NationStates

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:00 pm**

Christian Democrats wrote:
Meekinos wrote:So, no exception for the psychological or physical health I see

Go read how elective abortion is defined at the beginning of the proposal.

It was poorly defined and didn't include the necessary elements. Mental health was not included. Mental health is not physical health.

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:03 pm**

Urgench wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:Men can also become pregnant.

If personhood is extended to late-term fetuses, then such rights equally apply to fetuses, and, once again, couldn't a woman just choose to induce labor (not procure an abortion)?

Cf. male abortions?

Your Excellency freely admits, indeed triumphantly taunts other delegations to this organisation with your assertion that this proposal only applies to humans, therefore your bizarre belief that human males may bear offspring is risible and nonsensical. In any case it hardly matters since this resolution discriminates against any person (of whatever sex, and whatever species) who is capable of bearing offspring, the CoCR clearly makes it illegal to use arbitrary and reductive categorisations of this kind to discriminate against anyone who inhabits a WA member state.

It is illegal under WA law to force anyone to obtain an inducement rather than an abortion because their right to obtain an abortion, where it is legal to do so, is protected by the Patient's Rights Act. The foetus is not a person by any credible definition and therefore does not have the same rights as the person within whom it is gestated.

Yours,

Real life example of a pregnant man: Thomas Beatie

You continue to ignore the fact that all WA resolutions would apply to all post-24 week fetuses if this resolution passed because such fetuses would be granted personhood.

^ I originally made this a "Human Rights" proposal, but a moderator said that it better fit in the "Moral Decency" category because it restricted a present, recognized right of women to have abortions where it is legal.

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:09 pm**

Meekinos wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:Go read how elective abortion is defined at the beginning of the proposal.

It was poorly defined and didn't include the necessary elements. Mental health was not included. Mental health is not physical health.

I don't believe mental health is a substantial enough reason to abort a viable fetus . . .

And before any of you make accusations of a violation of patient's rights, remember that this proposal would grant a viable fetus equal rights to those of the mother; therefore, a mother's right to be mentally healthy does not trump another person's (if this proposal passes) right to live.

Once again, LABOR CAN BE INDUCED. A woman can choose to stop being pregnant without an abortion, especially if the pregnancy is causing her mental agony.

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:13 pm**

Flibbleites wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:
Are you admitting that you are (a) completely wasting our time and/or (b) trying to force through a wedge issue?

Anyone who commented on his last proposal knows perfectly well that the answer is both.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

(OOC: This, exactly. I'm a long-time user of IRC and forums, and I never ignore users in either, but this guy (CD) is really pushing it...)

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:14 pm**

Rather a pointless proposal in our opinion.

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:19 pm**

I have added a provision and changed the definition of abortion to protect a woman's right to induce labor of a viable fetus.

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:38 pm**

Christian Democrats wrote:Real life example of a pregnant man: Thomas Beatie

You continue to ignore the fact that all WA resolutions would apply to all post-24 week fetuses if this resolution passed because such fetuses would be granted personhood.

^ I originally made this a "Human Rights" proposal, but a moderator said that it better fit in the "Moral Decency" category because it restricted a present, recognized right of women to have abortions where it is legal.

Your Excellency, this is real life and no such person, a Thomas Beatie (a pregnant male human) exists. In any event it does not matter what fabrications your Excellency produces, you resolution is illegal because in contravention of the CoCR it discriminates against anyone capable of bearing a child and violates the Patient's Rights Act.

Your Excellency fails to realise that the main aim of this resolution, to declare foetuses to be persons, is not possible in WA law. It is simply illegal to declare a foetus a person and thence to endue it with the rights of a person because to do would violate several other WA laws.

This is not even a moral discussion, this is a point of law which your Excellency in pretense and hubris aping a lawmaker seems incapable of understanding.

Yours,

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:54 pm**

Urgench wrote:This is not even a moral discussion, this is a point of law which your Excellency in pretense and hubris aping a lawmaker seems incapable of understanding.

Yours,

You seem to mistakenly believe that law is created.

Law is not created; rather, it is discovered, or recognized.

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:00 pm**

Flibbleites wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:Also, the right to life can be considered a human right, but I think either category is appropriate.

In an official capacity, which is better?

Officially, Moral Decency, the government is banning a practice.

The category of this proposal remains my greatest concern.

I will continue to classify this as a Moral Decency proposal because of your suggestion, but doesn't the restriction on so-called "abortion rights" proceed from a recognition of fetal rights?* (Hence, wouldn't this better be classified as a Human Rights proposal?)

(In advance, sorry. I know many of you will consider the wording of my first question bias.)

* - not the other way around

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:07 pm**

Christian Democrats wrote:
Urgench wrote:This is not even a moral discussion, this is a point of law which your Excellency in pretense and hubris aping a lawmaker seems incapable of understanding.

Yours,

You seem to mistakenly believe that law is created.

Law is not created; rather, it is discovered, or recognized.

Your Excellency is clearly rather confused, here in this context Ambassadors to this organisation are in effect Lawmakers, Legislators. Legislators create law, courts or rather Judges discover or recognise law.

Law absolutely is created when ever legislators devise and promulgate statutes.

None of this has anything to do with the fact that your Excellency's proposal is thoroughly illegal.

Yours,

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:20 pm**

Christian Democrats wrote:If a proposal restricts late-term abortions by recognizing the personhood of late-term fetuses, then should such a proposal be classified as "Human Rights" or "Moral Decency"?

"Human Rights" - a right to life is being recognized.

"Moral Decency" - a woman's "right to choose" simultaneously is being restricted because of the recognition of a fetal right to life.

Why is the "right to life" lacking quotation marks and the "right to choose" is not? Hhmm...

Because the language of your resolution is prohibitive on the grounds of Morality, "Moral Decency" would make sense.

EDIT: Actually that makes little sense either, lots of Human Rights bills use prohibitive language, I guess what separates them and yours is, others establish liberties or claim-rights, you're establishing a duty or commitment to a person to deliver a baby regardless of if they don't want to.

MODEDIT: This and several subsequent posts have been merged from the Q & A thread because a discussion thread already existed.

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:21 pm**

Christian Democrats wrote:If a proposal restricts late-term abortions by recognizing the personhood of late-term fetuses, then should such a proposal be classified as "Human Rights" or "Moral Decency"?

"Human Rights" - a right to life is being recognized.

"Moral Decency" - a woman's "right to choose" simultaneously is being restricted because of the recognition of a fetal right to life.

Moral Decency. Human Rights is solely for granting rights; what you propose to do removes the rights of the mother.

I still vehemently oppose your resolution, btw. I'd likely vote against anything filed under 'Moral Decency', but I find your resolution particularly abhorrent. Just so you know.

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:23 pm**

Urgench wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:You seem to mistakenly believe that law is created.

Law is not created; rather, it is discovered, or recognized.

Your Excellency is clearly rather confused, here in this context Ambassadors to this organisation are in effect Lawmakers, Legislators. Legislators create law, courts or rather Judges discover or recognise law.

Law absolutely is created when ever legislators devise and promulgate statutes.

None of this has anything to do with the fact that your Excellency's proposal is thouroughly illegal.

Yours,

"Legislator" is a much better, more precise word because it comes from the Latin infinitive legere meaning "to collect" or "to gather."

A legislator gathers and codifies law; a legislator doesn't make law. Only God creates law.

Judges, in turn, interpret the laws which have been identified by a legislature. It is not a judge's job to "legislate from the bench" (in other words, "gather law from the bench").

"Promulgating" laws is correct because promulgate means "to make known." Legislators make law known.

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:31 pm**

I still vehemently oppose your resolution, btw. I'd likely vote against anything filed under 'Moral Decency', but I find your resolution particularly abhorrent. Just so you know.

And he has a thread where you can post just that. Just so you know.

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:36 pm**

Eireann Fae WA Mission wrote:Human Rights is solely for granting rights . . .

A fetal right is recognized.

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:37 pm**

Unibot wrote:Because the language of your resolution is prohibitive [. . .] "Moral Decency" would make sense.

Thank you

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:37 pm**

Christian Democrats wrote:If a proposal restricts late-term abortions by recognizing the personhood of late-term fetuses, then should such a proposal be classified as "Human Rights" or "Moral Decency"?

"Human Rights" - a right to life is being recognized.

"Moral Decency" - a woman's "right to choose" simultaneously is being restricted because of the recognition of a fetal right to life.

Didn't I already answer this question? Why yes I did.

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:39 pm**

Flibbleites wrote:Didn't I already answer this question? Why yes I did.

I wanted a second opinion before submission. I restated the same question in the proposal thread.

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:41 pm**

Christian Democrats wrote:
Flibbleites wrote:Didn't I already answer this question? Why yes I did.

I wanted a second opinion. I restated the same question in the proposal thread.

You're trying to ban a practice, that's textbook Moral Decency.

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:45 pm**

Christian Democrats wrote:"Legislator" is a much better, more precise word because it comes from the Latin infinitive legere meaning "to collect" or "to gather."

A legislator gathers and codifies law; a legislator doesn't make law. Only God creates law.

Judges, in turn, interpret the laws which have been identified by a legislature. It is not a judge's job to "legislate from the bench" (in other words, "gather law from the bench").

"Promulgating" laws is correct because promulgate means "to make known." Legislators make law known.

Your Excellency, is of course perfectly incorrect, Legislator is composed of the genitive form Legis of the latin word Lex which means "law" and Lator meaning "Proposer, mover, agent" from the root latus which is the past participle of the word tollere - "raise".

Technically Legislators do not make known the law, that is the purpose of Promulgators who may or may not be the same persons as Legislators but who in the act of promulgation are no longer acting as Legislators.

Legislators are therefore proposers of laws. God does not exist, and your Excellency's superstitions cannot disguise your Excellency's patent ignorance of the law and woeful Latin scholarship.

None of this has any bearing on the fact that this proposal is completely illegal.

Yours,

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:46 pm**

Given the optionality clause of the proposal, it is clear that at this time, the current version (last edited by Christian Democrats on Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:24 pm) is illegal. If it is submitted to queue, it will be removed.

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:52 pm**

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:And he has a thread where you can post just that. Just so you know.

And the text of the quote that you conveniently ignored was completely relevant to the question he asked in this thread. Just so you know.

Christian Democrats wrote:A fetal right is recognized.

The category is Human Rights, not Fetal Rights. Other than that, Unibot made the point I otherwise would make. You acknowledged his post, but I don't know when he made the EDIT that I like,

EDIT: Actually that makes little sense either, lots of Human Rights bills use prohibitive language, I guess what separates them and yours is, others establish liberties or claim-rights, you're establishing a duty or commitment to a person to deliver a baby regardless of if they don't want to.

You restrict the rights of the sapient organic incubator, which I believe takes precedence over the rights of the invasive, destructive parasite growing within it.

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:06 pm**

Kryozerkia wrote:Given the optionality clause of the proposal, it is clear that at this time, the current version (last edited by Christian Democrats on Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:24 pm) is illegal. If it is submitted to queue, it will be removed.

Currently, I am rewording the proposal.

What provision(s) is (are) optional?

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:09 pm**

Christian Democrats wrote:
Kryozerkia wrote:Given the optionality clause of the proposal, it is clear that at this time, the current version (last edited by Christian Democrats on Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:24 pm) is illegal. If it is submitted to queue, it will be removed.

Currently, I am rewording the proposal.

What provision(s) is (are) optional?

The bit where you say it only applies to humans denotes optionality.

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:13 pm**

Intellect and the Arts wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:Currently, I am rewording the proposal.

What provision(s) is (are) optional?

The bit where you say it only applies to humans denotes optionality.

"But! But! That would mean he'd have to re-write the whole thing! Aw, the poor Ambassador..." Alexandra rolls her eyes while Melöʃina tries very hard to not fall, laughing, from her little throne.

NationStates

(SUBMITTED) Defense of Life Act

GA Proposals Q&A