[DEAFETED] Repeal of "Reproductive Freedoms" Act

[Elyreia]

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."

We agree. However, we're also not here to kick sand castles.

[New Sukberia]

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

Edit: Due to requests by other nations, clarifications have been made.

The World Assembly,

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

ACKNOWLEDGES that an unborn child created by humans is a human,

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

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

The only human in our Empire is the Imperatora, she's not fully human. So if i rejoin the WA, will i technically not be forced to abide by this? Yay!

[The New Nordic Union]

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

Edit: Due to requests by other nations, clarifications have been made.

The World Assembly,

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

ACKNOWLEDGES that an unborn child created by humans is a human,

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

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

The only human in our Empire is the Imperatora, she's not fully human. So if i rejoin the WA, will i technically not be forced to abide by this? Yay!

OOC:
Since this is a repeal, you would no longer be bound by the repealed resolution, which applies to all individuals, not just humans. This proposal here does not enact any new provisions by which to abide.

[Hatzisland]

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.

Abortions are not only done in cases where they are medically necessary. There are other abortion resolutions covering that. This plan specifically allows abortion on demand. And we should at least try to take down this monstrosity of a resolution.

[Hatzisland]

"Fuck that, free speech is for everybody."

We agree. However, we're also not here to kick sand castles.

I checked the rules, and this is allowed, so I can't do anything to stop anyone. But if a country wishes to be respectful and have good relations, they should listen to another nation's respectful request.

[Hatzisland]

The only human in our Empire is the Imperatora, she's not fully human. So if i rejoin the WA, will i technically not be forced to abide by this? Yay!

OOC:
Since this is a repeal, you would no longer be bound by the repealed resolution, which applies to all individuals, not just humans. This proposal here does not enact any new provisions by which to abide.

The plan has been edited. Also, I can't legislate on a repeal plan.

[The New Nordic Union]

The World Assembly,

REASONING that the Government 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,

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

OOC:
This is even weaker than the first draft. Now it only states that there are cases in which abortion should be allowed... for which there are provisions in the targeted resolution, as mentioned multiple times before. You do, however, not adress problematic issues specific to the targeted resolution. That gets this proposal close to a Honest Mistake violation, I would say.

(Also, might I ask what is up with you calling everything a 'plan'?)

[Wallenburg]

There's nothing hard enough to violate HM, but there's no hard facts backing up a repeal here, just a bunch of highly contentious and charged opinions.

[The New Bluestocking Homeland]

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.

Abortions are not only done in cases where they are medically necessary. There are other abortion resolutions covering that. This plan specifically allows abortion on demand. And we should at least try to take down this monstrosity of a resolution.

"Ahem... I did not say that "abortions are only done when medically necessary", I said "late abortions are generally done when medically necessary" -- omission of those words alters its meaning, rather.

There are many instances where expectant mothers may wish to and choose to abort: rape, incest, financial instability, risk to life, foetal abnormality, relationship instability... I could go on.

Why should an insentient being (a foetus) get more rights than the sentient being (the mother)?

As for your final statement... well, that is your opinion.

Precedent of the voting history on more credible proposals than this -- acknowledging the necessity of abortion, only to jump to trying to strike down the resolution that protects the right to them just doesn't gel -- disagrees that we "should try" to take down #286, somewhat."

[Hatzisland]

The World Assembly,

REASONING that the Government 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,

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

OOC:
This is even weaker than the first draft. Now it only states that there are cases in which abortion should be allowed... for which there are provisions in the targeted resolution, as mentioned multiple times before. You do, however, not adress problematic issues specific to the targeted resolution. That gets this proposal close to a Honest Mistake violation, I would say.

(Also, might I ask what is up with you calling everything a 'plan'?)

I just call it a plan, though the politically correct term would be draft or proposition. Also, I cannot legislate in a repeal, which severely weakens my power to address the problematic issues. Anyways, the more reasons stated, the more controversy comes to the plan(or proposal), especially with pro-choice nations. And as for honest mistake violation, our lawyers have cleared it.

[The New Nordic Union]

OOC:
This is even weaker than the first draft. Now it only states that there are cases in which abortion should be allowed... for which there are provisions in the targeted resolution, as mentioned multiple times before. You do, however, not adress problematic issues specific to the targeted resolution. That gets this proposal close to a Honest Mistake violation, I would say.

(Also, might I ask what is up with you calling everything a 'plan'?)

I just call it a plan, though the politically correct term would be draft or proposition. Also, I cannot legislate in a repeal, which severely weakens my power to address the problematic issues. Anyways, the more reasons stated, the more controversy comes to the plan(or proposal), especially with pro-choice nations. And as for honest mistake violation, our lawyers have cleared it.

OOC:
There is a difference between legislating in an appeal and mentioning the (supposed) shortcomings of the target resolution. The latter you should most definitely do. You cannot repeal a resolution by simply stating "Resolution is bad", you have to make a (compelling) argument as to why this is the case.

[Hatzisland]

Abortions are not only done in cases where they are medically necessary. There are other abortion resolutions covering that. This plan specifically allows abortion on demand. And we should at least try to take down this monstrosity of a resolution.

"Ahem... I did not say that "abortions are only done when medically necessary", I said "late abortions are generally done when medically necessary" -- omission of those words alters its meaning, rather.

There are many instances where expectant mothers may wish to and choose to abort: rape, incest, financial instability, risk to life, foetal abnormality, relationship instability... I could go on.

Why should an insentient being (a foetus) get more rights than the sentient being (the mother)?

As for your final statement... well, that is your opinion.

Precedent of the voting history on more credible proposals than this -- acknowledging the necessity of abortion, only to jump to trying to strike down the resolution that protects the right to them just doesn't gel -- disagrees that we "should try" to take down #286, somewhat."

That's the problem. There will always be people who know this plan allows abortion on demand at any time, but fear a repeal would too heavily restrict abortion rights, even though other resolutions already make exclusions for every reason you stated. And medical abortions are allowed in any trimester, even if "Reproductive Freedoms" is repealed. Finally, as for your last statement, we should at least try to take this plan down, but many repeal efforts have failed being considered legal. That is a major reason many plans are never brought to the floor. Soon, our team will try to make necessary changes to try and make a compelling argument.

[New Udonia]

The Federation of New Udonia recognizes your bravery to attempt to repeal such an act, but questions as to why?

The Federation of New Udonia has outlawed all forms of eugenics, including all forms of abortion, under Article 8 of the New Udonian Constitution.

The Federation of New Udonia is a sovereign nation, and thereby does not need to, and never will conform to WA resolutions which violate its constitution.

Simply write in a similar clause to your constitution, when the game issue arises, if you still want to outlaw it, you can and it will be under your official policies on your game's page. : )

[The New Nordic Union]

The Federation of New Udonia recognizes your bravery to attempt to repeal such an act, but questions as to why?

The Federation of New Udonia has outlawed all forms of eugenics, including all forms of abortion, under Article 8 of the New Udonian Constitution.

The Federation of New Udonia is a sovereign nation, and thereby does not need to, and never will conform to WA resolutions which violate its constitution.

Simply write in a similar clause to your constitution, when the game issue arises, if you still want to outlaw it, you can and it will be under your official policies on your game's page. : )

OOC:
Don't RP blatant noncompliance if you want your input to be taken into consideration. Also, issues/policies and WA membership and resolutions are two totally seperate parts of gameplay and have nothing to do with each other whatsoever.

[Falcania]

"Ahem... I did not say that "abortions are only done when medically necessary", I said "late abortions are generally done when medically necessary" -- omission of those words alters its meaning, rather.

There are many instances where expectant mothers may wish to and choose to abort: rape, incest, financial instability, risk to life, foetal abnormality, relationship instability... I could go on.

Why should an insentient being (a foetus) get more rights than the sentient being (the mother)?

As for your final statement... well, that is your opinion.

Precedent of the voting history on more credible proposals than this -- acknowledging the necessity of abortion, only to jump to trying to strike down the resolution that protects the right to them just doesn't gel -- disagrees that we "should try" to take down #286, somewhat."

That's the problem. There will always be people who know this plan allows abortion on demand at any time, but fear a repeal would too heavily restrict abortion rights, even though other resolutions already make exclusions for every reason you stated. And medical abortions are allowed in any trimester, even if "Reproductive Freedoms" is repealed. Finally, as for your last statement, we should at least try to take this plan down, but many repeal efforts have failed being considered legal. That is a major reason many plans are never brought to the floor. Soon, our team will try to make necessary changes to try and make a compelling argument.

Unless your proposed replacement would make abortion even easier to access then I don't see you getting this through.

[American Pere Housh]

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

Edit: Due to requests by other nations, clarifications have been made.

The World Assembly,

REASONING that the Government 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,

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

The Confederacy will support this plan as the APH only allows abortions in cases of rape, incest , or if the mother's life is endangered as written in the APH Constitution. Any international treaty or WA resolution must be approved by a two-thirds majority in both houses of the Confederate Congress in Richmond.

[Separatist Peoples]

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

Edit: Due to requests by other nations, clarifications have been made.

The World Assembly,

REASONING that the Government 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,

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

The Confederacy will support this plan as the APH only allows abortions in cases of rape, incest , or if the mother's life is endangered as written in the APH Constitution. Any international treaty or WA resolution must be approved by a two-thirds majority in both houses of the Confederate Congress in Richmond.

"We went over this, ambassador. If you're not compliant, why should any of us bother considering your statements? Also, per the ACA, I imagine you can expect some extremely punitive fines."

[Kenmoria]

The Federation of New Udonia recognizes your bravery to attempt to repeal such an act, but questions as to why?

The Federation of New Udonia has outlawed all forms of eugenics, including all forms of abortion, under Article 8 of the New Udonian Constitution.

The Federation of New Udonia is a sovereign nation, and thereby does not need to, and never will conform to WA resolutions which violate its constitution.

Simply write in a similar clause to your constitution, when the game issue arises, if you still want to outlaw it, you can and it will be under your official policies on your game's page. : )

(OOC: Don’t do that. It is poor roleplaying to just ignore GA resolutions without considering the effects or paying attention to the fines mandated by the Adminisrrative Compliance Act. Also, policies have nothing to do with GA resolutions.)

“Here are some more comments, still in red.”

The World Assembly,

REASONING that the Government has a duty to protect life, Which government? Also, there is not a need to capitalise ‘Government’ in that sentence.

ACKNOWLEDGES that an unborn child created by a parent is living, This is better than the prior version, but still doesn’t explain why this pertains to the target resolution. I don’t think anyone doubts that foetuses are alive, as the core debate is instead around whether taking that life is justified. You need either a separate clause or an extension to this one in order to contextualise it.

UNDERSTANDS that there are cases in which an abortion should be allowed, Such as? Also, this would appear to support, albeit in a slightly muddled way, the target resolution rather than your repeal thereof. You need to state why this belief justifies a repeal of the target.

REPEALS General Assembly Resolution #286 "Reproductive Freedoms" (Category: Civil Rights; Strength: Significant). Overall, you just need more reasoning here, in particular reasoning that crosses ideological bounds and explains why the target resolution is, in your view, objectively flawed.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Fuck that, free speech is for everybody."

We agree. However, we're also not here to kick sand castles.

"Interesting. The Foreign Ministry sent me special boots for exactly that. Metaphorically, of course. Part of my directive, and indeed part of C.D.S.P. culture, is confrontational aggression, intellectually or otherwise. I get no small amount of resistance against compromise on principle."

[New Udonia]

The Federation of New Udonia recognizes your bravery to attempt to repeal such an act, but questions as to why?

The Federation of New Udonia has outlawed all forms of eugenics, including all forms of abortion, under Article 8 of the New Udonian Constitution.

The Federation of New Udonia is a sovereign nation, and thereby does not need to, and never will conform to WA resolutions which violate its constitution.

Simply write in a similar clause to your constitution, when the game issue arises, if you still want to outlaw it, you can and it will be under your official policies on your game's page. : )

OOC:
Don't RP blatant noncompliance if you want your input to be taken into consideration. Also, issues/policies and WA membership and resolutions are two totally seperate parts of gameplay and have nothing to do with each other whatsoever.

Trust me, our constitution was not designed around or for WA law.
Also, I don't see your issue with a realistic sense of roleplay? I mean, this platform supposedly covers multiple dimensions of time and space with multiple forms of humanoids and supernatural creatures, and non-compliance RP is "irrelevant"? Also, if they are separate parts of game-play, than how are they supposed to be for the same nation? The WA is part of the main NationStates game, not separate.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC:
Don't RP blatant noncompliance if you want your input to be taken into consideration. Also, issues/policies and WA membership and resolutions are two totally seperate parts of gameplay and have nothing to do with each other whatsoever.

Trust me, our constitution was not designed around or for WA law.
Also, I don't see your issue with a realistic sense of roleplay? I mean, this platform supposedly covers multiple dimensions of time and space with multiple forms of humanoids and supernatural creatures, and non-compliance RP is "irrelevant"? Also, if they are separate parts of game-play, than how are they supposed to be for the same nation? The WA is part of the main NationStates game, not separate.

Ooc:
Noncompliance is treated like godmodding in the GA forum. Even if it wasn't, there are resolutions that threaten huge fines and international sanctions if you don't comply, and ignoring those serious consequences is also godmodding.

Finally, if you insist on doing all that anyway, know that people will just ignore your input if you refuse to say by the roleplay's accepted rules. Nobody will bother with your input on other drafts, and probably wont engage you beyond reminding you of the resolutions you're violating.

It's your call, but noncompliance puts you in the position of playing with only yourself.

[Hatzisland]

The Federation of New Udonia recognizes your bravery to attempt to repeal such an act, but questions as to why?

The Federation of New Udonia has outlawed all forms of eugenics, including all forms of abortion, under Article 8 of the New Udonian Constitution.

The Federation of New Udonia is a sovereign nation, and thereby does not need to, and never will conform to WA resolutions which violate its constitution.

Simply write in a similar clause to your constitution, when the game issue arises, if you still want to outlaw it, you can and it will be under your official policies on your game's page. : )

Can I seriously do that while remaining in the WA? I won't get kicked or be in violation of any terms? Also, how can I make a constitution and have it apply to my nation(though we will not use it for non-compliance purposes)?

[Separatist Peoples]

The Federation of New Udonia recognizes your bravery to attempt to repeal such an act, but questions as to why?

The Federation of New Udonia has outlawed all forms of eugenics, including all forms of abortion, under Article 8 of the New Udonian Constitution.

The Federation of New Udonia is a sovereign nation, and thereby does not need to, and never will conform to WA resolutions which violate its constitution.

Simply write in a similar clause to your constitution, when the game issue arises, if you still want to outlaw it, you can and it will be under your official policies on your game's page. : )

Can I seriously do that while remaining in the WA? I won't get kicked or be in violation of any terms? Also, how can I make a constitution and have it apply to my nation?

Trust me, our constitution was not designed around or for WA law.
Also, I don't see your issue with a realistic sense of roleplay? I mean, this platform supposedly covers multiple dimensions of time and space with multiple forms of humanoids and supernatural creatures, and non-compliance RP is "irrelevant"? Also, if they are separate parts of game-play, than how are they supposed to be for the same nation? The WA is part of the main NationStates game, not separate.

Ooc:
Noncompliance is treated like godmodding in the GA forum. Even if it wasn't, there are resolutions that threaten huge fines and international sanctions if you don't comply, and ignoring those serious consequences is also godmodding.

Finally, if you insist on doing all that anyway, know that people will just ignore your input if you refuse to say by the roleplay's accepted rules. Nobody will bother with your input on other drafts, and probably wont engage you beyond reminding you of the resolutions you're violating.

It's your call, but noncompliance puts you in the position of playing with only yourself.

[New Udonia]

Trust me, our constitution was not designed around or for WA law.
Also, I don't see your issue with a realistic sense of roleplay? I mean, this platform supposedly covers multiple dimensions of time and space with multiple forms of humanoids and supernatural creatures, and non-compliance RP is "irrelevant"? Also, if they are separate parts of game-play, than how are they supposed to be for the same nation? The WA is part of the main NationStates game, not separate.

Ooc:
Noncompliance is treated like godmodding in the GA forum. Even if it wasn't, there are resolutions that threaten huge fines and international sanctions if you don't comply, and ignoring those serious consequences is also godmodding.

Finally, if you insist on doing all that anyway, know that people will just ignore your input if you refuse to say by the roleplay's accepted rules. Nobody will bother with your input on other drafts, and probably wont engage you beyond reminding you of the resolutions you're violating.

It's your call, but noncompliance puts you in the position of playing with only yourself.

Guess a large majority of this game will just start "playing by themselves" as literally every nation violates at least one WA act.

[Kenmoria]

The Federation of New Udonia recognizes your bravery to attempt to repeal such an act, but questions as to why?

The Federation of New Udonia has outlawed all forms of eugenics, including all forms of abortion, under Article 8 of the New Udonian Constitution.

The Federation of New Udonia is a sovereign nation, and thereby does not need to, and never will conform to WA resolutions which violate its constitution.

Simply write in a similar clause to your constitution, when the game issue arises, if you still want to outlaw it, you can and it will be under your official policies on your game's page. : )

Can I seriously do that while remaining in the WA? I won't get kicked or be in violation of any terms? Also, how can I make a constitution and have it apply to my nation?

(OOC: Don’t do that. By this I mean, feel free to make a constitution with whatever you want, but keep it separate from the WA. It is godmodding, a form of bad roleplay, to noncomply with resolutions.)