[GA] Repeal: Reproductive Freedoms [Complete]

Sil Dorsett

Sil Dorsett

The Belt Collector
-
-
Deputy Speaker
-
-
-
-
TNP Nation
sil_dorsett
Discord
sildorsett
Please keep the discussion civil.

Category: Repeal
Target: GA #286
Proposed by: United Massachusetts
Onsite Topic

General Assembly Resolution #286 “Reproductive Freedoms” (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

COGNIZANT of the inherent rights of individuals to terminate their pregnancies without government interference and not wishing to violate said rights in most circumstances,

HOWEVER NOTING the significant ethical objections to the termination of pregnancies held by many nations and believing that these ought to be respected as such,

ANNOYED by the blatant dismissal of these objections in GAR 286 as being "codified without regard to the freedom of individuals", which is an inherently circular argument, considering the objections are grounded in the belief that no legitimate freedom exists to terminate a pregnancy in the first place,

FRUSTURATED by the vague wording of the resolution, which forces member nations to legalize, among other procedures:

Dilation and Extraction (D&X) procedures, commonly known as partial-birth abortions, some of the most gruesome, bloody, and medically unneeded abortion procedures, in which a living and viable fetus is destroyed,

The termination of pregnancies up to the very date of birth, by which time, a human fetus has a beating heart and all of its major organs, often in a state of viability,

The termination of viable fetuses which are able to survive on their own,

APPALLED that Reproductive Freedoms allows termination of pregnancy for any reason, including selection of offspring on account of sex, skin color, disability, or other discriminatory reasons, justifications which this august Assembly ought to be eradicating, rather than promoting,

CONCERNED that, despite its well-formed intentions, GAR #286's vagueness leads to radical and unintended consequences,

REMINDING itself that other pieces of legislation already, in much clearer terms, establish the right to terminate pregnancies in certain circumstances, and that the repeal of GAR #286 would merely allow a more reasonable compromise to be reached whilst still protecting reproductive rights,

URGING member nations to look beyond the misleading title of this resolution,

REPEALS GAR #286, Reproductive Freedoms.
Click to expand...

Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.

Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!

[wavote=the_north_pacific,ga]2017_06_18_repeal_reproductive_freedoms[/wavote]
[wavote=world,ga]2017_06_18_repeal_reproductive_freedoms[/wavote]
 
The resolution in question is a hard-fought compromise on one of the most contentious issues to ever come before this assembly. It does not go far enough for many and is more restrictive than many others would prefer. One thing is true without a doubt; neither side would be happy with a return to the vicious debate that ensued when legislating on this topic was previously attempted.

This repeal makes a lot of assumptions and overlooks a variety of scenarios by which governments can regulate abortion while painting a misleading picture of dystopias with a commonplace and genocidal implementation of this procedure. Just as the repeal cites an existing law that would further protect women's rights in this regard, it ought to remember the other law that would curtail many of these unintended consequences it points out. Reasonable nations seeking to compromise on this issue and regulate responsibly should easily identify these arguments for what they are: fearmongering.

The author of this resolution also publicly admits that nations which disagree with this resolution will find a way to remain compliant without living up to the spirit of the law. This, in addition to the allowances the resolution already provides to such nations, cuts the argument that the resolution opens the door too widely to abortion and completely disregards the objections of its opponents off at the knees. Those who would repeal this resolution ought to give credit to the others voting against it, and not upset a balance that has been in place for quite some time and allows everyone the leeway to navigate this serious issue in ways that respect essential rights while giving ample room and voice to those who disagree.

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote against the resolution.
 
I would be against this. There isn't a case for specific governmental regulation targeting abortion, beyond what is required of any medical procedure.

The claim that GA#286 mandates D&X being legal is quite dubious, given that a proposal that would have outlawed D&X was at vote last year.
 
Against. I just read through the GA 286 and the author of this bill makes many false claims, especially in regards to Dilation and Extraction. GA 286 allowed for safe and legal abortions only, leaving the definition of that up to WA members. As a result, nation's can define Dilation and Extraction as safe or dangerous depending on their own personal beliefs.
 
(Cross-post from Europeia.) Also, a counter-campaign in an attempt to prevent approvals was sent to delegates. This may slow the process to quorum. Over the last three hours, the number of approvals has been static, which could be promising vis-à-vis preventing the proposal from going to vote.

The counter-campaign, received by my nation as Delegate of Europe, contained the following message, from a nation 'Chinese Peoples' (region: Chinese Republic, WA Delegate thereof), dispatching his or her telegram to tag:delegates :

Dear WA Delegate,

Recently a campaign telegram was sent out by The Tennessee Volunteers Empire of The Rouge Christmas State (TRCS), which is highly misleading in its diction and questionable in its aims and ethical basis. Nothing in GAR#286 compels a pregnant mother to seek an abortion. Nothing in GAR#286 attempts to alter a pregnant mother's morality in relation to her maternity. If a pregnant mother wishes not to have an abortion, she is completely free not to have the procedure upon any moral basis she may hold. Hence, such terms that TRCS uses, such as "shoves [...] down the throat", are not descriptive of the actual content of the resolution that she seeks to repeal. The telegram feigns moral rectitude, while it is nothing short of a devious deception and contrives social retrogression.

We urge you to withhold/withdraw your approval of TRCS' proposal, as its only effect is to render it possible for tyrannies to limit the ability of those who require such a procedure to undergo it. That indeed is, ironically, what will allow self-righteous, pseudo-moral dictators to shove their views down the throats of individuals who ought to be free.

We beg to remain, dear Nations, your most observant friend,

The Republic of Chinese Peoples
 
Present.

I want no part of this debate, and I leave it to the WA staff to decide on what to recommend and what to write. Whatever IFV comes out of this, I have nothing to do with.
 
For, on the grounds of national sovereignty (i.e. nations should be able to decide their own laws on abortion).
 
Sil Dorsett:
The resolution in question is a hard-fought compromise on one of the most contentious issues to ever come before this assembly.
Click to expand...
A compromise between what -- forced abortion (à la real-world China) and the right to life (à la real-world Poland)?

Sil Dorsett:
One thing is true without a doubt; neither side would be happy with a return to the vicious debate that ensued when legislating on this topic was previously attempted.
Click to expand...
Really, pro-life advocates would not be happy? :eyebrow:
 
Christian Democrats:
Sil Dorsett:
The resolution in question is a hard-fought compromise on one of the most contentious issues to ever come before this assembly.
Click to expand...
A compromise between what -- forced abortion (à la real-world China) and the right to life (à la real-world Poland)?

Sil Dorsett:
One thing is true without a doubt; neither side would be happy with a return to the vicious debate that ensued when legislating on this topic was previously attempted.
Click to expand...
Really, pro-life advocates would not be happy? :eyebrow:
Click to expand...
Pro-life advocates would be in pointless debate that would get them nowhere and waste their time. Nobody would be happy, actually.
 
Sil Dorsett:
I want no part of this debate, and I leave it to the WA staff to decide on what to recommend and what to write. Whatever IFV comes out of this, I have nothing to do with.
Click to expand...
Christian Democrats:
-snip-
Click to expand...
I only reserved the post and posted what the staff came up with.
 
Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top