NATION

PASSWORD

(SUBMITTED) Defense of Life Act

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.

Advertisement

Remove ads

When should elective abortion be legal? (excluding rape, incest, fetal defects, etc.)

Never
90
31%
1st trimester
32
11%
1st & 2nd trimesters
28
10%
Always
136
48%
 
Total votes : 286

User avatar
Quintessence of Dust
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1507
Founded: Nov 21, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Quintessence of Dust » Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:13 pm

I completely disagree with that ruling, for what it's worth.
Hack wrote:The opinionality ban refers to when language such as "Nations can ignore this Resolution if they want," which is right out.
No nation with humans in it can ignore this resolution. Just because a nation happens not to have human inhabitants doesn't mean that is a way out of it, anymore than it would be if the terms in the proposal had simply referred to 'humans'. It'd be like arguing a resolution about desertification was 'optional' because not all nations have deserts.

Unless this is a new ruling that a resolution specifically cannot reference humans, which is (a) quite a departure and (b) fucking ridiculous.
Last edited by Quintessence of Dust on Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The fight is long and tough, but together, we can make it. -- José Carlos Mariátegui

Two kinds of pork in one soup? Bring it on. -- Christina Hendricks

User avatar
Intellect and the Arts
Diplomat
 
Posts: 530
Founded: Sep 20, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Intellect and the Arts » Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:20 pm

Quintessence of Dust wrote:I completely disagree with that ruling, for what it's worth.
Hack wrote:The opinionality ban refers to when language such as "Nations can ignore this Resolution if they want," which is right out.
No nation with humans in it can ignore this resolution. Just because a nation happens not to have human inhabitants doesn't mean that is a way out of it, anymore than it would be if the terms in the proposal had simply referred to 'humans'. It'd be like arguing a resolution about desertification was 'optional' because not all nations have deserts.

Unless this is a new ruling that a resolution specifically cannot reference humans, which is (a) quite a departure and (b) fucking ridiculous.

Actually, all a nation has to do is say "we're not technically human", and they can thereby opt out. Basically, all he had to do was not say "this resolution only applies to humans", because you can't have a clause saying only nations with green houses have to follow your rules. If it just happens that the stuff talked about isn't capable of applying to non-green houses, that's legal. You just can't come right out and admit it.
Ambassadors: Arik S. Drake, and Alice M. Drake, twins

UNOG Member
Intellect and Art (NatSovOrg Member)
The Illustrious Renae
Ex-Parrot
Ennill
NERVUN wrote:By my powers combined, I am CAPTAIN MODERATION!

User avatar
Quintessence of Dust
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1507
Founded: Nov 21, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Quintessence of Dust » Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:31 pm

Intellect and the Arts wrote:Actually, all a nation has to do is say "we're not technically human", and they can thereby opt out.
Well, no, the proposal is fairly specific. I can declare myself not technically a human but I remain a member of Homo sapiens [sapiens]. Otherwise I am going to declare my nuclear weapons 'not technically nuclear weapons', my greenhouse gases 'not technically greenhouse gases' and my rolling meth lab 'not technically a rolling meth lab'.

(This notwithstanding the fairly substantial implications of turning a nation's entire population into non-humans overnight?)
Basically, all he had to do was not say "this resolution only applies to humans", because you can't have a clause saying only nations with green houses have to follow your rules. If it just happens that the stuff talked about isn't capable of applying to non-green houses, that's legal. You just can't come right out and admit it.
Firstly, you know that's false: he originally did talk about something that only applies to humans (human pregnancy), and got badgered into adding the language by others in this thread.

Secondly, you are adding a distinction that is not present in the proposal's language: applying to nations. He doesn't mention nations. Thus he doesn't 'have a clause saying only nations with green houses have to follow your rules' in the first place!
The fight is long and tough, but together, we can make it. -- José Carlos Mariátegui

Two kinds of pork in one soup? Bring it on. -- Christina Hendricks

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:49 pm

Quintessence of Dust wrote:I completely disagree with that ruling, for what it's worth.
Hack wrote:The opinionality ban refers to when language such as "Nations can ignore this Resolution if they want," which is right out.
No nation with humans in it can ignore this resolution. Just because a nation happens not to have human inhabitants doesn't mean that is a way out of it, anymore than it would be if the terms in the proposal had simply referred to 'humans'. It'd be like arguing a resolution about desertification was 'optional' because not all nations have deserts.

Unless this is a new ruling that a resolution specifically cannot reference humans, which is (a) quite a departure and (b) fucking ridiculous.

:clap: Agreed

User avatar
Rutianas
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 479
Founded: Aug 23, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Rutianas » Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:55 pm

Quintessence of Dust wrote:Well, no, the proposal is fairly specific. I can declare myself not technically a human but I remain a member of Homo sapiens [sapiens]. Otherwise I am going to declare my nuclear weapons 'not technically nuclear weapons', my greenhouse gases 'not technically greenhouse gases' and my rolling meth lab 'not technically a rolling meth lab'.

(This notwithstanding the fairly substantial implications of turning a nation's entire population into non-humans overnight?)


This could be a valid point were it not for the fact that many non-human races that may appear human do not qualify as Homo sapiens even as much as others might want to classify them as such. It would be far too easy for a nation full of Homo sapiens to classify themselves as one of those non-human races that appear human in order to get out of this.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas and Swarming Cute Kittens Ambassador

User avatar
Quintessence of Dust
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1507
Founded: Nov 21, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Quintessence of Dust » Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:11 pm

I'm not going to respond to that for two reasons: (i) it should be perfectly apparent that, as we were discussing proposal rules, my comments were OOC; (ii) your character's comments don't appear to have anything to do with optionality, but rather with this fanciful notion that if we classify ourselves as cucumbers we can exempt ourselves from the law.
Last edited by Quintessence of Dust on Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.
The fight is long and tough, but together, we can make it. -- José Carlos Mariátegui

Two kinds of pork in one soup? Bring it on. -- Christina Hendricks

User avatar
Urgench
Minister
 
Posts: 2345
Founded: May 21, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Urgench » Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:16 pm

Quintessence of Dust wrote:I'm not going to respond to that for two reasons: (i) it should be perfectly apparent that, as we were discussing proposal rules, my comments were OOC;



OOC. Proposal rules can be discussed IC. But the terms and manner you use when discussing proposal rules give the real steer as to which mode you're using I suppose.
Last edited by Urgench on Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Mongkha, Khan of Kashgar, Ambassador in Plenipotentiary to the World Assembly for the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench -

Exchange Embassies with the CSKU here - viewtopic.php?f=5&t=67

Learn more about Urgench here- http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Urgench

User avatar
Rutianas
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 479
Founded: Aug 23, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Rutianas » Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:24 pm

(OOC: If it don't have OOC before it, I assume it's IC.)

User avatar
Quintessence of Dust
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1507
Founded: Nov 21, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Quintessence of Dust » Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:39 pm

Urgench wrote:
Quintessence of Dust wrote:I'm not going to respond to that for two reasons: (i) it should be perfectly apparent that, as we were discussing proposal rules, my comments were OOC;



OOC. Proposal rules can be discussed IC. But the terms and manner you use when discussing proposal rules give the real steer as to which mode you're using I suppose.

That's...absurd. When did this change come about? I remember Fris once giving someone an actual warning because they wouldn't stop using their IC character to debate proposal rules.

Well, anyway, that's off topic; suffice it to say, all of my comments were OOC, and I fail to see how they couldn't have been.
Last edited by Quintessence of Dust on Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.
The fight is long and tough, but together, we can make it. -- José Carlos Mariátegui

Two kinds of pork in one soup? Bring it on. -- Christina Hendricks

User avatar
The Cat-Tribe
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5548
Founded: Jan 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby The Cat-Tribe » Sat Dec 18, 2010 5:55 pm

The Cat-Tribe wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:

Prenatal life is life, though, I guess all judicial opinions can be left up to interpretation.

I don't feel it necessary to read the majority opinion of Roe v. Wade to find a direct quote since this debate is not about how to interpret this landmark case. The purpose of this thread is to debate my proposal.


You cited the SCOTUS case as supporting your proposal. It isn't relevant, but you were wrong regardless.

Wilkipedia is NOT a SCOTUS case, AND not even the Wikipedia summary says anything about a fetus/unborn being a person.

Just admit you made an error and move on.


OCC: Just to be absolutely clear, here is what SCOTUS said on the subject in Roe, 410 U.S. 157-158 (emphasis added, footnotes omitted):
[N]o case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, 2, cl. 2, and 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, 2, cl. 3; 53 in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.

All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. This is in accord with the results reached in those few cases where the issue has been squarely presented. McGarvey v. Magee-Womens Hospital, 340 F. Supp. 751 (WD Pa. 1972); Byrn v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 31 N. Y. 2d 194, 286 N. E. 2d 887 (1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-434; Abele v. Markle, 351 F. Supp. 224 (Conn. 1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-730. Cf. Cheaney v. State, ___ Ind., at ___, 285 N. E. 2d, at 270; Montana v. Rogers, 278 F.2d 68, 72 (CA7 1960), aff'd sub nom. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961); Keeler v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. 3d 619, 470 P.2d 617 (1970); State v. Dickinson, 28 [410 U.S. 113, 159] Ohio St. 2d 65, 275 N. E. 2d 599 (1971). Indeed, our decision in United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62 (1971), inferentially is to the same effect ...
I quit (again).
The Altani Confederacy wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:With that, I am done with these shenanigans. Do as thou wilt.

Can't miss you until you're gone, Ambassador. Seriously, your delegation is like one of those stores that has a "Going Out Of Business" sale for twenty years. Stay or go, already.*snip*
"Don't give me no shit because . . . I've been Tired . . ." ~ Pixies
With that, "he put his boots on, he took a face from the Ancient Gallery, and he walked on down the Hall . . ."

User avatar
The Cat-Tribe
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5548
Founded: Jan 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Deliberately wasting the WA's time

Postby The Cat-Tribe » Sat Dec 18, 2010 5:59 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:
Again, you aren't responding to most of what I post.

Particularly telling is you completely ignore the copious evidence that abortion bans don't actually reduce abortions, but do kill women through unsafe abortions.

On the on thing you do address, U.S. statistics, your response is laughable. I give you reputable figures from the Centers for Disease Control from 1973 to 2008. You give ... no actual numbers.

You cherry-pick imaginary statitics for "immediately after Roe v. Wade" (whatever that means), after the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, and "since the recession began."

You give no reason why these alleged numbers for temporary periods would be relevant, let alone more relevant than my long-term statistics OR my worldwide studies.

This is just sad.

There aren't any reliable statistics for illegal abortions, and I don't want to cite unreliable sources or cite guesses.


Non-responsive. My sources do give reliable statistics for illegal abortions, btw -- but I can only presume you didn't even look at them.

Almost all of the points I have raised about your proposal have been flatly ignored. The one's that have been "answered" have been replied to in an absurd or clearly false manner.

I can only conclude you are deliberately wasting the WA's time. Please stop.
Last edited by The Cat-Tribe on Sat Dec 25, 2010 9:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
I quit (again).
The Altani Confederacy wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:With that, I am done with these shenanigans. Do as thou wilt.

Can't miss you until you're gone, Ambassador. Seriously, your delegation is like one of those stores that has a "Going Out Of Business" sale for twenty years. Stay or go, already.*snip*
"Don't give me no shit because . . . I've been Tired . . ." ~ Pixies
With that, "he put his boots on, he took a face from the Ancient Gallery, and he walked on down the Hall . . ."

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:40 pm

Quintessence of Dust wrote:I'm not going to respond to that for two reasons: (i) it should be perfectly apparent that, as we were discussing proposal rules, my comments were OOC; (ii) your character's comments don't appear to have anything to do with optionality, but rather with this fanciful notion that if we classify ourselves as cucumbers we can exempt ourselves from the law.

:clap: Finally . . . someone who also is sane
Last edited by Christian Democrats on Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Linux and the X
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5461
Founded: Apr 29, 2006
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Linux and the X » Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:41 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:
Quintessence of Dust wrote:I'm not going to respond to that for two reasons: (i) it should be perfectly apparent that, as we were discussing proposal rules, my comments were OOC; (ii) your character's comments don't appear to have anything to do with optionality, but rather with this fanciful notion that if we classify ourselves as cucumbers we can exempt ourselves from the law.

:clap: Finally . . . someone who also is sane

If you are sane, I am quite happy to not be sane.
If you see I've made a mistake in my wording or a factual detail, telegram me and I'll fix it. I'll even give you credit for pointing it out, if you'd like.
BLUE LIVES MURDER

[violet]: Maybe we could power our new search engine from the sexual tension between you two.
Me, responding to a request to vote for a liberation: But... but that would blemish my near-perfect history of spitefully voting against anything the SC does!
Farnhamia: That is not to be taken as license to start calling people "buttmunch."

GPG key ID: A8960638 fingerprint: 2239 2687 0B50 2CEC 28F7 D950 CCD0 26FC A896 0638

they/them pronouns

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:47 pm

I've reworded the proposal. Please read the revised draft before posting further comments.

May Moderator Kryozerkia, who said this proposal violates "optionality," please clarify?

Thank you

User avatar
Ossitania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1804
Founded: Feb 19, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Ossitania » Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:56 pm

Kryozerkia shouldn't need to clarify. If you read the rules on GA Proposals, it states that you cannot pass a resolution that WA nations don't necessarily have to follow. The humanocentrism of your proposal means that non-human nations don't have to follow the resolution, therefore, it is an optional proposal and, therefore, illegal.
Guy in the Boat,
GA #146 (Co-authored)
GA #177 (Co-authored)
GA #183(Authored)
GA #198 (Co-authored)
GA #202 (Authored)
GA #206 (Authored)
GA #212 (Co-authored)
GA #238 (Authored)
GA #240 (Authored)

President and Sole Resident of Ossitania

Member of UNOG
Ideological Bulwark #265

User avatar
Urgench
Minister
 
Posts: 2345
Founded: May 21, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Urgench » Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:59 pm

This resolution now violates the CoCR by discriminating against Humans.


Your Excellency will have to do better. By which we mean give up this revolting immoral endeavour.


Yours,
Last edited by Urgench on Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Mongkha, Khan of Kashgar, Ambassador in Plenipotentiary to the World Assembly for the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench -

Exchange Embassies with the CSKU here - viewtopic.php?f=5&t=67

Learn more about Urgench here- http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Urgench

User avatar
Quintessence of Dust
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1507
Founded: Nov 21, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Quintessence of Dust » Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:12 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:Finally . . . someone who also is sane
For the record, I disagree entirely and absolutely with your proposal; I just happen to also disagree with Kryo's justification for her ruling.
Ossitania wrote:Kryozerkia shouldn't need to clarify. If you read the rules on GA Proposals, it states that you cannot pass a resolution that WA nations don't necessarily have to follow. The humanocentrism of your proposal means that non-human nations don't have to follow the resolution, therefore, it is an optional proposal and, therefore, illegal.
To be clear: has there been a ruling on that point in the last year or so? Because it certainly wasn't required before then.

Edit: Hmm...: "so your phrasing has to avoid being obviously attuned to human physiology or current technology". Well, apparently, I'm wrong. That's a fairly enormous change; I'm a little surprised it isn't spelled out in the rules, actually.
Last edited by Quintessence of Dust on Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The fight is long and tough, but together, we can make it. -- José Carlos Mariátegui

Two kinds of pork in one soup? Bring it on. -- Christina Hendricks

User avatar
Glen-Rhodes
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9023
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Glen-Rhodes » Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:44 pm

Quintessence of Dust wrote:Edit: Hmm...: "so your phrasing has to avoid being obviously attuned to human physiology or current technology". Well, apparently, I'm wrong. That's a fairly enormous change; I'm a little surprised it isn't spelled out in the rules, actually.

If that's a ruling and not just advice, then it's just as misguided as Kyro's, in my opinion. There's absolutely no reason why any proposal author needs to make their proposal applicable to every imagined species anybody can come up with. (I still personally don't write with anything other than humans and the modern world in mind...)

I agree that this proposal isn't illegal for optionality. No resolution has an effect on every single member nation. There really is no requirement that they do. The optionality rule is only about making a proposal optional, not writing a proposal that may not apply to certain nations by virtue of the subject matter.
Last edited by Glen-Rhodes on Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Charlotte Ryberg
The Muse of the Westcountry
 
Posts: 15007
Founded: Mar 14, 2007
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Charlotte Ryberg » Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:37 pm

Ms. Harper still feels that the use of the 24 week rule is oddly specific. Also, what about in cases of rape or when the mother's life is in danger?

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:43 pm

Quintessence of Dust wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:Finally . . . someone who also is sane
For the record, I disagree entirely and absolutely with your proposal; I just happen to also disagree with Kryo's justification for her ruling.
Ossitania wrote:Kryozerkia shouldn't need to clarify. If you read the rules on GA Proposals, it states that you cannot pass a resolution that WA nations don't necessarily have to follow. The humanocentrism of your proposal means that non-human nations don't have to follow the resolution, therefore, it is an optional proposal and, therefore, illegal.
To be clear: has there been a ruling on that point in the last year or so? Because it certainly wasn't required before then.

Edit: Hmm...: "so your phrasing has to avoid being obviously attuned to human physiology or current technology". Well, apparently, I'm wrong. That's a fairly enormous change; I'm a little surprised it isn't spelled out in the rules, actually.

Kryozerkia never specified what aspect of my proposal violates the optionality clause, so let's not jump to conclusions; though, I must say the only potential violation of "optionality" I can think of is that my resolution applies only to humans, and, as I continue to say, I do not believe this makes my proposal illegal.

Intellect and the Arts first postulated that the human restriction is what violates optionality.
Last edited by Christian Democrats on Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)
GA#468: Prohibit Private Prisons (57%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:47 pm

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:Ms. Harper still feels that the use of the 24 week rule is oddly specific. Also, what about in cases of rape or when the mother's life is in danger?

If you closely read the definitions, then there are exceptions for maternal life and maternal physical health after week 24.

It is assumed that a woman who conceived of rape would seek an abortion before the 24th week of pregnancy if she wanted to do so.

I chose week 24 because it is during this week that the 50% mark is passed for the percentage of fetuses who are viable (i.e., can live outside of the womb).
Last edited by Christian Democrats on Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Sionis Prioratus
Senator
 
Posts: 3537
Founded: Feb 07, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Sionis Prioratus » Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:08 pm

As far as we are concerned, we shall simply redefine "week" to mean "the time it takes for the Sun to make a complete orbit around the Galactic Center" and therefore we shall never be affected by this cartload of cow manure disguised as written text.

Next!
Cathérine Victoire de Saint-Clair
Haute Ambassadrice for the WA for
✡ The Jewish Kingdom of Sionis Prioratus
Daughter of The Late King Adrian the First
In the Name of
Sa Majesté Impériale Dagobert VI de Saint-Clair
A simple truth

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:15 pm

Sionis Prioratus wrote:As far as we are concerned, we shall simply redefine "week" to mean "the time it takes for the Sun to make a complete orbit around the Galactic Center" and therefore we shall never be affected by this cartload of cow manure disguised as written text.

Next!

A) An orbit is a year, not a week.

B) Is it necessary (or even legal) that I can specify that this proposal should be interpreted for its original intent? Or do the compliance gnomes consider legislative intent?

User avatar
Sionis Prioratus
Senator
 
Posts: 3537
Founded: Feb 07, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Sionis Prioratus » Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:20 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:
Sionis Prioratus wrote:As far as we are concerned, we shall simply redefine "week" to mean "the time it takes for the Sun to make a complete orbit around the Galactic Center" and therefore we shall never be affected by this cartload of cow manure disguised as written text.

Next!

A) An orbit is a year, not a week.


We shall define whatever quantities of time, including "week", as we see fit, we thank Your Excellency.
Cathérine Victoire de Saint-Clair
Haute Ambassadrice for the WA for
✡ The Jewish Kingdom of Sionis Prioratus
Daughter of The Late King Adrian the First
In the Name of
Sa Majesté Impériale Dagobert VI de Saint-Clair
A simple truth

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:33 pm

This is just an opinion:

I do not believe it is in the spirit of fair play or good sportsmanship (considering that this is a game) to try to get around GA resolutions. My nation LEGITIMATELY adheres to all GA resolutions, even those which were adopted before I joined the WA and those with which I completely disagree, especially those resolutions legalizing gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research, and active euthanasia.
Last edited by Christian Democrats on Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:40 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)
GA#468: Prohibit Private Prisons (57%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Imperium Anglorum

Advertisement

Remove ads