[Defeated] Repeal "Reproductive Freedoms"

[Wallenburg]

I suppose you would have us also pass blockers that defer to national governments on all controversial civil rights issues, simply so we don't have to debate them.

"Not necessarily. Unfortunately abortion is not a civil right."

Wayne

"Fortunately, it is. Two World Assembly resolutions make it so."

[Losthaven]

I suppose you would have us also pass blockers that defer to national governments on all controversial civil rights issues, simply so we don't have to debate them.

"Not necessarily. Unfortunately abortion is not a civil right."

Wayne

The civil right at issue is a mother's right to bodily sovereignty. Access to abortion, in many cases, is a necessary means to ensure that full scope of that right.

[WayNeacTia]

"Not necessarily. Unfortunately abortion is not a civil right."

Wayne

"Clearly it is, as it is a guaranteed right under WA law enforceable against states. The definition of a civil right."

"There is a difference between a legal right and a civil right. Legal rights are granted, civil rights are inalienable. The right to get an abortion has never been an inalienable right. At the moment, abortion is a legal right as defined by WA law. As I have stated, I am good with that, I am simply tired of this issue coming up over and over. A blocker that gives nations authority over it would be far preferable."

Wayne

[Separatist Peoples]

"Clearly it is, as it is a guaranteed right under WA law enforceable against states. The definition of a civil right."

"There is a difference between a legal right and a civil right. Legal rights are granted, civil rights are inalienable. The right to get an abortion has never been an inalienable right. At the moment, abortion is a legal right as defined by WA law. As I have stated, I am good with that, I am simply tired of this issue coming up over and over. A blocker that gives nations authority over it would be far preferable."

Wayne

"No, you've mixed up a human right with a civil right. A legal right is a civil right. Civil rights include those rights that are created by operation of legislative act. Abortion is a civil right under WA law. Even if it were considered inalienable, the fact that nations routinely alienate individual rights suggests that the distinction is meaningless.

"If the price to pay for expanded individual freedoms over their bodies is your patience, I'll make that trade all day long."

[Dirty Americans]

(OOC: A compromise is only necessary when both sides have no way of getting what they desire, so both of them can only have some of their needs met. In this instance, the pro-choice members of this assembly are perfectly able to achieve their legislative needs, so having a blocker for a middle ground is simply unneeded. Indeed, I don’t see much purpose in repealing Reproductive Freedoms since the pro-choice crowd have such legislative clout.)

(OOC: Believe it or not, the question of the repeal of Reproductive Freedoms is actually an Nat Sov / Int Fed issue and Nat Sov passed away many years ago. It is not assumed as reasonable that the purpose of the WA is to shove progressive values to every nation in the WA, especially the ones that don't want them. Nat Sov / Pro Choice nations don't need R.F. because of O.A. Unfortunately, there aren't any. They probably left the WA already.)

[Dirty Americans]

"There is a difference between a legal right and a civil right. Legal rights are granted, civil rights are inalienable. The right to get an abortion has never been an inalienable right. At the moment, abortion is a legal right as defined by WA law. As I have stated, I am good with that, I am simply tired of this issue coming up over and over. A blocker that gives nations authority over it would be far preferable."

On Abortion is the blocker; only it blocks in favor of abortion. Individual nations may legalize more procedures or the WA may legalize more procedures, but the WA cannot issue more prohibitions since that would violate the wording in O.A.

Moreover, "Civil Rights" only apply to the first person. What does a "right to an abortion" mean? Does that mean that you can compel a doctor to perform an abortion even if he is on holiday? Generally speaking, civil rights are in the first person, meaning the person has a right to do X or own Y. They are very simple, almost atomic things. One of the first indications that you have crossed the line is when it starts placing demands on the third person.

[Wallenburg]

(OOC: A compromise is only necessary when both sides have no way of getting what they desire, so both of them can only have some of their needs met. In this instance, the pro-choice members of this assembly are perfectly able to achieve their legislative needs, so having a blocker for a middle ground is simply unneeded. Indeed, I don’t see much purpose in repealing Reproductive Freedoms since the pro-choice crowd have such legislative clout.)

(OOC: Believe it or not, the question of the repeal of Reproductive Freedoms is actually an Nat Sov / Int Fed issue and Nat Sov passed away many years ago. It is not assumed as reasonable that the purpose of the WA is to shove progressive values to every nation in the WA, especially the ones that don't want them. Nat Sov / Pro Choice nations don't need R.F. because of O.A. Unfortunately, there aren't any. They probably left the WA already.)

The NatSov/IntFed dynamic is not useful in evaluating modern WA matters.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: doesnt help that natsov is incoherent as an ideology. I say that as a former natsov and proponent of subsidiarism.

[United Massachusetts]

subsidiarism.

You sound like a Catholic.

[Separatist Peoples]

subsidiarism.

You sound like a Catholic.

OOC and IC: Nobody's perfect.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: Bump

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Regarding the legal check requested by the author. Both clauses are problematic IMO. The permits clause in the target makes it entirely clear that birth cannot be used as blanket method of termination and referring to the 48 debates is suspiciously close to metagaming.

The foreign countries clause looks dodgy too. Please explain how this could occur considering the existence of GAR#456. [/(1/6 gensec)]

OOC: Have these been dealt with or further discussed?

[Sposteen]

The new Sposteen Ambassador Vra'al holds up a tendril, floating in their encounter suit.

"What if the citizen is called upon by the Tome-Keeper to traverse to alien galaxies and becomes self-fertilized? Without legal abortion our Observers would need to be sterilized."

[BlackLight Covenant]

The new Sposteen Ambassador Vra'al holds up a tendril, floating in their encounter suit.

"What if the citizen is called upon by the Tome-Keeper to traverse to alien galaxies and becomes self-fertilized? Without legal abortion our Observers would need to be sterilized."

"You may be misunderstanding the situation here, ambassador: while the resolution targeted by this repeal proposal does indeed guarantee a widespread right to perform abortions, it doesn't necessarily mean that said resolution being repealed automatically gets rid of a large portion of this right. It mainly means that, as long as there is no replacement of course, nations are free to make their own policy choices on the matter, of course provided that said policy choices aren't in violation of previous resolutions on abortion in case of medical emergencies and such. This means that your nation would still have the right to have abortion remain as a legal national policy.

Of course, as long as there is no suitable replacement, I would personally recommend voting against this repeal attempt, mainly to prevent nations that strongly oppose the targeted resolution more often than not because of moral issues from attempting to sneak in a resolution that would impose notably heavier restrictions on abortion. Keeping an extra barrier in place until a proper replacement is present is most likely not a bad idea."

- Dietrich Latvala, 1st Corporate Representative to the World Assembly

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: Regarding the legal check requested by the author. Both clauses are problematic IMO. The permits clause in the target makes it entirely clear that birth cannot be used as blanket method of termination and referring to the 48 debates is suspiciously close to metagaming.

The foreign countries clause looks dodgy too. Please explain how this could occur considering the existence of GAR#456. [/(1/6 gensec)]

OOC: Have these been dealt with or further discussed?

The first one has not been discussed because the thread fell off the first page, the second one has been dealt with and removed.

Edit: I have changed the "48" with "dozens"

[BerCasca]

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.

What would you need to see in a replacement?

[The New California Republic]

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

What would you need to see in a replacement?

Abortion megaclinics for all.

[Sposteen]

The Sposs floats thoughtfully.
"The Government of Sposteen cannot support this legislation as it would reopen a debate already finished. Reproductive Freedoms shall continue as is."
Vra'al, second Sposteen Ambassador to the WA

[Marxist Germany]

"I intend on submitting this on Friday if the ambassador from United Massachusetts is ready to submit his replacement afterwards. Otherwise the drafting period continues."

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Have these been dealt with or further discussed?

The first one has not been discussed because the thread fell off the first page, the second one has been dealt with and removed.

Edit: I have changed the "48" with "dozens"

OOC: First one is still an issue IMO. My 1/6 GenSec would be that this is an honest mistake.

My personal opinion is still that the whole thing is incredibly dishonest, and that I have no intention of listening to anything proposed by nations who remain in flagrant non-compliance with existing resolutions.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

The first one has not been discussed because the thread fell off the first page, the second one has been dealt with and removed.

Edit: I have changed the "48" with "dozens"

OOC: First one is still an issue IMO. My 1/6 GenSec would be that this is an honest mistake.

OOC: 2/6 (for those not interested in clicking through, that is regarding the "nations can say birth is termination of pregnancy" argument)

Also, your "Concerned..." clause states in part:

whilst placing reasonable restrictions that prevent abuse such as the example mentioned above

...but above that is the smarmy part (the thing about division and how horrible it is that the losing side of this argument keeps banging its head against a wall), not anything related to abuses. In fact you have to go all the way back to the very first paragraph to find a citation of abuses that could possibly be fixed by restricting abortion rights - every other malady you list is better solved by keeping the law as it is, or even further expanding the rights and powers of people seeking abortions. Barring rewording that paragraph or re-ordering your paragraphs, I have to take that as an Honest Mistake also.

Oh, unless you buy the line about D&E, which is only "commonly" known under that loaded term by anti-choice activists and people with no more reliable source of information. You can get away with that one because GenSec does not make determinations of IRL fact, but this entire repeal verges very close to Not Addressing the Contents of the Target.

[Kenmoria]

“The ‘disgusted’ clause should have a ‘that’ before ‘because’.”

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: I will fix the illegality later today, I would also like to note that my "noncompliance" has long been rectified.

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: I would also like to note that my "noncompliance" has long been rectified.

OOC: Your continued attempt to repeal the target says otherwise.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I would also like to note that my "noncompliance" has long been rectified.

OOC: Your continued attempt to repeal the target says otherwise.

OOC: Not really? If anything, it reinforces the statement. Why repeal a resolution you weren't bothering with anyway?