NationStates

This proposal would look after all parties and doesn't favor one party over the other. It's a proposal of give and take- If I need to add more or take away please let me know I'm an amature in writing proposals.... We need a proposal that makes sense and keeps the doctor visits between women and doctors. Also defending the life of a child who is meant to be born.

I wrote this before and it clearly shows the inner workings of what I would like for the proposal to based from in the message below. that's fair for the WA and all nations by coming to the defense of the unborn and looking after the mothers and doctors... We need to base a proposal off of what I wrote in order to look after each party to the best of it's ability.


The question as to when the physical material dimension of a human being begins is strictly a scientific question, and fundamentally should be answered by human embryologists not by philosophers. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced. Our nation stands with science... Also this proposal took away the rights of a doctor to make a choice not to do an abortion. My nation understand there is a clear difference between womens health and sheer practice of abortion. If the womens uterus is in jeopardy then it should be left up to the women. If we made a pro-life proposal that ignores the health of the women completely then that would be a proposal ruled by religion. We need proposals that defend the life of a child but also makes sure the women can have an abortion if the womens life is truly in jeopardy. Abortion is more dangerous of a procedure than child birth. Child birth is natural and abortion is not.

In Texkentuck most abortions are ilegal but if a women is notified by doctors that the child birth is dangerous or herself/ baby/uterus is in jeopardy during birth then the abortion would be allowed. If our nations laws went completely off religion the women would be forced to have a child. But even in religion just the act of forcing a women to make a sacrifice of herself or uterus takes away her basic religious decision to choose to sacrifice herself or her uterus for the purpose of giving life to her child.

Even God the Father let Jesus himself to make the decision to die for the sins of man when Christ didn't have too... In that case was virtuous. Because of that lesson it should be left up to the women when her life is in Jeopardy like Christs. But when it's just about sheer termination of a pregnancy it's more than just one women's life or health but the individual child with the basic gift of life which Texkentucks' constitution defends. It's virtuous whenever a women chooses to sacrifice herself for her child but the moment the state takes that away the virtue is lost and religious freedom is in jeapardy. But also if sheer abortions are allowed the Childs basic given rights are now also too in Jeopardy as well as God given right. Both must be defended....,Also if a women chooses to not sacrifice herself or her uterus for a child there is a reason which our governments and this WA has no right to judge because God's will may be for her to give birth to the next child or to be alive for her family sake...A household without a mother because of such a sacrifice may lead to societies destruction. God doesn't want for people to be stupid. There is a reason we have a mind, mouth, and eyes. This proposal is simply about the human rights of a doctor. No doctor should be forced to do an abortion because it's intruding on the rights of a doctor. Technically the women can find another doctors because of passed proposals of this WA. Technically this WA isn't concerned about the rights of individuals and values the right of the mother over everyones rights which isn't justice nor did it improve human rights. The WA nations who voted against keeping this proposal is illogical and simple minded. For that this WA has lowered itself on the civil rights spectrum in the oppinion of our nation Texkentuck.....

Simply this WA ignores the science that says it's a child and is totally rejecting the rights of a doctor. It's a human rights atrocity...Also in all civil rights cases there is always an oppressor with more rights than others...Technically and as horrible it sounds a women can do the abortion herself and in that case she's the opressor and the child is more and likely the victim.... As I've stated there are contraceptives that can be taken to terminate a pregnancy that is not late term. We aren't talking about tissue. Also if this proposal stays in place the doctors rights are respected and do to the pro-choice proposal in place by this WA the women can have a sheer abortion for just any reason. Which Texkentuck is against... This WA by removing a proposal to defend rights is a human rights atrocity and an attack on a doctors convictions of a religious, agnostic, athiest doctor that has some value to not terminate a life because science says it's a human...

Hope that this WA actually understands it's flaw and puts a good proposal in place....

From the Parliament of Texkentuck Monarchy Republic Federation...

President Bram W. Schirkophf
Texkentuck

This will never pass for several reasons. I have listed the two biggest below:

1. It is irreparably illegal, unless you repeal GA499.
2. The state of the WA will not get behind this.

Morover wrote:This will never pass for several reasons. I have listed the two biggest below:

1. It is irreparably illegal, unless you repeal GA499.
2. The state of the WA will not get behind this.

That's true- So hopefully GA499 will be repealed. In the time being hope to get feed back on how we can make the best proposal.. Thx

We need a proposal that's less extreme-defends life and looks after every party....Most pro-life proposals would completely ban contraceptives. Just trying to make it in which a growing child doesn't feel pain. It's a human rights issue.....

Texkentuck wrote:

Morover wrote:This will never pass for several reasons. I have listed the two biggest below:

1. It is irreparably illegal, unless you repeal GA499.
2. The state of the WA will not get behind this.

That's true- So hopefully GA499 will be repealed. In the time being hope to get feed back on how we can make the best proposal.. Thx

We need a proposal that's less extreme-defends life and looks after every party....Most pro-life proposals would completely ban contraceptives. Just trying to make it in which a growing child doesn't feel pain. It's a human rights issue.....

Perhaps, instead of sitting around waiting for GAR499 to be repealed, you could do it yourself. However, that is extremely unlikely, but more productive towards your cause than waiting. Then you may proceed with your proposal. Then I would be happy to help (although I would not support), as I can spot several areas in need of some changes.

Morover wrote:This will never pass for several reasons. I have listed the two biggest below:

1. It is irreparably illegal, unless you repeal GA499.
2. The state of the WA will not get behind this.

OOC: GAR#286 also.

Bananaistan wrote:

Morover wrote:This will never pass for several reasons. I have listed the two biggest below:

1. It is irreparably illegal, unless you repeal GA499.
2. The state of the WA will not get behind this.

OOC: GAR#286 also.

This WA has put a lot in place and has proposals built on proposals. Surprised that's allowed... I'm not going to bother with this in the WA. It's crooked...

Texkentuck wrote:

Bananaistan wrote:
OOC: GAR#286 also.

This WA has put a lot in place and has proposals built on proposals. Surprised that's allowed... I'm not going to bother with this in the WA. It's crooked...

OOC: You say the WA is crooked, yet you fail to consider that perhaps you are the odd one out, not the other way around. Your perspectives on the world and life aren't universal, and in this case, they're opposed by a majority. I assume that if a majority of the WA supported your proposal the organisation would suddenly not be crooked? In other words, it's only crooked if it disagrees with you, and that reveals quite a bit about your intentions here, I'd say.

OOC: Mate you are just absolutely speedrunning through as many illegalities as possible with this proposal. Branding, 4th wall breaks, proposal basics, lack of operative clause, contradictions of previous legislation... My head is spinning just trying to keep track of it lol

Texkentuck wrote:

Bananaistan wrote:
OOC: GAR#286 also.

This WA has put a lot in place and has proposals built on proposals. Surprised that's allowed... I'm not going to bother with this in the WA. It's crooked...

I mean, you're trying to do a complete 180 on all previous precedent and undo a large amount of effort and progress. Did you think that was going to be easy?

OOC: Ok so I just skimmed a bit of the OP but what made me laugh hard enough to get a coughing attack was "contraceptives should be easily available but should stay in talks between woman and her doctor" or something like that - exactly how do you think contraceptives work? They need to be used on the body (easiest are used on the man's body, at that), not just talked about. Unless you intended to talk a woman's ovaries to death?

Tsaivao wrote:contradictions of previous legislation...

OOC: In fact it is so contradictory it contradicts itself...

B: An abortion may only be proceeded when the mothers/child/uteri is in jeopardy

C: A child may not be aborted after conception because science states that it's human after that stage.

*thinking*

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Ok so I just skimmed a bit of the OP but what made me laugh hard enough to get a coughing attack was "contraceptives should be easily available but should stay in talks between woman and her doctor" or something like that - exactly how do you think contraceptives work? They need to be used on the body (easiest are used on the man's body, at that), not just talked about. Unless you intended to talk a woman's ovaries to death?

Hell, just let me talk to women, me talking about my unhealthy obsession with modern armor doctrine will make a better contraceptive than anything else!

Tsaivao wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Ok so I just skimmed a bit of the OP but what made me laugh hard enough to get a coughing attack was "contraceptives should be easily available but should stay in talks between woman and her doctor" or something like that - exactly how do you think contraceptives work? They need to be used on the body (easiest are used on the man's body, at that), not just talked about. Unless you intended to talk a woman's ovaries to death?

Hell, just let me talk to women, me talking about my unhealthy obsession with modern armor doctrine will make a better contraceptive than anything else!

OOC: No that's a contraceptive working on YOU, not the woman.

Tsaivao wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Ok so I just skimmed a bit of the OP but what made me laugh hard enough to get a coughing attack was "contraceptives should be easily available but should stay in talks between woman and her doctor" or something like that - exactly how do you think contraceptives work? They need to be used on the body (easiest are used on the man's body, at that), not just talked about. Unless you intended to talk a woman's ovaries to death?

Hell, just let me talk to women, me talking about my unhealthy obsession with modern armor doctrine will make a better contraceptive than anything else!

Yes, yes, but Is Your Car Safe From Supermaneuverable Air-Defense Fighter Aircraft?

B: An abortion may only be proceeded when the mothers/child/uteri is in jeopardy

C: A child may not be aborted after conception because science states that it's human after that stage.

Hmm yes very consistent.

If this was actually well done and legal I might've supported it.

Edit: Well more like what I would have supported is something that guarantees women the right to an abortion when the pregnancy puts them in danger or she was raped, or other extreme circumstances, and a blocker of a full ban and a blocker of a full ban of banning abortion, but that's not what this is. Most of this proposal is a slab of shit.

Texkentuck wrote:

Bananaistan wrote:
OOC: GAR#286 also.

This WA has put a lot in place and has proposals built on proposals. Surprised that's allowed... I'm not going to bother with this in the WA. It's crooked...

Ah, more "WA is corrupt" nonsense. If you don't want to bother with the WA, then you can always resign.

Texkentuck wrote:

Bananaistan wrote:
OOC: GAR#286 also.

This WA has put a lot in place and has proposals built on proposals. Surprised that's allowed... I'm not going to bother with this in the WA. It's crooked...

No one cares. You are taking such an extreme stance, no one is interested in your opinions. We have heard all of this before, and we will hear it again and again until humanity ceases to exist.

Wayneactia wrote:

Texkentuck wrote:
This WA has put a lot in place and has proposals built on proposals. Surprised that's allowed... I'm not going to bother with this in the WA. It's crooked...

No one cares. You are taking such an extreme stance, no one is interested in your opinions. We have heard all of this before, and we will hear it again and again until humanity ceases to exist.

.....OOC Anyways who cares this is a game....

Texkentuck wrote:

Wayneactia wrote:No one cares. You are taking such an extreme stance, no one is interested in your opinions. We have heard all of this before, and we will hear it again and again until humanity ceases to exist.

.....OOC Anyways who cares this is a game....

OOC:
It seems interesting that you seem to be throwing a fit over it, then claim "it's just a game".

If it's just a game, why are you getting worked up over people not getting behind your rather poorly written proposal?

Texkentuck wrote:

Wayneactia wrote:No one cares. You are taking such an extreme stance, no one is interested in your opinions. We have heard all of this before, and we will hear it again and again until humanity ceases to exist.

.....OOC Anyways who cares this is a game....

People would be more kind if you didn't just call everyone corrupt and crooked because we don't agree with your illegal proposal. I think I'm done here, as it's clear that the only feedback you really wanted was unconditional support rather than actual criticism, constructive or not.

Jedinsto wrote:

B: An abortion may only be proceeded when the mothers/child/uteri is in jeopardy

C: A child may not be aborted after conception because science states that it's human after that stage.

Hmm yes very consistent.

If this was actually well done and legal I might've supported it.

Edit: Well more like what I would have supported is something that guarantees women the right to an abortion when the pregnancy puts them in danger or she was raped, or other extreme circumstances, and a blocker of a full ban and a blocker of a full ban of banning abortion, but that's not what this is. Most of this proposal is a slab of shit.

Thank you and others ...If any of your nations want to repeal a bunch of stacked on proposals go for it............

Texkentuck wrote:

Jedinsto wrote:Hmm yes very consistent.

If this was actually well done and legal I might've supported it.

Edit: Well more like what I would have supported is something that guarantees women the right to an abortion when the pregnancy puts them in danger or she was raped, or other extreme circumstances, and a blocker of a full ban and a blocker of a full ban of banning abortion, but that's not what this is. Most of this proposal is a slab of shit.

Thank you and others ...If any of your nations want to repeal a bunch of stacked on proposals go for it............

They really don't need your permission, or blessing.

Texkentuck wrote:

Jedinsto wrote:Hmm yes very consistent.

If this was actually well done and legal I might've supported it.

Edit: Well more like what I would have supported is something that guarantees women the right to an abortion when the pregnancy puts them in danger or she was raped, or other extreme circumstances, and a blocker of a full ban and a blocker of a full ban of banning abortion, but that's not what this is. Most of this proposal is a slab of shit.

Thank you and others ...If any of your nations want to repeal a bunch of stacked on proposals go for it............

I have no plans or interest in repealing anything written about abortion. For the purposes of the WA I can deal with abortion being always guaranteed, even if I find it immoral in most cases. And, the vastly pro-choice voter base would never allow a pro-life based repeal anyways.

Jedinsto wrote:

Texkentuck wrote:

Thank you and others ...If any of your nations want to repeal a bunch of stacked on proposals go for it............

I have no plans or interest in repealing anything written about abortion. For the purposes of the WA I can deal with abortion being always guaranteed, even if I find it immoral in most cases. And, the vastly pro-choice voter base would never allow a pro-life based repeal anyways.

All the proposals by nations such as yours are nothing more than slabs. Best vote ever is to not join the WA...

President Bram W. Schirkophf

I can't say that I can recall another proposal that was as obsessed with a uterus as this one. Definitely a strange read, but more or less all of your posts are.

Texkentuck wrote:Child birth is natural and abortion is not.

Alternatively, dying at a life expectancy of 16 from environmental hazards is natural, debating in a legislative chamber is not.

Texkentuck wrote:A household without a mother because of such a sacrifice may lead to societies destruction.

As male gay couples have often wrought.

What holds your proposal back, aside from the understandable English rule, is that there aren't enough votes in the WA to support it. The last attempt to make leeway into the pro-life sphere lost the popular vote by around 70%. So repealing the resolutions that block what you want to do would be very unlikely, and passing a resolution that does the opposite thing is more unlikely than that.

Texkentuck wrote:

Jedinsto wrote:I have no plans or interest in repealing anything written about abortion. For the purposes of the WA I can deal with abortion being always guaranteed, even if I find it immoral in most cases. And, the vastly pro-choice voter base would never allow a pro-life based repeal anyways.

All the proposals by nations such as yours are nothing more than slabs. Best vote ever is to not join the WA...

President Bram W. Schirkophf

"Is 'slab' supposed to be an insult?"