Recommendation Drafting: Repeal "Reproductive Freedoms"

[Eluvatar]

This will probably be at vote pretty soon.

My instinct would be to give an even handed overview of arguments for and against. Seeking to hear some, I've started a topic on the onside forum. Hopefully it can get us some good material.

 

[Eluvatar]

Actually, this is the thread >_<

 

[Eluvatar]

Looking back at the history, I'm not sure full even-handedness is necessary.

---

Abortion has long been a subject of debate, usually heated, in the World Assembly. The two resolutions "On Abortion" and "Reproductive Freedoms" have largely settled the matter for the past two years (or more, in the case of "On Abortion" settling the question of an outright ban). From time to time, however, an attempt is made to repeal "Reproductive Freedoms".

The present proposal to repeal "Reproductive Freedoms" is carefully crafted so as to plausibly pass. It opens its criticism of the resolution with a women's rights issue: sex-selective abortion. It follows this up with the unpleasant topic of late-term (partial birth) abortion. It encourages the notion of a replacement resolution, which would address the claimed deficiencies in "Reproductive Freedoms" while still protecting the same freedoms. This combines the two core arguments of two previous attempts to repeal the resolution.

Nonetheless, antipathy toward legal abortion can be read in the text. Reproductive Freedoms, which passed with a two thirds majority and has stood as WA law for nearly two years, is described as "an immature and reckless exercise of World Assembly authority". The nod toward a replacement insists that it be more "Moderate". This is not a proposal to touch up a resolution which protects individual choice, it is opposition to that resolution.

Taking all these matters into consideration, the Ministry recommends against this resolution. We do not expect unanimity on this matter, and there is no issue with voting for the proposed repeal if you disagree with what we surmise to be the majority position. Indeed, voting your opinion is encouraged. We expect many will do so: this is not the sort of matter that sees a unanimous vote.

 

[Eluvatar]

Revised:

---

Abortion has long been a subject of debate, usually heated, in the World Assembly. The two resolutions "On Abortion" and "Reproductive Freedoms" have largely settled the matter for the past two years (or more, in the case of "On Abortion" settling the question of an outright ban). From time to time, however, an attempt is made to repeal "Reproductive Freedoms".

The present proposal to repeal "Reproductive Freedoms" is carefully crafted so as to plausibly pass. It opens its criticism of the resolution with a women's rights issue: sex-selective abortion. It follows this up with the unpleasant topic of late-term (partial birth) abortion. It encourages the notion of a replacement resolution, which would address the claimed deficiencies in "Reproductive Freedoms" while still protecting the same freedoms. This combines the two core arguments of two previous attempts to repeal the resolution.

Nonetheless, antipathy toward the World Assembly mandating legal abortion can be read in the text. Reproductive Freedoms, which passed with a two thirds majority and has stood as WA law for nearly two years, is described as "an immature and reckless exercise of World Assembly authority". The nod toward a replacement insists that it be more "Moderate". This is not a proposal to touch up a resolution which protects individual choice through World Assembly authority, it is opposition to that resolution.

On the substance of the proposal's criticisms of the resolution, there are two reasons one might seek to repeal the resolution. Either one disagrees with it on principle, or one believes more of the questions of policy it addresses should be resolved locally. In other words, this proposal is rooted in either certain moral values or the principles of national sovereignty. If one values individual rights higher, however, there is no question that personal autonomy is protected by the resolution in a way that is both necessary and proper.

Taking all these matters into consideration, the Ministry recommends against this resolution. We do not expect unanimity on this matter, and there is no issue with voting for the proposed repeal if you disagree with what we surmise to be the majority position. Indeed, voting your opinion is encouraged. We expect many will do so: this is not the sort of matter that sees a unanimous vote.

 

[Eluvatar]

(From TG exchange I initiated with Sciongrad)

My main objections concern how you characterize the intent of the repeal. I'll point out all of the instances where I disagree with how you've represented the repeal.

"Carefully crafted so as to plausibly pass" implies some sinister intent. This is crafted in a way that I thought would make it more successful, but the arguments are genuine, not contrived or manufactured just so a repeal would pass. Furthermore, partial birth abortions aren't the same thing as late term abortions. The term partial birth abortion is just anti-choice rhetoric to describe a type of abortion known as intact extraction and dilation. That argument addresses potential concerns by individuals who don't think abortion is acceptable during labor or something.

Nonetheless, antipathy toward the World Assembly mandating legal abortion can be read in the text. Reproductive Freedoms, which passed with a two thirds majority and has stood as WA law for nearly two years, is described as "an immature and reckless exercise of World Assembly authority". The nod toward a replacement insists that it be more "Moderate". This is not a proposal to touch up a resolution which protects individual choice through World Assembly authority, it is opposition to that resolution.

This is just patently false. There isn't a modicum of antipathy toward WA policy in favor of legal abortion in the repeal. The purpose of this resolution is absolutely to improve the WA's reproductive rights policy. I also don't think it's fair how you and Silly interpreted "an immature and reckless exercise of World Assembly authority" as a condemnation of abortion rights in general.

On the substance of the proposal's criticisms of the resolution, there are two reasons one might seek to repeal the resolution. Either one disagrees with it on principle, or one believes more of the questions of policy it addresses should be resolved locally. In other words, this proposal is rooted in either certain moral values or the principles of national sovereignty. If one values individual rights higher, however, there is no question that personal autonomy is protected by the resolution in a way that is both necessary and proper.

This is intellectually disingenuous. You suggest only two possible motives for repeal GAR#286 that automatically assume anti-choice intent. I am both pro-choice and an international federalist who believes the WA should extensively address the issue of reproductive rights. But that type of intent is incompatible with your assessment of the supposedly two sole reasons any person would ever want to repeal this resolution. This entire paragraph just maligns the resolution as anti-choice and characterizes me as some Natsov and/or anti-choice ideologue.

 

[Eluvatar]

Revised:

---

Abortion has long been a subject of debate, usually heated, in the World Assembly. The two resolutions "On Abortion" and "Reproductive Freedoms" have largely settled the matter for the past two years (or more, in the case of "On Abortion" settling the question of an outright ban). From time to time, however, an attempt is made to repeal "Reproductive Freedoms".

The present proposal to repeal "Reproductive Freedoms" is well constructed so as to plausibly pass. It opens its criticism of the resolution with a women's rights issue: sex-selective abortion. It follows this up with the unpleasant topic of late-term abortion. It encourages the notion of a replacement resolution, which would address the claimed deficiencies in "Reproductive Freedoms" while still protecting the same freedoms. This combines the two core arguments of two previous attempts to repeal the resolution, arguments related to improvements in policy the author suggests would be desirable.

Nonetheless, those with strong views in favor of reproductive freedoms will find antipathy to their views in the text. Reproductive Freedoms, which passed with a two thirds majority and has stood as WA law for nearly two years, is described as "an immature and reckless exercise of World Assembly authority". The nod toward a replacement insists that it be more "Moderate". The preferred law of this proposal author, a drafted replacement available on the onsite forums, would be. It would not protect reproductive freedoms as strictly from the legislative power of member states as current law. In particular, it requires only that regulations of abortion not "unnecessarily impugn" individual rights, rather than more sweepingly requiring that no regulations be tailored to abortion only.

On the substance of the proposal's criticisms of the resolution, there are three reasons one might seek to repeal the resolution. Either one disagrees with it on principle, believes more of the questions of policy it addresses should be resolved locally, or believes that the specific points of policy on sex-selective abortion or late-term abortion are problems worth re-legislating over. For many, this proposal is rooted in either certain moral values or the principles of national sovereignty. For others, values of social justice or valuing viable fetuses require pulling back a sweeping law to allow more flexible legislation. If one values a pregnant woman's individual rights higher, however, there is no question that personal autonomy is protected by the resolution in a way that is both necessary and proper.

Taking all these matters into consideration, the Ministry recommends against this resolution. We do not expect unanimity on this matter, and there is no issue with voting for the proposed repeal if you disagree with what we surmise to be the majority position. Indeed, voting your opinion is encouraged. We expect many will do so: this is not the sort of matter that sees a unanimous vote.