[Draft] Repeal Access to Abortion

[Old Hope]

Considering that the resolution Access to Abortion has a lot of flaws:

1.Failure to allow restrictions based on reasons other than those named in clause 7:
Clause 3d prohibits member nations from issuing legitimate bans not related to personal safety for the recipient/people in close contact, e.g. environmental concerns(the abortion drug is highly dangerous for the environment, but not to recipients)

2. Dilution of environmental protections in large areas vital to the ecosystem selected as national reserve/under strict environmental protections
a. The construction of clinics also mandates easy access via roads or other transportation measures and the construction of waste disposal systems harmful for a sensitive environment
b. The construction and maintenance of clinics leads to noise and light pollution

3. Excessive costs
a. A lot of World Assembly resolutions are already putting a financial strain to even developed countries, let alone not so developed countries
b. This resolution forces the government to pay for all abortions and contraceptives, and without compensation(or to provide these services for free)
c. The financial capacities of all World Assembly nations combined are not infinite
d. Forcing a nation into bankruptcy due to excessive costly mandates results in instability and decreasing living standards in the nation

4. Immorality:The protections to the unborn of a sapient species able to feel pain might be considerably lower than the protections issued to sentinent beings.

the World Assembly repeals General Assembly Resolution 499.

[Kenmoria]

“I disagree with your arguments. Clause 1 doesn’t work in the context that member states could prohibit the production of environmentally-harmful abortifacients if they were other abortifacients of equal efficacy. Clause 3d does not require that inhabitants must be granted access to each and every drug that could conceivably be used to end a pregnancy, but that people have the right of access to at least one effective abortifacient.

Clause 2 would only work if a member state chose not to build a clinic in a less environmentally-sensitive area, and I can’t see why one would do so. It makes far more sense economically speaking to construct a clinic in an area that already has suitable infrastructure in place. Your clause 2b seems somewhat unimportant, since it is true of every building.

Clause 3 is remedied by the authorisation of the GA to construct clinics that do not use member states’ resources, except indirectly via the WAGF, in case of an inability to pay. Lastly, clause 4 simply doesn’t work, since the GA has agreed that procuring an abortion is not immoral. I won’t address exactly why, since there are transcripts in almost every abortion-related drafting chamber discussing this at length.”

[Old Hope]

“I disagree with your arguments. Clause 1 doesn’t work in the context that member states could prohibit the production of environmentally-harmful abortifacients if they were other abortifacients of equal efficacy. Clause 3d does not require that inhabitants must be granted access to each and every drug that could conceivably be used to end a pregnancy, but that people have the right of access to at least one effective abortifacient.

Clause 2 would only work if a member state chose not to build a clinic in a less environmentally-sensitive area, and I can’t see why one would do so. It makes far more sense economically speaking to construct a clinic in an area that already has suitable infrastructure in place. Your clause 2b seems somewhat unimportant, since it is true of every building.

Clause 3 is remedied by the authorisation of the GA to construct clinics that do not use member states’ resources, except indirectly via the WAGF, in case of an inability to pay. Lastly, clause 4 simply doesn’t work, since the GA has agreed that procuring an abortion is not immoral. I won’t address exactly why, since there are transcripts in almost every abortion-related drafting chamber discussing this at length.”

Let`s go over this one by one. First...
My clause 1: The resolution says

No members may:[...]prohibit or levy discriminatory tariffs or tax against section 7 compliant contraceptives or abortifacients,

and

Health and safety. The World Health Authority (WHA) must issue regulations to ensure abortions, abortifacients, and contraceptives available to the general public are safe and effective for end-users and those with which they may be in close contact. Such regulations overrule those made by members unless it can be shown to the IAO that those WHA regulations are insufficient in fulfilling the mandates of this section.

Your interpretation is wrong.

Clause 2:You are totally missing the point.

large areas vital to the ecosystem

. This doesn`t mean small forests. It means hundreds of kilometers(OOC:the Amazon rainforest, for example) which would definitely violate section 2:

Funding. Members must pay for or provide directly abortions, abortifacients, and contraceptives to any recipient bona fide within their jurisdiction upon request. Members must also provide a means to access such services and commodities speedily and free at the point of service or provision.

and clause 2b is not unimportant if no building would otherwise have been built there.

Clause 3: Do you know how many costly resolutions exist? Did you overlook that building clinics only covers the abortion and aborifactients but not contraceptives? These things are expensive. You need to take into account that these expenses are related to the population of the member state, and that a significant amount of people will want to have access to one of these services/goods, especially contraceptives... which are NOT covered by the clinics. Your argument does not address clause 3 C at all: if richer nations have to shoulder nearly all things then we reach a turning point pretty fast and everything collapses. You cannot create resources out of nothing, ambassador.

Clause 4:Guess what, that does not make this argument illegal. Please note that this clause says sentinent, not sapient beings.

[Ardiveds]

"Ambassador, we strongly agree with clause 3, have some disagreement with clause 1 and 2, find clause 4 as irrelevant as the personhood clause from the resolution itself. All in all, full support."

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: given that extant law provides a great deal of environmental protection, I have doubts that clauses 1 and 2 are even legal.

"We oppose this, ambassador. Access to Abortions passed with a supermajority despite the World Assembly's knowledge of these alleged flaws. I see no reason to bother second-guessing a popular policy made with full understanding of the voters on such a poorly-articulated basis."

[Tinfect]

OOC:
Nevermind what I've said before, this is officially the worst repeal argumentation I've ever seen. You manage to set a new bar every time you come back, it's genuinely incredible.

[The New California Republic]

The reasons given for repeal is largely an exercise in picking at straws. The environmental argument in particular really is laughably bad.

[Godular]

"Yeah, that's a big nope. I see several disingenuous arguments, the most egregious of which is the environmental impact argument. That right there is just silly."

[Outer Sparta]

Opposed. This repeal doesn't deliver.

[Farnhamia]

OOC:
Nevermind what I've said before, this is officially the worst repeal argumentation I've ever seen. You manage to set a new bar every time you come back, it's genuinely incredible.

*looms ominously* I shouldn't have to remind you about attacking the post, not the poster. All you had to do was stop after that first sentence. Sheesh.

[Old Hope]

Yes, you are right. I overlooked one important environmental legislation. This, however, means that the rest of the arguments won't be good enough to pass a repeal. I might come back to this if I ever find some convincing argument.

[Honeydewistania]

Yes, you are right. I overlooked one important environmental legislation. This, however, means that the rest of the arguments won't be good enough to pass a repeal. I might come back to this if I ever find some convincing argument.

You won't.

[Kenmoria]

Yes, you are right. I overlooked one important environmental legislation. This, however, means that the rest of the arguments won't be good enough to pass a repeal. I might come back to this if I ever find some convincing argument.

(OOC: It doesn’t really make sense to mark some legislation for a repeal, then try to think of something to repeal it for. There simply aren’t flaws in Access to Abortion. I suggest looking at different potential repeals.)

[Old Hope]

Yes, you are right. I overlooked one important environmental legislation. This, however, means that the rest of the arguments won't be good enough to pass a repeal. I might come back to this if I ever find some convincing argument.

(OOC: It doesn’t really make sense to mark some legislation for a repeal, then try to think of something to repeal it for. There simply aren’t flaws in Access to Abortion. I suggest looking at different potential repeals.)

There are(in my eyes) but they are unlikely to convince the majority.

[Outer Sparta]

Yes, you are right. I overlooked one important environmental legislation. This, however, means that the rest of the arguments won't be good enough to pass a repeal. I might come back to this if I ever find some convincing argument.

There's nothing in the draft that makes it a convincing repeal.