Page 18 of 21
Posted:
Wed Apr 29, 2020 11:03 amby Marxist Germany
Waldenes wrote:Fellow ambassadors and delegates of the World Assembly; Initially our decision felt rather obvious. Why vote for a repeal against the rights of women to choose? But upon closer reading, the repeal makes some good points. It points out some flaws in the original proposal. That the original proposal allows for parents to decide is questionable. What if the minor is at health risk? Do the parents still get to decide?
While the language of this repeal proposal might indicate a desire to open up to some sort of compromise, this does not sound like an Anti-Choice proposal, especially given that it encourages the passage of an improved proposal. It is for this reason that after great consideration we have decided to vote
for. Progress and improvement are good things, after all.
"Thank you for your support, ambassador, it is very appreciated."
Posted:
Wed Apr 29, 2020 11:07 amby Imperium Anglorum
Waldenes wrote:That the original proposal allows for parents to decide is questionable. What if the minor is at health risk? Do the parents still get to decide?
Perhaps it is fortunate then that the author of the Patients Rights Act thought of that.
(II) All persons who are lawfully present within any WA member nation have the right to undergo any non-emergency medical procedure deemed necessary and beneficial to the patient by their physician or other medical professional, which is legal for that person in the nation where the procedure is performed, and for which confirmed funding is available.
Posted:
Wed Apr 29, 2020 11:11 amby The New California Republic
Waldenes wrote:this does not sound like an Anti-Choice proposal, especially given that it encourages the passage of an improved proposal.
It's a trick! Get an axe. 
Posted:
Wed Apr 29, 2020 11:14 amby Marxist Germany
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Waldenes wrote:That the original proposal allows for parents to decide is questionable. What if the minor is at health risk? Do the parents still get to decide?
Perhaps it is fortunate then that the author of the Patients Rights Act thought of that.
(II) All persons who are lawfully present within any WA member nation have the right to undergo any non-emergency medical procedure deemed necessary and beneficial to the patient by their physician or other medical professional, which is legal for that person in the nation where the procedure is performed, and for which confirmed funding is available.
OOC: That gives the patient
the right to undergo a procedure. Unfortunately the guardian is the patient and can refuse it.
Posted:
Wed Apr 29, 2020 11:15 amby The Yeetusa
Dang. Lost my delegacy, and therefore my vote for this. Totally support
Posted:
Wed Apr 29, 2020 11:15 amby Waldenes
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Waldenes wrote:That the original proposal allows for parents to decide is questionable. What if the minor is at health risk? Do the parents still get to decide?
Perhaps it is fortunate then that the author of the Patients Rights Act thought of that.
(II) All persons who are lawfully present within any WA member nation have the right to undergo any non-emergency medical procedure deemed necessary and beneficial to the patient by their physician or other medical professional, which is legal for that person in the nation where the procedure is performed, and for which confirmed funding is available.
Indeed it is fortunate. Be that as it may, we still have, as a result, two conflicting contradictory clauses in two separate passed proposals. Should there not be a precedent for improvement for the sake of the clarity and integrity of our laws, fellow ambassador?
Posted:
Wed Apr 29, 2020 11:18 amby Champagne Socialist Sharifistan
Waldenes wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote:Perhaps it is fortunate then that the author of the Patients Rights Act thought of that.
(II) All persons who are lawfully present within any WA member nation have the right to undergo any non-emergency medical procedure deemed necessary and beneficial to the patient by their physician or other medical professional, which is legal for that person in the nation where the procedure is performed, and for which confirmed funding is available.
Indeed it is fortunate. Be that as it may, we still have, as a result, two conflicting contradictory clauses in two separate passed proposals. Should there not be a precedent for improvement for the sake of the clarity and integrity of our laws, fellow ambassador?
OOC: it precisely says "which is legal in that nation.."
Posted:
Wed Apr 29, 2020 11:18 amby Marxist Germany
Waldenes wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote:Perhaps it is fortunate then that the author of the Patients Rights Act thought of that.
(II) All persons who are lawfully present within any WA member nation have the right to undergo any non-emergency medical procedure deemed necessary and beneficial to the patient by their physician or other medical professional, which is legal for that person in the nation where the procedure is performed, and for which confirmed funding is available.
Indeed it is fortunate. Be that as it may, we still have, as a result, two conflicting contradictory clauses in two separate passed proposals. Should there not be a precedent for improvement for the sake of the clarity and integrity of our laws, fellow ambassador?
"Are you hearing voices ambassador?" (OOC: IA posted out of character, meaning nothing happened in the RP)
Posted:
Wed Apr 29, 2020 11:19 amby Waldenes
The New California Republic wrote:Waldenes wrote:this does not sound like an Anti-Choice proposal, especially given that it encourages the passage of an improved proposal.
It's a trick! Get an axe.
Fellow ambassador, due to the highly pro-choice majority of this World Assembly, I highly doubt that such a trick could be pulled off. Does anyone here honestly believe that anti-choice clauses could be slipped into new delegations unnoticed? I think not.
Posted:
Wed Apr 29, 2020 11:20 amby Wallenburg
Marxist Germany wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote:Perhaps it is fortunate then that the author of the Patients Rights Act thought of that.
(II) All persons who are lawfully present within any WA member nation have the right to undergo any non-emergency medical procedure deemed necessary and beneficial to the patient by their physician or other medical professional, which is legal for that person in the nation where the procedure is performed, and for which confirmed funding is available.
OOC: That gives the patient
the right to undergo a procedure. Unfortunately the guardian is the patient and can refuse it.
There are certain issues with giving the choice to the child patient in some cases and to the parent in others. The standard by which the agency shifts becomes impossible to pin down. Quite honestly, this is the safest way to handle it.
Marxist Germany wrote:Waldenes wrote:Indeed it is fortunate. Be that as it may, we still have, as a result, two conflicting contradictory clauses in two separate passed proposals. Should there not be a precedent for improvement for the sake of the clarity and integrity of our laws, fellow ambassador?
"Are you hearing voices ambassador?" (OOC: IA posted out of character, meaning nothing happened in the RP)
OOC: No,
you posted OOC. IA, responding to an IC post, presumably was speaking IC as well.
Posted:
Wed Apr 29, 2020 11:20 amby Imperium Anglorum
Marxist Germany wrote:OOC: That gives the patient
the right to undergo a procedure. Unfortunately the guardian is the patient and can refuse it.
Which isn't the claim I'm addressing.
Waldenes wrote:Indeed it is fortunate. Be that as it may, we still have, as a result, two conflicting contradictory clauses in two separate passed proposals. Should there not be a precedent for improvement for the sake of the clarity and integrity of our laws, fellow ambassador?
Please provide a warrant for this alleged contradiction.
Wallenburg wrote:OOC: No,
you posted OOC. IA, responding to an IC post,
presumably was speaking IC as well.
Re emphasis supra.
Posted:
Wed Apr 29, 2020 11:22 amby The New California Republic
Waldenes wrote:The New California Republic wrote:It's a trick! Get an axe.
Fellow ambassador, due to the highly pro-choice majority of this World Assembly, I highly doubt that such a trick could be pulled off.
Does anyone here honestly believe that anti-choice clauses could be slipped into new delegations unnoticed? I think not.
That's not what I was meaning.
Posted:
Wed Apr 29, 2020 11:27 amby Waldenes
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Marxist Germany wrote:OOC: That gives the patient
the right to undergo a procedure. Unfortunately the guardian is the patient and can refuse it.
Which isn't the claim I'm addressing.
Waldenes wrote:Indeed it is fortunate. Be that as it may, we still have, as a result, two conflicting contradictory clauses in two separate passed proposals. Should there not be a precedent for improvement for the sake of the clarity and integrity of our laws, fellow ambassador?
Please provide a warrant for this alleged contradiction.
Wallenburg wrote:OOC: No,
you posted OOC. IA, responding to an IC post,
presumably was speaking IC as well.
I am, of course, referring to the clause you quoted earlier from the Patients Rights Act in comparison to the point addressed in this repeal proposal which states that Reproductive Freedoms, as currently written, allows for the parents to make the choice for the minor or mentally incapacitated. As it stands, this is a contradiction, is it not?
Posted:
Wed Apr 29, 2020 11:28 amby Imperium Anglorum
No. That eventuality emerges because RF defines it as a medical procedure and PRA has such a grant. It is only by the interaction of the two resolutions that the argument is true.
Posted:
Wed Apr 29, 2020 11:33 amby South Reinkalistan
When the pro-life faction has failed to enact their legislative agenda upon the WA in the past, are failing to do so, and - if the current state of affairs is anything to go by - will continue to fail in their pursuits, it does beg the question as to why they keep trying. At the end of the day, when you're so hopelessly outmatched, it wouldn't be unreasonable to reflect upon and question your beliefs rather than continue to double down.
Posted:
Wed Apr 29, 2020 11:42 amby Waldenes
Imperium Anglorum wrote:No. That eventuality emerges because RF defines it as a medical procedure and PRA has such a grant. It is only by the interaction of the two resolutions that the argument is true.
So as it is currently written, the aforementioned clause in PRA overrules the clause in question from RF? This is a good thing. I still say that clarity is a virtue in law-making.
Posted:
Wed Apr 29, 2020 11:46 amby Wallenburg
Waldenes wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote:No. That eventuality emerges because RF defines it as a medical procedure and PRA has such a grant. It is only by the interaction of the two resolutions that the argument is true.
So as it is currently written, the aforementioned clause in PRA overrules the clause in question from RF? This is a good thing. I still say that clarity is a virtue in law-making.
There is nothing to overrule. The two laws do not contradict each other. They merely interact in a way that requires certain policy approaches by member states.
Posted:
Wed Apr 29, 2020 11:46 amby Separatist Peoples
Waldenes wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote:No. That eventuality emerges because RF defines it as a medical procedure and PRA has such a grant. It is only by the interaction of the two resolutions that the argument is true.
So as it is currently written, the aforementioned clause in PRA overrules the clause in question from RF? This is a good thing. I still say that clarity is a virtue in law-making.
Ooc: it doesnt override anything. The two were intended to work together, and do. Successfully.
Posted:
Wed Apr 29, 2020 11:53 amby Waldenes
Wallenburg wrote:Waldenes wrote:So as it is currently written, the aforementioned clause in PRA overrules the clause in question from RF? This is a good thing. I still say that clarity is a virtue in law-making.
There is nothing to overrule. The two laws do not contradict each other. They merely interact in a way that requires certain policy approaches by member states.
*The ambassador sighs softly before responding.* Perhaps there was something we missed. We shall make sure to carefully read through each of the laws again as well as this proposal. *The ambassador can be vaguely heard muttering something about having to do the job himself if it’s going to be done right.*
Posted:
Wed Apr 29, 2020 12:15 pmby Rorrickstead
Attempted Socialism wrote:OOC: You can't be serious. Without any chance of passing, why even attempt it?
A man will try to fight evil. It doesn't matter whether or not he actually destroys it, rather it is the act there of that the future generations look forward to. In this case quite literally.
Posted:
Wed Apr 29, 2020 12:48 pmby Separatist Peoples
Rorrickstead wrote:Attempted Socialism wrote:OOC: You can't be serious. Without any chance of passing, why even attempt it?
A man will try to fight evil. It doesn't matter whether or not he actually destroys it, rather it is the act there of that the future generations look forward to. In this case quite literally.
"And meanwhile, the rest of the world will walk past the crazy man and wonder why he hates their liberties so much, given that he doesn't have a uterus to regulate his own self."
Posted:
Wed Apr 29, 2020 1:17 pmby Attempted Socialism
Rorrickstead wrote:Attempted Socialism wrote:OOC: You can't be serious. Without any chance of passing, why even attempt it?
A man will try to fight evil. It doesn't matter whether or not he actually destroys it, rather it is the act there of that the future generations look forward to. In this case quite literally.
OOC: Given the progress on this topic worldwide and the views of younger generations, I think this line of argument may backfire on you.
Posted:
Wed Apr 29, 2020 1:30 pmby Austria-Bohemia-Hungary
Rorrickstead wrote:Attempted Socialism wrote:OOC: You can't be serious. Without any chance of passing, why even attempt it?
A man will try to fight evil. It doesn't matter whether or not he actually destroys it, rather it is the act there of that the future generations look forward to. In this case quite literally.
OOC: Or... or... or... bear with me here: the anti-choice side are the actual evildoers here who like the slavers and the genociders decry being sanctioned by the "evil" WA. And tbqfh? Enslaving women to their wombs is pretty evil.
Posted:
Wed Apr 29, 2020 2:35 pmby The Shandmas
OOC: I would've honestly loved to support this repeal since I do share some of the concerns raised by the author, especially the part about the possibility of abortion right up until birth. However, from reading some of the initial comments of the author, it seems he sees GAR #128 as an acceptable replacement for this one which I'm not at all in agreement with. If this resolution had an actual replacement that was just a tad bit less drastic then I'd have happily helped repeal this one. But as it stands, GAR#128 is not a suitable replacement for this.
Posted:
Wed Apr 29, 2020 3:50 pmby Asle Leopolka
"Don't like it? Don't have one."