[Abandoned] Repeal: "Reproductive Freedoms"

[Gebietersland]

Hello World Assembly. I am new to legislation writing, and would greatly appreciate your help in editing, critiquing, etc. this draft. In advance, I want to thank those who take time out of their schedules to offer criticism, advice, and instruction; it is much appreciated and holds great value for me as I am eagerly trying to learn about and assimilate into the World Assembly. That being said, below is the repeal resolution that I am seeking your advice on. Thank you.

The General Assembly,

Mindful of the sensitive, controversial, and wide-reaching issue of reproductive rights,

Alarmed by the unreliable definition of the phrase, “termination of pregnancy”, in GAR#286, since the specific means of termination (e.g. abortion) is not explicitly legalized, which in turn, creates an inadvertent escape clause for member nations to deny abortion,

Deeply disturbed that GAR#286 prohibits member nations to make provisions disallowing the discriminatory and unethical practice of sex-selective abortion- a procedure which undermines gender equality and contributes to detrimental demographic disparities,

Deploring that the ad rem resolution proscribes the enactment of critical legislation aimed to outlaw the egregious practice of eugenic abortion- a practice defined as the purification of a population from undesirable characteristics- as it exacerbates social inequality, undermines the legitimacy of disabled persons, poses a direct threat to diversity, and constitutes a serious ethical dilemma among many member nations,

Cognizant that GAR#286 permits the termination of a pregnancy at any moment until birthing, regardless of fetus viability, which propounds consequential, bona fide ethical concerns to member states,

Concerned that GAR#286 fails to account for a fetus’s capacity to feel pain, and fails to address, even remotely, such a grave ethical quandary whilst allowing the termination of pregnancy without limitation,

Recalling, but not relying upon, the extant resolution, GAR #128, which in the event of GAR#286 nullification and at the time of writing, would continue to license termination of pregnancy to the most vulnerable of pregnant persons undergoing gestation, such as victims of involuntary sexual activity, incest, and pregnant persons with “risk of a life-threatening physical or mental condition which would result in death or life-long severe disability” as a result of undergoing pregnancy and/or birthing,

Hoping for a more refined and sensible approach to reproductive rights,

Hereby repeals GAR#286, "Reproductive Freedoms”.

[Separatist Peoples]

"My delegation is opposed to any repeal of Reproductive Freedoms that does not unequivocally call for even greater protections for the right to terminate pregnancies."

[Gebietersland]

"My delegation is opposed to any repeal of Reproductive Freedoms that does not unequivocally call for even greater protections for the right to terminate pregnancies."

"Honorable Delegation of Separatist Peoples,

Thank you for reviewing this draft; your consideration has my utmost gratitude. However, GAR#286 already affirms the unequivocal right to terminate a pregnancy at any time, from conception to birthing, without any form of impediment (unless it is applied to a medical procedure of similar risk and complexity), holds the procedure to legal medical standards, and requires member nations to protect providers and patients from any form of animosity. So in all due and genuine respect, how can my resolution call for greater protections if protections are already at a zenith? I aim to bring to light and limit the most severe allowances of this resolution, such as forced or voluntary abortion due to eugenics or sex-selection, and the fact that the resolution contains an inadvertent escape clause around abortion. I also denounce the lack of psychological protection to an abortionee, which implicitly calls for further protective provisions on that issue. What further protections would you suggest?"

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Hello World Assembly. I am new to legislation writing, and would greatly appreciate your help in editing, critiquing, etc. this draft.

OOC: I advise you in the strongest possible terms to try to cut your teeth on something easier. Far more experienced authors have tried and failed to repeal your current target, and I don't want to watch yet another new person charge this windmill and leave thinking the whole game is impossible just because they couldn't kill a final boss with level 2 weapons (to mix several metaphors at once). I sincerely believe you'll be happier trying something else first.

If you insist, though...

The General Assembly,

Mindful of the sensitive, controversial, and wide-reaching issue of reproductive rights,

Alarmed by the unreliable definition of the phrase, “termination of pregnancy”, in GAR#286, since the specific means of termination (e.g. abortion) is not explicitly legalized, which in turn, creates an inadvertent escape clause for member nations to deny abortion,

"Ambassador, this is only true insofar as some highly advanced nations claim to have artificial womb technology that I find frankly indistinguishable from magic. The termination of pregnancy is that, full stop - in most countries, that's just abortion and it's bad faith (and therefore in contravention of GAR #2) to argue otherwise."

Deeply disturbed that GAR#286 prohibits member nations to make provisions disallowing the discriminatory and unethical practice of sex-selective abortion- a procedure which undermines gender equality and contributes to detrimental demographic disparities,

Deploring that the ad rem resolution proscribes the enactment of critical legislation aimed to outlaw the egregious practice of eugenic abortion- a practice defined as the purification of a population from undesirable characteristics- as it exacerbates social inequality, undermines the legitimacy of disabled persons, poses a direct threat to diversity, and constitutes a serious ethical dilemma among many member nations,

"Other resolutions protect against the systematic destruction of people and groups. Genocide is outside the remit of the target resolution and is covered elsewhere."

...Troubled that GAR#286 fails to account for the uniqueness of "termination of pregnancy" as a medical procedure, as women who undergo this procedure are at a severely heightened risk of psychological damage and suicide, and subsequently, fails to include provisions addressing this issue...

"Ambassador, GAR #97 already requires that people be able to get treatment for medical issues they face. Your allegation here smacks of paternalism and scaremongering. 'Severely heightened risk,' my ass - you know why you don't hear about the women who are pleased with their decision to get an abortion? Precisely because there's no problem there! Wheels that don't squeek don't need grease, and if it ain't broke don't fix it. To the extent that your claim here is in any way true, the WA already has it covered, or possibly could fix any issues in a subsequent resolution: either way, the target resolution doesn't stop us from handling these problems, so there's no need to repeal it to fix them."

[Gebietersland]

Hello World Assembly. I am new to legislation writing, and would greatly appreciate your help in editing, critiquing, etc. this draft.

OOC: I advise you in the strongest possible terms to try to cut your teeth on something easier. Far more experienced authors have tried and failed to repeal your current target, and I don't want to watch yet another new person charge this windmill and leave thinking the whole game is impossible just because they couldn't kill a final boss with level 2 weapons (to mix several metaphors at once). I sincerely believe you'll be happier trying something else first.

If you insist, though...

The General Assembly,

Mindful of the sensitive, controversial, and wide-reaching issue of reproductive rights,

Alarmed by the unreliable definition of the phrase, “termination of pregnancy”, in GAR#286, since the specific means of termination (e.g. abortion) is not explicitly legalized, which in turn, creates an inadvertent escape clause for member nations to deny abortion,

"Ambassador, this is only true insofar as some highly advanced nations claim to have artificial womb technology that I find frankly indistinguishable from magic. The termination of pregnancy is that, full stop - in most countries, that's just abortion and it's bad faith (and therefore in contravention of GAR #2) to argue otherwise."

Deeply disturbed that GAR#286 prohibits member nations to make provisions disallowing the discriminatory and unethical practice of sex-selective abortion- a procedure which undermines gender equality and contributes to detrimental demographic disparities,

Deploring that the ad rem resolution proscribes the enactment of critical legislation aimed to outlaw the egregious practice of eugenic abortion- a practice defined as the purification of a population from undesirable characteristics- as it exacerbates social inequality, undermines the legitimacy of disabled persons, poses a direct threat to diversity, and constitutes a serious ethical dilemma among many member nations,

"Other resolutions protect against the systematic destruction of people and groups. Genocide is outside the remit of the target resolution and is covered elsewhere."

...Troubled that GAR#286 fails to account for the uniqueness of "termination of pregnancy" as a medical procedure, as women who undergo this procedure are at a severely heightened risk of psychological damage and suicide, and subsequently, fails to include provisions addressing this issue...

"Ambassador, GAR #97 already requires that people be able to get treatment for medical issues they face. Your allegation here smacks of paternalism and scaremongering. 'Severely heightened risk,' my ass - you know why you don't hear about the women who are pleased with their decision to get an abortion? Precisely because there's no problem there! Wheels that don't squeek don't need grease, and if it ain't broke don't fix it. To the extent that your claim here is in any way true, the WA already has it covered, or possibly could fix any issues in a subsequent resolution: either way, the target resolution doesn't stop us from handling these problems, so there's no need to repeal it to fix them."

"Ambassador, thank you for your remarks. First off, thank you for pointing out the protections of GAR#97. I am not yet familiar with all of the WA's provisions. The troubled clause is indeed unnecessary, and could be fixed within a separate resolution given that the framework of GAR#286 would allow it. In all honestly, this was evident, yet I thought that bundling this provision with a repeal/replacement instead of separate legislation would ensure its security. However, I must disagree with your two other contentions.

Firstly, addressing your contention stating that only highly advanced nations have artificial womb technology, and that termination of pregnancy is full stop abortion in most nations. However, as pointed out in the cognizant clause, there is no restriction on abortion past viability, which in most populations, constitutes a significant period of time during gestation. Thus, nations (especially, the significant amount of anti-abortion member states) may bypass abortion, which constitutes the death of the fetus, by simply terminating the pregnancy and allowing the infant to live under nurture, since it is by definition viable outside the womb; this, at least in my mind, constitutes a large loophole and a significant ethical dilemma.

Furthermore, I do fully understand that other resolutions prevent the systemic destruction of groups and genocide. However, both sex-selective abortion and eugenics is fundamentally different. There is no systematic attempt. It is an individual choice to terminate a pregnancy due to either gender, or, in the case of eugenics, an unwanted trait or even a minor disability, which, as most would agree, is a deplorable act. GAR#286 legalizes such actions."

OOC: In all seriousness, thank you for your well thought out and well written response. Also, thanks for the warning, but my teeth are sharp, I'm new to *WA legislation writing, and quitting in the face of adversity is not how I conduct my affairs.

[Kenmoria]

“This is much better than some of the repeals I’ve seen presented here, which is good, but still isn’t as good as some of the best, which have failed. Of course I am opposed. My initial feedback is to replace ‘woman’ and ‘women’ with ‘pregnant individual’, to avoid excluding transgender males.”

[The New Nordic Union]

However, as pointed out in the cognizant clause, there is no restriction on abortion past viability, which in most populations, constitutes a significant period of time during gestation. Thus, nations (especially, the significant amount of anti-abortion member states) may bypass abortion, which constitutes the death of the fetus, by simply terminating the pregnancy and allowing the infant to live under nurture, since it is by definition viable outside the womb; this, at least in my mind, constitutes a large loophole and a significant ethical dilemma.

'How does this constitute an ethical dilemma, ambassador? The wish of the pregnant individual to end their pregnancy is respected by this method, as well; if live birth is the method of choice of termination for some member nations, so be it - especially since abortions in the stages you describe usually involve some kind of birthing process as a necessity, anyway. Nowhere does it say that it is the express wish of the pregnant individual to kill the fetus - merely to not be pregnant anymore.'

[Tinfect]

OOC:
As others have stated, some of the most experienced and (in)famous authors have attempted this, some with more or less the same argumentation as you.
None have been remotely convincing; none have been successful.
You are wasting your time, and ours.

[Bananaistan]

OOC:

search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&sr=topics&keywords=Repeal%3A+%22Reproductive+Freedoms%22&fid%5B%5D=8&sf=titleonly

Search found 39 matches: Repeal: "Reproductive Freedoms"

Like srsly, pick something easier.

But if not review all of these and see where they went wrong. In particular see the attempts by experienced multiple resolution authors Sciongrad, Railana, United Massachusetts, Omigodtheyclonedkenny and Chester Pearson.

[Gebietersland]

However, as pointed out in the cognizant clause, there is no restriction on abortion past viability, which in most populations, constitutes a significant period of time during gestation. Thus, nations (especially, the significant amount of anti-abortion member states) may bypass abortion, which constitutes the death of the fetus, by simply terminating the pregnancy and allowing the infant to live under nurture, since it is by definition viable outside the womb; this, at least in my mind, constitutes a large loophole and a significant ethical dilemma.

'How does this constitute an ethical dilemma, ambassador? The wish of the pregnant individual to end their pregnancy is respected by this method, as well; if live birth is the method of choice of termination for some member nations, so be it - especially since abortions in the stages you describe usually involve some kind of birthing process as a necessity, anyway. Nowhere does it say that it is the express wish of the pregnant individual to kill the fetus - merely to not be pregnant anymore.'

"Ambassador, the ethical dilemma is derived from the nature of viability and the ambiguities that arise from the resolution's lack of clarity on the matter. There is no single point of viability. So, anecdotally, lets assume a person became pregnant and requested termination of pregnancy at the point where there is a 10% chance of viability, with full intention not to give birth to the child, but the nation state only allowed termination in a manner where the child is given a chance to survive. Furthermore, upon the chance that the child survives and is nurtured, would such a manner of termination be ethical given that the mother did not consent to (since one cannot assume consent if one is forced into a single available option) or want the "birth" of the child. Furthermore, what is to become of the child? Although GAR#286 does include provisions about allowing the encouragement of live offspring delivery, and clarifies the jurisdiction of the child in that scenario, such provisions imply direct consent of "birthing" from the person since states can only encourage, thus giving final say to the pregnant person. On the other hand of things, what if a pregnant person resides in a nation state which allows termination of pregnancy, at any stage, via a process which results in the death of the fetus? Anecdotally, if a pregnant person in that nation were to utilize such a method of termination despite their fetus being virtually 100% viable outside the womb, would that be ethical? The point I'm trying to assert is that the current resolution makes plausible any of these situations and does not remotely address these and other issues whatsoever. I'm asking for a more considerate, refined, and bipartisan resolution posterior to a repeal that would address such issues."

[Gebietersland]

"Responding to the Ambassadors Kenmoria, Tinfect, and Bananaistan

First off, thank you Kenmoria for pointing out that naming error; it was rectified.

Ambassadors, I apologize if you interpret this as wasting your time. However, the repeated attempts to repeal this resolution can be interpreted as testament to its severe shortcomings. Convincing, is, evidently, a subjective matter, and similar argumentation in other resolutions may just demonstrate that many find such argumentation compelling and critical. I am not advocating for a full revocation of reproductive rights, but simply a more sensible and refined approach on the issue. So have the many other, some more venerable and experienced, authors that have proposed such repeals. In good faith, how is the allowance of sex-selective and eugenic abortion not a convincing argument? Or the inconsideration of a fetus's capacity to feel pain? Or the destruction of a fetus past viability? Or the allowance of birthing a child without the pregnant person's consent?

In short, I understand that many of you are sick and tired of the relentless onslaught of these repeal resolutions; at this point, you believe that any repeal is a waste of your time. Using the link that Ambassador Bananaistan provided, one can even note that the rate of such resolutions being posted has greatly increased; at this point, it is biweekly. This trend is unlikely to go away given the current resolution and sentiments on the issue. That is why, in order to stop wasting everyone's time, there must be a unified effort to repeal and replace this faulty resolution with something much more refined, considerate, and logically secure; something truly worthy of the issue at stake. Will this end all debate and repeal attempts? No. Will it appease the mostly moderate majority that just wants a better resolution, and quite frankly give everyone some room to breathe: I truly believe so.

Thank you."

[Kenmoria]

Ambassadors, I apologize if you interpret this as wasting your time. However, the repeated attempts to repeal this resolution can be interpreted as testament to its severe shortcomings. Convincing, is, evidently, a subjective matter, and similar argumentation in other resolutions may just demonstrate that many find such argumentation compelling and critical. I am not advocating for a full revocation of reproductive rights, but simply a more sensible and refined approach on the issue. So have the many other, some more venerable and experienced, authors that have proposed such repeals. In good faith, how is the allowance of sex-selective and eugenic abortion not a convincing argument? Or the inconsideration of a fetus's capacity to feel pain? Or the destruction of a fetus past viability? Or the allowance of birthing a child without the pregnant person's consent?

“Although the repeated repeal attempts at this resolution do show that it is somewhat unpopular, I do not think that they show that it is necessarily flawed. It is, fundamentally, an ideological dispute between two lines of thought, pro-choice and pro-life. No matter how good a repeal can possible be, it will always be hated by a large amount of nations based on the ideological leaning.

The idea of a more ‘sensible’ approach is inherently one that restricts the idea of reproductive freedoms. Although very few right should be completely unlimited, it is generally a very bad idea to limit any reproductive freedoms no matter how much there may be a compelling purpose. Sex-selective abortion is no-doubt a terrible decision, but it is not worth restricting reproductive rights. Likewise, no individual can be pressured into having an abortion, so I’m not sure on what you are basing your eugenics arguement.”

[Tinfect]

OOC:
Don't even start. You can view it however way you damn please, but there's a fundamental difference in our positions; ours is based on actual, living human beings, conscious and aware, who are trying to live their lives. Your side is only concerned with the possibility of a human life at some point down the line, placing the rights of something that isn't even properly aware over the rights of human beings. Quite frankly, I don't give a fuck whether it's a human life or not; it's a matter of bodily autonomy. You do not have the right to force someone to go through pregnancy and birth. You do not have the right to force people to radically change their lives as they stand for children that they don't want. You do not have the right to tell a 16 year old rape victim that, even if it is technically legal to have an abortion, she'll always be a murderer in the eyes of God and her family.

Your position is the one that hurts people. That's the final word on the matter; that's the reality of it. I don't give a shit what the intent of your position is. Restriction of abortion forces people into unwanted, unhealthy, and dangerous, situations. Restriction of abortion leads to emotional abuse. Restriction of abortion leads to community isolation. Restriction of abortion hurts people. It hurts women, who are forced to go through pregnancies they don't want. It hurts children, when they're stuck in households that never wanted them, can't support them, or have to give them up. Restriction of abortion hurts people, no matter whether or not you legalize it for rape and incest.

There is no compromise. A compromise to you people, is only ruining some people's lives, and I will not have it. There is no 'moderate majority' on this; the very idea is laughable.

[Gebietersland]

Ambassadors, I apologize if you interpret this as wasting your time. However, the repeated attempts to repeal this resolution can be interpreted as testament to its severe shortcomings. Convincing, is, evidently, a subjective matter, and similar argumentation in other resolutions may just demonstrate that many find such argumentation compelling and critical. I am not advocating for a full revocation of reproductive rights, but simply a more sensible and refined approach on the issue. So have the many other, some more venerable and experienced, authors that have proposed such repeals. In good faith, how is the allowance of sex-selective and eugenic abortion not a convincing argument? Or the inconsideration of a fetus's capacity to feel pain? Or the destruction of a fetus past viability? Or the allowance of birthing a child without the pregnant person's consent?

“Although the repeated repeal attempts at this resolution do show that it is somewhat unpopular, I do not think that they show that it is necessarily flawed. It is, fundamentally, an ideological dispute between two lines of thought, pro-choice and pro-life. No matter how good a repeal can possible be, it will always be hated by a large amount of nations based on the ideological leaning.

The idea of a more ‘sensible’ approach is inherently one that restricts the idea of reproductive freedoms. Although very few right should be completely unlimited, it is generally a very bad idea to limit any reproductive freedoms no matter how much there may be a compelling purpose. Sex-selective abortion is no-doubt a terrible decision, but it is not worth restricting reproductive rights. Likewise, no individual can be pressured into having an abortion, so I’m not sure on what you are basing your eugenics argument.”

"My eugenic argument is the individual decision of terminating an abortion for the reason of an unwanted genetic trait. For example, a pregnant person terminating their pregnancy due to a minor disability, brown hair, etc.. I believe this is fundamentally immoral, threatens diversity and the status of disabled persons, and undermines social equality.

Furthermore, the classification of this argument as a simple pro-life vs. pro-choice does not consider the grey area. Why not reinstate a virtually equal resolution with its only difference being measures aimed at preventing sex selective and eugenic abortions? Also, shouldn't the viability of the fetus be, at least in part, considered?

I appreciate your feedback and wisdom."

[The New Nordic Union]

Will it appease the mostly moderate majority that just wants a better resolution, and quite frankly give everyone some room to breathe: I truly believe so.

'If there truly was a majority, this resolution would have been repealed and replaced a long time ago, don't you think?'

OOC:
Don't even start. You can view it however way you damn please, but there's a fundamental difference in our positions; ours is based on actual, living human beings, conscious and aware, who are trying to live their lives. Your side is only concerned with the possibility of a human life at some point down the line, placing the rights of something that isn't even properly aware over the rights of human beings. Quite frankly, I don't give a fuck whether it's a human life or not; it's a matter of bodily autonomy. You do not have the right to force someone to go through pregnancy and birth. You do not have the right to force people to radically change their lives as they stand for children that they don't want. You do not have the right to tell a 16 year old rape victim that, even if it is technically legal to have an abortion, she'll always be a murderer in the eyes of God and her family.

Your position is the one that hurts people. That's the final word on the matter; that's the reality of it. I don't give a shit what the intent of your position is. Restriction of abortion forces people into unwanted, unhealthy, and dangerous, situations. Restriction of abortion leads to emotional abuse. Restriction of abortion leads to community isolation. Restriction of abortion hurts people. It hurts women, who are forced to go through pregnancies they don't want. It hurts children, when they're stuck in households that never wanted them, can't support them, or have to give them up. Restriction of abortion hurts people, no matter whether or not you legalize it for rape and incest.

There is no compromise. A compromise to you people, is only ruining some people's lives, and I will not have it. There is no 'moderate majority' on this; the very idea is laughable.

OOC: ^This.

[Marxist Germany]

"We definitely support this repeal and will work with the author to improve it."

[Gebietersland]

OOC:
Don't even start. You can view it however way you damn please, but there's a fundamental difference in our positions; ours is based on actual, living human beings, conscious and aware, who are trying to live their lives. Your side is only concerned with the possibility of a human life at some point down the line, placing the rights of something that isn't even properly aware over the rights of human beings. Quite frankly, I don't give a fuck whether it's a human life or not; it's a matter of bodily autonomy. You do not have the right to force someone to go through pregnancy and birth. You do not have the right to force people to radically change their lives as they stand for children that they don't want. You do not have the right to tell a 16 year old rape victim that, even if it is technically legal to have an abortion, she'll always be a murderer in the eyes of God and her family.

Your position is the one that hurts people. That's the final word on the matter; that's the reality of it. I don't give a shit what the intent of your position is. Restriction of abortion forces people into unwanted, unhealthy, and dangerous, situations. Restriction of abortion leads to emotional abuse. Restriction of abortion leads to community isolation. Restriction of abortion hurts people. It hurts women, who are forced to go through pregnancies they don't want. It hurts children, when they're stuck in households that never wanted them, can't support them, or have to give them up. Restriction of abortion hurts people, no matter whether or not you legalize it for rape and incest.

There is no compromise. A compromise to you people, is only ruining some people's lives, and I will not have it. There is no 'moderate majority' on this; the very idea is laughable.

""A compromise to you people is only ruining some people's lives". Ambassador, I hope "you people" is not meant to be derogatory, and I assume that this is the case. Furthermore, my response on the "moderate majority" is in the subsequent post.

I did not want this to be a pro-life, pro-choice debate, but simply an attempt to include some provisions, such as preventing deplorable killings of fetuses simply due to their gender (which has detrimental social and demographic consequences).

However, you inundated me with a plethora of largely irrelevant, logically flawed arguments, which were disgustingly vulgar and unnecessary given the good faith and respectful nature that this discussion has embodied so far. I must respond to such blatant and flawed attacks, even though some of the responses are not even something I believe in.

Addressing your first contention that our positions are fundamentally different. You say that your position is concerned about 'actual, living human beings, conscious and aware, who are trying to live their lives'. You imply that in order to be a human being one must be conscious, aware, and trying to live their life. This definition is flawed to its core. Infants and young children are not fully aware and conscious, they are merely responding to external stimuli, but are developing to become fully aware and conscious adults. By your definition, infants and young children are not human beings. So, do infants and young children not deserve the same humane considerations as fully cognizant adults? Should families be able to kill their children if they are unable to support them or, simply, do not want them? Your definition and advocacy would imply this. You may argue that this is not an accurate comparison, but it in fact is. One must forfeit bodily autonomy to conduct labor in order to obtain the resources to support the child. One can purposefully neglect a child's needs completely on the grounds of bodily autonomy as established by your definition. Furthermore, what about mentally disabled people who are not fully aware and conscious? They are not human by your definition, so should they be treated as animals? What about comatose people? Your classification of "human being" is so invalid that, if instituted, would violate many WA Civil Liberties and Social Justice resolutions.

Therefore, the status of a fetus is that of an infant or a child, or of a comatose person that we know will almost certainly exit the coma in... lets arbitrarily say 9 months after entering the coma. Should one be allowed to kill an infant, child, or comatose person simply because they must forfeit bodily autonomy to support that person?

Furthermore, you attribute this matter to one of bodily autonomy. It is simply not. When one makes the decision and gives consent to initiate sexual activity capable of procreation, they consensually forfeit their bodily autonomy to the possibility of pregnancy. This is especially compelling when considering the existence of highly effective contraceptives and sexual acts not capable of procreation. (I would gladly support legislation improving access to contraception, if that is the issue).

Now, in the case of nonconsensual procreation, repealing GAR#286 would still allow for abortion (via GAR#128), therefore making you logical fallacy ridden (emotional appeal and anecdotal) example of a 16 year old girl being raped completely irrelevant to this repeal.

Regarding this quote: "You do not have the right to tell a 16 year old rape victim that, even if it is technically legal to have an abortion, she'll always be a murderer in the eyes of God and her family". In my nation state, the freedom of speech is absolute with the exception of slander, libel, and the direct incitement of violence, so although such a statement is abhorrent, I do indeed have the right. Furthermore, in my nation, the family does have the right to their beliefs, even if they involves branding the 16 year old as a murderer.

Now regarding your final statement: "Your position is the one that hurts people. That's the final word on the matter; that's the reality of it. I don't give a shit what the intent of your position is. Restriction of abortion forces people into unwanted, unhealthy, and dangerous, situations. Restriction of abortion leads to emotional abuse. Restriction of abortion leads to community isolation. Restriction of abortion hurts people. It hurts women, who are forced to go through pregnancies they don't want. It hurts children, when they're stuck in households that never wanted them, can't support them, or have to give them up. [i]Restriction of abortion hurts people, no matter whether or not you legalize it for rape and incest."

First off all, my position aims to prevent the killing of human beings capable of becoming fully cognizant, similarly to infants and children, due to their gender or any other trait for that matter. Subsequently, if it is the unwanted, unhealthy, abusive, and dangerous situations you are so worried about, why not allow abortion only in cases where the pregnant person faces such a situation? Besides, GAR#128 already takes similar measures.

Finally, I acknowledge that restricting abortion may hurt some people (even though I only am advocating for very minor restrictions), but the thing is, they put themselves in that situation. They consensually opened themselves up to the possibility of a pregnancy, knowing full well the consequences that that action may entail. Furthermore, the unconscious and unaware human that resides in the womb is developing to become a fully sentient being. They, upon maturing, can give consent on what they want to do with their own lives. You argue that the child may suffer while growing up, but then again, this is a minority of cases and the WA has adequate measures preventing child abuse and neglect. Therefore, shouldn't the children be given a chance at life?"

OOC: Was swearing necessary?

[Gebietersland]

Will it appease the mostly moderate majority that just wants a better resolution, and quite frankly give everyone some room to breathe: I truly believe so.

'If there truly was a majority, this resolution would have been repealed and replaced a long time ago, don't you think?'

There is no compromise. A compromise to you people, is only ruining some people's lives, and I will not have it. There is no 'moderate majority' on this; the very idea is laughable.

OOC: ^This.

"It is always the fringes and extremes of each side that are always most vocal in such issues, and the "silent majority", as it is coined, is usually herded into complacency, especially if most of the influential and experienced members of an institution or assembly are bundled on one side of the issue."

[Wallenburg]

If you are new to the WA, you might want to try something a little less challenging than repealing "Reproductive Freedoms". It is, effectively, unrepealable. Seasoned and experienced authors have tried and failed.

Edit: re. this "silent majority" idea, the majority of WA voters are clearly pro-choice. The arguments in this repeal of yours are nearly identical to ones that have been put to the Vote and soundly defeated at Vote.

[Gebietersland]

If you are new to the WA, you might want to try something a little less challenging than repealing "Reproductive Freedoms". It is, effectively, unrepealable. Seasoned and experienced authors have tried and failed.

"Ambassador, I much appreciate your advice. I will work on other resolutions more plausible in the future. Thank you"

Edit: Your logic is sound; however,I must take note of the ever fluctuating demographics of the WA; therefore, such a contentious subject must be revisited once in a while to fully reflect the values of the WA. The problem is, I have no idea how long ago and by what margins such motions were defeated. Is there a way to view previous vote history?

Edit #2: I found a source to view previous vote history, and discovered that the last time such a resolution was put to a vote in front of the full GA was August 11th, 2017. If this source is correct, it's time to account for a possible shift in WA demographics and ideology.

[Kenmoria]

If you are new to the WA, you might want to try something a little less challenging than repealing "Reproductive Freedoms". It is, effectively, unrepealable. Seasoned and experienced authors have tried and failed.

"Ambassador, I much appreciate your advice. I will work on other resolutions more plausible in the future. Thank you"

(OOC: If you are abandoning this, you should change the tag from [DRAFT] to [ABANDONED].)

[Gebietersland]

"Ambassador, I much appreciate your advice. I will work on other resolutions more plausible in the future. Thank you"

(OOC: If you are abandoning this, you should change the tag from [DRAFT] to [ABANDONED].)

OOC: Duly noted, but I'll probably end up submitting it and then work on some other resolutions.

[Marxist Germany]

(OOC: If you are abandoning this, you should change the tag from [DRAFT] to [ABANDONED].)

OOC: Duly noted, but I'll probably end up submitting it and then work on some other resolutions.

"Give this at least 2 weeks before submission."

[Araraukar]

OOC: Duly noted, but I'll probably end up submitting it and then work on some other resolutions.

"Give this at least 2 weeks before submission."

OOC: Won't help. Not with that target. Though no idea why they'd want to submit it anyway, if they don't want to be labeled "one of those people".

[Gebietersland]

"Give this at least 2 weeks before submission."

OOC: Won't help. Not with that target. Though no idea why they'd want to submit it anyway, if they don't want to be labeled "one of those people".

OOC: I want to submit since there hasn't been a full GA vote on the subject in 2 years, according to the WA proposals archive that I am referencing. Given the nature of the subject and the ever changing GA demographics, I think this to be imperative. Also, if "those people" refers to someone trying to prevent sex-selective and eugenic abortions, and is concerned about the loopholes in the resolution, then, that is my label.