WITHDRAWN

[Avoin Mieli]

WITHDRAWN

[Quadrimmina]

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #44
Proposed By: Avoin Mieli

Description: [proposal=]WA Resolution #44 "Reduction of Abortion Act"[/proposal] is to "(1) abstinence education, (2) adoption services, (3) contraceptives, (4) family planning services, (5) pre-natal, obstetric, and post-natal medical care, counseling, and services, (6) comprehensive sex education, and (7) education, awareness, prevention, and counseling programs to prevent rape and incest;" (Taken Directly from the Bill itself)

Arguement: RECOGNIZING That Abortion is deemed morally wrong by many people and religions around the world

NOTING That a woman has a right to do what she pleases with her body

ALSO NOTING That just because something is illegal, doesn't mean that citizens will stop doing it.

REGRETTING The amount of illegal abortions that this act has caused, not just in Avoin Mieli, but the world.

REGRETTING The impracticalities that abstinence education has brought about, Teenage pregnancy rates in Avoin Mieli have sharply RISEN since the passage of this bill, according to our doctors.

SEEKING A possibilty that instead of abstinence education, that Sex Ed become mandatory, with a Parental Opt-Out option.

The World Assembly Hereby Repeals the "Reduction of Abortion Act"

Questions? Comments? Suggestions? Leave a reply!

This bill reduces abortions not by making them illegal but by reducing the incidence of unwanted pregnancy. This is a noble goal and a genius compromise. Your delegation seems to have misunderstood it. We will never support this repeal.

[Avoin Mieli]

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #44
Proposed By: Avoin Mieli

Description: [proposal=]WA Resolution #44 "Reduction of Abortion Act"[/proposal] is to "(1) abstinence education, (2) adoption services, (3) contraceptives, (4) family planning services, (5) pre-natal, obstetric, and post-natal medical care, counseling, and services, (6) comprehensive sex education, and (7) education, awareness, prevention, and counseling programs to prevent rape and incest;" (Taken Directly from the Bill itself)

Arguement: RECOGNIZING That Abortion is deemed morally wrong by many people and religions around the world

NOTING That a woman has a right to do what she pleases with her body

ALSO NOTING That just because something is illegal, doesn't mean that citizens will stop doing it.

REGRETTING The amount of illegal abortions that this act has caused, not just in Avoin Mieli, but the world.

REGRETTING The impracticalities that abstinence education has brought about, Teenage pregnancy rates in Avoin Mieli have sharply RISEN since the passage of this bill, according to our doctors.

SEEKING A possibilty that instead of abstinence education, that Sex Ed become mandatory, with a Parental Opt-Out option.

The World Assembly Hereby Repeals the "Reduction of Abortion Act"

Questions? Comments? Suggestions? Leave a reply!

This bill reduces abortions not by making them illegal but by reducing the incidence of unwanted pregnancy. This is a noble goal and a genius compromise. Your delegation seems to have misunderstood it. We will never support this repeal.

Ah, but isn't it the same idea? Aren't we still telling a person what to do with their body? That is a clear invasion into a woman's civil rights.

[Grays Harbor]

No, it is not an "invasion of civil rights". That phrase is bandied about with far too much frequency. Education =/= invasion of civil rights. Check your facts.

Like our Quadrimminian colleague, we cannot nor will we ever support the repeal of Resolution 44.

[Avoin Mieli]

No, it is not an "invasion of civil rights". That phrase is bandied about with far too much frequency. Education =/= invasion of civil rights. Check your facts.

Like our Quadrimminian colleague, we cannot nor will we ever support the repeal of Resolution 44.

It is the education to prevent Abortions, I did not read in the bill that parents would allow their children to opt-out of said Education, causing a mandate on Education. THAT, my good man, Is an invasion into the Civil Liberty to allow a parent to freely control their Children's education.

[Grays Harbor]

No, it is not an "invasion of civil rights". That phrase is bandied about with far too much frequency. Education =/= invasion of civil rights. Check your facts.

Like our Quadrimminian colleague, we cannot nor will we ever support the repeal of Resolution 44.

It is the education to prevent Abortions, I did not read in the bill that parents would allow their children to opt-out of said Education, causing a mandate on Education. THAT, my good man, Is an invasion into the Civil Liberty to allow a parent to freely control their Children's education.

No, that is called "parenting".

[Avoin Mieli]

No, it is not an "invasion of civil rights". That phrase is bandied about with far too much frequency. Education =/= invasion of civil rights. Check your facts.

Like our Quadrimminian colleague, we cannot nor will we ever support the repeal of Resolution 44.

It is the education to prevent Abortions, I did not read in the bill that parents would allow their children to opt-out of said Education, causing a mandate on Education. THAT, my good man, Is an invasion into the Civil Liberty to allow a parent to freely control their Children's education.

No, that is called "parenting".

But let's say I wouldn't want my child to hear this lesson because I feel it is not in the best interest of my child, by saying that my child will be forced to learn about this takes away my rights as a parent and, essentially, hands parenting rights over to the Government.

[American Capitalist]

No, it is not an "invasion of civil rights". That phrase is bandied about with far too much frequency. Education =/= invasion of civil rights. Check your facts.

Like our Quadrimminian colleague, we cannot nor will we ever support the repeal of Resolution 44.

It is the education to prevent Abortions, I did not read in the bill that parents would allow their children to opt-out of said Education, causing a mandate on Education. THAT, my good man, Is an invasion into the Civil Liberty to allow a parent to freely control their Children's education.

No, that is called "parenting".

But let's say I wouldn't want my child to hear this lesson because I feel it is not in the best interest of my child, by saying that my child will be forced to learn about this takes away my rights as a parent and, essentially, hands parenting rights over to the Government.

What kind of parent wouldn't want their child to hear the cons of abortion?

[Avoin Mieli]

No, it is not an "invasion of civil rights". That phrase is bandied about with far too much frequency. Education =/= invasion of civil rights. Check your facts.

Like our Quadrimminian colleague, we cannot nor will we ever support the repeal of Resolution 44.

It is the education to prevent Abortions, I did not read in the bill that parents would allow their children to opt-out of said Education, causing a mandate on Education. THAT, my good man, Is an invasion into the Civil Liberty to allow a parent to freely control their Children's education.

No, that is called "parenting".

But let's say I wouldn't want my child to hear this lesson because I feel it is not in the best interest of my child, by saying that my child will be forced to learn about this takes away my rights as a parent and, essentially, hands parenting rights over to the Government.

What kind of parent wouldn't want their child to hear the cons of abortion?

A parent that feels their child is not ready to be exposed to that type of subject matter just yet.

[Grays Harbor]

No, it is not an "invasion of civil rights". That phrase is bandied about with far too much frequency. Education =/= invasion of civil rights. Check your facts.

Like our Quadrimminian colleague, we cannot nor will we ever support the repeal of Resolution 44.

It is the education to prevent Abortions, I did not read in the bill that parents would allow their children to opt-out of said Education, causing a mandate on Education. THAT, my good man, Is an invasion into the Civil Liberty to allow a parent to freely control their Children's education.

No, that is called "parenting".

But let's say I wouldn't want my child to hear this lesson because I feel it is not in the best interest of my child, by saying that my child will be forced to learn about this takes away my rights as a parent and, essentially, hands parenting rights over to the Government.

We think that if that is your argument, perhaps you should go back and reread the resolution prior to making further spurious arguments.

[Avoin Mieli]

No, it is not an "invasion of civil rights". That phrase is bandied about with far too much frequency. Education =/= invasion of civil rights. Check your facts.

Like our Quadrimminian colleague, we cannot nor will we ever support the repeal of Resolution 44.

It is the education to prevent Abortions, I did not read in the bill that parents would allow their children to opt-out of said Education, causing a mandate on Education. THAT, my good man, Is an invasion into the Civil Liberty to allow a parent to freely control their Children's education.

No, that is called "parenting".

But let's say I wouldn't want my child to hear this lesson because I feel it is not in the best interest of my child, by saying that my child will be forced to learn about this takes away my rights as a parent and, essentially, hands parenting rights over to the Government.

We think that if that is your argument, perhaps you should go back and reread the resolution prior to making further spurious arguments.

The bill said NOTHING about I, as a parent, having the ability to opt-out of an Abstienence Education class.
However, it did say this:
"DECLARES that nothing in this resolution shall affect the power of member states to declare abortion legal or illegal or to pass legislation extending or restricting access to abortion."

Which would be another reason why this law should be null and void, it is saying plain and simple that I do not have rights as a nation and basically saying that repealing this bill shouldn't be allowed.

[Grays Harbor]

No, it is not an "invasion of civil rights". That phrase is bandied about with far too much frequency. Education =/= invasion of civil rights. Check your facts.

Like our Quadrimminian colleague, we cannot nor will we ever support the repeal of Resolution 44.

It is the education to prevent Abortions, I did not read in the bill that parents would allow their children to opt-out of said Education, causing a mandate on Education. THAT, my good man, Is an invasion into the Civil Liberty to allow a parent to freely control their Children's education.

No, that is called "parenting".

But let's say I wouldn't want my child to hear this lesson because I feel it is not in the best interest of my child, by saying that my child will be forced to learn about this takes away my rights as a parent and, essentially, hands parenting rights over to the Government.

We think that if that is your argument, perhaps you should go back and reread the resolution prior to making further spurious arguments.

The bill said NOTHING about I, as a parent, having the ability to opt-out of an Abstienence Education class.
However, it did say this:
"DECLARES that nothing in this resolution shall affect the power of member states to declare abortion legal or illegal or to pass legislation extending or restricting access to abortion."

Which would be another reason why this law should be null and void, it is saying plain and simple that I do not have rights as a nation and basically saying that repealing this bill shouldn't be allowed.

Seriously?

What it is saying, is that a nations right to either ban or legalize abortion is not to be abridged. Where you came up with your definition is definately beyond us.

[Avoin Mieli]

No, it is not an "invasion of civil rights". That phrase is bandied about with far too much frequency. Education =/= invasion of civil rights. Check your facts.

Like our Quadrimminian colleague, we cannot nor will we ever support the repeal of Resolution 44.

It is the education to prevent Abortions, I did not read in the bill that parents would allow their children to opt-out of said Education, causing a mandate on Education. THAT, my good man, Is an invasion into the Civil Liberty to allow a parent to freely control their Children's education.

No, that is called "parenting".

But let's say I wouldn't want my child to hear this lesson because I feel it is not in the best interest of my child, by saying that my child will be forced to learn about this takes away my rights as a parent and, essentially, hands parenting rights over to the Government.

We think that if that is your argument, perhaps you should go back and reread the resolution prior to making further spurious arguments.

The bill said NOTHING about I, as a parent, having the ability to opt-out of an Abstienence Education class.
However, it did say this:
"DECLARES that nothing in this resolution shall affect the power of member states to declare abortion legal or illegal or to pass legislation extending or restricting access to abortion."

Which would be another reason why this law should be null and void, it is saying plain and simple that I do not have rights as a nation and basically saying that repealing this bill shouldn't be allowed.

Seriously?

What it is saying, is that a nations right to either ban or legalize abortion is not to be abridged. Where you came up with your definition is definately beyond us.

Maybe the last statement was a bit irrational, but the bill still states in it's own that a state has no rights in deciding what to do with it's own citizens.

[Grays Harbor]

No, it is not an "invasion of civil rights". That phrase is bandied about with far too much frequency. Education =/= invasion of civil rights. Check your facts.

Like our Quadrimminian colleague, we cannot nor will we ever support the repeal of Resolution 44.

It is the education to prevent Abortions, I did not read in the bill that parents would allow their children to opt-out of said Education, causing a mandate on Education. THAT, my good man, Is an invasion into the Civil Liberty to allow a parent to freely control their Children's education.

No, that is called "parenting".

But let's say I wouldn't want my child to hear this lesson because I feel it is not in the best interest of my child, by saying that my child will be forced to learn about this takes away my rights as a parent and, essentially, hands parenting rights over to the Government.

We think that if that is your argument, perhaps you should go back and reread the resolution prior to making further spurious arguments.

The bill said NOTHING about I, as a parent, having the ability to opt-out of an Abstienence Education class.
However, it did say this:
"DECLARES that nothing in this resolution shall affect the power of member states to declare abortion legal or illegal or to pass legislation extending or restricting access to abortion."

Which would be another reason why this law should be null and void, it is saying plain and simple that I do not have rights as a nation and basically saying that repealing this bill shouldn't be allowed.

Seriously?

What it is saying, is that a nations right to either ban or legalize abortion is not to be abridged. Where you came up with your definition is definately beyond us.

Maybe the last statement was a bit irrational, but the bill still states in it's own that a state has no rights in deciding what to do with it's own citizens.

No, it does not, and continued insistance that it somehow does merely highlights your own incomprehension of it.

[Avoin Mieli]

No, it is not an "invasion of civil rights". That phrase is bandied about with far too much frequency. Education =/= invasion of civil rights. Check your facts.

Like our Quadrimminian colleague, we cannot nor will we ever support the repeal of Resolution 44.

It is the education to prevent Abortions, I did not read in the bill that parents would allow their children to opt-out of said Education, causing a mandate on Education. THAT, my good man, Is an invasion into the Civil Liberty to allow a parent to freely control their Children's education.

No, that is called "parenting".

But let's say I wouldn't want my child to hear this lesson because I feel it is not in the best interest of my child, by saying that my child will be forced to learn about this takes away my rights as a parent and, essentially, hands parenting rights over to the Government.

We think that if that is your argument, perhaps you should go back and reread the resolution prior to making further spurious arguments.

The bill said NOTHING about I, as a parent, having the ability to opt-out of an Abstienence Education class.
However, it did say this:
"DECLARES that nothing in this resolution shall affect the power of member states to declare abortion legal or illegal or to pass legislation extending or restricting access to abortion."

Which would be another reason why this law should be null and void, it is saying plain and simple that I do not have rights as a nation and basically saying that repealing this bill shouldn't be allowed.

Seriously?

What it is saying, is that a nations right to either ban or legalize abortion is not to be abridged. Where you came up with your definition is definately beyond us.

Maybe the last statement was a bit irrational, but the bill still states in it's own that a state has no rights in deciding what to do with it's own citizens.

No, it does not, and continued insistance that it somehow does merely highlights your own incomprehension of it.

Then please, inform me of my misconception, For I see none.

[Grays Harbor]

Seriously?

What it is saying, is that a nations right to either ban or legalize abortion is not to be abridged. Where you came up with your definition is definately beyond us.

Maybe the last statement was a bit irrational, but the bill still states in it's own that a state has no rights in deciding what to do with it's own citizens.

No, it does not, and continued insistance that it somehow does merely highlights your own incomprehension of it.

Then please, inform me of my misconception, For I see none.

[Avoin Mieli]

Seriously?

What it is saying, is that a nations right to either ban or legalize abortion is not to be abridged. Where you came up with your definition is definately beyond us.

Maybe the last statement was a bit irrational, but the bill still states in it's own that a state has no rights in deciding what to do with it's own citizens.

No, it does not, and continued insistance that it somehow does merely highlights your own incomprehension of it.

Then please, inform me of my misconception, For I see none.

It seems I read the word "UNabridged" instead of "abridged"

[Quadrimmina]

Seriously?

What it is saying, is that a nations right to either ban or legalize abortion is not to be abridged. Where you came up with your definition is definately beyond us.

Maybe the last statement was a bit irrational, but the bill still states in it's own that a state has no rights in deciding what to do with it's own citizens.

No, it does not, and continued insistance that it somehow does merely highlights your own incomprehension of it.

Then please, inform me of my misconception, For I see none.

It seems I read the word "UNabridged" instead of "abridged"

That would be a rather ridiculous sentence that most ambassadors here would eye with deep suspicion.

At the same time, abortions can be made legal by any nation. Also, this bill reduces abortions not by removing the choice of a woman to get an abortion but by informing the public how not to get pregnant and reducing unwanted pregnancy, and by corrolary, abortion.

We hope this draft will soon be withdrawn, for it is unnecessary. We will be vehemently campaigning against it if it is continued.

[Flibbleites]

REGRETTING The amount of illegal abortions that this act has caused, not just in Avoin Mieli, but the world.

REGRETTING The impracticalities that abstinence education has brought about, Teenage pregnancy rates in Avoin Mieli have sharply RISEN since the passage of this bill, according to our doctors.!

Illegal, Branding.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Meekinos]

Arguement: RECOGNIZING That Abortion is deemed morally wrong by many people and religions around the world

And your evidence of this is based on what?

NOTING That a woman has a right to do what she pleases with her body

You do realize that nothing in the Reduction of Abortion Act denies that.

ALSO NOTING That just because something is illegal, doesn't mean that citizens will stop doing it.

The only thing this is proving is that you haven't actually comprehended the resolution. It does NOT outlaw abortion, nor does it legalize it. That element is left up to the individual nations. What this resolution does is set the ground work for providing alternatives. Alternatives does not mean something is illegal.

REGRETTING The amount of illegal abortions that this act has caused, not just in Avoin Mieli, but the world.

Again, there is nothing in the resolution that has made abortions illegal or legal. It is still left up to the nation.

ooc: Oh and branding. If you want to talk about illegal; this repeal is illegal.

REGRETTING The impracticalities that abstinence education has brought about, Teenage pregnancy rates in Avoin Mieli have sharply RISEN since the passage of this bill, according to our doctors.

You really didn't read the resolution did you? If you had even been bothered to understand it (ooc: and the rules, since there is branding on this line as well), you would note that abstinence is just ONE solution of a few listed.

SEEKING A possibilty that instead of abstinence education, that Sex Ed become mandatory, with a Parental Opt-Out option.

Read the first clause again you quoted from that resolution. Note that it includes "(6) comprehensive sex education, and (7) education, awareness, prevention, and counseling programs to prevent rape and incest;".

[Avoin Mieli]

The Republic of Avoin Mieli withdraws it's argument

[Quadrimmina]

The Republic of Avoin Mieli withdraws it's argument

Our Republic thanks your for its decision. Please change the title so that instead of DRAFT it says WITHDRAWN.

We look forward to working with your nation on further legislation.