[PASSED] Access to Abortion

[Godular]

Mayhap, might also include that one cannot have puppets in the WA.

Yeah we already covered that.

That's cool. Then there's folks that just don't give enough of a shit, might feel that it's too serious, and I'm sure amongst them are the folks that dislike the ideology of the World Assembly. In any event, it is not as if it affects you overmuch, is it?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

:?: :?: :?:

OOC: What mechanisms, and what harshness?

OOC: For the record, there are none. Not really anyway. Much as people wring their hands over it, creative non-compliance has always been a part of the game. For Example: My Nation is on a planet deep in space. Travel at fastest FTLi to one of these abortionplexes would take 2 years minimum, well past the gestation period which makes compliance impossible. So no I won't be wasting money on failed endeavors.

OOC: You know what we call these sorts of "impossible obstacles" in II? Wanking.

[Wallenburg]

OOC: No, that isn't how creative noncompliance works. Creative noncompliance is finding loopholes. This abjectly ignores the resolution.

I realize the GA is a minuscule part of the game, but if one is inclined to engage in it's storied traditions, one ought to get them right.

Except that is a loophole. You resolution requires us to if not provide abortion clinics on our own, fund all expenses to travel to your abortion clinics. We would comply, but complying is a physical impossibility.

It is not a physical impossibility. You can build abortion clinics or choose to let the WA build them on donated land. If those are the only options available to you to comply with the rest of the resolution, then that's your problem, not the WA's.

[Godular]

Except that is a loophole. You resolution requires us to if not provide abortion clinics on our own, fund all expenses to travel to your abortion clinics. We would comply, but complying is a physical impossibility.

It is not a physical impossibility. You can build abortion clinics or choose to let the WA build them on donated land. If those are the only options available to you to comply with the rest of the resolution, then that's your problem, not the WA's.

I for one volunteer to produce hospital ships!

Also, if need be, excessively armed hospital ships!

[Tarsonis]

OOC: For the record, there are none. Not really anyway. Much as people wring their hands over it, creative non-compliance has always been a part of the game. For Example: My Nation is on a planet deep in space. Travel at fastest FTLi to one of these abortionplexes would take 2 years minimum, well past the gestation period which makes compliance impossible. So no I won't be wasting money on failed endeavors.

OOC: You know what we call these sorts of "impossible obstacles" in II? Wanking.

Well that's a load of crap. Territorial obstacles are fact of life. The Isolation of Tarsonis has been well established. And while at one point it was closer, Elumarnia being a rogue planet has strayed farther and farther away from the world. (MY IC reason for why I don't Rp anymore.)

It's not an impossible obstacle in general, it's just one that happens to throw a wrench in this particular scenario. Being extremely remote, is not the same as a 1000 ship fleet all with planet killing lasers and shields that repel infinity + 2 damage.

[Tarsonis]

Except that is a loophole. You resolution requires us to if not provide abortion clinics on our own, fund all expenses to travel to your abortion clinics. We would comply, but complying is a physical impossibility.

It is not a physical impossibility. You can build abortion clinics or choose to let the WA build them on donated land. If those are the only options available to you to comply with the rest of the resolution, then that's your problem, not the WA's.

Except, per the law we don't have to build the clinics, and we don't have to donate the land. We have to fund transport to the closest clinics, which as I said are quite far away given our remote status. The only actually mandated portion of the law, is impossible for us to comply with. So it's really not our problem either.

[Tarsonis]

It is not a physical impossibility. You can build abortion clinics or choose to let the WA build them on donated land. If those are the only options available to you to comply with the rest of the resolution, then that's your problem, not the WA's.

I for one volunteer to produce hospital ships!

Also, if need be, excessively armed hospital ships!

That would be an illegal violation of sovereignty.

[Godular]

I for one volunteer to produce hospital ships!

Also, if need be, excessively armed hospital ships!

That would be an illegal violation of sovereignty.

Only if you're not in the WA, in which case this resolution would have no effect on you anyway. The point is that every time you try and think of one or more goofy little 'no ya can't' claims, we can produce a like number of 'yes we can' retorts.

[Christian Democrats]

Accessible clinics will be built, and you will have to pay for them, as you should be with any other form of healthcare.

Please point us to the resolution establishing WA-run cancer centers, or drug rehabilitation centers, or anything else really.

[Wallenburg]

It is not a physical impossibility. You can build abortion clinics or choose to let the WA build them on donated land. If those are the only options available to you to comply with the rest of the resolution, then that's your problem, not the WA's.

Except, per the law we don't have to build the clinics, and we don't have to donate the land. We have to fund transport to the closest clinics, which as I said are quite far away given our remote status. The only actually mandated portion of the law, is impossible for us to comply with. So it's really not our problem either.

You are failing to meet your section 2 obligation to "provide a means to access such services and commodities speedily and free at the point of service or provision". If abortion services cannot be accessed speedily in your current circumstances, you must make it such that they can be. Anything else is plain noncompliance.

[Tarsonis]

That would be an illegal violation of sovereignty.

Only if you're not in the WA, in which case this resolution would have no effect on you anyway. The point is that every time you try and think of one or more goofy little 'no ya can't' claims, we can produce a like number of 'yes we can' retorts.

Except there is no Resolution requiring members to allow foreign assets free access to their territory. (Feel free to link to the resolution in question if I'm wrong.) Your "heavily armed" hospital ships would be tantamount to nothing less than an illegal invasion, in which case they would be seized upon entering territory, the ships pressed into service of the Tarsonian Military and their crews held as POW's. (Don't worry, we may be Catholic, but we're not Spanish. They'll have full rights and immunities from inhumane treatment as any other person would.) That is assuming they don't elect to go down fighting.

[Tarsonis]

Except, per the law we don't have to build the clinics, and we don't have to donate the land. We have to fund transport to the closest clinics, which as I said are quite far away given our remote status. The only actually mandated portion of the law, is impossible for us to comply with. So it's really not our problem either.

You are failing to meet your section 2 obligation to "provide a means to access such services and commodities speedily and free at the point of service or provision". If abortion services cannot be accessed speedily in your current circumstances, you must make it such that they can be. Anything else is plain noncompliance.

I don't know why you can't get it through your head, that distance, not governance makes that an impossibility. It wasn't bureaucratic red tape that made crossing the Atlantic take three months, it was physics.

[Wallenburg]

You are failing to meet your section 2 obligation to "provide a means to access such services and commodities speedily and free at the point of service or provision". If abortion services cannot be accessed speedily in your current circumstances, you must make it such that they can be. Anything else is plain noncompliance.

I don't know why you can't get it through your head, that distance, not governance makes that an impossibility. It wasn't bureaucratic red tape that made crossing the Atlantic take three months, it was physics.

What, exactly, makes it physically impossible to have clinics within your own territory?

[Godular]

Only if you're not in the WA, in which case this resolution would have no effect on you anyway. The point is that every time you try and think of one or more goofy little 'no ya can't' claims, we can produce a like number of 'yes we can' retorts.

Except there is no Resolution requiring members to allow foreign assets free access to their territory. (Feel free to link to the resolution in question if I'm wrong.) Your "heavily armed" hospital ships would be tantamount to nothing less than an illegal invasion, in which case they would be seized upon entering territory, the ships pressed into service of the Tarsonian Military and their crews held as POW's. (Don't worry, we may be Catholic, but we're not Spanish. They'll have full rights and immunities from inhumane treatment as any other person would.) That is assuming they don't elect to go down fighting.

Eminent amounts of laughter regarding taking a Godulan vessel notwithstanding:

It need not be IN your territory. It could certainly eliminate that purported pesky 2-year travel delay. Why, we could even provide you a few spacefold portals to expedite travel as need be, free of charge! It isn't a bother, really!

[Tarsonis]

I don't know why you can't get it through your head, that distance, not governance makes that an impossibility. It wasn't bureaucratic red tape that made crossing the Atlantic take three months, it was physics.

What, exactly, makes it physically impossible to have clinics within your own territory?

They don't exist, and the mandate does not require that we build them. Further even if we did they'd be pointless as Tarsonis is a Catholic Theocracy. While getting an abortion is not against secular law per se, the Catholic Faith explicitly prohibits it. As such we do not have doctors available that are willing and able to perform said procedure. Abortion is culturally abhored as murder and thus "harmful.", and no virtually no Tarsonian Doctor will violate their Hippocratic oath by performing one.


Further Section 8, while mandating that personhood be conferred at birth, does not prohibit member nations from conferring personhood before birth. Rather, the wording sets a minimum baseline for the conference of personhood, and member states are free to establish thresholds of personhood prior to birth, but not beyond birth. As Tarsonian Law establishes personhood at detection by a medical professional, while abortion is not expressly forbidden by law, performing an abortion, would potentially fall under Tarsonian definition of Murder. Can't be sure as it's never been tested in the Tarsonian Courts.



Thus, we fall under the category that this measure was supposed to address: "Whereas some rabidly anti-choice nations lack medical professionals willing to perform abortions, meaning the ability to access them is non-existent without funds needed for foreign travel, denying constructively abortion rights because of income and birth location:"



Since we do not have such services available within our territorial boarders, this mandate requires that we cover the cost of transporting a patient to any such location where services will be available. However as said, the closest such facility is over 2 FTL years away by civilian transport, and the territorial boarder we claim is a 1 FTL year radius by civilian transport from the population center. While we could comply with said mandate, ultimately the mother would give birth less than half way through the journey, so providing this shuttle service in a manner that would actually be conducive to the goal, is physically impossible. I should clarify here that Tarsonian Military ships could make the trip within the necessary time frame, however as Naval Operations are critical to national security, transportation services for civilians is not readily available. In the event that a ship is available to shuttle a civilian at the time a request is made, we will comply, but that is a highly unlikely eventuality given mission parameters of the Tarsonian Naval forces.


Now as SP said, section 4 gives the WACC the authority to build Clinics where they see fit, however it hamstrings itself by making this authority pursuant to the guidelines of Section 5, which does not give WACC authority to violate the sovereignty of member states and appropriate territory, instead only allowing for the construction of clinics on donated territory. By legal definition, Donations are strictly voluntary, which means the WPCC cannot compel member states to bequeath territory for their purposes. Which means Tarsonis is under no obligation to provide any territory for these clinics to be built. Now, The WACC may be able to get clinics established along the border, but as I said that's 1 FTLyear away, which means that were we to supply travel to the clinic, the mother would still give birth 3/4ths of the way through the journey. Which still brings us back to funding a fruitless endeavor.

[Tarsonis]

Except there is no Resolution requiring members to allow foreign assets free access to their territory. (Feel free to link to the resolution in question if I'm wrong.) Your "heavily armed" hospital ships would be tantamount to nothing less than an illegal invasion, in which case they would be seized upon entering territory, the ships pressed into service of the Tarsonian Military and their crews held as POW's. (Don't worry, we may be Catholic, but we're not Spanish. They'll have full rights and immunities from inhumane treatment as any other person would.) That is assuming they don't elect to go down fighting.

Eminent amounts of laughter regarding taking a Godulan vessel notwithstanding:

God modding is frowned upon. I'd simply ignore your existence if that's the line you're going to take.

It need not be IN your territory. It could certainly eliminate that purported pesky 2-year travel delay. Why, we could even provide you a few spacefold portals to expedite travel as need be, free of charge! It isn't a bother, really!

Feel free to set them up outside Tarsonian borders, but no we will not accept foreign assets in our territory.

[Ardiveds]

Further Section 8, while mandating that personhood be conferred at birth, does not prohibit member nations from conferring personhood before birth. Rather, the wording sets a minimum baseline for the conference of personhood, and member states are free to establish thresholds of personhood prior to birth, but not beyond birth. As Tarsonian Law establishes personhood at detection by a medical professional, while abortion is not expressly forbidden by law, performing an abortion, would potentially fall under Tarsonian definition of Murder. Can't be sure as it's never been tested in the Tarsonian Courts.

OOC: That sounds pretty bad faith tbh. On top of bad faith interpretation of past resolutions as well since that means abortion is still indirectly a criminal act and not decriminalized.

[Godular]

Eminent amounts of laughter regarding taking a Godulan vessel notwithstanding:

God modding is frowned upon. I'd simply ignore your existence if that's the line you're going to take.

That comment makes the laughter even more voluminous. The Godulans would not even have to do anything particularly special or 'godmodish' to keep you from ever taking a Godulan vessel, and the matter is wholly tangential anyway.

It need not be IN your territory. It could certainly eliminate that purported pesky 2-year travel delay. Why, we could even provide you a few spacefold portals to expedite travel as need be, free of charge! It isn't a bother, really!

Feel free to set them up outside Tarsonian borders, but no we will not accept foreign assets in our territory.

In which case it all simply boils down to 'It isn't that it CAN'T happen, you just don't WANT it to', which is really the point.

[Tarsonis]

God modding is frowned upon. I'd simply ignore your existence if that's the line you're going to take.

That comment makes the laughter even more voluminous. The Godulans would not even have to do anything particularly special or 'godmodish' to keep you from ever taking a Godulan vessel, and the matter is wholly tangential anyway.

Tech wanking is only tangentially separate from God modding.

Feel free to set them up outside Tarsonian borders, but no we will not accept foreign assets in our territory.

In which case it all simply boils down to 'It isn't that it CAN'T happen, you just don't WANT it to', which is really the point.

...I don't think anybody was under the illusion that was the case. I am after all outlying how my creative resistance scheme works

[Tarsonis]

Further Section 8, while mandating that personhood be conferred at birth, does not prohibit member nations from conferring personhood before birth. Rather, the wording sets a minimum baseline for the conference of personhood, and member states are free to establish thresholds of personhood prior to birth, but not beyond birth. As Tarsonian Law establishes personhood at detection by a medical professional, while abortion is not expressly forbidden by law, performing an abortion, would potentially fall under Tarsonian definition of Murder. Can't be sure as it's never been tested in the Tarsonian Courts.

OOC: That sounds pretty bad faith tbh. On top of bad faith interpretation of past resolutions as well since that means abortion is still indirectly a criminal act and not decriminalized.

Loopholes are bad faith interpretations. They're explicitly finding ways around laws that weren't intended to exist. It's not my fault the author didn't pick their words more carefully. Seriously, wtf is the point of all this legalese if were not bound by what the author said and are bound by what the author "meant." Seriously has nobody actually read a real legal document here?


Also as for the personhood conflict, I stated it could be but hadn't been tested in law. The court could rule that personhood in this case doesn't trump the rights of the mother and set the rights threshold at viability like it does in the US and still be in compliance with international law, but that'd require an actual case be brought.

[Godular]

That comment makes the laughter even more voluminous. The Godulans would not even have to do anything particularly special or 'godmodish' to keep you from ever taking a Godulan vessel, and the matter is wholly tangential anyway.

Tech wanking is only tangentially separate from God modding.

It's not even that... though technically any kind of FT stuff is tech wanking.

Feel free to set them up outside Tarsonian borders, but no we will not accept foreign assets in our territory.

In which case it all simply boils down to 'It isn't that it CAN'T happen, you just don't WANT it to', which is really the point.

...I don't think anybody was under the illusion that was the case. I am after all outlying how my creative resistance scheme works[/quote]

Indeed. I'm simply pointing out that A) It is not particularly creative and B) Given you have cut all pretense and left the WA entirely it is largely a wasted effort even to enumerate such excuses.

[Tarsonis]

Tech wanking is only tangentially separate from God modding.

It's not even that... though technically any kind of FT stuff is tech wanking.

Not really. While, if you're a good enough astrophysicist anything is really possible here, there are established and respected boundaries. Tier 8 and 9 societies are the norm for sci-fi.

Players using tier 10 or above for reasons beyond plot device of a particular RP are imho wanking pure and simple. Everybody wants to be the biggest and the baddest, which is why i gave up war rps oh.... 12 years ago. Strictly character RPs for me.

...I don't think anybody was under the illusion that was the case. I am after all outlying how my creative resistance scheme works

Indeed. I'm simply pointing out that A) It is not particularly creative and B) Given you have cut all pretense and left the WA entirely it is largely a wasted effort even to enumerate such excuses.

1. It doesn't have to be a freaking Rembrandt, it just has to work. I didn't pick the word" creative" for this term. My prior established canon just happens to work in my favor, don't need to be much more creative than that.

2. I join and leave the WA one whim. Consider this my lame duck session until I rejoin because it's a Wednesday

[Wallenburg]

They don't exist, and the mandate does not require that we build them. Further even if we did they'd be pointless as Tarsonis is a Catholic Theocracy. While getting an abortion is not against secular law per se, the Catholic Faith explicitly prohibits it. As such we do not have doctors available that are willing and able to perform said procedure. Abortion is culturally abhored as murder and thus "harmful.", and no virtually no Tarsonian Doctor will violate their Hippocratic oath by performing one.

Ah yes, the ever-so-clever RP wank of literally every person in your nation adhering to the state ideology.

Further Section 8, while mandating that personhood be conferred at birth, does not prohibit member nations from conferring personhood before birth. Rather, the wording sets a minimum baseline for the conference of personhood, and member states are free to establish thresholds of personhood prior to birth, but not beyond birth.

Actually, it does prohibit this, since it requires that personhood begin at birth. So you are violating that clause as well.

As Tarsonian Law establishes personhood at detection by a medical professional, while abortion is not expressly forbidden by law, performing an abortion, would potentially fall under Tarsonian definition of Murder. Can't be sure as it's never been tested in the Tarsonian Courts.

This violates your obligations under 3.c, let alone other resolutions.

Thus, we fall under the category that this measure was supposed to address: "Whereas some rabidly anti-choice nations lack medical professionals willing to perform abortions, meaning the ability to access them is non-existent without funds needed for foreign travel, denying constructively abortion rights because of income and birth location:"

Since we do not have such services available within our territorial boarders, this mandate requires that we cover the cost of transporting a patient to any such location where services will be available. However as said, the closest such facility is over 2 FTL years away by civilian transport, and the territorial boarder we claim is a 1 FTL year radius by civilian transport from the population center. While we could comply with said mandate, ultimately the mother would give birth less than half way through the journey, so providing this shuttle service in a manner that would actually be conducive to the goal, is physically impossible. I should clarify here that Tarsonian Military ships could make the trip within the necessary time frame, however as Naval Operations are critical to national security, transportation services for civilians is not readily available. In the event that a ship is available to shuttle a civilian at the time a request is made, we will comply, but that is a highly unlikely eventuality given mission parameters of the Tarsonian Naval forces.

Or you could stop violating your section 2 obligations and resolve your noncompliance issue by hosting clinics within your territory.

[Godular]

It's not even that... though technically any kind of FT stuff is tech wanking.

Not really.

Yes really, but you do you. This is neither the time nor place to sit around and gripe about RP styles.

1. It doesn't have to be a freaking Rembrandt, it just has to work.

Which it doesn't. Mayhap in your own headcanon it works, but in practical terms it's just as much wanking as you claim me being able to cackle at the idea of boarders trying to capture a Godulan vessel.

[Tarsonis]

They don't exist, and the mandate does not require that we build them. Further even if we did they'd be pointless as Tarsonis is a Catholic Theocracy. While getting an abortion is not against secular law per se, the Catholic Faith explicitly prohibits it. As such we do not have doctors available that are willing and able to perform said procedure. Abortion is culturally abhored as murder and thus "harmful.", and no virtually no Tarsonian Doctor will violate their Hippocratic oath by performing one.

Ah yes, the ever-so-clever RP wank of literally every person in your nation adhering to the state ideology.

Cultural homogeny is a thing. Not every society is the cultural melting pot like the west. Deal with it.

Further Section 8, while mandating that personhood be conferred at birth, does not prohibit member nations from conferring personhood before birth. Rather, the wording sets a minimum baseline for the conference of personhood, and member states are free to establish thresholds of personhood prior to birth, but not beyond birth.

Actually, it does prohibit this, since it requires that personhood begin at birth. So you are violating that clause as well.

Not quite. It is our interpretation, based on the federalist principle of "you can make laws tighter than the fed government, but not looser" that while the the law prescribes nations assess personhood begin at birth, we extend that law even further and extend personhood protections before birth, as the those protections will carry on at birth , the law is satisfied as the child will still have personhood at birth. The law does not effectively restrict us from extending personhood protections before birth, but does restrict us from withholding them until a time well after. The WA can prevent us from excluding a group from personhood. it cannot compel us to make such an exclusions

As Tarsonian Law establishes personhood at detection by a medical professional, while abortion is not expressly forbidden by law, performing an abortion, would potentially fall under Tarsonian definition of Murder. Can't be sure as it's never been tested in the Tarsonian Courts.

This violates your obligations under 3.c, let alone other resolutions.

perhaps. But like I said, hasn't made its way through the courts yet.

Thus, we fall under the category that this measure was supposed to address: "Whereas some rabidly anti-choice nations lack medical professionals willing to perform abortions, meaning the ability to access them is non-existent without funds needed for foreign travel, denying constructively abortion rights because of income and birth location:"

Since we do not have such services available within our territorial boarders, this mandate requires that we cover the cost of transporting a patient to any such location where services will be available. However as said, the closest such facility is over 2 FTL years away by civilian transport, and the territorial boarder we claim is a 1 FTL year radius by civilian transport from the population center. While we could comply with said mandate, ultimately the mother would give birth less than half way through the journey, so providing this shuttle service in a manner that would actually be conducive to the goal, is physically impossible. I should clarify here that Tarsonian Military ships could make the trip within the necessary time frame, however as Naval Operations are critical to national security, transportation services for civilians is not readily available. In the event that a ship is available to shuttle a civilian at the time a request is made, we will comply, but that is a highly unlikely eventuality given mission parameters of the Tarsonian Naval forces.

Or you could stop violating your section 2 obligations and resolve your noncompliance issue by hosting clinics within your territory.

Um no. We're not in violation as there are no clinics in existence and there are no doctors willing to perform nor are we obligated to give up territory to host WACC sponsored clinics. Noncompliance is the fucking point Wall. I'm not bitching that its too hard to comply, I'm laying out how physical and legal realities crate a penumbra of legal non-compliance.