[GA, Very Early Discussion] Repeal Reproductive Freedoms

Tadovan

Tadovan

TNPer
Hey guys. I'm going to start posting these very early discussions in here about resolutions and repeals that are being worked on in the forums. This will give us an opportunity to influence the very text of the resolution before it goes to proposals. As this is potentially before the final text of the resolution, this is not a voting thread.

Category: Repeal
Target: GA #286
Proposed by: united_massachusetts
Onsite Topic

Repeal GAR Resolution #286: Reproductive Freedoms

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 may very well force 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, which the World Assembly used to justify the illegality of the first version of "Protection of the Partially Born",
  • 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...
 
Without getting into the politics of this attempt, few things I see:


  • 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,
Click to expand...
These two things mean the same thing and are redundant.

ANNOYED by the blatant dismissal
Click to expand...
I'm not really a fan of annoyed as a preambulatory phrase. Perhaps "Alarmed by" would be better. Minor nitpick though.

REMINDING itself that other pieces of legislation already, in much clearer terms, establish the right to terminate pregnancies in certain circumstances...
Click to expand...
The author might want to list the other pieces of legislation.

CONCERNED that, despite its well-formed intentions, GAR #286's vagueness leads to radical and unintended consequences,
Click to expand...
I don't think GA #286 is all that vague. Think it establishes very clearly that the WA is pro-choice and enforces that on all member states. I also think the claim of vagueness indicates that the author has run out of things to say in justification and is now fluffing up the text, believing that longer resolutions have a better chance of passing. The author could go without that clause. They have enough in the rest of the repeal to justify.
 
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.

Personally, I think that if anything GA#286 ought to be more sweeping, so am against the repeal.
 
Strongly against. If this goes to vote, I would recommend that we actively oppose it by reaching out to allies and friends, doing counter-campaigns if necessary, and, of course, voting against.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top