[Defeated] Repeal "Reproductive Freedoms"

[Marxist Germany]

There hasn't been an attempt at a repeal this year, so I thought I'd try my luck this time.

I present to you, the longest repeal of #286, that includes almost every argument used in previous repeals!

Repeal "Reproductive Freedoms"
Category: Repeal | Proposed by: Germany

---

The World Assembly,

Applauding the efforts of the resolution GA#286 to protect the right to access abortion;

Noting that this resolution allows abortion on demand, disregarding the potential for sex-selective abortion, a practice that harms the gender balance and creates societal problems such as; low marriage rates and low birth rates; and other discriminatory reasons for abortion such as disability and skin colour, reasons that this assembly is attempting to eradicate;

Observing that the target resolution mandates the legalisation of abortion on demand up until birth, a stance which is radical and needlessly divisive,

Understanding that numerous member states have legitimate ethical concerns regarding the unconditional legality of abortions after fetal viability, especially when alternatives such as adoption are readily available;

Frustrated that the term "termination of pregnancy" forces member nations to legalize Dilation and Extraction procedures, for example, commonly known as partial-birth abortions, procedures in which a living and viable feotus is destroyed despite it being able to experience pain in late term pregnancy;

Disgusted because GA#286 "recognises that the termination of pregnancy is a medical procedure," it permits member nations to require parental consent for any abortion procedure performed on a minor or a mentally disabled person, as per the mandates of GA#29, thus hampering the ability of the minor or mentally disabled adult to access abortion, in case their parent or guardian refuses to allow them to undergo an abortion;

Cognisant that because "termination of pregnancy" is a medical procedure, it is therefore protected by resolutions such as GA#29 in emergency cases, as GA#29 states "Patients have the right to emergency medical treatment under circumstances requiring lifesaving procedures", which means that termination of pregnancy must be legalised in life threatening cases;

Acknowledging the resolution GA#128, which allows abortion in cases of extreme disability, rape or incest, and in life threatening conditions;

Aware that the radical approach of the target resolution has only caused division within this assembly, including 5 defeated repeal attempts and dozens of attempted repeal proposals by numerous ambassadors from different nations, and has led to many nations choosing to leave the assembly, thus reducing its power;

Concerned with the many flaws present in the resolution, which should be replaced by a better version that handles the issue in a manner that guarantees the right to abortion whilst placing reasonable restrictions that prevent abuse such as the example mentioned above;

Hereby,

Repeals General Assembly Resolution number 286, titled "Reproductive Freedoms".

[Marxist Germany]

Version 0.1.0:
-Removed the Deploring clause [which mentions physical force and intoxicants as methods of terminating pregnancy]
-Edited the believing clause [changed "forced abortion" with "abuses mentioned above"]

Version 0.2.0:
-Removed Annoyed clause [which mentions the ban of counselling]

[The New California Republic]

Against.

[The New Nordic Union]

Believing that the issue ought to be handled in a manner than guarantees the right to abortion whilst placing reasonable restrictions that prevent abuses such as forced abortions;

OOC: In what way does the target allow for forced abortions, and how could those be avoided by placing restrictions on the access to abortion?

[Marxist Germany]

Believing that the issue ought to be handled in a manner than guarantees the right to abortion whilst placing reasonable restrictions that prevent abuses such as forced abortions;

OOC: In what way does the target allow for forced abortions, and how could those be avoided by placing restrictions on the access to abortion?

OOC:The target resolution does not ban forced abortions, thus, a replacement must be drafted that allows for a ban on forced abortions.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

...Deploring the term "termination of pregnancy", which does not specify the means (i.e. Abortion), by which to terminate a pregnancy, leading some nations to use horrific methods such as physical force and intoxicants;

...

Believing that the issue ought to be handled in a manner than guarantees the right to abortion whilst placing reasonable restrictions that prevent abuses such as forced abortions;...

OOC: Hi, it's your friendly neighborhood informal GenSec legal opinionator! I believe these two lines are Honest Mistakes.

Firstly, a nation's choice to assault pregnant persons is ludicrously outside the scope of the target resolution - they'd likely be doing something similar with or without it in place and it has nothing to do with the legality of abortion procedures.

Secondly, forced abortions are already prohibited by GAR #128 "On Abortion" and thus already covered whether #286 exists or not. They are therefore unrelated to any issue that the target resolution covers.

In Character critique to follow.

[Marxist Germany]

...Deploring the term "termination of pregnancy", which does not specify the means (i.e. Abortion), by which to terminate a pregnancy, leading some nations to use horrific methods such as physical force and intoxicants;

...

Believing that the issue ought to be handled in a manner than guarantees the right to abortion whilst placing reasonable restrictions that prevent abuses such as forced abortions;...

OOC: Hi, it's your friendly neighborhood informal GenSec legal opinionator! I believe these two lines are Honest Mistakes.

Firstly, a nation's choice to assault pregnant persons is ludicrously outside the scope of the target resolution - they'd likely be doing something similar with or without it in place and it has nothing to do with the legality of abortion procedures.

Secondly, forced abortions are already prohibited by GAR #128 "On Abortion" and thus already covered whether #286 exists or not. They are therefore unrelated to any issue that the target resolution covers.

In Character critique to follow.

OOC:I will remove those two issues.

[The New California Republic]

Concerned with the many flaws present in the resolution, that ought to be replaced by a better replacement that addresses the issue properly

In the absence of a credible aforementioned replacement actually existing in draft form, and having a real chance of passing, you'll encounter a lot of resistance to repealing.

[Attempted Socialism]

OOC: You can't be serious. Without any chance of passing, why even attempt it?

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: You can't be serious. Without any chance of passing, why even attempt it?

OOC:Just to prove that it's impossible to pass, because reading through every past repeal, this is the most fleshed out in terms of length.

[Marxist Germany]

Concerned with the many flaws present in the resolution, that ought to be replaced by a better replacement that addresses the issue properly

In the absence of a credible aforementioned replacement actually existing in draft form, and having a real chance of passing, you'll encounter a lot of resistance to repealing.

OOC:A replacement exists in the form of General Assembly Resolution number 128 titled "On Abortion".

[Attempted Socialism]

OOC: You can't be serious. Without any chance of passing, why even attempt it?

OOC:Just to prove that it's impossible to pass, because reading through every past repeal, this is the most fleshed out in terms of length.

I can't stop you, but this sounds like a terrible reason to attempt to legislate. Have you considered what this attempted repeal (And especially your reason for it) might do to your credibility and thus your other drafts?

[Marxist Germany]

OOC:Just to prove that it's impossible to pass, because reading through every past repeal, this is the most fleshed out in terms of length.

I can't stop you, but this sounds like a terrible reason to attempt to legislate. Have you considered what this attempted repeal (And especially your reason for it) might do to your credibility and thus your other drafts?

OOC:If simply a failed repeal attempt will ruin my credibility, then the problem isn't me. And the last repeal attempt according to IAs website was in 2017

[The New California Republic]

In the absence of a credible aforementioned replacement actually existing in draft form, and having a real chance of passing, you'll encounter a lot of resistance to repealing.

OOC:A replacement exists in the form of General Assembly Resolution number 128 titled "On Abortion".

That's not a replacement, it's a fallback. And you specifically say replaced by a better replacement, so don't try to pull a fast one.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC:A replacement exists in the form of General Assembly Resolution number 128 titled "On Abortion".

That's not a replacement, it's a fallback. And you specifically say replaced by a better replacement, so don't try to pull a fast one.

OOC:I think GA#128 is in fact a much better replacement, as it puts reasonable restrictions on Abortion, and it's safe to say 128 is staying a lot longer than 286.

[Gagium]

OOC: You can't be serious. Without any chance of passing, why even attempt it?

Hey, I’ve seen this one before!

[The New California Republic]

That's not a replacement, it's a fallback. And you specifically say replaced by a better replacement, so don't try to pull a fast one.

OOC:I think GA#128 is in fact a much better replacement, as it puts reasonable restrictions on Abortion, and it's safe to say 128 is staying a lot longer than 286.

It. Is. Not. A. Replacement. Saying that a previous resolution is a replacement is an argument in ridiculously bad faith.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC:I think GA#128 is in fact a much better replacement, as it puts reasonable restrictions on Abortion, and it's safe to say 128 is staying a lot longer than 286.

It. Is. Not. A. Replacement. Saying that a previous resolution is a replacement is an argument in ridiculously bad faith.

OOC:I can't write a replacement similar to 128 without it being illegal for duplication.

[The New California Republic]

It. Is. Not. A. Replacement. Saying that a previous resolution is a replacement is an argument in ridiculously bad faith.

OOC:I can't write a replacement similar to 128 without it being illegal for duplication.

I'm not asking you to. I'm asking for a replacement for 286, like your draft says.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC:I can't write a replacement similar to 128 without it being illegal for duplication.

I'm not asking you to. I'm asking for a replacement for 286, like your draft says.

OOC:But why aren't you satisfied by 128 as a "fallback". I think its a good compromise and will finally end the abortion debate.Now if only we can repeal that and...

[The New California Republic]

I'm not asking you to. I'm asking for a replacement for 286, like your draft says.

OOC:But why aren't you satisfied by 128 as a "fallback". I think its a good compromise and will finally end the abortion debate.

Because you specifically mention a replacement in your draft.

And it won't end the debate at all, as there was a need for 286 after all...

[Marxist Germany]

OOC:But why aren't you satisfied by 128 as a "fallback". I think its a good compromise and will finally end the abortion debate.

Because you specifically mention a replacement in your draft.

And it won't end the debate at all, as there was a need for 286 after all...

OOC:Would mentioning 128 as a fallback instead of a replacement satisfy you? Because it's right there in one of the clauses.

[The New California Republic]

Because you specifically mention a replacement in your draft.

And it won't end the debate at all, as there was a need for 286 after all...

OOC:Would mentioning 128 as a fallback instead of a replacement satisfy you? Because it's right there in one of the clauses.

No it wouldn't, because I don't see any need to repeal 286 in the first place. I find the arguments less than convincing. And the fact that you are not willing to make a replacement doesn't really sit well with me. And it won't sit well with many others either. It makes it look like a stepping stone towards attacking 128.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC:Would mentioning 128 as a fallback instead of a replacement satisfy you? Because it's right there in one of the clauses.

No it wouldn't, because I don't see any need to repeal 286 in the first place. I find the arguments less than convincing. And the fact that you are not willing to make a replacement doesn't really sit well with me. And it won't sit well with many others either. It makes it look like a stepping stone towards attacking 128.

OOC:Trust me, 128 is as safe as NAPA and Rights and Duties of Member States.

[The New California Republic]

No it wouldn't, because I don't see any need to repeal 286 in the first place. I find the arguments less than convincing. And the fact that you are not willing to make a replacement doesn't really sit well with me. And it won't sit well with many others either. It makes it look like a stepping stone towards attacking 128.

OOC:Trust me, 128 is as safe as NAPA and Rights and Duties of Member States.

Irrelevant. If you are not willing to draft a replacement then I'm against by default. Sorry.