, the subjects of the World Assembly decide they no longer wish to live under a super-national body that disregards their desires for the singular and narrow-minded point of view which more influential nations may take. For instance, in this case, I wonder what shall become of cultures where it is held sacred that the sole purpose of life is to be fruitful, as the Lord said, and multiply. Why, and how can a country, assert its own philosophy of the alleged rights of the mother to choose over the no-doubt equally valid philosophy of the obligation of the mother to bear? Alas, I feel it would be fruitless, if you would pardon my pun, to continue this line of reasoning with those determined that the individual is of greater importance than society as a whole.”

“And yet you are invited by the existing legislation to encourage ‘multiplication’ in such a way that the individual yet retains their agreed-upon rights. Such methodologies do exist, yet they are not even asked about, instead you bemoan the ‘hegemony’ of a wholly voluntary body-politic. If you wish to remain so close-minded and uncreative in the execution of your national ego, then I suggest you go on your merry way.”

"Peculiar. This assembly is the most discriminatory body in the world right now. It mandates that member nations commit mass slaughter of a group unable to defend themselves, unborn children."

“Stuff your emotive appeals, as you have been told multiple times already. Your mewling serves little purpose beyond reinforcing stereotypes on conservative inflexibility.”

“How very charming, Your Excellency. I do not recall any particular charter of rights that I signed when I was born; perhaps this is a World Assembly institution that I was not previously aware of?”

[United Massachusetts]

"The Delegate from the Unfounded is urged to refrain from commenting in this thread if their only contribution is to complain about how oppressive we are. We would welcome substantive contributions, though I doubt they're willing to provide any."

[Kenmoria]

“And yet you are invited by the existing legislation to encourage ‘multiplication’ in such a way that the individual yet retains their agreed-upon rights. Such methodologies do exist, yet they are not even asked about, instead you bemoan the ‘hegemony’ of a wholly voluntary body-politic. If you wish to remain so close-minded and uncreative in the execution of your national ego, then I suggest you go on your merry way.”



“Stuff your emotive appeals, as you have been told multiple times already. Your mewling serves little purpose beyond reinforcing stereotypes on conservative inflexibility.”

“How very charming, Your Excellency. I do not recall any particular charter of rights that I signed when I was born; perhaps this is a World Assembly institution that I was not previously aware of?”

“It’s called the Charter of Civil Rights and is General Assembly Resolution number 35. I believe you may find its contents a rather interesting read. You also have the rights guaranteed in: Freedom of Assembly; Patient’s Rights Act; Fairness in Criminal Trials; Refugee Protection; A Convention on Gender; For the Wrongly Convicted; Rights of the Orphaned Child; and that’s only the first quarter of the resolutions. When your nation joins the World Assembly it automatically agreed to all these and many more.

The only way Greater Nortend can stop complying with these resolutions is to repeal them, as the United Massachusetts delegation is doing on behalf of the pro-life nations who wish to be non compliant.”

[Great Nortend]

“How very charming, Your Excellency. I do not recall any particular charter of rights that I signed when I was born; perhaps this is a World Assembly institution that I was not previously aware of?”

“It’s called the Charter of Civil Rights and is General Assembly Resolution number 35. I believe you may find its contents a rather interesting read. You also have the rights guaranteed in: Freedom of Assembly; Patient’s Rights Act; Fairness in Criminal Trials; Refugee Protection; A Convention on Gender; For the Wrongly Convicted; Rights of the Orphaned Child; and that’s only the first quarter of the resolutions. When your nation joins the World Assembly it automatically agreed to all these and many more.

The only way Greater Nortend can stop complying with these resolutions is to repeal them, as the United Massachusetts delegation is doing on behalf of the pro-life nations who wish to be non compliant.”

“Notwithstanding the fact that Great Nortend is not a member of the World Assembly and thus does not abide by such regulations that are repugnant to our domestic law, and merely observing as an outside nation, sovereign unto itself and unburdened by the yoke of supranational law, we are interested from whence the World Assembly has materialised so many apparent rights afforded to its subjects that appear to work as a force of the tyranny of the majority of nations, unwilling to bend or comprimise with those nations of differing views whose only real option for the implementation of the will of its own is to depart this honourable institution. And before you criticise me for the apparent hole in my argument where I have supported the tyranny of the majority, it is reasonable to me that an individual country should implement the will of the majority of people, yet implementing the will of the people of the entire globe, which may completely contrast with 99 per cent of one's own population, seems wholly dictatorial and oppressive. I ask, why is it not merely permitted for those seeking the procedure to which this bill relates to procure such a miscarriage in another nation whilst retaining a nation's right to prohibit procured miscarriages in its own lands?”