Withdrawn: Repeal of "Reproductive Freedoms"

[Dontriptia]

[

[Separatist Peoples]

"As usual, we will do everything in our power to scuttle any attempt to repeal Reproductive Freedoms that are not our own."

[Israeli Commonwealth]

Please leave feedback below

The World Assembly,

Noting that:

1. The Assembly's enforcement authority is limited and should be focused on legitimate international issues, not domestic policies that well meaning member states may take different positions on due to their varying cultures and political ideologies.

2. GAR #286 requires the absolute legalization of abortion, at any stage of pregnancy, for any reason on demand, including late-term, partial-birth, and sex-selective abortions. Sex-selective abortion is a violation of human rights that at the very least, should not be internationally imposed.

3. Even pro-abortion scientists report that human fetuses specifically experience extreme pain during an abortion carried out, at the very latest, between 25 and 30 weeks into pregnancy. This procedure is absolutely protected by GAR #286 and may not be prohibited or regulated in any way to protect the fetus.

4. GAR #286 requires member nations to ensure "protection from targeted animosity" towards abortionists and abortion patients, a requirement which contradicts many nations' interpretation of freedom of speech.

Hereby:

Repeals GAR #286.

I support

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

1) Sounds like national sovereignty-ism.
4) Blatant harassment and threatening of doctors, nurses and patients is not free speech, and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Or it would be if it involved making or speaking threats towards "vaccinationists" and their patients, and we would rightly condemn the chilling effect towards the prevention of preventable diseases should we allow, by negligence or by design such threats. But apparently we should make an exception towards "abortionists" because?

[Zordennox]

Please leave feedback below

The World Assembly,

Noting that:

1. The Assembly's enforcement authority is limited and should be focused on legitimate international issues, not domestic policies that well meaning member states may take different positions on due to their varying cultures and political ideologies.

2. GAR #286 requires the absolute legalization of abortion, at any stage of pregnancy, for any reason on demand, including late-term, partial-birth, and sex-selective abortions. Sex-selective abortion is a violation of human rights that at the very least, should not be internationally imposed.

3. Even pro-abortion scientists report that human fetuses specifically experience extreme pain during an abortion carried out, at the very latest, between 25 and 30 weeks into pregnancy. This procedure is absolutely protected by GAR #286 and may not be prohibited or regulated in any way to protect the fetus.

4. GAR #286 requires member nations to ensure "protection from targeted animosity" towards abortionists and abortion patients, a requirement which contradicts many nations' interpretation of freedom of speech.

Hereby:

Repeals GAR #286.

I think that you should also include in this proposal that abortion can cause mental health issues in persons receiving an abortion in section 3.

[Dontriptia]

...

[Dontriptia]

...

[Separatist Peoples]

1) Sounds like national sovereignty-ism.
4) Blatant harassment and threatening of doctors, nurses and patients is not free speech, and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Or it would be if it involved making or speaking threats towards "vaccinationists" and their patients. But apparently we should make an exception towards "abortionists" because?

The resolution makes no mention of threats or harassment, only "targeted animosity." Animosity is "a feeling of strong dislike, ill will, or enmity. It obviously falls within free expression to express feelings of "strong dislike" towards abortion doctors.

Even if your interpretation was correct, policies with respect to private harassment should not be codified in international law.

Point 1 is national sovereignty, however it is legal to base a repeal on national sovereignty as long as it isn't the sole argument.

"Considering extant law actually deals with free speech law among individuals, the phrase "targeted animosity" cannot mean just ill will or enmity without contradicting that extant law.

"Policies with respect to private harassment should be codified where that harassment is used to undermine a fundamental right."

[Dontriptia]

.

[The Unfounded]

Categorically opposed, and potentially illegal due to anthropocentric language.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Considering extant law actually deals with free speech law among individuals, the phrase "targeted animosity" cannot mean just ill will or enmity without contradicting that extant law.

"Policies with respect to private harassment should be codified where that harassment is used to undermine a fundamental right."

"Obviously we disagree as to whether abortion is a fundamental right. But if "targeted animosity" meant threats or harassment, why wouldn't it say so? If language in a resolution has to be twisted to a different meaning than what is clearly stated, then that's just another reason to repeal it."

"The language was intended, and satisfactorily includes, all attempts by member states to allow harassment and threats by other names. Its irrelevant, however, since there is extant law on the issue of free speech. Its a silly argument to make if you've any familiarity with General Assembly resolutions.

"As for the fundamental right bit, well, there are two resolutions protecting abortion. That's one more than most rights get. In the WA's eyes, that's pretty fundamental. You can disagree all you want, but the evidence suggests otherwise."

[Dontriptia]

..

[Gebietersland]

The resolution makes no mention of threats or harassment, only "targeted animosity." Animosity is "a feeling of strong dislike, ill will, or enmity. It obviously falls within free expression to express feelings of "strong dislike" towards abortion doctors.

Even if your interpretation was correct, policies with respect to private harassment should not be codified in international law.

Point 1 is national sovereignty, however it is legal to base a repeal on national sovereignty as long as it isn't the sole argument.

"Considering extant law actually deals with free speech law among individuals, the phrase "targeted animosity" cannot mean just ill will or enmity without contradicting that extant law.

"Policies with respect to private harassment should be codified where that harassment is used to undermine a fundamental right."

Doesn't the WA already guarantee free speech? Also, the "targeted animosity" clause only tasks nations to "protect" abortionees from animosity; there are ways to protect without prosecuting the harassers. Since the WA guarantees free speech, nations must use that clause to, for example, implement measures to ensure the animosity of persons receiving an abortion."

Edit: While I was typing this, Separatist Peoples basically said the same exact thing two posts above me.

[The Candy Of Bottles]

Repeal attempt #945...

And #946...

[Separatist Peoples]

"Considering extant law actually deals with free speech law among individuals, the phrase "targeted animosity" cannot mean just ill will or enmity without contradicting that extant law.

"Policies with respect to private harassment should be codified where that harassment is used to undermine a fundamental right."

Doesn't the WA already guarantee free speech? Also, the "targeted animosity" clause only tasks nations to "protect" abortionees from animosity; there are ways to protect without prosecuting the harassers. Since the WA guarantees free speech, nations must use that clause to, for example, implement measures to ensure the animosity of persons receiving an abortion."

Edit: While I was typing this, Separatist Peoples basically said the same exact thing two posts above me.

OOC: You'll get there one day, kid. I've been on the quick draw with Repeal: RF for a looooooong time.