[Draft] Repeal 'Reproductive Freedoms'

[Kenmoria]

“I believe your ‘Hoping’ clause, would flow better were there to be a ‘the’ before ‘vagaries and equivocating’.”

[Arasi Luvasa]

"Where possible our national law is based on biblical interpretation and law, regardless that was a side point as I am sure most here are not particularly interested in faith. My primary thrust was based in a question of logical consistency seeing as it was argued that the being with consciousness should be able to do whatever they wish with their child in-uetro but suggesting that stops at birth without any logical reasoning as to why that should be."

Bishop Mirase turns to the ambassador from Elyreia "Biblically the family community would kill newborn infants if they were deformed or female, should the family have too many female children. I just realised, how would this relate to dragons? are dragons allowed to destroy their unhatched eggs as an abortion?"

[Araraukar]

OOC: are you in fact saying that non conscious and aware people have no rights?

OOC: People in a coma can be taken off lifesupport without it being murder, so basically yes.

"I would ask why birt becomes the cut-off point."

IC: "That is because at birth the fetus becomes a child, and its own sapient entity. Up until then it is literally attached to the mother's body by tissue connection, and is dependent on her to provide it oxygen and nutrients. That is why equating abortion with "baby-killing" or asking why progressive minds don't consider killing a newborn to be same magnitude as killing a fetus is absurd."

OOC: Because after it's born, WA law considers it a child and gives it legal protections. Up until then it doesn't. Also, not even going to touch the "biblical" argument, because of how incredibly sexist and discriminating that book is.

[Arasi Luvasa]

"Again my question is in regards to a child in-uetro that is viable, or in other words is able to live without the mother if birthed. If birthed prematurely, it satisfies the mother's right to not have the child in her body while also not harming said child. I will not argue regarding non-viable children as I am sure I will not win that battle."

OOC:
That is less biblical law and more general culture of the first century Greece/Rome?Egypt/etc. It isn't stipulated in the Bible and there is a biblical argument against said practice.

[Dirty Americans]

OOC:
Very funny. Go troll somewhere else, I'm not taking this bait.

OOC:
Well apparently, you were.
And I was not trolling. I was more like the man who walked into the room for a discussion and wound up just getting insulted.
I really am not here to change your mind. If you want to be a flat earther, then be my guest.

[Neutraligon]

OOC:
Very funny. Go troll somewhere else, I'm not taking this bait.

OOC:
Well apparently, you were.
And I was not trolling. I was more like the man who walked into the room for a discussion and wound up just getting insulted.
I really am not here to change your mind. If you want to be a flat earther, then be my guest.

* How about you both knock it off. If you can't deal with each other without sniping at each other why don't you both put each other on your foes list*

[Separatist Peoples]

"Again my question is in regards to a child in-uetro that is viable, or in other words is able to live without the mother if birthed. If birthed prematurely, it satisfies the mother's right to not have the child in her body while also not harming said child. I will not argue regarding non-viable children as I am sure I will not win that battle."

"The correct cut-off date for when a fetus becomes a person under the law is not the topic, ambassador."

[Excidium Planetis]

Again, Sep is free to propose this of his own accord, and we will use the opportunity should it arise. But I'm not going to buy into his clear intention of making fun of pro-lifers.

OOC

Not sure what your side is trying to win here. If you reject this, Sep (and pro choicers) win because RF stays in place.

The only way for Right to Life to gain from this proposal is to support it, since that means you at least have the possibility to repeal the target.

[Dirty Americans]

* How about you both knock it off. If you can't deal with each other without sniping at each other why don't you both put each other on your foes list*

I had forgotten that secretariats aren't moderators and thus can be foed. Thanks! Done.

[Separatist Peoples]

* How about you both knock it off. If you can't deal with each other without sniping at each other why don't you both put each other on your foes list*

I had forgotten that secretariats aren't moderators and thus can be foed. Thanks! Done.

OOC: um, Tinfect isn't GenSec?

[Wallenburg]

I had forgotten that secretariats aren't moderators and thus can be foed. Thanks! Done.

OOC: um, Tinfect isn't GenSec?

That's just what GenSec wants us to think.

[Elyreia]

Elyreia would be in favor of such legislation if it means creating more comprehensive legislation.

If the minority opposition does not want to snatch the low hanging fruit, they are more than willing to suffer for it.

[East Gondwana]

"This surely will be an interesting debate to observe. Our formal position remains to oppose any repeal of the target resolution, but should this pass we would be very invested in a replacement that replicates and expands upon the extant target."

[New Bremerton]

Oh my! God forbid if this repeal actually passes. The world would surely end. *sarcasm* But seriously. This nation, which is staunchly pro-choice, will be voting AGAINST. While the risk of rolling back abortion protections for ciswomen and transmen (OOC: the latter applies to PMT and FT nations where transgendered individuals are able to preserve their fertility) is small, there is still a risk.

I fail to understand why pro-life nations would be opposed since the effect of this particular repeal, intellectually dishonest or otherwise, would have the same exact effect as any other repeal proposed by a pro-life nation. It would give them exactly what they want. If this delegation were pro-life, which we are not, we would certainly bite the bullet and vote in favor for purely tactical reasons. The pro-life caucus seems prepared to abstain or vote against this proposal out of spite rather than opting to respond tactically. Not that this delegation cares one bit.

[Arasi Luvasa]

It's a gamble, with the likely outcome being far more unfavourable. Yes it will briefly bring the outcome desired but that doesn't mean much if Seps replacement is voted in.

[Excidium Planetis]

It's a gamble, with the likely outcome being far more unfavourable. Yes it will briefly bring the outcome desired but that doesn't mean much if Seps replacement is voted in.

OOC
Yes but even should Sep's replacement get voted in, there is no downside to that. Abortion is already mandated. There wouldn't be a net change for the worse.

There's a chance the replacement can fail, and I think it would be worth taking that chance. There's literally no risk and a small chance at a reward.

Basically what this says to me is that Right to Life would rather that abortion continue to be mandated in the WA as long as they can maintain the moral high ground, rather than actually work towards accomplishing something.

[West Leas Oros 2]

“Abortion is an issue on which the Orosian Government doesn’t have strong opinions, but we lean ever so slightly more towards the pro-choice side, as we believe abortion, sadly, remains the only option for many without the time nor the money to care for a child. It is for these reasons I must abstain from voting.” -Jonas Schulle, Orosian Ambassador to the GA

[Marxist Germany]

"Mr Ambassador, are you still und planning on submitting this proposal?"

OOC:
BUMP!

[Separatist Peoples]

"Mr Ambassador, are you still und planning on submitting this proposal?"

OOC:
BUMP!

Ooc: please dont bump my thread. I'll get to this when it is politically advantageous.

[Marxist Germany]

"Mr Ambassador, are you still und planning on submitting this proposal?"

OOC:
BUMP!

Ooc: please dont bump my thread. I'll get to this when it is politically advantageous.

OOC: Alright then, apologies for the bump

[Borovan entered the region as he]

IC: Alex Chung supports women's rights and the ability to have female freedoms. ANd we would not support the oppressive pro life movement to block the ability for the women's right to choose. Against

OOC: Against, I only support it if the right argument is used.

[Separatist Peoples]

IC: Alex Chung supports women's rights and the ability to have female freedoms. ANd we would not support the oppressive pro life movement to block the ability for the women's right to choose. Against

OOC: Against, I only support it if the right argument is used.

"Ambassador, did you even read this?"

[Hatzisland]

You know what? If that's what it takes to repeal to worst WA Resolution in its history, then so be it. A repeal is a repeal, no matter the reasons why.

[Separatist Peoples]

You know what? If that's what it takes to repeal to worst WA Resolution in its history, then so be it. A repeal is a repeal, no matter the reasons why.

Bell snickers, "Yeah, the ends justify the means! That won't backfire!"

[Marxist Germany]

You know what? If that's what it takes to repeal to worst WA Resolution in its history, then so be it. A repeal is a repeal, no matter the reasons why.

"I believe I've seen much worse WA resolutions"