[DEFEATED] Repeal of Reproductive Freedoms

[Dobrobyt]

World Assembly members,
RECOGNIZING that current laws on abortion do not protect the future human lives of newborns in many countries, many of who are victims of lack of responsibility by parents.

REALIZING that the current bill does very little to reduce unnecessary abortions, however that it protects the right to choose in a life-threatening situations or fatal conditions.

SHOCKED that the current bill allows the killing of the living in the womb.

REALIZING that there are more moral alternatives to the current bill that can be worked out to satisfy both the parent and protect the child being born.

ACKNOWLEDGING that there are other options that can be worked out in the case of many abortions(adoptions, for example).

SEEING that an individual controls her body.

However, SEEING that it is immoral and wrong that an individual decides the fate(life or death) of another individual, even a future one, as that is prevention of life or future life.

Yet, ACKNOWLEDGING that these options are questionable in certain life-threatening or dangerous situations, and that these rights will be worked out by the World Assembly to remain.

AGREEING that we, the World Assembly, will work on a more moral, benefiting and sustainable replacement for Resolution #286.

I present you, the Repeal of Reproductive Freedoms(GA#286).
__

I understand this is one hard bill to repeal, which is why this requires you to help out as well. This bill would repeal the current one, and we could work out a replacement(does not have to be the draft I posted earlier) after that is done, as the WA.

Revised draft on page 2.

[Wallenburg]

Opposed.

[Dobrobyt]

Opposed.

Would you care to provide reason?

[Wallenburg]

Opposed.

Would you care to provide reason?

I would think that the answer is obvious. The target is essential to the protection of abortion rights.

[Dobrobyt]

Would you care to provide reason?

I would think that the answer is obvious. The target is essential to the protection of abortion rights.

Why do you want to keep current abortion rights? I acknowledge in some cases it is necessary, but in many, there are other options to be considered, such as adoption. Why do you still back abortion, when there are other ways the child can be alive, and the parents will not have to take care of him/her if they don't please to?

[United Islands of Evergreen]

Agreed. It's got to be legal in certain cases to appease some, but illegal in others to appease others. There's just no pleasing everyone, so this is the best option in my opinion.

[Wallenburg]

I would think that the answer is obvious. The target is essential to the protection of abortion rights.

Why do you want to keep current abortion rights? I acknowledge in some cases it is necessary, but in many, there are other options to be considered, such as adoption. Why do you still back abortion, when there are other ways the child can be alive, and the parents will not have to take care of him/her if they don't please to?

This is not NSG, this is the GA.

[Dobrobyt]

Why do you want to keep current abortion rights? I acknowledge in some cases it is necessary, but in many, there are other options to be considered, such as adoption. Why do you still back abortion, when there are other ways the child can be alive, and the parents will not have to take care of him/her if they don't please to?

This is not NSG, this is the GA.

Can you answer my questions with a logical answer please?

[Wallenburg]

This is not NSG, this is the GA.

Can you answer my questions with a logical answer please?

I gave you a logical answer. I've been involved in plenty of GA abortion threadjacks. I'm cutting this one off before it starts. This thread is for discussing your repeal, not the merits of one abortion policy or another. If you want to talk politics, go to NSG.

[Dobrobyt]

Can you answer my questions with a logical answer please?

I gave you a logical answer. I've been involved in plenty of GA abortion threadjacks. I'm cutting this one off before it starts. This thread is for discussing your repeal, not the merits of one abortion policy or another. If you want to talk politics, go to NSG.

What I'm saying is, what is your reason for backing the bill except for 'abortion rights'? Be more specific.

[Wallenburg]

I gave you a logical answer. I've been involved in plenty of GA abortion threadjacks. I'm cutting this one off before it starts. This thread is for discussing your repeal, not the merits of one abortion policy or another. If you want to talk politics, go to NSG.

What I'm saying is, what is your reason for backing the bill except for 'abortion rights'? Be more specific.

I am pro-choice OOC, Wallenburg is generally pro-choice IC. Reproductive Freedoms secures abortion rights to my satisfaction. What other reason do I need to defend a resolution that favors my own policy stances and those of Wallenburg?

[The Sheika]

Opposed. The Federation stands behind the right to choose to have an abortion so long as it is not late in the pregnancy and definitely not a partial birth abortion. The reasons why are more than just because "the parents don't want a child". The world is not that simple. There are medical reasons such as finding out that the fetus would not have a working vital organ and could not survive outside the mother's body without support. There are personal reasons such as contraception not working, even if both parties had used multiple levels, sometimes there is that chance no matter how slim that conception does take place. Lest we forget pregnancies that are the result of heinous sexual crimes; no sapient being should have to be forced to live with that if they choose not to.

These are just reasons I can think of off the top of my head, and I am sure these can be echoed and supplemented with others by other ambassadors.

[Dobrobyt]

Opposed. The Federation stands behind the right to choose to have an abortion so long as it is not late in the pregnancy and definitely not a partial birth abortion. The reasons why are more than just because "the parents don't want a child". The world is not that simple. There are medical reasons such as finding out that the fetus would not have a working vital organ and could not survive outside the mother's body without support. There are personal reasons such as contraception not working, even if both parties had used multiple levels, sometimes there is that chance no matter how slim that conception does take place. Lest we forget pregnancies that are the result of heinous sexual crimes; no sapient being should have to be forced to live with that if they choose not to.

These are just reasons I can think of off the top of my head, and I am sure these can be echoed and supplemented with others by other ambassadors.

As seen in my planned replacement, "Abortion Limitation Act", I stand behind certain cases of abortion such as the ones you listed. We would preserve that part of the bill.

[United Islands of Evergreen]

Opposed. The Federation stands behind the right to choose to have an abortion so long as it is not late in the pregnancy and definitely not a partial birth abortion. The reasons why are more than just because "the parents don't want a child". The world is not that simple. There are medical reasons such as finding out that the fetus would not have a working vital organ and could not survive outside the mother's body without support. There are personal reasons such as contraception not working, even if both parties had used multiple levels, sometimes there is that chance no matter how slim that conception does take place. Lest we forget pregnancies that are the result of heinous sexual crimes; no sapient being should have to be forced to live with that if they choose not to.

These are just reasons I can think of off the top of my head, and I am sure these can be echoed and supplemented with others by other ambassadors.

This is true in a sense. If there was a heinous sexual crime committed, there should be exceptions there. The exceptions should be better explained.

[Dobrobyt]

Opposed. The Federation stands behind the right to choose to have an abortion so long as it is not late in the pregnancy and definitely not a partial birth abortion. The reasons why are more than just because "the parents don't want a child". The world is not that simple. There are medical reasons such as finding out that the fetus would not have a working vital organ and could not survive outside the mother's body without support. There are personal reasons such as contraception not working, even if both parties had used multiple levels, sometimes there is that chance no matter how slim that conception does take place. Lest we forget pregnancies that are the result of heinous sexual crimes; no sapient being should have to be forced to live with that if they choose not to.

These are just reasons I can think of off the top of my head, and I am sure these can be echoed and supplemented with others by other ambassadors.

This is true in a sense. If there was a heinous sexual crime committed, there should be exceptions there. The exceptions should be better explained.

I explained it in the repeal, where I said that I acknowledge and appreciate that it protects the rights to abortion in life-threatening or fatal conditions. That would be further worked out in a replacement, in a more specific way.

[Wallenburg]

Opposed. The Federation stands behind the right to choose to have an abortion so long as it is not late in the pregnancy and definitely not a partial birth abortion. The reasons why are more than just because "the parents don't want a child". The world is not that simple. There are medical reasons such as finding out that the fetus would not have a working vital organ and could not survive outside the mother's body without support. There are personal reasons such as contraception not working, even if both parties had used multiple levels, sometimes there is that chance no matter how slim that conception does take place. Lest we forget pregnancies that are the result of heinous sexual crimes; no sapient being should have to be forced to live with that if they choose not to.

These are just reasons I can think of off the top of my head, and I am sure these can be echoed and supplemented with others by other ambassadors.

This is true in a sense. If there was a heinous sexual crime committed, there should be exceptions there. The exceptions should be better explained.

The repeal makes no such exceptions, because it is a repeal. It cannot make new legislation, it can only remove existing legislation. The author is avoiding illegality.

[United Islands of Evergreen]

This is true in a sense. If there was a heinous sexual crime committed, there should be exceptions there. The exceptions should be better explained.

The repeal makes no such exceptions, because it is a repeal. It cannot make new legislation, it can only remove existing legislation. The author is avoiding illegality.

I understand. Thank you for further explaining. Is there a way I could read the original legislation?

[Dobrobyt]

This is true in a sense. If there was a heinous sexual crime committed, there should be exceptions there. The exceptions should be better explained.

The repeal makes no such exceptions, because it is a repeal. It cannot make new legislation, it can only remove existing legislation. The author is avoiding illegality.

Correct. The repeal itself will not change this, however, we as the WA will work on a new resolution, as listed above, which will likely include these conditions.

[The Islands of Versilia]

Versilia vehemently opposes this repeal, on all levels.

[Wallenburg]

The repeal makes no such exceptions, because it is a repeal. It cannot make new legislation, it can only remove existing legislation. The author is avoiding illegality.

I understand. Thank you for further explaining. Is there a way I could read the original legislation?

Original resolution: viewtopic.php?p=19281778#p19281778
Proposed "replacement": viewtopic.php?f=9&t=420332

[The Sheika]

As seen in my planned replacement, "Abortion Limitation Act", I stand behind certain cases of abortion such as the ones you listed. We would preserve that part of the bill.

I had taken note of that and applaud you for that consideration, however the Federation will always stand behind the right to choose. Yes, I would rather other choices be made, as would many in the Federation, but choice is the solid foundation we stand upon.

I do have one question in regard to this repeal. What defines "moral"?

[United Islands of Evergreen]

I understand. Thank you for further explaining. Is there a way I could read the original legislation?

Original resolution: viewtopic.php?p=19281778#p19281778
Proposed "replacement": viewtopic.php?f=9&t=420332

Thank you!

[Dobrobyt]

I understand. Thank you for further explaining. Is there a way I could read the original legislation?

Original resolution: viewtopic.php?p=19281778#p19281778
Proposed "replacement": viewtopic.php?f=9&t=420332

If this repeal passes, we will have more than just the proposed replacement to choose from, as all WA can contribute on a new law.

[Dobrobyt]

As seen in my planned replacement, "Abortion Limitation Act", I stand behind certain cases of abortion such as the ones you listed. We would preserve that part of the bill.

I had taken note of that and applaud you for that consideration, however the Federation will always stand behind the right to choose. Yes, I would rather other choices be made, as would many in the Federation, but choice is the solid foundation we stand upon.

I do have one question in regard to this repeal. What defines "moral"?

In this case, it would be more life-preserving and helpful options.

[Wallenburg]

Original resolution: viewtopic.php?p=19281778#p19281778
Proposed "replacement": viewtopic.php?f=9&t=420332

If this repeal passes, we will have more than just the proposed replacement to choose from, as all WA can contribute on a new law.

That is true, but usually when someone drafts a repeal in hopes of opening the lawbooks to new legislation, it's considered a repeal and replace effort.