[DRAFT] Repeal “On Abortion”

[Noe-Classic Peoples]

This is what I have got so far any advice would be helpful. Just please be civil about it.

The World Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING that the intention of this resolution was to ensure that pregnant persons in extraordinary circumstances be aloud the right to terminate said pregnancy, thus allowing for such persons to not suffer the horrible effects of there pregnancy (ie; death or the disability)

NEVER THE LESS is considered that Section 2 of the legislation would place a substantial burden on poor nation and on large and sparse populated ones which would be forced to spend money on ensuring that abortions can be easily provided to all there citizens should they wish it.

FURTHER CONSIDERED that such a recruitment effectively forces member nations to use government revenue to fund at least the creation if not also the maintenance of facilities and personal for the purpose of providing abortions which is likely to cause substantial resentment towards the government in highly religious and/or conservative societies

FURTHER MORE the provision that "no physician may be compelled to perform abortion against their moral stance" all though on its own a reasonable measure when combined with the above mentioned issues would mean that nations with very large religious populations could well find it extremely difficult if not impossible to find enough qualified medical personal to ensure that section 2 of the resolution is met which could force them to spend substantial resources trying to attract enough doctors to move from other nations to comply to this law.

IS THUS RESOLVED to repeal this legislation in the hopes that another resolution shall be passed on the topic to more address the condensers here raised

[Tinfect]

OOC:
Oh boy, here friend, let me show you a sneak-peak of the next thing to hit the queue if that passes:

Condemning the act of legally preventing an individual from accessing abortion services in the strongest possible terms,
[...]
Requires Member-States to legalize abortion in all cases,
Further requires Member-States to offer this service free of charge, or at fully-subsidized rates with no obligation of repayment, if:

Continued pregnancy or birth poses substantial risk to the life or health of the parent,
Conception occurred due rape or other sexual activity in which one party did not consent, or was legally incapable of consenting, to sexual activity,
[...]
Requires that Member-States protect individuals that have had an abortion or are seeking an abortion from discrimination or violence as a result of having or seeking an abortion,

[Noe-Classic Peoples]

I did not even see that resolution holy shit.

[Jebslund]

This is what I have got so far any advice would be helpful. Just please be civil about it.

The World Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING that the intention of this resolution was to ensure that pregnant persons in extraordinary circumstances be aloud the right to terminate said pregnancy, thus allowing for such persons to not suffer the horrible effects of there pregnancy (ie; death or the disability)

OOC: Minor gripe, to be sure, but "allowed", not "aloud". The former is synonymous with 'permitted', the latter with "out loud".

NEVER THE LESS is considered that Section 2 of the legislation would place a substantial burden on poor nation and on large and sparse populated ones which would be forced to spend money on ensuring that abortions can be easily provided to all there citizens should they wish it.

OOC: Seems to be in order, though I believe you mean "poor nations". "Nevertheless" is also one word, and a comma between 'ones' and 'which' would help as far as tidiness goes.

FURTHER CONSIDERED that such a recruitment effectively forces member nations to use government revenue to fund at least the creation if not also the maintenance of facilities and personal for the purpose of providing abortions which is likely to cause substantial resentment towards the government in highly religious and/or conservative societies

OOC: While this may be considered a NatSov argument, this isn't NatSov-only, so you should be okay here (anyone with more experience feel free to correct me). As for mechanics, I'd recommend "FURTHER CONSIDERING", and I believe you meant 'personnel', as in staff, not 'personal' as in pertaining to a person/private.

FURTHERMORE, the provision that "no physician may be compelled to perform abortion against their moral stance", although on its own a reasonable measure, when combined with the above mentioned issues would mean that nations with very large religious populations could well find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to find enough qualified medical personal to ensure that section 2 of the resolution is met, which could force them to spend substantial resources trying to attract enough doctors to move from other nations to comply to this law.

OOC: Bolded text is my fixes for mechanics. Nothing legally wrong here I can see, more well-versed people may correct me on that.

IS THUS RESOLVED to repeal this legislation in the hopes that another resolution shall be passed on the topic to more address the condensers here raised

OOC: I'd change the wording to "HEREBY REPEALS GAR #128 "On Abortion.". It sounds a bit more professional/legal, but that's more personal taste than anything.

On the whole, a good job, though, and kudos to you on drafting it instead of rushing it to the proposal floor!

EDIT: Replaced XXX with the actual resolution number.

[Noe-Classic Peoples]

This is what I have got so far any advice would be helpful. Just please be civil about it.

The World Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING that the intention of this resolution was to ensure that pregnant persons in extraordinary circumstances be aloud the right to terminate said pregnancy, thus allowing for such persons to not suffer the horrible effects of there pregnancy (ie; death or the disability)

OOC: Minor gripe, to be sure, but "allowed", not "aloud". The former is synonymous with 'permitted', the latter with "out loud".

NEVER THE LESS is considered that Section 2 of the legislation would place a substantial burden on poor nation and on large and sparse populated ones which would be forced to spend money on ensuring that abortions can be easily provided to all there citizens should they wish it.

OOC: Seems to be in order, though I believe you mean "poor nations". "Nevertheless" is also one word, and a comma between 'ones' and 'which' would help as far as tidiness goes.

FURTHER CONSIDERED that such a recruitment effectively forces member nations to use government revenue to fund at least the creation if not also the maintenance of facilities and personal for the purpose of providing abortions which is likely to cause substantial resentment towards the government in highly religious and/or conservative societies

OOC: While this may be considered a NatSov argument, this isn't NatSov-only, so you should be okay here (anyone with more experience feel free to correct me). As for mechanics, I'd recommend "FURTHER CONSIDERING", and I believe you meant 'personnel', as in staff, not 'personal' as in pertaining to a person/private.

FURTHERMORE, the provision that "no physician may be compelled to perform abortion against their moral stance", although on its own a reasonable measure, when combined with the above mentioned issues would mean that nations with very large religious populations could well find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to find enough qualified medical personal to ensure that section 2 of the resolution is met, which could force them to spend substantial resources trying to attract enough doctors to move from other nations to comply to this law.

OOC: Bolded text is my fixes for mechanics. Nothing legally wrong here I can see, more well-versed people may correct me on that.

IS THUS RESOLVED to repeal this legislation in the hopes that another resolution shall be passed on the topic to more address the condensers here raised

OOC: I'd change the wording to "HEREBY REPEALS GAR #XXX "On Abortion.". It sounds a bit more professional/legal, but that's more personal taste than anything.

On the whole, a good job, though, and kudos to you on drafting it instead of rushing it to the proposal floor!

Thank you! I am really bad with spelling and grammar, so this is super helpful.

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

*Ambassador Teran Saber rests his forehead in the palms of his hand, groaning in annoyance.*

Teran Saber: "Not this... again..."

[Noe-Classic Peoples]

*Ambassador Teran Saber rests his forehead in the palms of his hand, groaning in annoyance.*

Teran Saber: "Not this... again..."

sorry I know this is a really controversial issue

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

*Ambassador Teran Saber rests his forehead in the palms of his hand, groaning in annoyance.*

Teran Saber: "Not this... again..."

sorry I know this is a really controversial issue

Teran Saber: "It's not that it's controversial. It's that if I had a Siriusian Credit for every repeal attempt for 'On Abortion' or 'Reproductive Freedoms' I'd be able to take the entirety of the secretariat to dinner at 'Maistro's' on Nova Tellus just on that money alone. You're not the first one to attempt a repeal of one of those two resolutions, but I wish I could say you'd be the last."

[Dirty Americans]

[SIGH] Not again [/SIGH]

Before I begin, a reminder about the abortion legislation on the books; On Abortion and Reproductive Freedom. Yes, there are two resolutions. Removing one does not remove the other. Removing the first without removing the second might make replacement of the second problematic because while #2 is possible because of #1 (since #1 specifically mentions more permissions can be granted) #1 may not be possible because of #2 (as it would be, ironically duplication).

Since Reproductive Freedom is a super set of On Abortion in terms of what is permitted, repealing On Abortion does relatively little, if anything and only makes everything worse.

[Attempted Socialism]

*Ambassador Teran Saber rests his forehead in the palms of his hand, groaning in annoyance.*

Teran Saber: "Not this... again..."

sorry I know this is a really controversial issue

"Abortion is not a controversial issue. We have reproductive freedoms, women can have abortions, and everyone, except a tiny, but very loud, minority are in agreement. These drafted repeals are always failures because people are so overwhelmingly in favour of Reproductive Freedoms and On Abortion that even the best written repeals fail. As the delegation of Tinfect demonstrated earlier, this resolution is also very much the best compromise that anti-choice nations can ever have, since it does not in itself require nations to pay for abortions, it allows physicians to opt out in performing abortions per their individual ethics and it does not provide total security from harassers and attempts to convince women not to have abortions despite their own interests. Any replacement to On Abortion could include requirements for public funding for abortion, no option to opt out based on the physicians ethics, and adequate security for abortion clinics and abortion seekers."
After seemingly rattling the statement off from memory, the Ambassador from the Solidarity Movement looks at the drafting delegation directly.
"Now, you may be unaware, so we will not hold it against you, but attempts to repeal either On Abortion or Reproductive Freedom are early signs of figuratively jousting windmills, if getting close to the windmills would cripple you. Your best hope is to keep On Abortion on the books, since it is the best compromise you will ever get."

[The Unfounded]

Lady Alexis leans back in her chair. "Categorically against. Not just no, but hell no. Nyet. Nay. Nein. Negatory. Nope. The opposite of yes."

[Pinochetiannia]

This is what I have got so far any advice would be helpful. Just please be civil about it.

The World Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING that the intention of this resolution was to ensure that pregnant persons in extraordinary circumstances be aloud the right to terminate said pregnancy, thus allowing for such persons to not suffer the horrible effects of there pregnancy (ie; death or the disability)

NEVER THE LESS is considered that Section 2 of the legislation would place a substantial burden on poor nation and on large and sparse populated ones which would be forced to spend money on ensuring that abortions can be easily provided to all there citizens should they wish it.

FURTHER CONSIDERED that such a recruitment effectively forces member nations to use government revenue to fund at least the creation if not also the maintenance of facilities and personal for the purpose of providing abortions which is likely to cause substantial resentment towards the government in highly religious and/or conservative societies

FURTHER MORE the provision that "no physician may be compelled to perform abortion against their moral stance" all though on its own a reasonable measure when combined with the above mentioned issues would mean that nations with very large religious populations could well find it extremely difficult if not impossible to find enough qualified medical personal to ensure that section 2 of the resolution is met which could force them to spend substantial resources trying to attract enough doctors to move from other nations to comply to this law.

IS THUS RESOLVED to repeal this legislation in the hopes that another resolution shall be passed on the topic to more address the condensers here raised

The fact still remains that there is a certain immorality to abortion. The act itself of killing an indefensible child cannot possibly be allowed but also funded by the government. There is no scenario in which the killing of an innocent infant who has committed no crime can be justified. No one can be given the legal authority to carry out unjust murder. I would love to hear any opinions on this and am willing to give any answers to question one might have on my stance with this issue.

- L Lopez

[Kenmoria]

"The Kenmorian delegation is opposed based upon the fact that this resolution will never be repealed unless the vast majority of WA nations are suddenly on the receiving end of some mind control. Your proposal is not the best one we have ever seen, you have a lot of competition, but it is not the worst. Also, three of your five clauses are missi finishing punctuation."

[Rukiana]

Do note that there is a repeal currently in the proposal stage. Please approve or share it if you desire.

[Attempted Socialism]

The fact still remains that there is a certain immorality to abortion. The act itself of killing an indefensible child cannot possibly be allowed but also funded by the government. There is no scenario in which the killing of an innocent infant who has committed no crime can be justified. No one can be given the legal authority to carry out unjust murder. I would love to hear any opinions on this and am willing to give any answers to question one might have on my stance with this issue.

- L Lopez

"Your use of "immorality", "killing", "indefensible", "child", "innocent" and "infant" is wrong, and it instantly invalidates any argument you may think you just presented. Furthermore, since murder is by definition a homicide that is illegal, any legal homicide cannot be murder. Your abuse of terms is an affront to basic communication. Next, a foetus is not a person, so an abortion cannot be homicide, therefore even if we substituted the right words you would be incorrect. In addition to everything you just said being wrong, repealing On Abortion would not end abortion, since we have Reproductive Freedom on the books. It would open up for untrained people to perform abortions, and it would allow nations to decide for themselves whether physicians can opt out of performing abortions on the basis of personal belief. That is the basic change you are proposing. Good luck getting that through."

[Kenmoria]

Do note that there is a repeal currently in the proposal stage. Please approve or share it if you desire.

"No support for this, it should have first been debated in these hallowed halls before even being considered for submission. Plus, all abortion repeals are pretty much doomed to failure. Plus again, this delegation believes 'On Abortion' to be a jolly good resolution and not one that should be repealed. Noe-Classic People's ambassador, the last two points almost apply to you."

[Pinochetiannia]

The fact still remains that there is a certain immorality to abortion. The act itself of killing an indefensible child cannot possibly be allowed but also funded by the government. There is no scenario in which the killing of an innocent infant who has committed no crime can be justified. No one can be given the legal authority to carry out unjust murder. I would love to hear any opinions on this and am willing to give any answers to question one might have on my stance with this issue.

- L Lopez

"Your use of "immorality", "killing", "indefensible", "child", "innocent" and "infant" is wrong, and it instantly invalidates any argument you may think you just presented. Furthermore, since murder is by definition a homicide that is illegal, any legal homicide cannot be murder. Your abuse of terms is an affront to basic communication. Next, a foetus is not a person, so an abortion cannot be homicide, therefore even if we substituted the right words you would be incorrect. In addition to everything you just said being wrong, repealing On Abortion would not end abortion, since we have Reproductive Freedom on the books. It would open up for untrained people to perform abortions, and it would allow nations to decide for themselves whether physicians can opt out of performing abortions on the basis of personal belief. That is the basic change you are proposing. Good luck getting that through."

If you want to go into semantics that's fine. When you have an abortion you are still ending a life. We, as humans, have 3 basic rights; Life, Liberty and Property. Unless an unlawful act is committed these rights cannot be taken away. Then you bring up the point that if we repealed "On Abortion" then untrained people would perform abortions. You are now proposing that people will kill dangerously so we should make killing legal. This notion is absurd. THe change I am proposing is that when a woman is impregnated she and father should take responsibility of the child rather than ending its life.

- L Lopez

[Attempted Socialism]

"Your use of "immorality", "killing", "indefensible", "child", "innocent" and "infant" is wrong, and it instantly invalidates any argument you may think you just presented. Furthermore, since murder is by definition a homicide that is illegal, any legal homicide cannot be murder. Your abuse of terms is an affront to basic communication. Next, a foetus is not a person, so an abortion cannot be homicide, therefore even if we substituted the right words you would be incorrect. In addition to everything you just said being wrong, repealing On Abortion would not end abortion, since we have Reproductive Freedom on the books. It would open up for untrained people to perform abortions, and it would allow nations to decide for themselves whether physicians can opt out of performing abortions on the basis of personal belief. That is the basic change you are proposing. Good luck getting that through."

If you want to go into semantics that's fine. When you have an abortion you are still ending a life. We, as humans, have 3 basic rights; Life, Liberty and Property. Unless an unlawful act is committed these rights cannot be taken away. Then you bring up the point that if we repealed "On Abortion" then untrained people would perform abortions. You are now proposing that people will kill dangerously so we should make killing legal. This notion is absurd. THe change I am proposing is that when a woman is impregnated she and father should take responsibility of the child rather than ending its life.

- L Lopez

"Cancer cells and ants are alive, but I have not seen Ambassador Lopez fight for the end of cancer operations or insecticides. "Life" is a nonsense argument, Ambassador. Furthermore, your three basic human rights are pulled straight from your backside. Liberty even shows your inherent immorality and hypocrisy, since you suggest taking the woman's bodily autonomy away. You would in essence make pregnant women into property for nine months. Now, I would not put it past some anti-choice nations to really be in favour of that, but it ought to be pointed out.
Abortions are not killings, there is nothing there to kill yet. Abortions can not end the lives of children either, since a child is by definition past the point where it can be aborted.
The reason I brought up the consequences of repealing On Abortion is simple. Repealing On Abortion would not enable states to make abortions illegal, but would bring other changes instead, such as open up for abortions performed by untrained personnel without the possibility of opting out. Those are legal consequences, not an argument for or against the availability of abortions.
Your facile argument about responsibility is simply laughable. Having an abortion is a way of being responsible.
Last, while I am not looking forward to teaching anti-choice delegations basic biology, language and ethics again, I would like it to at least be in the context of a draft, not simply your vacuous musings on how to make women second-rate citizens. Read the proposal that the draft attempts to counter, read Reproductive Freedoms so you at least know what each resolution does."

[Pinochetiannia]

If you want to go into semantics that's fine. When you have an abortion you are still ending a life. We, as humans, have 3 basic rights; Life, Liberty and Property. Unless an unlawful act is committed these rights cannot be taken away. Then you bring up the point that if we repealed "On Abortion" then untrained people would perform abortions. You are now proposing that people will kill dangerously so we should make killing legal. This notion is absurd. THe change I am proposing is that when a woman is impregnated she and father should take responsibility of the child rather than ending its life.

- L Lopez

"Cancer cells and ants are alive, but I have not seen Ambassador Lopez fight for the end of cancer operations or insecticides. "Life" is a nonsense argument, Ambassador. Furthermore, your three basic human rights are pulled straight from your backside. Liberty even shows your inherent immorality and hypocrisy, since you suggest taking the woman's bodily autonomy away. You would in essence make pregnant women into property for nine months. Now, I would not put it past some anti-choice nations to really be in favour of that, but it ought to be pointed out.
Abortions are not killings, there is nothing there to kill yet. Abortions can not end the lives of children either, since a child is by definition past the point where it can be aborted.
The reason I brought up the consequences of repealing On Abortion is simple. Repealing On Abortion would not enable states to make abortions illegal, but would bring other changes instead, such as open up for abortions performed by untrained personnel without the possibility of opting out. Those are legal consequences, not an argument for or against the availability of abortions.
Your facile argument about responsibility is simply laughable. Having an abortion is a way of being responsible.
Last, while I am not looking forward to teaching anti-choice delegations basic biology, language and ethics again, I would like it to at least be in the context of a draft, not simply your vacuous musings on how to make women second-rate citizens. Read the proposal that the draft attempts to counter, read Reproductive Freedoms so you at least know what each resolution does."

So you recognise that a Foetus is living. When you have an abortion you are not killing cancer cells or insects you are killing a human being in one of its lowest stages of development. The three basic human rights or the three natural human rights (Life, Liberty and Property) is actually according to 17th century philosopher John Locke. Having an abortion is not a way of being responsible. If you make the choice to have sexual intercourse without contraception you handle the consequences. This does not give you the right to end a life. If you are impregnated you either give it up for adoption or you take care of it yourself. If repealing "On Abortion" won't allow states to make abortions illegal then we are purely forgetting the role of government. To protect rights. A foetus is as valuable as every other innocent life. So it is therefore a governments duty to protect them from abortions. My aim is not to make women second-rate citizens. This accusation has not backing because you yourself recognised foetus' are living. Why would making the ending of innocent lives make women second-rate citizens

I am also yet to hear a scenario where abortion is appropriate.

Life, Liberty and Property are in order for a reason. Life comes before Liberty.

-L Lopez

[Attempted Socialism]

"Cancer cells and ants are alive, but I have not seen Ambassador Lopez fight for the end of cancer operations or insecticides. "Life" is a nonsense argument, Ambassador. Furthermore, your three basic human rights are pulled straight from your backside. Liberty even shows your inherent immorality and hypocrisy, since you suggest taking the woman's bodily autonomy away. You would in essence make pregnant women into property for nine months. Now, I would not put it past some anti-choice nations to really be in favour of that, but it ought to be pointed out.
Abortions are not killings, there is nothing there to kill yet. Abortions can not end the lives of children either, since a child is by definition past the point where it can be aborted.
The reason I brought up the consequences of repealing On Abortion is simple. Repealing On Abortion would not enable states to make abortions illegal, but would bring other changes instead, such as open up for abortions performed by untrained personnel without the possibility of opting out. Those are legal consequences, not an argument for or against the availability of abortions.
Your facile argument about responsibility is simply laughable. Having an abortion is a way of being responsible.
Last, while I am not looking forward to teaching anti-choice delegations basic biology, language and ethics again, I would like it to at least be in the context of a draft, not simply your vacuous musings on how to make women second-rate citizens. Read the proposal that the draft attempts to counter, read Reproductive Freedoms so you at least know what each resolution does."

So you recognise that a Foetus is living. When you have an abortion you are not killing cancer cells or insects you are killing a human being in one of its lowest stages of development. The three basic human rights or the three natural human rights (Life, Liberty and Property) is actually according to 17th century philosopher John Locke. Having an abortion is not a way of being responsible. If you make the choice to have sexual intercourse without contraception you handle the consequences. This does not give you the right to end a life. If you are impregnated you either give it up for adoption or you take care of it yourself. If repealing "On Abortion" won't allow states to make abortions illegal then we are purely forgetting the role of government. To protect rights. A foetus is as valuable as every other innocent life. So it is therefore a governments duty to protect them from abortions. My aim is not to make women second-rate citizens. This accusation has not backing because you yourself recognised foetus' are living. Why would making the ending of innocent lives make women second-rate citizens

I am also yet to hear a scenario where abortion is appropriate.

Life, Liberty and Property are in order for a reason. Life comes before Liberty.

-L Lopez

OOC: Apart from this being a ramble that failed to even coherently respond to my points, it is also not about the draft about repealing On Abortion, or anything that is about On Abortion apart from the title. If you want to discuss real life philosophers and abortion politics, here's your option to do so. If you want to have my take on why your position is deeply anti-ethical, I lay out my thoughts here.