[DRAFT] Repeal "Reproductive Freedoms"

[Caracasus]

Indeed ambassador. However, this still does not change the fact that in this instance, you are wrong.

"I disagree. Almost all of the people who voted for or against Reproductive Freedoms did not understand that it legalized abortion at 39 1/2 weeks, as such a disastrous effect was not even referred to at all even vaguely in said proposal."[/quote]

And this resolution does not do that. At 39 1/2 weeks, it would be a termination of pregnancy by Cesarian section or similar procedure, provided the fetus proved viable.

You are confusing termination (an end of) with abortion (a halt). An easy mistake to make, perhaps.

[Stellonia]

"I disagree. Almost all of the people who voted for or against Reproductive Freedoms did not understand that it legalized abortion at 39 1/2 weeks, as such a disastrous effect was not even referred to at all even vaguely in said proposal."

Does the WA legislate against hypernovae? Or people doing shit so cartoonishly dumb and out of the ordinary no sane person would ever contemplate it?

"It should be noted that not all people are sane."

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Does the WA legislate against hypernovae? Or people doing shit so cartoonishly dumb and out of the ordinary no sane person would ever contemplate it?

"It should be noted that not all people are sane."

Demanding an abortion by specifying the baby needs to be killed at 39.5 weeks is an so insanely abnormal order it's cartoonish, an extreme taken so far that it warrants no serious contemplation by the ones realizing that this is not what you are supposed to do.

[Stellonia]

"It should be noted that not all people are sane."

Demanding an abortion by specifying the baby needs to be killed at 39.5 weeks is an so insanely abnormal order it's cartoonish.

"Cartoonish things do happen, ambassador."

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Demanding an abortion by specifying the baby needs to be killed at 39.5 weeks is an so insanely abnormal order it's cartoonish.

"Cartoonish things do happen, ambassador."

OOC: It's also an extreme taken so far that it warrants no serious contemplation by the ones realizing that this is not what you are supposed to do. The insanity of conflating the termination of a pregnancy via caesarian section or birth via vaginal canal with "abortion" is a concept I struggle frustratingly hard to understand.

[Separatist Peoples]

Does the WA legislate against hypernovae? Or people doing shit so cartoonishly dumb and out of the ordinary no sane person would ever contemplate it?

"It should be noted that not all people are sane."

"If they are not sane, WA law makes provisions for a legal guardian or other authority to make such decisions for them."

[Stellonia]

"Cartoonish things do happen, ambassador."

OOC: It's also an extreme taken so far that it warrants no serious contemplation by the ones realizing that this is not what you are supposed to do.

OOC: Not all people realize that this is not what they are supposed to do. Many abortionists would gladly pocket some extra money, and some people may change their minds.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: It's also an extreme taken so far that it warrants no serious contemplation by the ones realizing that this is not what you are supposed to do.

OOC: Not all people realize that this is not what they are supposed to do. Many abortionists would gladly pocket some extra money, and some people may change their minds.

OOC: if the state of such a doctor fails utterly to make any possible provision for ethics in medicine, that state has bigger problems than abortion.

[Stellonia]

OOC: Not all people realize that this is not what they are supposed to do. Many abortionists would gladly pocket some extra money, and some people may change their minds.

OOC: if the state of such a doctor fails utterly to make any possible provision for ethics in medicine, that state has bigger problems than abortion.

OOC: But the state is denied the opportunity to deal with this doctor, at least when it comes to abortion.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

OOC: if the state of such a doctor fails utterly to make any possible provision for ethics in medicine, that state has bigger problems than abortion.

OOC: But the state is denied the opportunity to deal with this doctor, at least when it comes to abortion.

OOC: How many godawful days shall we continue to futilely attempt to hammer in the - obvious to every-fucking-bloody-body else - fact that termination of pregnancy does not and never has equalled to abortion in any widely recognized dictionary of the English language? It's so fucking frustrating I think it's time for another quoting of Cicero.

Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra? Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet? Quem ad finem sese effrenata iactabit audacia?

[Stellonia]

OOC: But the state is denied the opportunity to deal with this doctor, at least when it comes to abortion.

OOC: How many godawful days shall we continue to futilely attempt to hammer in the - obvious to every-fucking-bloody-body else - fact that termination of pregnancy does not and never has equalled to abortion in any widely recognized dictionary of the English language?

Search "definition of abortion" on Google. Read the first definition you see.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

OOC: How many godawful days shall we continue to futilely attempt to hammer in the - obvious to every-fucking-bloody-body else - fact that termination of pregnancy does not and never has equalled to abortion in any widely recognized dictionary of the English language? It's so fucking frustrating I think it's time for another quoting of Cicero.

Search "definition of abortion" on Google. Read the first definition you see.

OOC: Notice there's actually four definitions of the word "termination"? We are not referring solely to definition 1.1, and definition 1.1 is not alone either.
The definition used in the target resolution is No. 1 of the word terminate. It is bloody fucking unfortunate that it has to be confused with definition 1.1.

[Ingensterra]

I agree with this proposal because GA #286 is redundant. The OP is right when it is mentioned that most of this has already been dealt with in GA#128. GA #128 has mandated that abortion clinics are accessible in member nations and it provided reasoning and instances to which hold its resolution true. This was done to protect human and civil rights. It also does not forbid abortion in the case that it is done for reasons that are not included in Section 1 A,B, or C and did so intentionally to leave the rest up to the nation states. This resolution takes away that bit of freedom that was allotted in resolution GA#128. I personally view that as a mistake and it is unfavorable to pro-life nations. (whoever that may be out there)

GA #286 also fails to address GA #128's restriction on moral stances and therein #286 forces the breaking or at least fails to protect #128s section 5:

GA $128 Section 5:

"DECLARES that no physician may be compelled to perform abortion against their moral stance;"

Additionally, GA #286 also redundantly reinforces section 4 of GA #128:

GA #128 Section 4:

"FURTHER MANDATES that physicians who carry out abortions must be trained to the same accepted medical standards that all surgeons are held to, and that abortions are carried out in a way that is as painless as possible while preserving the mother's physical health;"

Big thing that really irritates me about GA#286 is that it claims to "protect the right to choose," but only does so IN FAVOR of abortion. If it were TRULY protecting the right to choose, it would also AT LEAST address the right to not have an abortion as well.

[Bright Waters]

OOC: It's also an extreme taken so far that it warrants no serious contemplation by the ones realizing that this is not what you are supposed to do.

OOC: Not all people realize that this is not what they are supposed to do. Many abortionists would gladly pocket some extra money, and some people may change their minds.

IC: Seriously?! I think your concerns regarding this bill are becoming increasingly bizarre and now seem to reside firmly in left field. Furthermore, the fact that you suggest that doctors, medical professionals, etc are so morally bankrupt suggests to me that you believe all people who are not you are completely mad, and in need of your direct guidance.

And, if you find that the doctors in your land are so morally screwed up, build a better medical school!

“If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

And, if you find that the doctors in your land are so morally screwed up, build a better medical school!

OOC: Dio Mio the expense!

I agree with this proposal because GA #286 is redundant. The OP is right when it is mentioned that most of this has already been dealt with in GA#128. GA #128 has mandated that abortion clinics are accessible in member nations and it provided reasoning and instances to which hold its resolution true. This was done to protect human and civil rights. It also does not forbid abortion in the case that it is done for reasons that are not included in Section 1 A,B, or C and did so intentionally to leave the rest up to the nation states. This resolution takes away that bit of freedom that was allotted in resolution GA#128. I personally view that as a mistake and it is unfavorable to pro-life nations. (whoever that may be out there)

GA #286 also fails to address GA #128's restriction on moral stances and therein #286 forces the breaking or at least fails to protect #128s section 5:

GA $128 Section 5:

"DECLARES that no physician may be compelled to perform abortion against their moral stance;"

Additionally, GA #286 also redundantly reinforces section 4 of GA #128:

GA #128 Section 4:

"FURTHER MANDATES that physicians who carry out abortions must be trained to the same accepted medical standards that all surgeons are held to, and that abortions are carried out in a way that is as painless as possible while preserving the mother's physical health;"

Big thing that really irritates me about GA#286 is that it claims to "protect the right to choose," but only does so IN FAVOR of abortion. If it were TRULY protecting the right to choose, it would also AT LEAST address the right to not have an abortion as well.

OOC: After GA#286 author has stated explicitly that he intends to do away with GA#128 too.

[Bright Waters]

I agree with this proposal because GA #286 is redundant. The OP is right when it is mentioned that most of this has already been dealt with in GA#128. GA #128 has mandated that abortion clinics are accessible in member nations and it provided reasoning and instances to which hold its resolution true. This was done to protect human and civil rights. It also does not forbid abortion in the case that it is done for reasons that are not included in Section 1 A,B, or C and did so intentionally to leave the rest up to the nation states. This resolution takes away that bit of freedom that was allotted in resolution GA#128. I personally view that as a mistake and it is unfavorable to pro-life nations. (whoever that may be out there)

GA #286 also fails to address GA #128's restriction on moral stances and therein #286 forces the breaking or at least fails to protect #128s section 5:

GA $128 Section 5:

"DECLARES that no physician may be compelled to perform abortion against their moral stance;"

Additionally, GA #286 also redundantly reinforces section 4 of GA #128:

GA #128 Section 4:

"FURTHER MANDATES that physicians who carry out abortions must be trained to the same accepted medical standards that all surgeons are held to, and that abortions are carried out in a way that is as painless as possible while preserving the mother's physical health;"

Big thing that really irritates me about GA#286 is that it claims to "protect the right to choose," but only does so IN FAVOR of abortion. If it were TRULY protecting the right to choose, it would also AT LEAST address the right to not have an abortion as well.

The author has proposed removing both GA 128 and GA 286 sir. Before you throw your weight behind this, know that you will find a second repeal effort coming your way sooner than you realize.

Also, how does 286 fail to support section 5 of 128? By not including the provision, it certainly does not countermand it.

[Ingensterra]

I agree with this proposal because GA #286 is redundant. The OP is right when it is mentioned that most of this has already been dealt with in GA#128. GA #128 has mandated that abortion clinics are accessible in member nations and it provided reasoning and instances to which hold its resolution true. This was done to protect human and civil rights. It also does not forbid abortion in the case that it is done for reasons that are not included in Section 1 A,B, or C and did so intentionally to leave the rest up to the nation states. This resolution takes away that bit of freedom that was allotted in resolution GA#128. I personally view that as a mistake and it is unfavorable to pro-life nations. (whoever that may be out there)

GA #286 also fails to address GA #128's restriction on moral stances and therein #286 forces the breaking or at least fails to protect #128s section 5:

GA $128 Section 5:

"DECLARES that no physician may be compelled to perform abortion against their moral stance;"

Additionally, GA #286 also redundantly reinforces section 4 of GA #128:

GA #128 Section 4:

"FURTHER MANDATES that physicians who carry out abortions must be trained to the same accepted medical standards that all surgeons are held to, and that abortions are carried out in a way that is as painless as possible while preserving the mother's physical health;"

Big thing that really irritates me about GA#286 is that it claims to "protect the right to choose," but only does so IN FAVOR of abortion. If it were TRULY protecting the right to choose, it would also AT LEAST address the right to not have an abortion as well.

The author has proposed removing both GA 128 and GA 286 sir. Before you throw your weight behind this, know that you will find a second repeal effort coming your way sooner than you realize.

Also, how does 286 fail to support section 5 of 128? By not including the provision, it certainly does not countermand it.

Okay, that sounds A LOT better. Because my issue is that the two resolutions are not necessary together. If one is repealed, that changes my outlook on a lot. My only remaining issue is that from what I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong– GA 286 wants to protect individual choice and does not address any mandates behind how pro-life situations should be dealt with.

The author expresses that he/she "BEMOANS the fact that some nations codify such misgivings without regard for the freedom of the individuals to choose."

I suppose that it may not countermand it, but though that statement it shows intent to countermand it. Which I personally disagree with, but the real debate would be up to the voters.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

"The UNE affirms her support for the removal of the primitive barbarism known as Reproductive Freedoms."

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

The author has proposed removing both GA 128 and GA 286 sir. Before you throw your weight behind this, know that you will find a second repeal effort coming your way sooner than you realize.

Also, how does 286 fail to support section 5 of 128? By not including the provision, it certainly does not countermand it.

The author expresses that he/she "BEMOANS the fact that some nations codify such misgivings without regard for the freedom of the individuals to choose."

I suppose that it may not countermand it, but though that statement it shows intent to countermand it. Which I personally disagree with, but the real debate would be up to the voters.

OOC: Target resolution does not put in law that all licensed doctors must perform abortions on demand, it puts into law that the state may not ban abortion regardless of motivation. The state does not equal all doctors.

[Ingensterra]

The author expresses that he/she "BEMOANS the fact that some nations codify such misgivings without regard for the freedom of the individuals to choose."

I suppose that it may not countermand it, but though that statement it shows intent to countermand it. Which I personally disagree with, but the real debate would be up to the voters.

OOC: Target resolution does not put in law that all licensed doctors must perform abortions on demand, it puts into law that the state may not ban abortion regardless of motivation. The state does not equal all doctors.

Okay, I figured I might've misunderstood. Plus if GA 128 is going to be repealed, that would void the argument. Repealing GA 128 would make 286 a lot more solid. With both of them in existence it is just chaos.

[Stellonia]

The author expresses that he/she "BEMOANS the fact that some nations codify such misgivings without regard for the freedom of the individuals to choose."

I suppose that it may not countermand it, but though that statement it shows intent to countermand it. Which I personally disagree with, but the real debate would be up to the voters.

OOC: Target resolution does not put in law that all licensed doctors must perform abortions on demand, it puts into law that the state may not ban abortion regardless of motivation. The state does not equal all doctors.

OOC: What about states with government-run healthcare?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

OOC: Target resolution does not put in law that all licensed doctors must perform abortions on demand, it puts into law that the state may not ban abortion regardless of motivation. The state does not equal all doctors.

OOC: What about states with government-run healthcare?

OOC: Does the licensed doctor salaried by the state represent in any official capacity the state? I also somehow highly doubt that any state desperately looking to circumvent GA#286 would employ public healthcare.

[Wallenburg]

OOC: Target resolution does not put in law that all licensed doctors must perform abortions on demand, it puts into law that the state may not ban abortion regardless of motivation. The state does not equal all doctors.

OOC: What about states with government-run healthcare?

The Wallenburgian delegation can assure you that our medical professionals do not double as elected legislators.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

OOC: What about states with government-run healthcare?

The Wallenburgian delegation can assure you that our medical professionals do not double as elected legislators.

OOC: Hold on, they may be elected like anybody else, but I believe at least yours have the professional discipline to separate work-life and political life.

[Wallenburg]

The Wallenburgian delegation can assure you that our medical professionals do not double as elected legislators.

OOC: Hold on, they may be elected like anybody else, but I believe at least yours have the professional discipline to not involve politics in executing their profession.

OOC: Yes, that would be true.