by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Post

Region: Republic of Conservative Nations

Hey, there, sweet lovely members of humanitas:

You may see that "Access to Abortion" is up at-vote right now. In short, it requires every nation to fund on-demand abortion procedures across the World Assembly. It also forces nations to define personhood as beginning at birth and pay for contraceptive access, among other things. Obviously, anti-abortion nations will find this outrageous. But I also think that it makes complete sense for pro-choice nations to oppose this as well, for a few reasons:

  1. This resolution punishes poorer nations, who often have the highest abortion rates, by requiring them to directly pay for abortion procedures in their nations. While this arrangement may be beneficial for rich nations, like the United States, it becomes much harder to do when countries don't have the money to make this happen to begin with. And remember -- the consequences for non-compliance are steep: fines and then embargoes. So poorer nations are stuck with two choices -- slide into economic dependence on the World Assembly (which breeds imperialism) or risk facing hefty fines and sanctions.

  2. It is a one-size-fits-few solution to a complicated problem. A lot of nations are understandably wary of solutions that make them financially-dependent on the WA and its regulations -- it diminishes their ability to make sovereign decisions. Where possible, we should seek solutions that empower nations to create sustainable infrastructure to make this happen in the long-term. The resolution's author made a good point when I tried to draft a resolution calling for free college for everyone in the World Assembly. He said that while perhaps that may be a good aim, it's infeasible for poorer nations to make that happen. Instead, he said, we should focus on improving access to primary education everywhere. I agree -- not every nation can meet the mandates of this resolution, so we should focus our time on more fruitful efforts.

  3. Anti-abortion nations just won't comply. And those are the people who we most need to comply -- the ones who aren't protecting abortion rights already. Some will say that these nations will face "fines" and "sanctions," but the WA doesn't possess a genuine sovereignty at all. If pro-life nations don't want to comply, they can just agree not to sanction each other either. Maybe a more moderate resolution could convince them to sign on.

  4. This resolution is undemocratic. It was drafted with the intent of spiting several anti-abortion authors and in order to demonstrate the pro-abortion rights block's "authority" over the World Assembly. In order to get this resolution to vote, it appears that the North Pacific Army (the largest gameplay military out there) propped this up to vote with loads of artificial approvals. Hardly "democratic," even as the author openly campaigns on "the popular will."

Thanks,
UM

Read dispatch

ContextReport