[DRAFT] PARENTAL CONSENT ACT

[Christian Democrats]

PARENTAL CONSENT ACT
Council: General Assembly
Category: Moral Decency
--------------------------------
[DRAFT 7]

SECTION I

The General Assembly recognizes that member nations have different laws regarding the legality of abortion and that different restrictions presently exist in member nations, and that in some nations, no restrictions exist.

SECTION II

DIRECT ABORTION is the intentional, or induced, termination of a pregnancy for reasons other than preserving the life or health of a pregnant person.

PREGNANCY is the condition of carrying a developing offspring within the body.

A PREGNANT MINOR is someone pregnant who is younger than the age of majority in a given nation.

SECTION III

A pregnant minor must obtain the informed, written consent of a biological parent or legal guardian (herein this procedure shall be known as "parental consent") before procuring a direct abortion.

If it is impossible for a pregnant minor to obtain parental consent, then consent may be obtained from a judge (or an equivalent authority) by court order (or an equivalent order) for good cause shown. A pregnant minor may first seek such consent without trying to obtain parental consent if a parent or guardian is responsible for impregnating the minor.

The provisions of this resolution do not apply to legally married pregnant minors and pregnant minors who are legally emancipated from their parent(s)/guardian(s) and, hence, are no longer dependents.

SECTION IV

This resolution does not affect the ability of member states to enact more restrictive legislation pertaining to abortion, including their ability to prohibit abortion.

[Nova Caeli]

what are you thinking? do you not realise that your proposal means that if the child wants an abortion but her parent doesnt she will be forced to bear child. That is a terrible thing in so many ways imagine how it shall be used for instance parent wants a new kid but cant have one so gets their kid raped and then she is forced by the parent to have the baby. Obviously I am not suggesting this will happen alot yet just an example of how it could be used

[Mousebumples]

Check your character count. I'm pretty sure you're over the limit.

As a result, there will have to be some cuts so I will wait to make any comments until after that point.

Suffice to say, though, I am opposed.

[Grand Europic States]

Of all the draconian proposals I've seen lately, this is by far, without exception the very worst.

[Christian Democrats]

Parental involvement in a child's decision to procure an abortion isn't that crazy. (There such laws in a majority of U.S. states.) Currently, 24 states require consent from one or both parents, and 11 states require one or both parents to be notified. My proposal isn't that nuts. (24+11=35 ; 35/50 = 70% of U.S. states)

[Eireann Fae WA Mission]

:eyebrow:
Parental involvement in a child's decision to procure an abortion isn't that crazy. (There such laws in a majority of U.S. states.) Currently, 24 states require consent from one or both parents, and 11 states require one or both parents to be notified. My proposal isn't that nuts. (24+11=35 ; 35/50 = 70% of U.S. states)

"We have read of this fictional 'United States'. We do not agree with many of their policies, including this one."

(OOC: Real World references are bad, mm'kay?)

[Christian Democrats]

what are you thinking? do you not realise that your proposal means that if the child wants an abortion but her parent doesnt she will be forced to bear child. That is a terrible thing in so many ways imagine how it shall be used for instance parent wants a new kid but cant have one so gets their kid raped and then she is forced by the parent to have the baby. Obviously I am not suggesting this will happen alot yet just an example of how it could be used

You're sick

[Christian Democrats]

:eyebrow:
Parental involvement in a child's decision to procure an abortion isn't that crazy. (There such laws in a majority of U.S. states.) Currently, 24 states require consent from one or both parents, and 11 states require one or both parents to be notified. My proposal isn't that nuts. (24+11=35 ; 35/50 = 70% of U.S. states)

"We have read of this fictional 'United States'. We do not agree with many of their policies, including this one."

(OOC: Real World references are bad, mm'kay?)

In said "real world," what is your home country? If the U.S., then what state?

[Glen-Rhodes]

Why is it that you are so intent on 'reducing' abortion? We already have a resolution on that. Why not just go for broke and try to ban abortion altogether? At least then we'll know you're being genuine.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Christian Democrats]

Why is it that you are so intent on 'reducing' abortion? We already have a resolution on that. Why not just go for broke and try to ban abortion altogether? At least then we'll know you're being genuine.

- Dr. B. Castro

A) Why not?

B) What resolution regulates abortions?

C) Chances of WA completely banning abortion . . . 0.0000000001%

[Mousebumples]

B) What resolution regulates abortions?

Call me crazy, but I'm thinking it might be the Reduction of Abortion Act. Or maybe the International Radio Act? It is so hard to figure out what resolutions are about when authors insist on using such non-specific titles! [/sarcasm]

[Bergnovinaia]

B) What resolution regulates abortions?

Call me crazy, but I'm thinking it might be the Reduction of Abortion Act. Or maybe the International Radio Act? It is so hard to figure out what resolutions are about when authors insist on using such non-specific titles! [/sarcasm]

This ^^^

[Grays Harbor]

B) What resolution regulates abortions?

Call me crazy, but I'm thinking it might be the Reduction of Abortion Act. Or maybe the International Radio Act? It is so hard to figure out what resolutions are about when authors insist on using such non-specific titles! [/sarcasm]

You, Sir, owe me a new briefcase, as my assistant has just spat his tea all over mine upon hearing your most recent comment.

OOC: Seriously, the passed resolutions are not that difficult to find. They are stickied at the top of the GA forum, with all the titles listed in order and links to the text of each. One would think they were hidden in a dark closet behind a locked cabinet under the hedges for all that some folk seem to not read them prior to proposing duplicate drafts.

[Flibbleites]

Check your character count. I'm pretty sure you're over the limit.

As a result, there will have to be some cuts so I will wait to make any comments until after that point.

Suffice to say, though, I am opposed.

And I suggest that the first thing to go be that fraking glossary (aka Section I).

Of course, since The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites stands firmly in the NatSov camp and this is definitely not an international issue I'd follow removing the glossary with the removal of the rest of the proposal.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Quelesh]

No, no, a thousand times no.

Nations that have an age of majority should not be forced to deny such a fundamental right to an entire segment of their population.

Vehemently opposed.

[Shripati]

Parents that children are dependant on do have a right, (in my opinion) to know what a child is getting up to, however a pregnant child needing to have consent from said parent is a huge controversial (as we can see) issue. I do see where your coming from though and as a parent is responsible for their child when they are below the legal age, I'd be willing to support this act.

[Southern Dixiecrats]

I hate the current rules. This actually is good, but because of technicalities, they could say it discriminates based on age.

[Nova Caeli]

I am not sick just showing faults in your proposal if the bearer is forced to bear child imagine the breaches of human rights and freedoms which would be put in place, and your poor response to my question doesnt just show the faults in this proposal but the faults of you in making proposals you see your supposed to be on the potential voters side not calling him sick for just for saying a way in which your proposal can be used to better some but mainly not others.
Why do you even think that this should be a WA argument abortion is a very.. edgy subject it really no one should be trying to make laws about it on either side of the argument

[Urgench]

This resolution is nonsense, largely illegal, and obscenely immoral. The notion of a pregnant married child (in itself an odious concept) obtaining an abortion while her unmarried pregnant corrolary must obtain parental consent is morally and logically inexplicable.


We oppose it absolutely.


Yours,

[Christian Democrats]

B) What resolution regulates abortions?

Call me crazy, but I'm thinking it might be the Reduction of Abortion Act. Or maybe the International Radio Act? It is so hard to figure out what resolutions are about when authors insist on using such non-specific titles! [/sarcasm]

When I posed my question, I was quite aware of what your response would be, but the Reduction of Abortion Act does nothing to regulate abortions and in no way blocks future restrictions from being placed on abortions by the GA. Find something that makes my proposal illegal.

[Christian Democrats]

Parents that children are dependant on do have a right, (in my opinion) to know what a child is getting up to, however a pregnant child needing to have consent from said parent is a huge controversial (as we can see) issue. I do see where your coming from though and as a parent is responsible for their child when they are below the legal age, I'd be willing to support this act.

^ Exactly what I'm saying.

Parents have a right to make medical decisions for their dependent children. Why should abortion be an exception?

[Christian Democrats]

This resolution is nonsense, largely illegal, and obscenely immoral. The notion of a pregnant married child (in itself an odious concept) obtaining an abortion while her unmarried pregnant corrolary must obtain parental consent is morally and logically inexplicable.


We oppose it absolutely.


Yours,

How is it illegal?

To give a REAL WORLD EXAMPLE:
In the U.S., the age of majority is 18. In most places, at 16, you can marry with parental consent. (My grandmother did so and became pregnant a few months after being married . . . she gave birth to my mother a week before her 17th birthday.)

A married child is no longer a dependent of her parents, so her parents do not have a right to make medical decisions for her.

[Christian Democrats]

I am not sick just showing faults in your proposal if the bearer is forced to bear child imagine the breaches of human rights and freedoms which would be put in place, and your poor response to my question doesnt just show the faults in this proposal but the faults of you in making proposals you see your supposed to be on the potential voters side not calling him sick for just for saying a way in which your proposal can be used to better some but mainly not others.
Why do you even think that this should be a WA argument abortion is a very.. edgy subject it really no one should be trying to make laws about it on either side of the argument

A) Suggesting that a parent would have someone rape his/her own child just so he/she can have a grandchild is disgusting.

B) Isn't this a political themed online video game? Why not debate and try to pass laws concerning edgy subjects? If we don't debate and pass laws on edgy subjects (cf. The Freedom of Marriage Act, GA Resolution #15), then what fun is this game?

[Christian Democrats]

I hate the current rules. This actually is good, but because of technicalities, they could say it discriminates based on age.

Many laws discriminate in some way.

E.g.

Progressive taxation discriminates against the rich. (By the way, I support flat taxes, but do I believe progressive taxes are illegal . . . NO)

Having "separate but equal" restrooms for men and women is discriminatory. (I support having separate restrooms.)

Etcetera

[Urgench]

This resolution is nonsense, largely illegal, and obscenely immoral. The notion of a pregnant married child (in itself an odious concept) obtaining an abortion while her unmarried pregnant corrolary must obtain parental consent is morally and logically inexplicable.


We oppose it absolutely.


Yours,

How is it illegal?

To give a REAL WORLD EXAMPLE:
In the U.S., the age of majority is 18. In most places, at 16, you can marry with parental consent. (My grandmother did so and became pregnant a few months after being married . . . she gave birth to my mother a week before her 17th birthday.)

A married child is no longer a dependent of her parents, so her parents do not have a right to make medical decisions for her.

Your Excellency should familiarise themselves with the rules for resolutions writing, then read the passed resolutions of this organisation, and not use fables of the entirely mythical Real World as a guide to making laws for this organisation.


Yours,