[Abandoned] Repeal Reproductive Freedoms

[The Philippine Islands of Luzviminda]

Recognising abortion is a contentious topic.

Understanding that there are different arguments for each side.

Noting there is a middle ground for this issue

Concerned that the current WA resolution on abortions has no restrictions which means abortion can be performed even if the fetus is developed enough

Knowing that there are other alternatives to abortion for low income persons such as putting the child up for adoption

Arguing that everyone has the right to life

Believing that abortion should at least be restricted

Pointing Out that the WA can impose restrictions that we can agree on if we repeal this bill.

Comforting nations who are pro choice as this does not fully remove the option for abortion due to the resolution: "On Abortion"


The General Assembly, hereby repeals Reproductive Freedoms.

Link to proposal
It is time to put restrictions for the inhumane nature of unrestricted abortions

[Jebslund]

[OOC: Bit of advice, mate: You may wish to pull this and get advice before you resubmit. As it is, it's not going to pass. You're trying to repeal one of the most popular resolutions in the WA, and there have been other, better-written, attempts that have failed to pass.

In particular, that line about adoption is a lot less convincing than you think (and is the most common argument used), and you've done nothing to address the idea that a fetus, whether or not you consider it to be a person, does not have the right to enslave a woman for 9 months.]

"Another one? Opposed. While it is noble to want a restriction in place to prevent sapient life from being destroyed after achieving sapience, I see no replacement on the docket, and doubt there is one forthcoming.".

[Cosmopolitan borovan]

I support but this is not as close as good as UM draft. But yes I agree this won't pass like jebslund say

[The New California Republic]

OOC: Against. Not that it will pass anyway, because many have tried and failed to repeal it, as everyone knows that any repeal will open up the floodgates to proposals that want to implement a total abortion ban. It's the same with NAPA, people don't want it repealed, as it acts as a blocker to follow-on proposals that aim to ban nuclear weapons.

[Dirty Americans]

OOC: Against. Not that it will pass anyway, because many have tried and failed to repeal it, as everyone knows that any repeal will open up the floodgates to proposals that want to implement a total abortion ban. It's the same with NAPA, people don't want it repealed, as it acts as a blocker to follow-on proposals that aim to ban nuclear weapons.

OOC: But you can't (pass a total abortion ban) since you have to repeal On Abortion to pass a total abortion ban. But that shows the whole problem in a nutshell; no one really wants to understand the technical details of resolutions and what they do and that includes people on both sides. As someone who is pro-life in real life I find that the resolution On Abortion has more good than bad but when you try to make everything into simple slogans that appear as black and white cartoons that fact gets lost. Simply put repealing Reproductive Freedoms isn't worth the effort and repealing On Abortion could actually cause more death and destruction than keeping it in place.

[The New California Republic]

OOC: Against. Not that it will pass anyway, because many have tried and failed to repeal it, as everyone knows that any repeal will open up the floodgates to proposals that want to implement a total abortion ban. It's the same with NAPA, people don't want it repealed, as it acts as a blocker to follow-on proposals that aim to ban nuclear weapons.

OOC: But you can't (pass a total abortion ban) since you have to repeal On Abortion to pass a total abortion ban.

I'm aware of that, but knocking down RF would likely cause a chain reaction whereby OA would eventually fall too. The first domino won't fall.

[Old Hope]

I'm aware of that, but knocking down RF would likely cause a chain reaction whereby OA would eventually fall too. The first domino won't fall.

Actually, I am not quite sure about the first statement...

[The New California Republic]

Actually, I am not quite sure about the first statement...

Huh?

[Old Hope]

Actually, I am not quite sure about the first statement...

Huh?

RF being repealed would not necessarily mean that OA will be repealed.

[The New California Republic]

Huh?

RF being repealed would not necessarily mean that OA will be repealed.

Perhaps not, but far more likely, as it would galvanize the pro-life nations and motivate them to seriously push for such a repeal.

[Dirty Americans]

I'm aware of that, but knocking down RF would likely cause a chain reaction whereby OA would eventually fall too. The first domino won't fall.

This isn't a domino, this is more like a barbican and On Abortion is more like the main central keep. The keep is massively stronger than the barbican. The battles to replace Reproductive Freedoms would go on for years, never mind any attempt to overturn On Abortion which would be opposed even more strongly than Reproductive Freedoms which is almost as complete a resistance as you can get.

This isn't the place for such debates, but as a pro-life person myself I can argue for pages and pages about why On Abortion is actually a good thing. I would even argue that if the language of On Abortion was introduced int the United States, pro "choice" groups would be lobbying against it because they would insist that it actually restricts a woman's right to choose. I've been around to remember the debates on the previous institution than must never be named. It can easily be much worse and more likely, if repealed would be.

[Frances Francis the First of France]

The tone of this repeal effort is downright condescending with its additions of Beliefs and adding a token "Comforting" like we are children who need our hands held. The only thing that RF does is classify a medal procedure as a medial procedure. Consider me a staunch opponent, and if it ever makes it to a vote you can count on my lobbying the entirety of The North Pacific to vote against.

[Wallenburg]

Against.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: For a first draft, this isn’t bad. However, the resolution you are trying to repeal has withstood countless repeal attempts by authors with much more experience in the GA, it is at this point essentially impossible to remove. There are other resolutions that are not looked upon as favourably, but I strongly encourage you to get some experience commenting on other people’s drafts before submitting your own.)

[The Philippine Islands of Luzviminda]

OOC: Against. Not that it will pass anyway, because many have tried and failed to repeal it, as everyone knows that any repeal will open up the floodgates to proposals that want to implement a total abortion ban. It's the same with NAPA, people don't want it repealed, as it acts as a blocker to follow-on proposals that aim to ban nuclear weapons.

OOC: But you can't (pass a total abortion ban) since you have to repeal On Abortion to pass a total abortion ban. But that shows the whole problem in a nutshell; no one really wants to understand the technical details of resolutions and what they do and that includes people on both sides. As someone who is pro-life in real life I find that the resolution On Abortion has more good than bad but when you try to make everything into simple slogans that appear as black and white cartoons that fact gets lost. Simply put repealing Reproductive Freedoms isn't worth the effort and repealing On Abortion could actually cause more death and destruction than keeping it in place.

I do not aim to completely get rid of abortion but plan to put restrictions on it.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: But you can't (pass a total abortion ban) since you have to repeal On Abortion to pass a total abortion ban. But that shows the whole problem in a nutshell; no one really wants to understand the technical details of resolutions and what they do and that includes people on both sides. As someone who is pro-life in real life I find that the resolution On Abortion has more good than bad but when you try to make everything into simple slogans that appear as black and white cartoons that fact gets lost. Simply put repealing Reproductive Freedoms isn't worth the effort and repealing On Abortion could actually cause more death and destruction than keeping it in place.

I do not aim to completely get rid of abortion but plan to put restrictions on it.

"Ambassador, I imagine you'll end up doubly disappointed. An attempt to repeal Reproductive Freedoms is likely to fail. Assuming you succeed, a fight to swing the pendulum the opposite way is likely even harder. I can think of at least four delegations in this august Assembly who would pour capital into fighting international limits on abortion."

[Wallenburg]

I do not aim to completely get rid of abortion but plan to put restrictions on it.

"Ambassador, I imagine you'll end up doubly disappointed. An attempt to repeal Reproductive Freedoms is likely to fail. Assuming you succeed, a fight to swing the pendulum the opposite way is likely even harder. I can think of at least four delegations in this august Assembly who would pour capital into fighting international limits on abortion."

"Ambassador Bell is correct. The Wallenburgian delegation, among others, would move to submit a replacement with even firmer pro-choice mandates."

[Faltasia]

This lacks compassion in the language. On that alone, Faltasia says no.

[The Unfounded]

"Categorically against!" Alexis lobs a muffin towards the podium. "BOOOOOO!"

[Visionary Union]

rubs hands excitedly, inhales air (BOIIII [non verbal])
Well, as I'm sure you picked up from previous comments, this repeal won't pass because no one wants the absolute horror of trying to redraft RF, repealing OA, or anything related to abortion rights. Your draft doesn't mention anything at all about this "middle ground". Also, you mention that everyone has a right for life. But did you define in your resolution from what stage does the fetus transforms from a mere collection of cells to a sentient being who holds that right? No, redraft if you truly insist, but as of now this won't pass.

[Dirty Americans]

The only thing that RF does is classify a medal procedure as a medial procedure.

No that is not true. RF requires that no impediment to abortion (save for that which would be normally applied to a procedure "of similar risk and complexity") be allowed for abortions up until the point where the person is no longer pregnant. In short it legalizes all abortion.

This is an extreme standard even in the real world where impediments are placed in several nations on abortions late in pregnancy. But NationStates tends to go to extreme ends so I suppose I shouldn't complain.

[United Massachusetts]

United Massachusetts supports any and every attempt to repeal so-called "Reproductive Freedoms", and is willing to the author in further drafting should they so desire.

[Arasi Luvasa]

United Massachusetts supports any and every attempt to repeal so-called "Reproductive Freedoms", and is willing to the author in further drafting should they so desire.

Arasi Luvasa is also in support, any help that can be provided from this end will be given.

[Jebslund]

United Massachusetts supports any and every attempt to repeal so-called "Reproductive Freedoms", and is willing to the author in further drafting should they so desire.

Haven't you *already* authored a failed repeal attempt?

[Quiver]

OOC: Against. Not that it will pass anyway, because many have tried and failed to repeal it, as everyone knows that any repeal will open up the floodgates to proposals that want to implement a total abortion ban. It's the same with NAPA, people don't want it repealed, as it acts as a blocker to follow-on proposals that aim to ban nuclear weapons.

OOC: What is NAPA?