"Fortunately, it is. Two World Assembly resolutions make it so."
Advertisement
by Wallenburg » Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:02 am
by Losthaven » Wed Aug 21, 2019 11:42 am
by WayNeacTia » Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:59 pm
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac
wait
by Separatist Peoples » Wed Aug 21, 2019 6:21 pm
Wayneactia wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:
"Clearly it is, as it is a guaranteed right under WA law enforceable against states. The definition of a civil right."
"There is a difference between a legal right and a civil right. Legal rights are granted, civil rights are inalienable. The right to get an abortion has never been an inalienable right. At the moment, abortion is a legal right as defined by WA law. As I have stated, I am good with that, I am simply tired of this issue coming up over and over. A blocker that gives nations authority over it would be far preferable."
Wayne
by Dirty Americans » Sat Aug 24, 2019 11:19 am
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: A compromise is only necessary when both sides have no way of getting what they desire, so both of them can only have some of their needs met. In this instance, the pro-choice members of this assembly are perfectly able to achieve their legislative needs, so having a blocker for a middle ground is simply unneeded. Indeed, I don’t see much purpose in repealing Reproductive Freedoms since the pro-choice crowd have such legislative clout.)
by Dirty Americans » Sat Aug 24, 2019 11:30 am
Wayneactia wrote:"There is a difference between a legal right and a civil right. Legal rights are granted, civil rights are inalienable. The right to get an abortion has never been an inalienable right. At the moment, abortion is a legal right as defined by WA law. As I have stated, I am good with that, I am simply tired of this issue coming up over and over. A blocker that gives nations authority over it would be far preferable."
by Wallenburg » Sat Aug 24, 2019 11:43 am
Dirty Americans wrote:Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: A compromise is only necessary when both sides have no way of getting what they desire, so both of them can only have some of their needs met. In this instance, the pro-choice members of this assembly are perfectly able to achieve their legislative needs, so having a blocker for a middle ground is simply unneeded. Indeed, I don’t see much purpose in repealing Reproductive Freedoms since the pro-choice crowd have such legislative clout.)
(OOC: Believe it or not, the question of the repeal of Reproductive Freedoms is actually an Nat Sov / Int Fed issue and Nat Sov passed away many years ago. It is not assumed as reasonable that the purpose of the WA is to shove progressive values to every nation in the WA, especially the ones that don't want them. Nat Sov / Pro Choice nations don't need R.F. because of O.A. Unfortunately, there aren't any. They probably left the WA already.)
by Separatist Peoples » Sat Aug 24, 2019 1:18 pm
by United Massachusetts » Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:06 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:subsidiarism.
by Separatist Peoples » Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:12 pm
by Marxist Germany » Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:53 pm
by Bananaistan » Wed Oct 02, 2019 2:08 pm
Bananaistan wrote:OOC: Regarding the legal check requested by the author. Both clauses are problematic IMO. The permits clause in the target makes it entirely clear that birth cannot be used as blanket method of termination and referring to the 48 debates is suspiciously close to metagaming.
The foreign countries clause looks dodgy too. Please explain how this could occur considering the existence of GAR#456. [/(1/6 gensec)]
by Sposteen » Wed Oct 02, 2019 4:02 pm
by BlackLight Covenant » Wed Oct 02, 2019 4:44 pm
Sposteen wrote:The new Sposteen Ambassador Vra'al holds up a tendril, floating in their encounter suit.
"What if the citizen is called upon by the Tome-Keeper to traverse to alien galaxies and becomes self-fertilized? Without legal abortion our Observers would need to be sterilized."
by Marxist Germany » Thu Oct 03, 2019 12:48 am
Bananaistan wrote:Bananaistan wrote:OOC: Regarding the legal check requested by the author. Both clauses are problematic IMO. The permits clause in the target makes it entirely clear that birth cannot be used as blanket method of termination and referring to the 48 debates is suspiciously close to metagaming.
The foreign countries clause looks dodgy too. Please explain how this could occur considering the existence of GAR#456. [/(1/6 gensec)]
OOC: Have these been dealt with or further discussed?
by The New California Republic » Thu Oct 03, 2019 8:54 am
by Sposteen » Thu Oct 03, 2019 8:59 am
by Marxist Germany » Wed Dec 18, 2019 3:28 am
by Bananaistan » Wed Dec 18, 2019 5:30 am
by Sierra Lyricalia » Wed Dec 18, 2019 1:19 pm
Bananaistan wrote:Marxist Germany wrote:The first one has not been discussed because the thread fell off the first page, the second one has been dealt with and removed.
Edit: I have changed the "48" with "dozens"
OOC: First one is still an issue IMO. My 1/6 GenSec would be that this is an honest mistake.
...but above that is the smarmy part (the thing about division and how horrible it is that the losing side of this argument keeps banging its head against a wall), not anything related to abuses. In fact you have to go all the way back to the very first paragraph to find a citation of abuses that could possibly be fixed by restricting abortion rights - every other malady you list is better solved by keeping the law as it is, or even further expanding the rights and powers of people seeking abortions. Barring rewording that paragraph or re-ordering your paragraphs, I have to take that as an Honest Mistake also.whilst placing reasonable restrictions that prevent abuse such as the example mentioned above
by Kenmoria » Thu Dec 19, 2019 11:59 am
by Marxist Germany » Thu Dec 19, 2019 12:35 pm
by Potted Plants United » Thu Dec 19, 2019 2:08 pm
Marxist Germany wrote:OOC: I would also like to note that my "noncompliance" has long been rectified.
Separatist Peoples wrote:"NOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPE!"
- Mr. Bell, when introduced to PPU's newest moving plant
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Dec 19, 2019 6:13 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement