[DRAFT] Repeal "On Abortion"

[Jesoland]

Honorable colleague of Christian Democrats,

because of my deep collaboration with Ms. Harper of Minoa in order to make her proposal the best compromise WA may accept, I can't see where "On abortions" legalizes every kind of abortions for people under the age or consent.

If it were true, this would be a big leak of the resolution, which aims to limit (international) laws about abortion, providing a basic list of cases in which (generally, but in great generality) nations ANYWAY admit abortion.

Concerning the other objections of yours, they're quite a lot and - above all - not all are coherent with each other (too permissive, too strict, vocabulary matter...)

I'll be glad to discuss with you and other distinguished ambassadors who oppose "On abortion" about the single issues, but I beg you to consider that, as a compromise, every side has to accept to be a little disappointed.

[The People of Belfast]

Honorable colleague of Christian Democrats,

because of my deep collaboration with Ms. Harper of Minoa in order to make her proposal the best compromise WA may accept, I can't see where "On abortions" legalizes every kind of abortions for people under the age or consent.

If it were true, this would be a big leak of the resolution, which aims to limit (international) laws about abortion, providing a basic list of cases in which (generally, but in great generality) nations ANYWAY admit abortion.

Concerning the other objections of yours, they're quite a lot and - above all - not all are coherent with each other (too permissive, too strict, vocabulary matter...)

I'll be glad to discuss with you and other distinguished ambassadors who oppose "On abortion" about the single issues, but I beg you to consider that, as a compromise, every side has to accept to be a little disappointed.

Clause 1-A:

"REQUIRES member countries to legalise abortion for cases where: The pregnancy resulted from ... sexual activity in which at least one of the parties could not legally give consent"

In order to legally consent one must be of the age to legally consent. It means that abortion is required to be legalised in all member countries where one of the parties was under the age of consent. The reason for requiring an abortion is not required to be to save the life of the mother or any of the other areas in the resolution. It could be an elective abortion but must be legalised because one of the participants in the sexual act was under the age of consent.

[St George of England]

Hah, no, I hope it succeeds, more power to the women!

...and more death to the future of the human race!
When your 'right to choose' interferes with my future generations, I must take offense.

If you don't want kids: STOP F***ING so many guys! Try that as a CHOICE

I'd fucking LOVE for you to go post that in General.

[Umbra Ac Silentium]

Hah, no, I hope it succeeds, more power to the women!

...and more death to the future of the human race!
When your 'right to choose' interferes with my future generations, I must take offense.

If you don't want kids: STOP F***ING so many guys! Try that as a CHOICE

Right to choose? No, Bodily Sovereignty, my friend.

[Jesoland]

Honorable colleague of Christian Democrats,

because of my deep collaboration with Ms. Harper of Minoa in order to make her proposal the best compromise WA may accept, I can't see where "On abortions" legalizes every kind of abortions for people under the age or consent.

If it were true, this would be a big leak of the resolution, which aims to limit (international) laws about abortion, providing a basic list of cases in which (generally, but in great generality) nations ANYWAY admit abortion.

Concerning the other objections of yours, they're quite a lot and - above all - not all are coherent with each other (too permissive, too strict, vocabulary matter...)

I'll be glad to discuss with you and other distinguished ambassadors who oppose "On abortion" about the single issues, but I beg you to consider that, as a compromise, every side has to accept to be a little disappointed.

Clause 1-A:

"REQUIRES member countries to legalise abortion for cases where: The pregnancy resulted from ... sexual activity in which at least one of the parties could not legally give consent"

In order to legally consent one must be of the age to legally consent. It means that abortion is required to be legalised in all member countries where one of the parties was under the age of consent. The reason for requiring an abortion is not required to be to save the life of the mother or any of the other areas in the resolution. It could be an elective abortion but must be legalised because one of the participants in the sexual act was under the age of consent.

I deem sex under the age of consent is, according to law, the same as rape.

We don't agree with the fact that rape is a good reason to obtain abortion but, in fact, there is no "good" reason for a bad thing as abortion. It might be the lesser evil.

[The People of Belfast]

Clause 1-A:

"REQUIRES member countries to legalise abortion for cases where: The pregnancy resulted from ... sexual activity in which at least one of the parties could not legally give consent"

In order to legally consent one must be of the age to legally consent. It means that abortion is required to be legalised in all member countries where one of the parties was under the age of consent. The reason for requiring an abortion is not required to be to save the life of the mother or any of the other areas in the resolution. It could be an elective abortion but must be legalised because one of the participants in the sexual act was under the age of consent.

I deem sex under the age of consent is, according to law, the same as rape.

We don't agree with the fact that rape is a good reason to obtain abortion but, in fact, there is no "good" reason for a bad thing as abortion. It might be the lesser evil.

But I don't think it is even the same as rape. If two 15 year olds have sex this resolution mandates nation states to provide her with access to abortion if she becomes pregnant. It severly weakens the resolution's cause of providing life saving abortions.

[St George of England]

I deem sex under the age of consent is, according to law, the same as rape.

We don't agree with the fact that rape is a good reason to obtain abortion but, in fact, there is no "good" reason for a bad thing as abortion. It might be the lesser evil.

But I don't think it is even the same as rape. If two 15 year olds have sex this resolution mandates nation states to provide her with access to abortion if she becomes pregnant. It severly weakens the resolution's cause of providing life saving abortions.

No it doesn't. The two are unrelated.

[The People of Belfast]

But I don't think it is even the same as rape. If two 15 year olds have sex this resolution mandates nation states to provide her with access to abortion if she becomes pregnant. It severly weakens the resolution's cause of providing life saving abortions.

No it doesn't. The two are unrelated.

The resolutions "REQUIRES member countries to legalise abortion for cases where: The pregnancy resulted from ... sexual activity in which at least one of the parties could not legally give consent". Two people under the age of consent can not legally give consent to have sex. Thus if they have sex and the girl becomes pregnant this resolution gives her a legal right to have an abortion.

[Jesoland]

I deem sex under the age of consent is, according to law, the same as rape.

We don't agree with the fact that rape is a good reason to obtain abortion but, in fact, there is no "good" reason for a bad thing as abortion. It might be the lesser evil.

But I don't think it is even the same as rape. If two 15 year olds have sex this resolution mandates nation states to provide her with access to abortion if she becomes pregnant. It severly weakens the resolution's cause of providing life saving abortions.

I'm sorry for quoting wikipedia,

the age of consent is the minimum age at which a person is considered to be legally competent of consenting to sexual acts

If one can't consent to sexual acts, the law ought to consider them against the person's will, and rape sequitur.

This resolution provides saving abortions AND abortions in case of rape. I repeat, Jesoland hoped we could do better and not consider them, too, but it wasn't possible. (Please note, if you want to read all the debate about "On abortions", that we have succeeded in carving out incest as a cause for abortions)

[The People of Belfast]

But I don't think it is even the same as rape. If two 15 year olds have sex this resolution mandates nation states to provide her with access to abortion if she becomes pregnant. It severly weakens the resolution's cause of providing life saving abortions.

I'm sorry for quoting wikipedia,

the age of consent is the minimum age at which a person is considered to be legally competent of consenting to sexual acts

If one can't consent to sexual acts, the law ought to consider them against the person's will, and rape sequitur.

This resolution provides saving abortions AND abortions in case of rape. I repeat, Jesoland hoped we could do better and not consider them, too, but it wasn't possible. (Please note, if you want to read all the debate about "On abortions", that we have succeeded in carving out incest as a cause for abortions)

But that looks at it in purely legal theory. The fact is that underage sex between two minors is not criminalised in a large number of countries. Two 15 years olds who have sex with each other aren't going to go to gaol for it. All this does is give underage mothers access to abortion on demand, even if they themselves have, in theory, raped a 15 year old boy.

[St George of England]

I'm sorry for quoting wikipedia,


If one can't consent to sexual acts, the law ought to consider them against the person's will, and rape sequitur.

This resolution provides saving abortions AND abortions in case of rape. I repeat, Jesoland hoped we could do better and not consider them, too, but it wasn't possible. (Please note, if you want to read all the debate about "On abortions", that we have succeeded in carving out incest as a cause for abortions)

But that looks at it in purely legal theory. The fact is that underage sex between two minors is not criminalised in a large number of countries. Two 15 years olds who have sex with each other aren't going to go to gaol for it. All this does is give underage mothers access to abortion on demand, even if they themselves have, in theory, raped a 15 year old boy.

Rape is rape is rape, regardless of the age.

[The People of Belfast]

But that looks at it in purely legal theory. The fact is that underage sex between two minors is not criminalised in a large number of countries. Two 15 years olds who have sex with each other aren't going to go to gaol for it. All this does is give underage mothers access to abortion on demand, even if they themselves have, in theory, raped a 15 year old boy.

Rape is rape is rape, regardless of the age.

Rape is rape. Two 15 years olds shagging each other is not.

[St George of England]

Rape is rape is rape, regardless of the age.

Rape is rape. Two 15 years olds shagging each other is not.

But going by your hypothetical:

But that looks at it in purely legal theory. The fact is that underage sex between two minors is not criminalised in a large number of countries. Two 15 years olds who have sex with each other aren't going to go to gaol for it. All this does is give underage mothers access to abortion on demand, even if they themselves have, in theory, raped a 15 year old boy.

Note the bold. If a 15 year old rapes another 15 year old, it is still rape.

[Seperate Vermont]

On Abortion does not, as you so vehmently suggest, in any way imply nations must facilitate abortions, as you put it in violation of "the rights of a foetus", per national legislation.

It simply requires facilitation to be given for those who need an emergency abortion, which is a universal latitude and compromise that fits nicely with all ideological beliefs of significance; as such, those nations that limit abortion simply must have it in emergency cases, as most agree, and those who fully legalize it can continue to have it fully legal, without this repeal's one-sided precedent of foetus sentience.


As much as we may like to have it universal, your lack of concern for fixing problems of rape if they exist below the age of consent and instead screaming only about legislation that adds an option to such persons, is beyond hypocritical.

~The WA Delegate of Seperate Vermont, Vice President Samantha Martin.

[Jesoland]

But that looks at it in purely legal theory. The fact is that underage sex between two minors is not criminalised in a large number of countries. Two 15 years olds who have sex with each other aren't going to go to gaol for it. All this does is give underage mothers access to abortion on demand, even if they themselves have, in theory, raped a 15 year old boy.

We don't know how the thing works in your nation, but in Jesoland sex under the age of consent is criminalized. In a large number of countries it isn't, but in a large number of countries abortion is legalized at all, and we don't deem it as a good reason to legalize it without exceptions.

[Seperate Vermont]

But that looks at it in purely legal theory. The fact is that underage sex between two minors is not criminalised in a large number of countries. Two 15 years olds who have sex with each other aren't going to go to gaol for it. All this does is give underage mothers access to abortion on demand, even if they themselves have, in theory, raped a 15 year old boy.

We don't know how the thing works in your nation, but in Jesoland sex under the age of consent is criminalized. In a large number of countries it isn't, but in a large number of countries abortion is legalized at all, and we don't deem it as a good reason to legalize it without exceptions.

So, may we ask your delegation how you counter such incidents of rape, if possible? Ignore it happens and think your magic laws solve everything?

[Licana]

But that looks at it in purely legal theory. The fact is that underage sex between two minors is not criminalised in a large number of countries. Two 15 years olds who have sex with each other aren't going to go to gaol for it. All this does is give underage mothers access to abortion on demand, even if they themselves have, in theory, raped a 15 year old boy.

How is it bad if a nation allows to for an underaged citizen to abort a baby, especially since it's still an action that is completely voluntary on behalf of the mother in question? In all likelyhood, the baby will only negatively impact the parent's lives at that age, if they decide to keep it.

To add, I suppose adoption is an option, but in overpopulated nations, this is not always preferred. Also, adopted children can feel less accepted or wanted, due to their biological parents seeming to "not want them." Now, that is very subjective, and will vary in severity from person to person, and some may not even feel that at all.

The current resolution at vote is, in my personal opinion, the best compromise possible in this situation. Although it states that it most provide people under certain circumstances with the capability to have an abortion, it doesn't force them to have one. If the person in question has a reason not to have an abortion, they can opt not to get one.

[The People of Belfast]

Rape is rape. Two 15 years olds shagging each other is not.

But going by your hypothetical:

But that looks at it in purely legal theory. The fact is that underage sex between two minors is not criminalised in a large number of countries. Two 15 years olds who have sex with each other aren't going to go to gaol for it. All this does is give underage mothers access to abortion on demand, even if they themselves have, in theory, raped a 15 year old boy.

Note the bold. If a 15 year old rapes another 15 year old, it is still rape.

Yes, as per the previous comments that underage sex is identical to rape. So a 15 year old girl has sex with a 15 year old boy she has, in their eyes, raped him.

[Sionis Prioratus]

Thanks to Christian Democrats, we (the World Assembly) will have legislation legalizing abortion!

*Kisses Christian Democrats*

[Philimbesi]

If you don't want kids: STOP F***ING so many guys! Try that as a CHOICE

Ahh.. I love the smell of IGNORE cannons in the morning...

[The People of Belfast]

But that looks at it in purely legal theory. The fact is that underage sex between two minors is not criminalised in a large number of countries. Two 15 years olds who have sex with each other aren't going to go to gaol for it. All this does is give underage mothers access to abortion on demand, even if they themselves have, in theory, raped a 15 year old boy.

How is it bad if a nation allows to for an underaged citizen to abort a baby, especially since it's still an action that is completely voluntary on behalf of the mother in question? In all likelyhood, the baby will only negatively impact the parent's lives at that age, if they decide to keep it.

To add, I suppose adoption is an option, but in overpopulated nations, this is not always preferred. Also, adopted children can feel less accepted or wanted, due to their biological parents seeming to "not want them." Now, that is very subjective, and will vary in severity from person to person, and some may not even feel that at all.

The current resolution at vote is, in my personal opinion, the best compromise possible in this situation. Although it states that it most provide people under certain circumstances with the capability to have an abortion, it doesn't force them to have one. If the person in question has a reason not to have an abortion, they can opt not to get one.

The major issue is that my nation, and many other nations, believe the unborn child to be an alive human being with human rights. Principally the right to life. It thus becomes wrong to kill that child unless it is to protect the mother's right to life. That is why I would support a resolution whose only sole purpose was to require nations to provide medically life saving abortions. This resolution doesn't do that.

The best compromise was to require life saving abortions and then leave all other abortions up to the discretion of the individual member states.

[Seperate Vermont]

If you don't want kids: STOP F***ING so many guys! Try that as a CHOICE

That is hardly a realistic conclusion. And not to mention it is hardly a preventative for cases that seem unequivocal, if it were not for this hype surrounding "On Abortion".

The answer is preventatives and contraceptives, not more social taboos and somehow blaming the partners, specifically condemning rape victims to secrecy when this care is exactly what they need, as this bill would facilitate.

[Jesoland]

We don't know how the thing works in your nation, but in Jesoland sex under the age of consent is criminalized. In a large number of countries it isn't, but in a large number of countries abortion is legalized at all, and we don't deem it as a good reason to legalize it without exceptions.

So, may we ask your delegation how you counter such incidents of rape, if possible? Ignore it happens and think your magic laws solve everything?

Distinguished colleague, we deem ourselves strongly chained to our laws.

whispering in his ears yes, we turn a blind eye

[St George of England]

But going by your hypothetical:

Note the bold. If a 15 year old rapes another 15 year old, it is still rape.

Yes, as per the previous comments that underage sex is identical to rape. So a 15 year old girl has sex with a 15 year old boy she has, in their eyes, raped him.

Consensual underage sex is no way equitable to rape.

[Urgench]

But many people view the issue as not being a one sided issue. The woman is not the only person involved in the situation. There are two people involved (in the opinion of some people), the mother and the child. As the child is not able to defend itself should the state not be able to act as an advocate for it?

Objectively the foetus is not in any kind of relationship with the state or any other third party, it's only relationship is with the person within whom it subsists. The state has neither responsibility nor right to advocate on behalf of an organism with which it has no relationship and whose continued existence is not at its expense when in fact that continued existence is at the expense of someone with whom it does have a legal and actual relationship and on whose behalf the state is obligated to advocate.


Yours,