[PASSED] Access to Abortion

[Wallenburg]

"Correct, but rampant inaccessibility is supposed to be the whole point of this legislation's acting toward reducing, and, in fact, a non-insignificant part of existing legislation.
Furthermore, I still fail to see how having the state pay for and provide travel to conflicting nations, regardless of other circumstances,
such as disease, the potential for armed conflict, non-WA status thus having potentially lower safety standards, etc, would be a good idea in practice."

"The qualifications for protected travel are identical to those in GAR #456. These are further qualified by the phrase 'unless permitted by resolution', and by clause 8's automatic deference to antecedent law. A brief search through the World Assembly law code," Ogenbond flips open a pocketbook entitled "Passed General Assembly Resolutions: #1-475" and finds the bookmarked pages, "reveals that such resolutions as #53 Epidemic Response Act are of particular importance in the matter of public health and safety. Your concerns are unwarranted. Please do your research."

[Picairn]

OOC: Did you notice that all this that you are bringing up is in case of rampant inaccessibility compounded by a government ideologically unwilling to address this issue? I don't see why European countries or Canada needs to subside travel when abortifacients, education and contraceptives are readily available. Maybe if you are Romania where abortion is illegal and you have to smuggle IUD's in from West Germany.

Not even liberal Western Europe or Canada fully subsidise birth control measures and travelling abortions, although they freely allows women to seek whatever measures fit them best. Many European countries even have restrictions on abortions, namely time limits.

Allowing freedom to seek abortions doesn't mean the state has to pay for everything. The consensus on legality of abortion is one thing, subsidising it is another entirely. And it's divided across Europe.

I wonder if Imperium Anglorum and other supporters have been notified of the fact that Europe has more restrictions on abortion at the national level than the US, which undoubtedly include things that this proposal would decry as "rabidly anti-choice". I think he proposed this radical resolution because he has a personal vendetta against pro-lifers, not because he wants to legislate in good faith. And that hurts not just pro-lifers, but also moderates who support abortions but don't want to subsidise every fucking thing.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

...And that hurts not just pro-lifers, but also moderates who support abortions but don't want to subsidise every fucking thing.

OOC: Perhaps you can inform those moderates that subsidizing abortions is far cheaper to national budgets than subsidizing the lives of children whose parents can't support themselves sufficiently, let alone those children, as is required by other extant law. People concerned with budgets and finances should be champing at the bit to pass this legislation.

[Picairn]

OOC: Perhaps you can inform those moderates that subsidizing abortions is far cheaper to national budgets than subsidizing the lives of children whose parents can't support themselves sufficiently, let alone those children, as is required by other extant law. People concerned with budgets and finances should be champing at the bit to pass this legislation.

I would have heavily campaigned for this myself if it had stopped at subsidies for contraceptives and maintenance of abortion clinics. But no, IA had to include travel subsidies, full and free abortion coverage and services, speedily available upon request. Such high demands will certainly incur high costs.

[Jutsa]

"Correct, but rampant inaccessibility is supposed to be the whole point of this legislation's acting toward reducing, and, in fact, a non-insignificant part of existing legislation.
Furthermore, I still fail to see how having the state pay for and provide travel to conflicting nations, regardless of other circumstances,
such as disease, the potential for armed conflict, non-WA status thus having potentially lower safety standards, etc, would be a good idea in practice."

"The qualifications for protected travel are identical to those in GAR #456. These are further qualified by the phrase 'unless permitted by resolution', and by clause 8's automatic deference to antecedent law. A brief search through the World Assembly law code," Ogenbond flips open a pocketbook entitled "Passed General Assembly Resolutions: #1-475" and finds the bookmarked pages, "reveals that such resolutions as #53 Epidemic Response Act are of particular importance in the matter of public health and safety. Your concerns are unwarranted. Please do your research."

"Alright, so existing legislation protects against epidemics. Firstly, you still miss my point that member states would be forced to give speedy access to those who want abortion,
and if they can't do that, they'll have the World Assembly build them. Then there shouldn't even be a need for this clause.
I'll also still point out that politically unstable nations or non-members with disregard for human rights, sanitation, safety standards, etc. are still of very real concern.

...And that hurts not just pro-lifers, but also moderates who support abortions but don't want to subsidise every fucking thing.

OOC: Perhaps you can inform those moderates that subsidizing abortions is far cheaper to national budgets than subsidizing the lives of children whose parents can't support themselves sufficiently, let alone those children, as is required by other extant law. People concerned with budgets and finances should be champing at the bit to pass this legislation.

"Or perhaps some nations believe subsidies helping unwanted children is better than subsidizing women choosing to have abortion.
Furthermore, even after abortion in the event of a late-in-pregnancy abortion, the state would still need funds for taking care of said child.
Although this is a comparatively small point, since overall I agree this is at least, finally, some argument for having the state prop up abortion procedures."

[Heavens Reach]

“You keep claiming that the comments on personhood somehow make it okay to end the life of a fetus without regard for the consent of the carrier. This is a flawed assertion that has already been addressed in previous resolutions. Terminating a pregnancy without the carrier’s consent is a violation of the carrier’s rights and can-and-should be prosecuted accordingly. None of my commentary has involved the personhood of the fetus, though I will point out that withholding personhood until birth ensures that a large number of legal side issues are functionally rendered moot.

“An example of this would be that enormous sentient bat that spoke some time back.”

You keep repeating an argument we are not making. We are not saying that a forced abortion would not break some law, (e.g. assault), but it WOULD sepecifically decriminalize killing the fetus, regardless of the feelings of the person carrying it. And, once again, you are ignoring nearly the entirety of our argument, which you are apparently intent on doing. So, we will point to our previous arguments and not waste any more effort on it than that.

[Jikucia]

This proposal reduces Nations' sovereignty, controlling Nations' treasury, "Members must pay for or provide directly abortions, abortifacients, and contraceptives to any recipient bona fide within their jurisdiction upon request. Members must also provide a means to access such services and commodities speedily and free at the point of service or provision" (Section 2), and Nations' land, "The clinics will be built on land donated by members" (Section 5).
Jikucia will vote Nay, encourages other WA members to do the same, and supports a repeal if the resolution passes.

[Godular]

“You keep claiming that the comments on personhood somehow make it okay to end the life of a fetus without regard for the consent of the carrier. This is a flawed assertion that has already been addressed in previous resolutions. Terminating a pregnancy without the carrier’s consent is a violation of the carrier’s rights and can-and-should be prosecuted accordingly. None of my commentary has involved the personhood of the fetus, though I will point out that withholding personhood until birth ensures that a large number of legal side issues are functionally rendered moot.

“An example of this would be that enormous sentient bat that spoke some time back.”

You keep repeating an argument we are not making.

"Yes you are. I pointed out where you did exactly that thing. You keep saying you did not say that, and then you repeat the exact same words as if the meaning will somehow change in the retelling."

We are not saying that a forced abortion would not break some law, (e.g. assault), but it WOULD sepecifically decriminalize killing the fetus, regardless of the feelings of the person carrying it.

"And. You. Are. Wrong. If your main complaint is that this would not allow you to prosecute the nonconsensual termination of a pregnancy-- such as an assault that causes a miscarriage-- as murder, that does not completely preclude it from being a criminal offense. If you're complaining that you would prefer to treat ALL abortions as murder, and this proposal would prevent you from doing so, then that ship sailed LONG ago."

And, once again, you are ignoring nearly the entirety of our argument, which you are apparently intent on doing. So, we will point to our previous arguments and not waste any more effort on it than that.

"Your argument was flawed at the beginning, and I addressed why trying to claim personhood before birth is flawed in the scope of the World Assembly, but you must have missed that particular entry amidst your impersonation of a broken record. Do go on it though, I could use some practice at skeet shooting."

[Godular]

This proposal reduces Nations' sovereignty, controlling Nations' treasury, "Members must pay for or provide directly abortions, abortifacients, and contraceptives to any recipient bona fide within their jurisdiction upon request. Members must also provide a means to access such services and commodities speedily and free at the point of service or provision" (Section 2), and Nations' land, "The clinics will be built on land donated by members" (Section 5).
Jikucia will vote Nay, encourages other WA members to do the same, and supports a repeal if the resolution passes.

"The fact that you have joined the WA at all gives you little ground to complain about the erosion of your purported national sovereignty. If your budget is incapable of meeting the demands placed by this legislation, there are other resources that can be drawn upon. Once the system is in place, the savings that begin to accrue will more than make up for any initial loss."

[Picairn]

"The fact that you have joined the WA at all gives you little ground to complain about the erosion of your purported national sovereignty. If your budget is incapable of meeting the demands placed by this legislation, there are other resources that can be drawn upon. Once the system is in place, the savings that begin to accrue will more than make up for any initial loss."

"So is the WA General Fund a bottomless pit of money, ready to be drawn out for use at any time?"

[Heavens Reach]

"And. You. Are. Wrong. If your main complaint is that this would not allow you to prosecute the nonconsensual termination of a pregnancy-- such as an assault that causes a miscarriage-- as murder, that does not completely preclude it from being a criminal offense. If you're complaining that you would prefer to treat ALL abortions as murder, and this proposal would prevent you from doing so, then that ship sailed LONG ago."

Ambassador, are you just intentionally missing the point to be obstinate? It's been clear since our first response to this forum that we do not support a view of abortion as murder because no person can be impelled to donate their body to save the life of another -- a view not in any way predicated on personhood. You clearly only care whether or not the death of a fetus happens in the context of a forced abortion leads to some kind of charge, even if it's a lesser charge and not in any way protective of the fetus per se, as that's the only part of our argument you are willing to comment on, but it does. not. imply that killing the fetus is a crime in and of itself. Abortion is not the killing of a fetus, but the termination of a biological relationship between the person carrying it and the fetus which happens to lead to its death -- an unfortunate result, but not legal justification for murder of a fetus as an end in itself. If the fetus is not a person, then it is not a crime. Period. And that affects far more than just the case study of forced abortions. And, once again, this proposal does. not. have any business defining personhood in the first place; it is not within the purview of access to abortion, it's legally superfluous, arbitrary, and problematic. And that's all there is to say about it.

[Trsmk2]

God doesn't like abortion

[Trsmk2]

People should believe in God,

Instead of encouraging women to have abortions

[Godular]

"The fact that you have joined the WA at all gives you little ground to complain about the erosion of your purported national sovereignty. If your budget is incapable of meeting the demands placed by this legislation, there are other resources that can be drawn upon. Once the system is in place, the savings that begin to accrue will more than make up for any initial loss."

"So is the WA General Fund a bottomless pit of money, ready to be drawn out for use at any time?"

“Insofar as it removes any excuses about you being able to afford implementation of certain policy changes.”

"And. You. Are. Wrong. If your main complaint is that this would not allow you to prosecute the nonconsensual termination of a pregnancy-- such as an assault that causes a miscarriage-- as murder, that does not completely preclude it from being a criminal offense. If you're complaining that you would prefer to treat ALL abortions as murder, and this proposal would prevent you from doing so, then that ship sailed LONG ago."

Ambassador, are you just intentionally missing the point to be obstinate? It's been clear since our first response to this forum that we do not support a view of abortion as murder because no person can be impelled to donate their body to save the life of another -- a view not in any way predicated on personhood. You clearly only care whether or not the death of a fetus happens in the context of a forced abortion leads to some kind of charge, even if it's a lesser charge and not in any way protective of the fetus per se, as that's the only part of our argument you are willing to comment on, but it does. not. imply that killing the fetus is a crime in and of itself. Abortion is not the killing of a fetus, but the termination of a biological relationship between the person carrying it and the fetus which happens to lead to its death -- an unfortunate result, but not legal justification for murder of a fetus as an end in itself. If the fetus is not a person, then it is not a crime. Period. And that affects far more than just the case study of forced abortions. And, once again, this proposal does. not. have any business defining personhood in the first place; it is not within the purview of access to abortion, it's legally superfluous, arbitrary, and problematic. And that's all there is to say about it.

“And our point is that your use of ‘regardless’ is flawed, as most any kind of legal issue is dependent on context. The definition of personhood in this resolution might seem superfluous to you, but to us it is a matter of streamlining policy.”

[Godular]

People should believe in God,

Instead of encouraging women to have abortions

“That ship sailed long ago, friendo.”

[Picairn]

Further elaboration on my gripes with this resolution: It does not create a transitionary period for preparation towards full compliance, and thus may shake many nations' economies and budgets to the core with the sudden increase in funding. Hospitals and clinics may be overwhelmed by the new increase in demand after abortion services become free at the point of service.

Come on, even Bernie Sanders' Medicare for all plan includes a transitionary Medicare buy-in period.

[Shazbotdom]

Further elaboration on my gripes with this resolution: It does not create a transitionary period for preparation towards full compliance, and thus may shake many nations' economies and budgets to the core with the sudden increase in funding. Hospitals and clinics may be overwhelmed by the new increase in demand after abortion services become free at the point of service.

Come on, even Bernie Sanders' Medicare for all plan includes a transitionary Medicare buy-in period.

"I don't know who this Bernie Sanders person is, but here in the World Assembly, there is no 'transitionary period' for any Resolutions. Once it passes, the WA Gnomes go into every nation that is a member of the World Assembly and forcibly alters their nation's laws to come into compliance with the Resolution. No ifs, ands or butts."

[Heavens Reach]

“And our point is that your use of ‘regardless’ is flawed, as most any kind of legal issue is dependent on context. The definition of personhood in this resolution might seem superfluous to you, but to us it is a matter of streamlining policy.”

That it is superfluous to the issue of access to abortion is not just something that it seems like to us, ambassador. It just is superfluous, and does precisely the opposite of "streamlinging" policy. If anything, it throws policy into unnecessary confusion.

[Wallenburg]

Further elaboration on my gripes with this resolution: It does not create a transitionary period for preparation towards full compliance, and thus may shake many nations' economies and budgets to the core with the sudden increase in funding. Hospitals and clinics may be overwhelmed by the new increase in demand after abortion services become free at the point of service.

Come on, even Bernie Sanders' Medicare for all plan includes a transitionary Medicare buy-in period.

Almost no resolutions have transition periods. Furthermore, if your people are so oppressed and your medical infrastructure so poor that your economy and healthcare institutions will collapse at requests for abortion services, then you're already probably violating several other healthcare resolutions.

Further elaboration on my gripes with this resolution: It does not create a transitionary period for preparation towards full compliance, and thus may shake many nations' economies and budgets to the core with the sudden increase in funding. Hospitals and clinics may be overwhelmed by the new increase in demand after abortion services become free at the point of service.

Come on, even Bernie Sanders' Medicare for all plan includes a transitionary Medicare buy-in period.

"I don't know who this Bernie Sanders person is, but here in the World Assembly, there is no 'transitionary period' for any Resolutions. Once it passes, the WA Gnomes go into every nation that is a member of the World Assembly and forcibly alters their nation's laws to come into compliance with the Resolution. No ifs, ands or butts."

Well, not necessarily. Wallenburg takes a few days to enter full compliance. The legislative process must be careful not to misinterpret the requirements of passed World Assembly law or overlook more practical details to be considered when enacting this chamber's mandates into national law.

[Godular]

“And our point is that your use of ‘regardless’ is flawed, as most any kind of legal issue is dependent on context. The definition of personhood in this resolution might seem superfluous to you, but to us it is a matter of streamlining policy.”

That it is superfluous to the issues of access to abortion is not just something that it seems like to us, ambassador. It just is superfluous, and does precisely the opposite of "streamlinging" policy. If anything, it throws policy into unnecessary confusion.

“I disagree. By setting a standard point where personhood begins, whether you feel it arbitrary or not, confusion is functionally reduced.”

[Godular]

Further elaboration on my gripes with this resolution: It does not create a transitionary period for preparation towards full compliance, and thus may shake many nations' economies and budgets to the core with the sudden increase in funding. Hospitals and clinics may be overwhelmed by the new increase in demand after abortion services become free at the point of service.

Come on, even Bernie Sanders' Medicare for all plan includes a transitionary Medicare buy-in period.

"I don't know who this Bernie Sanders person is, but here in the World Assembly, there is no 'transitionary period' for any Resolutions. Once it passes, the WA Gnomes go into every nation that is a member of the World Assembly and forcibly alters their nation's laws to come into compliance with the Resolution. No ifs, ands or butts."

“Oh, that takes a load off my mind! All this time I thought those Oompa-Loompa looking things were a hallucination.”

[Heavens Reach]

“I disagree. By setting a standard point where personhood begins, whether you feel it arbitrary or not, confusion is functionally reduced.”

There you go again, making statements, but not backing them up. Since it is sufficient to argue that access to abortion is predicated on the already precedented belief that people can not be forced to give up their body for the life of another, attempting to delineate personhood in a scientifically and morally arbitrary manner is sure to cause confusion, as we have previously argued.

[Godular]

“I disagree. By setting a standard point where personhood begins, whether you feel it arbitrary or not, confusion is functionally reduced.”

There you go again, making statements, but not backing them up. Since it is sufficient to argue that access to abortion is predicated on the already precedented belief that people can not be forced to give up their body for the life of another, attempting to delineate personhood in a scientifically and morally arbitrary manner is sure to cause confusion, as we have previously argued.

“Your claim of arbitrariness had little backup itself, as I recall. I already addressed certain scenarios that actually occur here among the species of the General Assembly where the delineation presented here is very much important. Setting a standard at all serves to eliminate confusion and conflict on the practical level, though thanks to you it certainly does not lack for verbal conflict.”

[Picairn]

"I don't know who this Bernie Sanders person is, but here in the World Assembly, there is no 'transitionary period' for any Resolutions. Once it passes, the WA Gnomes go into every nation that is a member of the World Assembly and forcibly alters their nation's laws to come into compliance with the Resolution. No ifs, ands or butts."

"Interesting. Do these WA Gnomes possess magic to create new infrastructure and equipment at will to help member nations coming into compliance, in this particular resolution? If that's the case then I retract all of my previous criticisms."

[Heavens Reach]

“Your claim of arbitrariness had little backup itself, as I recall. I already addressed certain scenarios that actually occur here among the species of the General Assembly where the delineation presented here is very much important. Setting a standard at all serves to eliminate confusion and conflict on the practical level, though thanks to you it certainly does not lack for verbal conflict.”

The state of a delineation as arbitrary is prima facie until a sufficient argument is made for why something ought to be, so you're asking us to argue a negative, and placing the onus of proof on the person not creating the claim, but nevertheless, you should revisit our very first response to this proposal, because we do explain why defining personhood at birth ought not to be done. And until an hour ago, you refused to even address this central part of our argument, so we'd like to remind you, ambassador, that "verbal conflict" is always a two way street -- though how long it persists depends in part on the good faith of the participants, and you have decidedly made every effort to argue in, say, a lazy manner. (And hand-waving is laziness)