NationStates

While you do make good points, I still do not support this resolution. I believe if this is repealed it will hamper on free speech. If a woman doesn't want an abortion, she can just not go there or say she doesn't want an abortion.

Kuwi wrote:

United New England wrote:
Merriam-Webster’s first definition of “inside” is “an interior or internal part or place : the part within”.

An what are the other definitions?

Here are the other, less-relevant definitions, although next time I think you could probably manage your own web search: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inside

Uan aa Boa wrote:Ladies and gentlemen, the delegation tabling this proposal were very clear in their request that this not be used as a forum for discussing the ethics of abortion.

OOC: Given that the reasons for IC support or lack of support tend to be based on the ethics of the nations involved, that's either an impossible request or an attempt to shut down any opposition. Neither of which will fly very far.

But I do agree that by the time you need to drag up Merriam-Webster to define "inside", you've gone too far.

So... Is this still up?

No idea why you bumped it, but this will almost certainly be defeated if proposed.

We *really* don't think this is a good idea. We hold the rights of free choice to be paramount - particularly since, in Thytian law, a foetus is not alive until it is born as a baby.

Doubtless your "replacement" will be as restrictive as humanly possible.

Opposed.

"My government does not oppose this. It doesnt especially support it, but it cares little for WA interference on the matter. I remain ambivalent. My love for irritating zealots tips me against."