Advertisement
by Connopolis » Sat Jul 16, 2011 1:47 pm
From the office of,
Mrs. Pamela Howell
GA Ambassador of the Connopolian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
by Knootoss » Sat Jul 16, 2011 1:55 pm
Connopolis wrote:Whoever suggested it be removed was completely unprofessional as to how they went about it.
by Nulono » Sat Jul 16, 2011 2:01 pm
Princess Luna wrote:A statement upon the proposed Repeal of General Assembly Acts 128 & 44
In consultation with our partners, and expressing the official legal position of my Government that the World Assembly should retain the resolution ‘On Abortion’ and the ‘Reduction of Abortion Act,’ save only minor alterations.
We consider the availability of such procedures in the absence of a better solution, essential in all the outlined circumstances, and interpret this resolution to permit further regulation as with any other medical procedure regarding appropriate terms in which the abortion may be applied, to avoid unnecessarily dangerous and questionable late term abortions.
We support further development of legislation proposing elective abortion on principle within the abovestated limits on the grounds that if it is permissible in the instance of rape, then it is not murder, and cannot be murder under any like circumstances without the unfortunate element of the conception.
It is our opinion that if it’s not murder when the mother is a rape victim, it’s not murder, full stop, and unpleasant a topic though it may be, there is thus no reason to control abortion save the abovestated term limits.
While we comprehend the moral concerns of religious groups, we do not support them.
We are however, collectively against abortion on a casual basis for the emotional risks involved and encourage all nations to teach effective contraception and sensible family planning to their children and people as the first choice to control pregnancy, to avoid emotional distress and medical complications.
For that reason we support the intent of the existing Reduction of Abortion Act, and we see no reason to support a repeal at this time.
While we find sympathy Knootian objections to abstinence-“education,” we consider it appropriate for the World Assembly to otherwise take means to ensure members make it legally possible to practice contraception and safe sex, and are prepared to accept the possibility of abstinence education - not enforced by the 'Reduction of Abortion Act' beyond 'making information available'; which is simply a matter of making the simple fact that conception is required for pregnancy available to the general public; hardly a terrible financial burden.
Therefore I direct my government to vote against the proposed repeal of ‘On Abortion’ and oppose the proposed repeal of ‘Reduction of Abortion Act’ until such time as it is understood that a replacement act that will encourage the same objectives will be immediately proposed and supported to full resolution status, with the exception of the emphasis on abstinence.(Image)
Her Royal Highness Luna, Mistress of the Night and Princess Regnant of the Principality of Princess Luna
The Nuclear Fist wrote:If all it it takes to count as a five star hotel in America is having air conditioning and not letting those who reside in it die of hyperthermia, you have shitty hotels.
Republika Jugoslavija wrote:Actually nuclear war is not the world ending scenario that many would have folks believe.
by Khodoristan » Sat Jul 16, 2011 2:02 pm
by Nulono » Sat Jul 16, 2011 2:03 pm
The Nuclear Fist wrote:If all it it takes to count as a five star hotel in America is having air conditioning and not letting those who reside in it die of hyperthermia, you have shitty hotels.
Republika Jugoslavija wrote:Actually nuclear war is not the world ending scenario that many would have folks believe.
by Knootoss » Sat Jul 16, 2011 2:04 pm
by Christian Democrats » Sat Jul 16, 2011 2:47 pm
Connopolis wrote:Whoever suggested it be removed was completely unprofessional as to how they went about it.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Mahaj » Sat Jul 16, 2011 2:50 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:Connopolis wrote:Whoever suggested it be removed was completely unprofessional as to how they went about it.
I dislike being accused of being unprofessional.
I guess this post was too subtle and went unnoticed.Christian Democrats wrote:
The illegalities of this proposal are far more substantial than Knootoss is portraying them.
<Koth> I'm still going by the assumption that Mahaj is Unibot's kid brother or something
Kandarin(Naivetry): You're going to have a great NS career ahead of you if you want it, Mahaj. :)
<@Eluvatar> Why is SkyDip such a purist raiderist
<+frattastan> Because his region was never raided.
<+maxbarry> EarthAway: I guess I might dabble in raiding just to experience it better, but I would not like to raid regions of natives, so I'd probably be more interested in defense and liberations
by Connopolis » Sat Jul 16, 2011 2:53 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:Connopolis wrote:Whoever suggested it be removed was completely unprofessional as to how they went about it.
I dislike being accused of being unprofessional.
I guess this post was too subtle and went unnoticed.Christian Democrats wrote:
The illegalities of this proposal are far more substantial than Knootoss is portraying them.
From the office of,
Mrs. Pamela Howell
GA Ambassador of the Connopolian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
by Wiztopia » Sat Jul 16, 2011 2:54 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:Connopolis wrote:Whoever suggested it be removed was completely unprofessional as to how they went about it.
I dislike being accused of being unprofessional.
I guess this post was too subtle and went unnoticed.Christian Democrats wrote:
The illegalities of this proposal are far more substantial than Knootoss is portraying them.
by Glen-Rhodes » Sat Jul 16, 2011 3:12 pm
Knootoss wrote:For the sake of full clarity, lest I be accused ot strawmanning, the TG informing me that the proposal was removed said I "Misunderstood" it and raises the same misinterpretation that I already cleared up with Quelesh. The Real World point is the only Hackian rule cited. In its full extent, it is:2. RoAA includes a range of action to be taken in regards to reducing abortion. These actions include and are not limited to comprehensive education, which can include brief instruction on abstinence. Your clause on the subject states in no uncertain terms that this resolution [...]forces Member States to expose their children to so-called 'abstinence education' programmes[...]. This is, first, a reading based on the meaning of the term in a specific real-world situation, a RW program introduced during the term of a RW President in the RW United States. Your reading is not the generic meaning of the term.
Second, even if this restrictive, real-world meaning were admitted, this would be a valid point only if it were the sole requirement for sexual education.
The first paragraph is ... well, false. Because my concerns are based on paragraph 5a, which the mod that removed the proposal misunderstands. Even so, removing a resolution based on the assumed motive of the author is an interesting precedent to say the least. Calling it a Real World Reference is just.. insane.
The second line is just a value judgement. It should be up to the voters to decide if they're okay with the WA running abstinence education in addition to sex ed. If we needed anonymous mods to decide what's good for us, why have votes at all?
by Knootoss » Sat Jul 16, 2011 3:16 pm
by Christian Democrats » Sat Jul 16, 2011 4:33 pm
Wiztopia wrote:Christian Democrats wrote:The illegalities of this proposal are far more substantial than Knootoss is portraying them.
Well you are and you're lying. The original proposal had abstinence in it. So by saying that one is ok and the repeal isn't makes you a goddamn hypocrite. There is nothing real world about the repeal.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Wiztopia » Sat Jul 16, 2011 4:55 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:Wiztopia wrote:
Well you are and you're lying. The original proposal had abstinence in it. So by saying that one is ok and the repeal isn't makes you a goddamn hypocrite. There is nothing real world about the repeal.
My GHR was a four paragraph statement about the reasons this proposal, as written, was illegal. I made multiple arguments, none of which were based on any illegality because of a real-life references. If Moderation drew the conclusion that this proposal was illegal because of a real-life reference, then I respect its decision; though, I highly doubt that is the only reason. Either Knootoss has misinterpreted the deletion or Moderation unclearly stated the reasons for deletion. Nonetheless, this removal is completely justified, and I believe Moderation took the correct action. As written, Repeal "Reduction of Abortion Act" violates General Assembly rules.
by Christian Democrats » Sat Jul 16, 2011 4:58 pm
Wiztopia wrote:Christian Democrats wrote:My GHR was a four paragraph statement about the reasons this proposal, as written, was illegal. I made multiple arguments, none of which were based on any illegality because of a real-life references. If Moderation drew the conclusion that this proposal was illegal because of a real-life reference, then I respect its decision; though, I highly doubt that is the only reason. Either Knootoss has misinterpreted the deletion or Moderation unclearly stated the reasons for deletion. Nonetheless, this removal is completely justified, and I believe Moderation took the correct action. As written, Repeal "Reduction of Abortion Act" violates General Assembly rules.
There is nothing illegal about it. You just want it gone because of your pro-life viewpoints.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Mallorea and Riva » Sat Jul 16, 2011 5:06 pm
by Glen-Rhodes » Sat Jul 16, 2011 5:36 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:My GHR was a four paragraph statement about the reasons this proposal, as written, was illegal.
by Knootoss » Sun Jul 17, 2011 1:59 am
Glen-Rhodes wrote:Christian Democrats wrote:My GHR was a four paragraph statement about the reasons this proposal, as written, was illegal.
Before you submitted the GHR, the only post you made in this thread was to call TCT a zombie. You did not raise any legality questions in this thread. So, please, explain how this repeal is illegal. A carbon copy of your GHR would be preferable, but I would also accept a restatement.
by Eternal Yerushalayim » Sun Jul 17, 2011 2:06 am
Knootoss wrote:Glen-Rhodes wrote:Before you submitted the GHR, the only post you made in this thread was to call TCT a zombie. You did not raise any legality questions in this thread. So, please, explain how this repeal is illegal. A carbon copy of your GHR would be preferable, but I would also accept a restatement.
Considering how I also spent an hour running a telegram campaign, I'm quite disappointed that moderators would enthusiastically lend themselves to this kind of move, by a partisan pro-life Christian who is so obviously motivated to kill this proposal by the most underhanded means possible. And as G-R pointed out, without either the GHR-filer or the moderators bothering to make a substantive post in this thread during the whole time that it was around. I've hardly been rushing this proposal.
As for what CD thinks, it does not really matter. There is an appeals procedure with the mods now, and hopefully they will be able to read 5a more closely now. And since the motive of the author is now also apparently important, I would bid they also consider the fact that CD is an ardent defender of abstinence education and all other things reactionary.
by Knootoss » Sun Jul 17, 2011 2:12 am
by Eternal Yerushalayim » Sun Jul 17, 2011 2:17 am
Knootoss wrote:Nothing wrong with having a certain political viewpoint, but it should raise a few alarm bells when they start sending GHRs about the harmlessness of this resolution. And yeah, EY, seeing this deleted is still extremely surprising to me.
by Eternal Yerushalayim » Sun Jul 17, 2011 2:19 am
by Knootoss » Sun Jul 17, 2011 2:33 am
by Knootoss » Sun Jul 17, 2011 2:50 am
A review of your repeal proposal, Repeal "Reduction of Abortion Act" has found that your proposal is invalid on the grounds that the claims and basis for your repeal misinterpret the resolution in question.
1. Your proposal lists a number of policies as "critical national health policies" that have been "removed from the purview of Member States". They haven't. The first operative clause of RoAA makes it very clear in no uncertain terms that abortion reduction services includes all of the following: (1) abstinence education, (2) adoption services, (3) contraceptives, (4) family planning services, (5) pre-natal, obstetric, and post-natal medical care, counseling, and services, (6) comprehensive sex education, and (7) education, awareness, prevention, and counseling programs to prevent rape and incest; . This is the first instance of misunderstanding on your part.
2. RoAA includes a range of action to be taken in regards to reducing abortion. These actions include and are not limited to comprehensive education, which can include brief instruction on abstinence. Your clause on the subject states in no uncertain terms that this resolution [...]forces Member States to expose their children to so-called 'abstinence education' programmes[...]. This is, first, a reading based on the meaning of the term in a specific real-world situation, a RW program introduced during the term of a RW President in the RW United States. Your reading is not the generic meaning of the term.
Second, even if this restrictive, real-world meaning were admitted, this would be a valid point only if it were the sole requirement for sexual education.
3. Your proposal also states that the WA shouldn't be "[...]responsible for all of these critical national health policies[...]", yet RoAA in clause 5.1 states that these services are not rendered by the WA but in accordance with national and local laws.
These three points demonstrate the repeal's clear misunderstanding of the original resolution by providing a list of statements unsupported by its text. It is the judgment of the WA lawyers that your proposal must be returned to the drawing board to address these issues. The points being raised are nothing new and have been previously raised by the delegates in your drafting thread.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Fachumonn, The Overmind
Advertisement