[DEAD] Repeal Reproductive Freedoms

[Friday Freshman]

It's Under Construction but the basic foothold is on the idea of termination of pregnancy being vague and targeted animosity (aka hatred) can not be correctly regulated.

The General Assembly,

APPLAUDS the attempt to protect the bodies and reproductive rights of all individuals

BELIEVES that these reproductive rights should be protected

REALIZES that the current resolution, Reproductive Freedoms, has flaws in it that need to be addressed and dealt with promptly

- "Termination of pregnancy" is not clearly defined within the resolution. Termination of pregnancy can be completed in ways such as, death of the mother, or a sizable blows to the pregnant mothers chest which are clearly not considered within many nations as medical procedures, clearly contradicting the first operating clause of Reproductive Freedoms.

- "Targeted Animosity" is merely strong hatred which is an emotion as opposed to actual harm. This makes the 4th operating clause almost impossible to enforce as you can not force opinions on them.

HEREBY repeals Reproductive Freedoms.

[Kaboomlandia]

Well, it's better than most attempts, which usually just read "Abortion is bad!"

[Planita]

No.

[Defwa]

I think the last two [credible] attempts relied on that too.

[Friday Freshman]

No.

Anybody have any good insight or advice?

[Elke and Elba]

So we have Friday Freshman here doing this again.

May I remind our audience here how this said delegate tried to copy-paste someone's proposal as his own without attribution, and therefore, has almost zero credibility in these forums?

Be forewarned as Eireann Fae's cyber-friend (here, of course), and as an ardent supporter of GA#286, I am quite willing to campaign for this (or any such drafts/proposals) to fail.

[Friday Freshman]

So we have Friday Freshman here doing this again.

May I remind our audience here how this said delegate tried to copy-paste someone's proposal as his own without attribution, and therefore, has almost zero credibility in these forums?

And so therefore I can't right another proposal? That I wrote on my own here. That seems a little unfair.

EDIT: You also clearly didn't read the whole post there as I was giving him credit for the proposal. And luckily I drafted on the forums so this was caught as I hadn't fully understood the rules at that point. So there is technically no harm done so I don't see why you are making a big deal out of this on a totally unrelated proposal.

[Losthaven]

"Termination of pregnancy" is not clearly defined within the resolution. Termination of pregnancy can be completed in ways such as, death of the mother, or a sizable blows to the pregnant mothers chest which are clearly not considered within many nations as medical procedures, clearly contradicting the first operating clause of Reproductive Freedoms.

This is a pretty weak argument. The clauses don't contradict, they work together. Termination of pregnancy cannot be accomplished by "sizable blows" to the woman or "death," because those things are not "medical procedures."

"Targeted Animosity" is merely strong hatred which is an emotion as opposed to actual harm. This makes the 4th operating clause almost impossible to enforce as you can not force opinions on them.

This is no harder to enforce than a law outlawing hate crimes or discrimination.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

So we have Friday Freshman here doing this again.

May I remind our audience here how this said delegate tried to copy-paste someone's proposal as his own without attribution, and therefore, has almost zero credibility in these forums?

Right. That was a year ago. Do you have any evidence that he has copied this proposal as well? No? Then shut up.

[Elke and Elba]

So we have Friday Freshman here doing this again.

May I remind our audience here how this said delegate tried to copy-paste someone's proposal as his own without attribution, and therefore, has almost zero credibility in these forums?

And so therefore I can't right another proposal? That I wrote on my own here. That seems a little unfair.

EDIT: You also clearly didn't read the whole post there as I was giving him credit for the proposal. And luckily I drafted on the forums so this was caught as I hadn't fully understood the rules at that point. So there is technically no harm done so I don't see why you are making a big deal out of this on a totally unrelated proposal.

Still, let's face it: You are no bellwether in these forums, and it doesn't matter if it's irrelevant. You have quite rightly flushed any of our hopes here down the drain for an improvement.

Given that this proposal in question is written in questionably first-person informal language at some points, it is pretty evident you haven't learnt.

Nor do you seem to be quite adamant in doing stuff. The first time round you had copied wording in your Cyber Security Act, and in your last repeal GAR#286 you literally walked away from it.

Fairly speaking, even Kiribati-Tarawa's effort last year that was somewhat awkward - is a much better repeal draft than this. And people are still not quite willing to accept it.

Go figure.

[The Dark Star Republic]

The argument about "termination of pregnancy" may be valid, but I think you're taking it to an unnecessary extreme. Simply requiring a mother carry a pregnancy to term has been argued to constitute "termination of pregnancy" by some supporters of the original resolution.

It may also be worth mentioning that On Abortion protects reproductive freedoms in certain cases so repealing the resolution doesn't create the potential for repression some might fear.

So we have Friday Freshman here doing this again.

I don't see why you are making a big deal out of this on a totally unrelated proposal.

Just ignore him.

[Bananaistan]

As always, the Republic of Bananaistan stands opposed to any attempt to repeal Reproductive Freedoms. We are pleased to continue to be in favour of the unrestricted rights of women to decide what, how, when, why and where their bodies are used and we shall proudly stand with the international community in defending this right. In any case your argument is based on two unsound principles and misinterpretation of the target resolution.

[Ardchoille]

Right. That was a year ago. Do you have any evidence that he has copied this proposal as well? No? Then shut up.

While my language would not be so forceful, I feel this is fair comment. E&E, please stick to the content of the proposal and stop discussing the author's character.

[Friday Freshman]

"Termination of pregnancy" is not clearly defined within the resolution. Termination of pregnancy can be completed in ways such as, death of the mother, or a sizable blows to the pregnant mothers chest which are clearly not considered within many nations as medical procedures, clearly contradicting the first operating clause of Reproductive Freedoms.

This is a pretty weak argument. The clauses don't contradict, they work together. Termination of pregnancy cannot be accomplished by "sizable blows" to the woman or "death," because those things are not "medical procedures."

Not the way the resolution is written. It says recognizing it as a medical procedure when it is clearly not in some cases. The correct way to have done what you are saying is to define the termination of pregnancy for the purpose of that resolution as the medical procedure which is not done here.

"Targeted Animosity" is merely strong hatred which is an emotion as opposed to actual harm. This makes the 4th operating clause almost impossible to enforce as you can not force opinions on them.

This is no harder to enforce than a law outlawing hate crimes or discrimination.

But that's not what the resolution asks you to do. The resolution requires member nations to ban strong dislike of these people which means removing the emotion or opinion from existence entirely. This in some nations contradicts freedom of speech rights and other similar rights. By the current writing of the resolution you can not be mad at anyone for terminating their pregnancy in any way.

[Elke and Elba]

Right. That was a year ago. Do you have any evidence that he has copied this proposal as well? No? Then shut up.

While my language would not be so forceful, I feel this is fair comment. E&E, please stick to the content of the proposal and stop discussing the author's character.

*le sigh* See below.

It's Under Construction but the basic foothold is on the idea of termination of pregnancy being vague and targeted animosity (aka hatred) can not be correctly regulated.

The General Assembly,

APPLAUDS the attempt to protect the bodies and reproductive rights of all individuals

BELIEVES that these reproductive rights should be protected

REALIZES that the current resolution, Reproductive Freedoms, has flaws in it that need to be addressed and dealt with promptly

- "Termination of pregnancy" is not clearly defined within the resolution. Termination of pregnancy can be completed in ways such as, death of the mother, or a sizable blows to the pregnant mothers chest which are clearly not considered within many nations as medical procedures, clearly contradicting the first operating clause of Reproductive Freedoms.

- "Targeted Animosity" is merely strong hatred which is an emotion as opposed to actual harm. This makes the 4th operating clause almost impossible to enforce as you can not force opinions on them.

HEREBY repeals Reproductive Freedoms.

Anyway, I've pretty much detailed the main problems in my post above - first person? "you can not force opinions" of them is pretty clear a first-personish thing. Nor are the arguments convincing.

Also, Kenny and Ard, this might be a long shot but the content in this proposal reminds me of cut-and-paste from other resolutions.

APPLAUDS the attempt to protect the bodies and reproductive rights of all individuals

APPLAUDS the aim of GAR#19, Child Protection Act, which is to protect children from abuse. (GA#220; applauds the [attempt/aim] to protect ___)

BELIEVES that these reproductive rights should be protected

RECOGNIZING that the rights of these individuals should be protected. (GA #129; rights... should be protected)
BELIEVES that children should be protectedfrom those who are accused of abusing them throughout the investigative and judicial process. (GA #220 again; believes that ___ should be protected)

REALIZES that the current resolution, Reproductive Freedoms, has flaws in it that need to be addressed and dealt with promptly

REALIZES that the current resolution on the subject contains a number of flaws that make it ineffective, at best, and detrimental to WA member nations and their citizens, at worst; (GA #189; realises that the current resolution... [has] flaws [in] it.)

- "Termination of pregnancy" is not clearly defined within the resolution. Termination of pregnancy can be completed in ways such as, death of the mother, or a sizable blows to the pregnant mothers chest which are clearly not considered within many nations as medical procedures, clearly contradicting the first operating clause of Reproductive Freedoms.

Noting further that the “[color=#0000FF]termination of pregnancies” referred to in the resolution is vague as to precisely when, in the eyes of the law, a fetus gains protection. This implicitly approves both partial and post birth abortions and for killing those fetuses that survive an abortion procedure while providing no timetable as to when it stops becoming a “medical procedure” (from this draft from someone else; virtually the same argument, different examples used)[/color]



It's a bit hard to believe that Applauds/Believes/Realises are in the same order, save for the removed clauses, from GA#220 - especially since "Realises" follows Mousey's formatting here of having sub-points.

Not to mention that the writing style abruptly changes from the Applauds/Believes/Realises.

Anyway, it's a conjecture, Ard. I've also already offered my two cents as to where it could be improved, and it's really up to Friday Freshman to take it. :/

Doesn't make the proposal feasible for submission nor it being agreeable yet in my eyes, anyway.

---

I'm probably starting to not make any more sense at this point given that I'm pretty tired (heavy eyelids, sigh). I'm going to stop now and sleep, and probably wait to get bombarded by not so lovely language next morning.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

So, you're submitting that he used the most basic boilerplate repeal language that appears in literally dozens of repeals throughout UN/WA history -- plus the fact that one of his arguments vaguely resembles a common argument that has been used to argue both for and against RF since it was passed, including by its authors -- as "proof" that he "plagiarized" this draft? For the love of all that is holy, if you prize wasting the WA's time so much, why don't you frequent the SC more often? That's rather what it's there for.

[Friday Freshman]

So, you're submitting that he used the most basic boilerplate repeal language that appears in literally dozens of repeals throughout UN/WA history -- plus the fact that one of his arguments vaguely resembles a common argument that has been used to argue both for and against RF since it was passed, including by its authors -- as "proof" that he "plagiarized" this draft? For the love of all that is holy, if you prize wasting the WA's time so much, why don't you frequent the SC more often? That's rather what it's there for.

Dude, calm down. He is not worth our time.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Still worth getting in that dig at the SC.

[Separatist Peoples]

"As a rule, this office hold the opinion that, if Colin Friday believes something, the opposite of that thing is likely both in the best interests of the entirety of the World Assembly and our citizens, and factually correct. It appears that this repeal attempt is no different. The "Targeted Animosity" clause is a weak argument at best. It has been my interpretation, and, were the author around to corroborate this, I'm sure she would agree, that the targeted animosity clause is a catch-all for discriminatory behavior, specifically in reference to the government. It is not an attempt to regulate opinion, and such an interpretation is one that only an individual busily grasping for arguments would actually put to text.

"The only line here at all compelling as an argument is the clause detailing the precise meaning of "termination", and even that is a questionable argument. As the Kennyites have pointed out, that very argument has been used in favor of Reproductive Freedoms. Using it as the centerpiece of a repeal would divide opinion more than actually galvanize it. The clumsy, Jakusoan hyperbole that follows is just poor writing, and not something the Assembly should bother enshrining in law. At least "gynecologist in a gas mask" was clever...

"Ambassador Friday, if your intention is to ensure Reproductive Freedoms becomes untouchable for another several months, then I urge you to continue with your drafting as you have thus far."

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

"The UNE supports this repeal. While the original resolution has no affect on us, for we have long held the technology to terminate pregnancies without ending the life of the child, we support a repeal of this resolution for the sake of nations that lack such technology, and are thus forced to murder their own nation's children.

We wish to offer our sternest condemnation to the author of the original resolution, and any who support it and the barbarism it entails. We are willing to provide artificial womb technology to any more primitive nations who require it, so that they may circumvent the slaughter that is otherwise mandated by 'Reproductive Freedoms'."

[Ardchoille]

Also, Kenny and Ard, this might be a long shot but the content in this proposal reminds me of cut-and-paste from other resolutions.

There've been so many attempts to repeal this, it wouldn't be surprising if there was a similarity of phrases to express the same arguments. It happens on all sorts of topics. For example, since it's May Day, hear the echoes at the barricades, comrades:

"Give me liberty or give me death!" -- Patrick Henry, 1775.
"Better that we should die fighting than be outraged and dishonored … better to die than live in slavery." -- Emmeline Pankhurst, 1858 - 1928
"Better to die fighting for freedom than be a prisoner all the days of your life." -- Bob Marley, 1976.

So, not illegal for plagiarism/cut 'n' paste.

[Kaboomlandia]

Also, Kenny and Ard, this might be a long shot but the content in this proposal reminds me of cut-and-paste from other resolutions.

There've been so many attempts to repeal this, it wouldn't be surprising if there was a similarity of phrases to express the same arguments. It happens on all sorts of topics. For example, since it's May Day, hear the echoes at the barricades, comrades:

"Give me liberty or give me death!" -- Patrick Henry, 1775.
"Better that we should die fighting than be outraged and dishonored … better to die than live in slavery." -- Emmeline Pankhurst, 1858 - 1928
"Better to die fighting for freedom than be a prisoner all the days of your life." -- Bob Marley, 1976.

So, not illegal for plagiarism/cut 'n' paste.

Out of curiosity, how does this stack up against NAPA for "most repeal attempts"? NAPA has had a lot, and I've seen several of these repeals.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

...it wouldn't be surprising if there was a similarity of phrases to express the same arguments. It happens on all sorts of topics. For example, since it's May Day, hear the echoes at the barricades, comrades:

"Give me liberty or give me death!" -- Patrick Henry, 1775.
"Better that we should die fighting than be outraged and dishonored … better to die than live in slavery." -- Emmeline Pankhurst, 1858 - 1928
"Better to die fighting for freedom than be a prisoner all the days of your life." -- Bob Marley, 1976.

OOC: I've always been a little partial to the Spanish and Klingon castings of this pretty universal sentiment:

Prefiero morir de pie que vivir de rodillas. -- Emiliano Zapata, 1910
QamvIS Hegh qaq law' torvIS yIn qaq puS! -- Brigadier Kerla, 2293

IC: As others have noticed, the attempts to redefine the phrasing in the target resolution to absurd meanings, don't really work due to its clarity. Additionally, the suggested methods of termination of pregnancy herein are either illegal under existing (excuse me: previous, already established, past-tense written) WA laws; illegal under the laws of any nation that actually has social order of any kind; or clinically insane. No reason to repeal.

Out of curiosity, how does this stack up against NAPA for "most repeal attempts"? NAPA has had a lot, and I've seen several of these repeals.

OOC: I can't speak to that if we only count how many repeals actually survived long enough for delegates to put them into the queue or not, but in terms of sheer number of submitted repeals across all possible levels of quality and legality (some pretty good, others submitted as resolutions [not with the repeal button]; some of these so hasty they misspelled the word "Repeal"), #286 takes the cake.

So in context, this attempt, by being forum-drafted and (should it be submitted) done as an actual repeal, is on the higher end of that spectrum. And its argument is novel (if not convincing).

[Abazhaka]

the truth is, the heart of the issue is that the WA, particularly GA has been enforcing their morality on nations, even though they should be focusing on international matters and civil right issues of grave importance, where as the right to kill your baby is not really an important civil 'right'.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

As others have noticed, the attempts to redefine the phrasing in the target resolution to absurd meanings, don't really work due to its clarity.

Then I suggest you go back and review the statements of RF's author during the last at-vote repeal.