NationStates

The World Assembly,

NOTING that "child" and "baby" in this context refers to the unborn baby in the womb,

ASSERTING that it is the duty of all nations to protect their most innocent citizens,

ACCEPTING the controversy around banning abortion,

NEVERTHELESS convinced that it is inappropriate for innocent babies to be killed because they were conceived of rape or the reason that "it's not the right time", et cetera...;

THEREFORE:

1. REQUIRES the World Assembly to criminalize the despicable act of abortion where:
A. the child in question is conceived of rape and/or incest;
B. the reason for an abortion is not to save the life of the mother.

2. MANDATES that abortions are only to be legalised when the mother is in grave danger of death, and not in other cases.

3. FURTHER MANDATES that the same punishments for murder are to be applied to abortionists who do an abortion where the mother is not in grave danger of dying;

4. DECLARES that the baby should not need to die for the crimes of its father;

5. FURTHER DECLARES that the baby has a right to life, the same as all other humans;

6. FURTHER DECLARES that the life of a baby starts at conception, and not at birth.

Ooc: this currently violates at least GAR#128 and GAR# 286.

OOC: Child is left undefined. And I'm pretty sure prior GA resolutions already defined children. <.>

OOC: I have made a draft of resolutions to repeal #128 and #286.

Scientifically speaking, a baby starts somewhere in the later third trimester, not conception. And before you submit this, please know that it is very unlikely that this will pass, considering the demographics of NS and the fact that it is lessening the rights and autonomy of member nations.

OOC:

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/arti ... otes2.html

https://thefederalist.com/2017/10/13/li ... tment-hhs/

Also, you're OK with people using "pro choice" but you're NOT OK with "pro life"?

What are your thoughts on capital punishment?

It should not be allowed.

It does not help people, rather, rehabilitation for a minimum of 3 years would help.

Staypuftonia wrote:OOC:

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/arti ... otes2.html

https://thefederalist.com/2017/10/13/li ... tment-hhs/

Also, you're OK with people using "pro choice" but you're NOT OK with "pro life"?

There is a difference between life and being a sapient, sentient organism. Trees are alive, microbes are alive, even bacteria are alive. A baby is only a baby when it is on the level of semi-conciousness.

And to answer your second point, I believe that it should not be up to the WA or governments as to whether abortions should be legal; it should be up to the pregnant woman themselves, as it is their body and their embryo and their choice. While there must be regulations to make sure they are not having abortions in the third trimester (unless the mother is in danger), it must be up to the person actually carrying the embryo, not some government or WA.

Staypuftonia wrote:4. DECLARES that the baby should not need to die for the crimes of its father;

"Yet, a rape victim has to suffer for the crimes of the rapist?"

Strong oppose. It is the right of the government to provide liberty to their citizens; banning them from using these rights is fundamentally counter-productive, not to mention the obvious problems with this resolution's view on the definition of children and fetuses. The Soviet Union will vote against this proposal in all future endeavors, and enter into a state of non-compliance if it is passed.

"Not all rape victims say they've suffered after birth of the baby. In fact, they even love their baby. Most Staypuftonian rape victims love their babies. Also, once the egg has been fertilized, the life has begun."

OOC: I'm actually somewhat disappointed that the GA has mandated an upper bound for legally defining a child but not a lower bound per GA#220.

Staypuftonia wrote:"Not all rape victims say they've suffered after birth of the baby. In fact, they even love their baby. Most Staypuftonian rape victims love their babies."

"Have they said this under threat of injury? Because either you've selectively chosen your sample for that 'fact' or you're just lying. Additionally, 'not all suffered' is not an adequate measure for whether or not people should be protected from possible suffering."

"Categorical opposition. Even on the infinitesimal likelihood that the repeals were to even make it to quorum and pass, it would in all probability only be to present bills that further STRENGTHEN abortion rights."

Morover wrote:

Staypuftonia wrote:"Not all rape victims say they've suffered after birth of the baby. In fact, they even love their baby. Most Staypuftonian rape victims love their babies."

"Have they said this under threat of injury? Because either you've selectively chosen your sample for that 'fact' or you're just lying. Additionally, 'not all suffered' is not an adequate measure for whether or not people should be protected from possible suffering."

Not under threat.

I only chose my sample because it is one of many examples.

Staypuftonia wrote:

Morover wrote:"Have they said this under threat of injury? Because either you've selectively chosen your sample for that 'fact' or you're just lying. Additionally, 'not all suffered' is not an adequate measure for whether or not people should be protected from possible suffering."

Not under threat.

I only chose my sample because it is one of many examples.

The Soviet Union implores you to provide exact percentages.

Staypuftonia wrote:"Not all rape victims say they've suffered after birth of the baby. In fact, they even love their baby. Most Staypuftonian rape victims love their babies. Also, once the egg has been fertilized, the life has begun."

"Ambassador, I'm sorry your nation has such a widespread case of Stockholm syndrome. But the vast majority of rape victims in Ardiveds don't like a pregnancy being thrust upon then without their consent and so I'll ask you again: why must a rape victim suffer for the crimes of the rapist?

We won't waste our breath arguing with you about when life begins and when that life turns into an actual human and then an actual citizen."

"Alright, I am sorry, but what does this have to do with the rights of the baby? Also, why should babies have to suffer for the crimes of their father? At least in this country we have decency."

(OOC: This has very little chance of passing. Since the proposal does demonstrate a good starting position, I encourage you to try a more productive avenue of legislation. Whether this fortunate or unfortunate, the GA is pro-choice as a body, and this has such a small chance of becoming a resolution that I don’t think it is worth pursuing.)

OOC: What specifically is a more productive avenue of legislation? Pass this through the regional legislations? The Security Council?

Staypuftonia wrote:OOC: What specifically is a more productive avenue of legislation? Pass this through the regional legislations? The Security Council?

(OOC: I’m referring to picking a different policy area. Abortion has been comprehensively legislated on by past authors. As with any topic, it’s best to go with something nobody has done before.)

Staypuftonia wrote:OOC: What specifically is a more productive avenue of legislation? Pass this through the regional legislations? The Security Council?

OOC: This is the appropriate venue, lol. It's just that NS is definitely left-leaning, and if not NS, all the regions that carry any sort of weight in the GA definitely are.

IC: "This proposal not only shows a thorough disregard to GA resolutions #128 and #286, it impedes on the mother's liberty and freedom. This proposal is authoritarian nonsense disguised as fetus victimization. While many in North Prarie may not agree with the practice of abortion, most of us have determined that this is not our choice. Additionally, this proposal is downright offensive towards victims of rape, who would have to raise an unplanned child that was a result of trauma, which makes it an even more dangerous situation for the child then if their fetus was aborted in the first trimester."

Staypuftonia wrote:"Alright, I am sorry, but what does this have to do with the rights of the baby? Also, why should babies have to suffer for the crimes of their father? At least in this country we have decency."

"While we have seen many of the nations opposing abortion being called anti-choice, they have often defended their stance saying the mother should have used contraceptives or chose not have intercourse at all which means the mother had a choice and while we disagree, we understand why they would consider their stance also giving a choice to women.

However, the way you put the rights of a bunch of cells, with nothing even resembling an organ, with no possiblity of existence outside the womb which it inhabits, practically a parasites, above the rights of a living breathing human being who had no say on whether she wanted the pregnancy or not, disgusts me and convinces me yoy are truely an anti-choice proponent with no regard to the freedom or choice of women.

You can act all you want Ambassador, but your nation is a savage relgious cesspool with any rights of women non-existent beside making babies like brood mothers. I would say I oppose this resolution but I doubt it'll ever see the light of reaching quorum."
--- Kaiser

Staypuftonia wrote:The World Assembly,

NOTING that "child" and "baby" in this context refers to the unborn baby in the womb,

ASSERTING that it is the duty of all nations to protect their most innocent citizens,

ACCEPTING the controversy around banning abortion,

NEVERTHELESS convinced that it is inappropriate for innocent babies to be killed because they were conceived of rape or the reason that "it's not the right time", et cetera...;

THEREFORE:

1. REQUIRES the World Assembly to criminalize the despicable act of abortion where:
A. the child in question is conceived of rape and/or incest;
B. the reason for an abortion is not to save the life of the mother.

2. MANDATES that abortions are only to be legalised when the mother is in grave danger of death, and not in other cases.

3. FURTHER MANDATES that the same punishments for murder are to be applied to abortionists who do an abortion where the mother is not in grave danger of dying;

4. DECLARES that the baby should not need to die for the crimes of its father;

5. FURTHER DECLARES that the baby has a right to life, the same as all other humans;

6. FURTHER DECLARES that the life of a baby starts at conception, and not at birth.

You already have one in the works, and even then both of your proposals are illegal.