[DEAFETED] Repeal of "Reproductive Freedoms" Act

[Hatzisland]

This is the defeated version of the repeal for "Reproductive Freedoms."

REASONING that the World Assembly has a duty to protect life,

ACKNOWLEDGES that an unborn child created by a parent is living,

UNDERSTANDS that there are cases in which an abortion should be allowed,

The World Assembly,

REPEALS General Assembly Resolution #286 "Reproductive Freedoms" (Category: Civil Rights; Strength: Significant).

[Falcania]

Some unborn children aren't human. Quite a lot of them are Falcanian in our country.

Anyway this repeal is incoherent.

[The New Nordic Union]

OOC:

ACKNOWLEDGES that an unborn child is a human,

From the moment of conception on? Doubtful and not something the Nordic Union will acknowledge.

UNDERSTANDS that there are cases in which an abortion should be allowed,

For which the targeted resolution provides an excellent framework.

CLARIFIES that Governments must comply with any other resolution's involving abortion and reproductive rights.

Unnecessary.

All in all, I see no benefit in repealing the target resolution, as it provides a good framework for this highly controversial topic. Repealing it and trying to draft and adopt a new resolution will open the can of worms that is this topic again and will most likely be highly unsuccessful.

[The New Bluestocking Homeland]

This is a draft of a proposition that will repeal the "Reproductive Freedoms" act. The proposition is as follows.



The World Assembly,

REASONING that the Government has a duty to protect human life,

ACKNOWLEDGES that an unborn child is a human,

Not true for ever member State of the WA.

In any case, the argument that an insentient being is the same species as the sentient being whose womb its occupying (against her will) is less persuasive than you might think.

UNDERSTANDS that there are cases in which an abortion should be allowed,

That's why we have #286

STRIKES DOWN General Assembly Resolution #286 "Reproductive Freedoms" (Category: Civil Rights; Strength: Significant) and RENDERS the resolution null and void.

Well, that was quite a leap.

In any case, firmly opposed to any and all attempts to repeal #286 (the one possible exception is if there is already -- in place -- a queued draft for even firmer protections for reproductive freedoms to replace it with).

[Separatist Peoples]

"Opposed. GAR#286 is the perfect amount of compromise on the topic of abortion: none."

[The New California Republic]

OOC: Against, until the author drafts a credible replacement. But since I don't think that is the intent, then I guess I will be waiting a long time.

[Wallenburg]

This is a draft of a proposition that will repeal the "Reproductive Freedoms" act. The proposition is as follows.



The World Assembly,

REASONING that the Government has a duty to protect human life,

Even when no humans exist within a nation's jurisdiction? What should such nations do then, cross dimensions to invade human nations in order to "protect" them?

ACKNOWLEDGES that an unborn child is a human,

Factually untrue among those fetuses developed by non-human sapients, no matter how you slice it.

UNDERSTANDS that there are cases in which an abortion should be allowed,

STRIKES DOWN General Assembly Resolution #286 "Reproductive Freedoms" (Category: Civil Rights; Strength: Significant) and RENDERS the resolution null and void.

Just say "Repeals GAR#286, "Reproductive Freedoms"."

CLARIFIES that Governments must comply with any other resolution's involving abortion and reproductive rights.

Legislating in a repeal is illegal.

[Hatzisland]

Some unborn children aren't human. Quite a lot of them are Falcanian in our country.

Anyway this repeal is incoherent.

The plan has been slightly edited to make clear that only human life is covered(though that could be changed if you wish into apply to mammals). And how is the plan incoherent? It makes very clear the reasoning behind the repeal.

[Hatzisland]

This is a draft of a proposition that will repeal the "Reproductive Freedoms" act. The proposition is as follows.



The World Assembly,

REASONING that the Government has a duty to protect human life,

ACKNOWLEDGES that an unborn child is a human,

Not true for ever member State of the WA.

In any case, the argument that an insentient being is the same species as the sentient being whose womb its occupying (against her will) is less persuasive than you might think.

UNDERSTANDS that there are cases in which an abortion should be allowed,

That's why we have #286

STRIKES DOWN General Assembly Resolution #286 "Reproductive Freedoms" (Category: Civil Rights; Strength: Significant) and RENDERS the resolution null and void.

Well, that was quite a leap.

In any case, firmly opposed to any and all attempts to repeal #286 (the one possible exception is if there is already -- in place -- a queued draft for even firmer protections for reproductive freedoms to replace it with).

The plan has been edited to be less confusing(that is why it is called a draft, not a final plan). And for you to support a mother killing its child just before birth is disgusting as much as it is unpopular. The intention of this repeal is not to allow flat out abortion bans(except of course in cases specified in other resolutions, both of which backed by the nation of Hatzisland), but to replace it with a plan that allows more restrictions on abortion, so that abortion would not be a light on demand decision, and to restrict what cases a last-minute/third-trimester abortion can occur.

[The New Nordic Union]

Some unborn children aren't human. Quite a lot of them are Falcanian in our country.

Anyway this repeal is incoherent.

The plan has been slightly edited to make clear that only human life is covered(though that could be changed if you wish into apply to mammals). And how is the plan incoherent? It makes very clear the reasoning behind the repeal.

OOC:
And why would nations without human inhabitants care about human life and have a duty to protect it? And why should humans be the only ones that need protection? And, in addition, vote for your proposal then?

[The New California Republic]

Some unborn children aren't human. Quite a lot of them are Falcanian in our country.

Anyway this repeal is incoherent.

The plan has been slightly edited to make clear that only human life is covered(though that could be changed if you wish into apply to mammals). And how is the plan incoherent? It makes very clear the reasoning behind the repeal.

OOC: There are a variety of species in different nations, such as sentient and sapient bears for example, so having it only apply to humans might raise problems.

[Hatzisland]

OOC: Against, until the author drafts a credible replacement. But since I don't think that is the intent, then I guess I will be waiting a long time.

We have already edited the plan, and intend to do so in the future. I hope we can work together to get this plan passed. Also, is that a request to make the plan apply to all living beings?

[The New California Republic]

OOC: Against, until the author drafts a credible replacement. But since I don't think that is the intent, then I guess I will be waiting a long time.

is that a request to make the plan apply to all living beings?

OOC: No. There has been a precedent with previous WA legislation whereby it isn't anthropocentric in nature, and allows for application to different species in member nations that are sentient and sapient, because some WA nations are only populated by non-human species etc.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

{ OOC: I have proposed a replacement that goes in line with this repeal. }

[Araraukar]

{ OOC: I have proposed a replacement that goes in line with this repeal.}

OOC: Pimping your draft on someone else's thread is considered as bad manners as dropping trous and waving your penis around in a church would be in real life.

[Hatzisland]

{ OOC: I have proposed a replacement that goes in line with this repeal. }

Thank you for this. WA rules don't allow legislation in repeal proposals, and lining up anther plan is necessary who this plans passage.

Thanks again,
Abraham Grant
Public Policy Director of Hatzisland

[Hatzisland]

{ OOC: I have proposed a replacement that goes in line with this repeal.}

OOC: Pimping your draft on someone else's thread is considered as bad manners as dropping trous and waving your dick around in a church would be in real life.

I think it is a good thing, and the nation of Hatzisland appreciates it. A lot of responses from the community have said that they would not support it unless a replacement is lined up, and for a draft being already created is a good thing. Also, if I may, can you please refrain from profanity on this forum? I don't if there are any rules involving this, but this is just a personal request.

[Elyreia]

Also, if I may, can you please refrain from profanity on this forum? I don't if there are any rules involving this, but this is just a personal request.

Elyreia will respect the wishes for threads in which you are the author. We vehemently oppose your ideas but respect all delegates equally.

[Kenmoria]

“I’ve put some comments in red.”

The World Assembly,

REASONING that the Government has a duty to protect human life, Which government? Do you mean governments generally, or just a specific one? If it is the former, then you should clarify this, and remove the capitalisation. In addition, there are species in the WA other than humans, such as sapient bears from Bears Armed, so please reduce the anthropocentric, human-focused, language.

ACKNOWLEDGES that an unborn child created by humans is a human, This is obviously true, so I don’t see why this needs to be included. Also, this too is very human-centric, which will put a lot of voters off this proposal and go against general guidelines.

UNDERSTANDS that there are cases in which an abortion should be allowed, These cases are allowed in #286, which explicitly allows abortions as its main goal.

REPEALS General Assembly Resolution #286 "Reproductive Freedoms" (Category: Civil Rights; Strength: Significant). Overall, you need more clauses with stronger arguments to have a valid repeal proposal. However, I do recommend not going for #286, since it is nigh-impossible to repeal at this point.

[Araraukar]

Also, if I may, can you please refrain from profanity on this forum?

OOC: No, but edited.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: search.php?keywords=repeal+reproductive+freedoms&terms=all&author=&fid%5B%5D=8&sc=1&sf=titleonly&sr=topics&sk=t&sd=d&st=0&ch=300&t=0&submit=Search

This may be of interest to the OP as an illustration of the scale of the uphill task faced. A number of fine authors with substantial track records in the GA and many passed resolutions to their names have already tried and failed to repeal RF. I doubt there’s an argument against RF that hasn’t already been made.

I strongly advise that you try a different project as your first foray into the GA.

[Hatzisland]

Also, if I may, can you please refrain from profanity on this forum? I don't if there are any rules involving this, but this is just a personal request.

Elyreia will respect the wishes for threads in which you are the author. We vehemently oppose your ideas but respect all delegates equally.

Thank you.

[Separatist Peoples]

Also, if I may, can you please refrain from profanity on this forum? I don't if there are any rules involving this, but this is just a personal request.

Elyreia will respect the wishes for threads in which you are the author. We vehemently oppose your ideas but respect all delegates equally.

"Fuck that, free speech is for everybody."

[The New Bluestocking Homeland]

Not true for ever member State of the WA.

In any case, the argument that an insentient being is the same species as the sentient being whose womb its occupying (against her will) is less persuasive than you might think.


That's why we have #286


Well, that was quite a leap.

In any case, firmly opposed to any and all attempts to repeal #286 (the one possible exception is if there is already -- in place -- a queued draft for even firmer protections for reproductive freedoms to replace it with).

The plan has been edited to be less confusing(that is why it is called a draft, not a final plan). And for you to support a mother killing its child just before birth is disgusting as much as it is unpopular. The intention of this repeal is not to allow flat out abortion bans(except of course in cases specified in other resolutions, both of which backed by the nation of Hatzisland), but to replace it with a plan that allows more restrictions on abortion, so that abortion would not be a light on demand decision, and to restrict what cases a last-minute/third-trimester abortion can occur.

No-one supports infanticide (the killing of a child). Termination -- or abortion, whichever you prefer -- is the medical ending of a pregnancy and removal of a foetus; typically a very early gestation and insentient foetus (one which feels no pain and has no comprehension of the fact that it even exists).

Where there are late-term abortions, they are not performed lightly, but generally only when medically necessary. To restrict them in any way would be to risk female lives and wellbeing.

And, if Reproductive Freedoms was unpopular, it would have been overturned long ago.

Many authors have tried. Many authors have failed.

And, looking at the new draft, I do not see that streak changing.

[The Unfounded]

Still categorically opposed.