(SUBMITTED) Defense of Life Act

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Ms. Harper observes that the strength is at too much for an issue such as abortion: is it possible to have it as mild instead?

Although the concerns with the strength must be said, she still opposes this draft as she does not consider abortion to be an international issue.

[Christian Democrats]

Ms. Harper observes that the strength is at too much for an issue such as abortion: is it possible to have it as mild instead?

Although the concerns with the strength must be said, she still opposes this draft as she does not consider abortion to be an international issue.

Strong

Proposals that affect a very broad area of policy and/or use very strong language and possibly detailed clauses to affect a policy area in a dramatic way.

Significant

Proposals that affect a fair-sized area of policy and/or use fairly strong language to affect a policy area.

Mild

Proposals that affect a very limited area of policy and/or use fairly mild language to affect only that policy area, or broader policy areas in a very minor way.

There are multiple reasons I believe "strong" is appropriate:

1) Very strong language is used.

2) The proposal is fairly detailed.

3) The implications of recognizing the personhood of late-term fetuses would have a sweeping affect on the policies of various nations; a large number of rights would be recognized for a certain group who currently doesn't have any recognized rights all at once; policy is affected "in a dramatic way."

In other words, this proposal, if enacted, would affect "a very broad area of policy" because of the massive number of rights that would be recognized.

[Just Guy]

CD, it would probably be beneficial if you tried reaching a compromise on this, since this proposal in its current version would not be even close to passing.

[Christian Democrats]

CD, it would probably be beneficial if you tried reaching a compromise on this, since this proposal in its current version would not be even close to passing.

It all kind of depends on your vote; doesn't it?

Would the nations of 10000 Islands oppose my proposal?

[Eireann Fae WA Mission]

CD, it would probably be beneficial if you tried reaching a compromise on this, since this proposal in its current version would not be even close to passing.

It all kind of depends on your vote; doesn't it?

Would the nations of 10000 Islands oppose my proposal?

"The Nations of 10,000 Islands opposed the Read the Resolution Act. I wouldn't count on them for support."

[Christian Democrats]

It all kind of depends on your vote; doesn't it?

Would the nations of 10000 Islands oppose my proposal?

"The Nations of 10,000 Islands opposed the Read the Resolution Act. I wouldn't count on them for support."

Aside: I oppose(d) the Read the Resolution Act. It does nothing, and there is absolutely no reason for it.

[Eireann Fae WA Mission]

"The Nations of 10,000 Islands opposed the Read the Resolution Act. I wouldn't count on them for support."

Aside: I oppose(d) the Read the Resolution Act. It does nothing, and there is absolutely no reason for it.

"Well, in any case, you will not know whether or not you have their support until a couple of days after the resolution comes up for vote. XKI has their own form of parliament, and vote on the issues internally after they come up for vote here. Delegate Guy has no advance knowledge of the will of the Region."

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Ms. Harper observes that the strength is at too much for an issue such as abortion: is it possible to have it as mild instead?

Although the concerns with the strength must be said, she still opposes this draft as she does not consider abortion to be an international issue.

Strong

Proposals that affect a very broad area of policy and/or use very strong language and possibly detailed clauses to affect a policy area in a dramatic way.

Significant

Proposals that affect a fair-sized area of policy and/or use fairly strong language to affect a policy area.

Mild

Proposals that affect a very limited area of policy and/or use fairly mild language to affect only that policy area, or broader policy areas in a very minor way.

There are multiple reasons I believe "strong" is appropriate:

1) Very strong language is used.

2) The proposal is fairly detailed.

3) The implications of recognizing the personhood of late-term fetuses would have a sweeping affect on the policies of various nations; a large number of rights would be recognized for a certain group who currently doesn't have any recognized rights all at once; policy is affected "in a dramatic way."

In other words, this proposal, if enacted, would affect "a very broad area of policy" because of the massive number of rights that would be recognized.

Ms. Harper cannot see Abortion as a very broad issue in her opinion, therefore there is no way that this draft could be strong.

[Christian Democrats]

Aside: I oppose(d) the Read the Resolution Act. It does nothing, and there is absolutely no reason for it.

"Well, in any case, you will not know whether or not you have their support until a couple of days after the resolution comes up for vote. XKI has their own form of parliament, and vote on the issues internally after they come up for vote here. Delegate Guy has no advance knowledge of the will of the Region."

I thought Just Guy may know the region well enough to make a prediction.

[Just Guy]

I cannot guarantee I am correct, but I am fairly certain 10ki would oppose this resolution as it is currently worded.

Granting a fetus personhood is something to WA would not accept. Even if I voted for it, and I was the first voter, I still believe this would not pass.

A resolution limiting abortions during the third trimester would have a higher chance of passing.

[Christian Democrats]

Proposal submitted.

[Christian Democrats]

I cannot guarantee I am correct, but I am fairly certain 10ki would oppose this resolution as it is currently worded.

Granting a fetus personhood is something to WA would not accept. Even if I voted for it, and I was the first voter, I still believe this would not pass.

A resolution limiting abortions during the third trimester would have a higher chance of passing.

Because of the legal issues I ran into when I was drafting my last proposal, the Parental Consent Act, it seems as if the only legal way to approach abortion restrictions is to recognize personhood; otherwise, an abortion restriction supposedly violates patient's rights.

[Linux and the X]

I cannot guarantee I am correct, but I am fairly certain 10ki would oppose this resolution as it is currently worded.

Granting a fetus personhood is something to WA would not accept. Even if I voted for it, and I was the first voter, I still believe this would not pass.

A resolution limiting abortions during the third trimester would have a higher chance of passing.

Because of the legal issues I ran into when I was drafting my last proposal, the Parental Consent Act, it seems as if the only legal way to approach abortion restrictions is to recognize personhood; otherwise, an abortion restriction supposedly violates patient's rights.

OR! You could just not submit this tripe!

[Intellect and the Arts]

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]

This is only true if you within your nation abide by the taxonomy that refers to the common human race as such. Yes, I'm playing that card.

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.

The kowtowing was his choice. I recall several arguments with people writing resolutions where they ignored certain obvious facts and refused to follow advice as presented. The fact that he didn't ignore that particular piece of rather forcibly presented advice does nothing to recuse him from responsibility for the results.

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!

I didn't say he did have a clause that said "only to x type nations"; however, if a nation is entirely populated by a species other than the very specific "Homo sapiens" referenced in the proposal, you have a nation that doesn't have to comply. It's still a clause of optionality. It's the only clause in the entire proposal that could even be considered to be a clause of optionality, as well.

However, since this has been resubmitted, I suppose the point is relatively moot for the time being.

[Just Guy]

Because of the legal issues I ran into when I was drafting my last proposal, the Parental Consent Act, it seems as if the only legal way to approach abortion restrictions is to recognize personhood; otherwise, an abortion restriction supposedly violates patient's rights.

That's a shame. Still opposing.

[Christian Democrats]

However, since this has been resubmitted, I suppose the point is relatively moot for the time being.

This is the first submission.

[Intellect and the Arts]

My bad. Not sure why my brain temporarily categorized this piece as a re-working of your previous abortion law proposal, but it did. >.<

[Keronians]

FOR.

[Intellect and the Arts]

I was wrong. The point isn't moot. The final clause stating the proposal only applies to humans puts it in violation of CoCR provision 2)a. It unfairly discriminates against members of Homo sapiens by placing racially-based restrictions on access to a public service in nations where abortions are legalized in a less restrictive manner than the methods outlined herein. So, yes, that clause makes this proposal illegal, whether others agree with me on the concept of optionality or not.

[Christian Democrats]

I was wrong. The point isn't moot. The final clause stating the proposal only applies to humans puts it in violation of CoCR provision 2)a. It unfairly discriminates against members of Homo sapiens by placing racially-based restrictions on access to a public service in nations where abortions are legalized in a less restrictive manner than the methods outlined herein. So, yes, that clause makes this proposal illegal, whether others agree with me on the concept of optionality or not.

Moderator Ardchoille, in this thread, recently made a ruling to the contrary.

[Christian Democrats]

precedent says that the GA may legislate on subsets of the international population

^ Relevant quote from the judicial opinion

[Glen-Rhodes]

I was wrong. The point isn't moot. The final clause stating the proposal only applies to humans puts it in violation of CoCR provision 2)a. It unfairly discriminates against members of Homo sapiens by placing racially-based restrictions on access to a public service in nations where abortions are legalized in a less restrictive manner than the methods outlined herein. So, yes, that clause makes this proposal illegal, whether others agree with me on the concept of optionality or not.

You've got to be kidding me.

[Intellect and the Arts]

precedent says that the GA may legislate on subsets of the international population

^ Relevant quote from the judicial opinion

What Ard was saying is that you don't have to make a proposal fit every nook and cranny of every possible species ever to be RP'd in NationStates. However, what CoCR states is that you cannot be racially discriminatory, meaning you can't flat out say 'only these types of people get to do this', even if you are effectively doing just that in an implicit fashion. It's the difference between removing audience members from the camera-visible rows of a studio audience because their appearance pulls focus and flat out stating "no blacks in the front row" when expecting a primarily Caucasoid attendance.

Bad metaphor, I know, but I'm not sure how better to explain it due to the difference being a little too obvious to me.

I was wrong. The point isn't moot. The final clause stating the proposal only applies to humans puts it in violation of CoCR provision 2)a. It unfairly discriminates against members of Homo sapiens by placing racially-based restrictions on access to a public service in nations where abortions are legalized in a less restrictive manner than the methods outlined herein. So, yes, that clause makes this proposal illegal, whether others agree with me on the concept of optionality or not.

You've got to be kidding me.

No, I'm not kidding. There's no real reason for that clause to even exist. Without it, the proposal is perfectly legal and accomplishes the same thing it would if the clause were to remain. It's an unnecessary redundancy placed in the proposal to pacify illegitimate concerns that unfortunately accomplishes the opposite of what it desired to achieve.

[Christian Democrats]

^ Relevant quote from the judicial opinion

What Ard was saying is that you don't have to make a proposal fit every nook and cranny of every possible species ever to be RP'd in NationStates. However, what CoCR states is that you cannot be racially discriminatory, meaning you can't flat out say 'only these types of people get to do this', even if you are effectively doing just that in an implicit fashion. It's the difference between removing audience members from the camera-visible rows of a studio audience because their appearance pulls focus and flat out stating "no blacks in the front row" when expecting a primarily Caucasoid attendance.

Bad metaphor, I know, but I'm not sure how better to explain it due to the difference being a little too obvious to me.

You've got to be kidding me.

No, I'm not kidding. There's no real reason for that clause to even exist. Without it, the proposal is perfectly legal and accomplishes the same thing it would if the clause were to remain. It's an unnecessary redundancy placed in the proposal to pacify illegitimate concerns that unfortunately accomplishes the opposite of what it desired to achieve.

Homo sapiens isn't a race.

Different species, even similar ones, often have different gestation periods. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestation_period)

[Intellect and the Arts]

Homo sapiens isn't a race.

That's arguable, depending on whether one wishes to use the real life or roleplay based definitions of the word (and for once it might be reasonable to use the latter, though that could be a stretch); however, it's still an "arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination", which is illegal for the same reason and under the exact same clause of CoCR.