NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] Repeal "On Abortion"

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

[DRAFT] Repeal "On Abortion"

Postby Christian Democrats » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:22 pm

A new draft of this proposal will be composed soon. If you have any ideas or reasons to repeal On Abortion, please post here. (I may offer coauthor credit.) Creating your own proposal will complicate the debate. We do not need a half dozen competing proposals to repeal On Abortion. Last time, this led to none of the repeal proposals reaching quorum.

No one can do anything to stop you from introducing your own proposal, but remember that more proposals will lessen the chances of any proposal passing.

You've had months to try to repeal On Abortion on your own. Please do not use this opportunity to piggyback and come up with your own proposal. I promised not to write another draft until June. You've been free to try to repeal On Abortion all along; if you haven't taken that chance, please do not ruin this effort by overwhelming the General Assembly will too many repeal proposals.


The sections that have been marked through and in red have been declared illegal by the moderators.

The parts in blue have been questioned by moderators for legality concerns.

REPEAL "ON ABORTION"

Coauthor: The People of Belfast

The General Assembly, intending to adopt replacement legislation, hereby repeals Resolution #128, On Abortion, because of concerns that:

1. Section 1 legalizes abortion for everyone who's younger than the age of consent for any reason and for the entire duration of pregnancy. Also, such girls may procure abortions without consulting their parents.

2. Rewarding statutory rapists, Section 1 allows a woman older than the age of consent to procure an abortion for any reason and at any time if the male who impregnated her was younger than the age of consent at the time the sexual act leading to her pregnancy occurred.

3. Even if a condition isn't fatal, Section 1 allows women to abort fetuses who will be born with incurable, painful conditions. Because "painful" isn't defined, it can include conditions that are discomforting, emotional, or psychological.

4. A woman can procure an abortion for any reason if she claims that her pregnancy is causing her suicidal thoughts.

5. Because being pregnant is inherently risky, it isn't rational to legalize abortion when pregnancy poses a risk to a woman’s life or health.

6. Certain abortions are allowed for the entire term of a pregnancy even when labor induction is a viable option.

7. Section 2 places an undue burden on nations in economic trouble or with primarily rural populations by requiring “countries to ensure that abortion facilities are easily available.”

8. Section 3 allows someone else, other than an incapacitated woman’s doctor, to make a decision whether such a woman should have an abortion that can preserve her life or health. In cases of rape, someone else can decide whether an abortion should be performed even when it's possible that a woman may not desire an abortion.

9. Section 3 discriminates against incapacitated women who are loners (women who have no legal next-of-kin or for whom such kin can't be contacted) by providing no alternative process for which consent for an emergency abortion can be obtained. If consent for such a woman can't be obtained, then an abortion that can preserve her life or health can't be provided.

10. Section 4 requires all abortions to be performed by surgeons even though not all abortions are surgical. This provision makes it more difficult for women to access abortifacients such as mifepristone. This clause also limits women’s access to emergency contraception in nations where pregnancy is defined as beginning at fertilization.

11. Section 5, while allowing physicians to refuse to perform abortions, doesn't explicitly protect such doctors from being penalized, either by governments or employers, for doing so.

12. Section 7 implicitly blocks this Assembly from considering legislation that would restrict or reduce abortion while still allowing it to consider proposals that would loosen international abortion law.

13. Breaking with this Assembly's record of protecting transgender and intersex persons, this resolution discriminates against pregnant males by applying only "to any pregnant female."
Last edited by Christian Democrats on Thu Jun 02, 2011 10:46 am, edited 60 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

User avatar
Umbra Ac Silentium
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11722
Founded: Aug 03, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Umbra Ac Silentium » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:25 pm

Hah, no, I hope it succeeds, more power to the women!

Economic Left/Right: -0.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.97
Other Compass
The Holy Therns wrote:Your thought pattern is so bizarre I can't even be offended anymore.

User avatar
Fotar
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 148
Founded: Sep 13, 2007
New York Times Democracy

Postby Fotar » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:30 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:If "On Abortion" passes in the General Assembly, I plan immediately to submit a proposal to repeal it. I currently am writing a first draft and soon will post it here.

Please do not comment until I have posted a first draft.

Please campaign against "On Abortion," an abominable proposal that, despite its category, infringes on human rights.

You have my complete, undivided support. The current legislation at vote makes me sick.
:blink:
Founder and Lord Regent of the second Council of Narnia
One-time Delegate of Balder
Progress through Respect. Power through Honor.

User avatar
Rawrgirnia
Attaché
 
Posts: 72
Founded: Aug 21, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Rawrgirnia » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:32 pm

Fotar wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:If "On Abortion" passes in the General Assembly, I plan immediately to submit a proposal to repeal it. I currently am writing a first draft and soon will post it here.

Please do not comment until I have posted a first draft.

Please campaign against "On Abortion," an abominable proposal that, despite its category, infringes on human rights.

You have my complete, undivided support. The current legislation at vote makes me sick.
:blink:


And just think.. CD started it all! :bow:

User avatar
Great Nepal
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28677
Founded: Jan 11, 2010
Father Knows Best State

Postby Great Nepal » Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:05 pm

"On abortion" proposal is one of the most sensible proposal the world assembly has even seen; especially in sector of abortion. We will not be supporting any attempt to repeal it as we see no sensible reason to do so.
Last edited by Great Nepal on Sun Nov 29, 1995 7:02 am, edited 1 time in total.


User avatar
Xanthal
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1028
Founded: Apr 16, 2005
New York Times Democracy

Postby Xanthal » Tue Jan 11, 2011 12:16 am

Xanthal's vote is against the resolution put forth by Charlotte Ryberg, but I cannot presently commit to a repeal. Frankly, I've found the entire exchange on this issue over the past week rather lacking in reason, on both sides. At present, I can't say I have much sympathy for the position of either Charlotte Ryberg or Christian Democrats; or any of the other, even less well thought out proposals that have made their way to the queue on their coattails. The World Assembly needs moderate and reasonable legislation that both guarantees the basic right to abortion and places limits on its practice. It is distressing to see pundits on both sides seeking to build resolutions that are as radical as they feel able to get away with.

Riley Fluffer
General Assembly IC
Security Council OOC

User avatar
Grays Harbor
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18121
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Grays Harbor » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:46 am

Christian Democrats wrote:If "On Abortion" passes in the General Assembly, I plan immediately to submit a proposal to repeal it. I currently am writing a first draft and soon will post it here.

Please do not comment until I have posted a first draft.

Please campaign against "On Abortion," an abominable proposal that, despite its category, infringes on human rights.

Rather ironic coming from a nation whose own proposal is an attempt to completely remove abortion rights except in certain rare circumstances. We expect that your repeal shall be greeted with open arms1, similar to your own abortion bill which has failed to reach queue numerous times.


1 - "open arms" in this usage was presented with use of [sarcasm] font.
Last edited by Grays Harbor on Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
I am The Grumpy Old Man. A True Curmudgeon.

And, oh yeah, ... You kids get off my lawn. Seriously. Off. Now.

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

Postby Charlotte Ryberg » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:55 am

Sorry to say this, but Ms. Harper finds this ironic because the restrictive proposal that honoured ambassador from Christian Democrats tried to draft inspired me to develop the heavily debated compromise now at vote. What does this draft mean by infringing human rights? The right of member countries to force rape victims to rear a baby which they would likely despise or even abuse?

- Ms. S. Harper.

User avatar
The People of Belfast
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 142
Founded: Aug 03, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby The People of Belfast » Tue Jan 11, 2011 5:02 am

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:Sorry to say this, but Ms. Harper finds this ironic because the restrictive proposal that honoured ambassador from Christian Democrats tried to draft inspired me to develop the heavily debated compromise now at vote. What does this draft mean by infringing human rights? The right of member countries to force rape victims to rear a baby which they would likely despise or even abuse?

- Ms. S. Harper.


Who said anything about rearing it? We are just suggesting that individual Nations should be left up to decide whether or not she is allowed to abort it. As per the Reduction of Abortion Act nations are already mandated to provide adoption services.
Economic Left/Right: -5.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.13

User avatar
St George of England
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8922
Founded: Aug 25, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby St George of England » Tue Jan 11, 2011 5:09 am

The People of Belfast wrote:
Charlotte Ryberg wrote:Sorry to say this, but Ms. Harper finds this ironic because the restrictive proposal that honoured ambassador from Christian Democrats tried to draft inspired me to develop the heavily debated compromise now at vote. What does this draft mean by infringing human rights? The right of member countries to force rape victims to rear a baby which they would likely despise or even abuse?

- Ms. S. Harper.


Who said anything about rearing it? We are just suggesting that individual Nations should be left up to decide whether or not she is allowed to abort it. As per the Reduction of Abortion Act nations are already mandated to provide adoption services.

And there's always enough foster parents and couples looking to adopt. :roll:
The Angline-Guanxine Empire
Current Monarch: His Heavenly Guanxine The Ky Morris
Population: As NS Page
Current RP: Closure of the Paulianus Passage
The United Coven of the Otherworlds
Current Leader: Covenwoman Paige Thomas
Population: 312,000,000
Military Size: 4,000,000
New to NS? TG me if you have questions.

User avatar
The People of Belfast
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 142
Founded: Aug 03, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby The People of Belfast » Tue Jan 11, 2011 5:11 am

St George of England wrote:
The People of Belfast wrote:
Who said anything about rearing it? We are just suggesting that individual Nations should be left up to decide whether or not she is allowed to abort it. As per the Reduction of Abortion Act nations are already mandated to provide adoption services.

And there's always enough foster parents and couples looking to adopt. :roll:


Is not always having enough foster parents ground for an abortion. It isn't unreasonable that some people will be uncomfortable in forcing a woman to continue with a pregnancy that started with a rape. It also isn't unreasonable that some people will be uncomfortable in allowing a woman to terminate her child simply due to the crimes of the child's father. Giving that there is never going to be a consensus on this issue surely it should be left up to individual nations to decide for themselves?
Last edited by The People of Belfast on Tue Jan 11, 2011 5:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Economic Left/Right: -5.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.13

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

Postby Urgench » Tue Jan 11, 2011 5:32 am

The People of Belfast wrote:Is not always having enough foster parents ground for an abortion. It isn't unreasonable that some people will be uncomfortable in forcing a woman to continue with a pregnancy that started with a rape. It also isn't unreasonable that some people will be uncomfortable in allowing a woman to terminate her child simply due to the crimes of the child's father. Giving that there is never going to be a consensus on this issue surely it should be left up to individual nations to decide for themselves?



Well no your Excellency, all your description in fact proves is that the decision on whether to abort a pregnancy should not be in the hands of other people than the Mother. Considering that "some people" will not have to live with effects of whatever the mother chooses to do they have no interest in the decision, what "some people" think about that decision is immaterial. Your own reasoning in fact only proves that this decision should be left up to individual women to decide for themselves.


Yours,
- 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
The People of Belfast
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 142
Founded: Aug 03, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby The People of Belfast » Tue Jan 11, 2011 5:42 am

Urgench wrote:
The People of Belfast wrote:Is not always having enough foster parents ground for an abortion. It isn't unreasonable that some people will be uncomfortable in forcing a woman to continue with a pregnancy that started with a rape. It also isn't unreasonable that some people will be uncomfortable in allowing a woman to terminate her child simply due to the crimes of the child's father. Giving that there is never going to be a consensus on this issue surely it should be left up to individual nations to decide for themselves?



Well no your Excellency, all your description in fact proves is that the decision on whether to abort a pregnancy should not be in the hands of other people than the Mother. Considering that "some people" will not have to live with effects of whatever the mother chooses to do they have no interest in the decision, what "some people" think about that decision is immaterial. Your own reasoning in fact only proves that this decision should be left up to individual women to decide for themselves.


Yours,


But many people view the issue as not being a one sided issue. The woman is not the only person involved in the situation. There are two people involved (in the opinion of some people), the mother and the child. As the child is not able to defend itself should the state not be able to act as an advocate for it?
Economic Left/Right: -5.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.13

User avatar
St George of England
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8922
Founded: Aug 25, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby St George of England » Tue Jan 11, 2011 5:49 am

Umbra Ac Silentium wrote:Hah, no, I hope it succeeds, more power to the women!

I agree with the ambassador from Umbra Ac Silentium. It is my dearest wish that my nation regains it's delegate status post-haste, so I can look forward to seeing this in the queue, getting myself another scotch, and not approving it.
The People of Belfast wrote:
Urgench wrote:

Well no your Excellency, all your description in fact proves is that the decision on whether to abort a pregnancy should not be in the hands of other people than the Mother. Considering that "some people" will not have to live with effects of whatever the mother chooses to do they have no interest in the decision, what "some people" think about that decision is immaterial. Your own reasoning in fact only proves that this decision should be left up to individual women to decide for themselves.


Yours,


But many people view the issue as not being a one sided issue. The woman is not the only person involved in the situation. There are two people involved (in the opinion of some people), the mother and the child. As the child is not able to defend itself should the state not be able to act as an advocate for it?
But it's not a child. It is a fetus. It isn't a child until it is born.
The Angline-Guanxine Empire
Current Monarch: His Heavenly Guanxine The Ky Morris
Population: As NS Page
Current RP: Closure of the Paulianus Passage
The United Coven of the Otherworlds
Current Leader: Covenwoman Paige Thomas
Population: 312,000,000
Military Size: 4,000,000
New to NS? TG me if you have questions.

User avatar
The People of Belfast
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 142
Founded: Aug 03, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby The People of Belfast » Tue Jan 11, 2011 5:52 am

St George of England wrote:But it's not a child. It is a fetus. It isn't a child until it is born.


That is your opinion on the matter. It isn't the accepted opinion of the World Assembly and as such that destinction is left up to member states.
Economic Left/Right: -5.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.13

User avatar
St George of England
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8922
Founded: Aug 25, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby St George of England » Tue Jan 11, 2011 5:54 am

The People of Belfast wrote:
St George of England wrote:But it's not a child. It is a fetus. It isn't a child until it is born.


That is your opinion on the matter. It isn't the accepted opinion of the World Assembly and as such that destinction is left up to member states.

It's also my opinion that your nation is on the side of rapists and terrorists, but that's neither here nor there.

The facts of the matter are, people like you would rather a woman die than abort.
The Angline-Guanxine Empire
Current Monarch: His Heavenly Guanxine The Ky Morris
Population: As NS Page
Current RP: Closure of the Paulianus Passage
The United Coven of the Otherworlds
Current Leader: Covenwoman Paige Thomas
Population: 312,000,000
Military Size: 4,000,000
New to NS? TG me if you have questions.

User avatar
The People of Belfast
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 142
Founded: Aug 03, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby The People of Belfast » Tue Jan 11, 2011 5:59 am

St George of England wrote:
The People of Belfast wrote:
That is your opinion on the matter. It isn't the accepted opinion of the World Assembly and as such that destinction is left up to member states.

It's also my opinion that your nation is on the side of rapists and terrorists, but that's neither here nor there.

The facts of the matter are, people like you would rather a woman die than abort.


That isn't true. I believe that if the Resolution "On Abortion" had stoped purely at allowing Abortion to save the life of the mother I would have voted for it. I opposed it because it was far more radical than that, allowing it in cases of rape even when there is no threat to her life, Abortion on demand for those under the age of consent, a backdoor to abortion on demand due to the "mental condition" clause, health issues for the woman instead of purely life threatening situations and fetal abnormality, even in those instances where the child could survive. This is why I opposed the resolution and why I would repeal it if it passes. If it had stopped at just protecting the life of the mother I would have supported it.
Last edited by The People of Belfast on Tue Jan 11, 2011 5:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Economic Left/Right: -5.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.13

User avatar
Teshuva
Attaché
 
Posts: 68
Founded: Nov 28, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Teshuva » Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:09 am

This is quite disrespectful towards democracy and the established mechanics of political debate on the WA. If your view on the subject is not that of the majority of member nations, it is a shame you simply can't accept it.

User avatar
Meekinos
Diplomat
 
Posts: 776
Founded: Sep 10, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Meekinos » Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:24 am

Isn't that adorable? A little backwater nation wishes to forcefully deprive sentient beings of their natural right to bodily sovereignty in order to satisfy their perverse moral needs.

* Section 1 legalizes abortion for all of those who are younger than the age of consent for any reason and for the entire duration of a pregnancy. Also, such girls are allowed to obtain abortions without consulting their parents.

There is nothing in the text of the proposal preventing this from being addressed at the national level.

* Section 3 allows someone else, other than an incapacitated woman’s doctor, to make a decision when such a woman should and should not have an abortion that can preserve her life or health.

How hypocritical that your even bringing this up considering your proposal seeks to prevent capable women from making their own decisions by establishing arbitrary cut offs.

* It discriminates against incapacitated women who are loners because Section 3 provides no alternative process for which consent for an emergency abortion can be obtained if a woman has no legal next-of-kin or no next-of-kin can be reached. Therefore, because consent cannot be obtained, such a woman is expected to go without an emergency abortion, that is, an abortion that can preserve her life or health.

Just because this particular proposal doesn't address this one point doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It would be unreasonable to expect every eventuality to be legislated. Further, overlapping would have occurred if the clause had granted permission for the circumstances you mention. Resolution #29 already provides for circumstances under which consent is not required.

* In the absence of relevant national legislation, a loophole exists wherein a woman can procure an abortion for any reason if she claims that her pregnancy is causing her suicidal thoughts.

The nations who wish for such legislation on their books are entitled to create it. Those who do not want it don't have to, so it is not a loophole if the nation in question declines to address it.

* Section 4 requires all abortions to be performed by surgeons even though not all abortions are surgical; many abortions are non-surgical, or chemical. This provision limits women’s access to abortifacients such as mifepristone, which, previous to On Abortion’s enactment, could be prescribed under international law by other kinds of doctors and pharmacists in nations where abortion was legal. This clause also limits women’s access to emergency contraception, sometimes known as morning-after pills, in nations where pregnancy is defined as beginning at fertilization.

If you have been arsed to even read the proposal, it does NOT require all abortions to be performed by surgeons, it holds the attending physician to the same high standard. There is a huge difference between holding a physician to the same standards as a surgeon and requiring a surgeon to perform the procedure. This clause in no way reduces or limits access.

Further, this does not pertain to "morning after pills", as those do not actively require a person to undergo any form of medical procedure. Don't use a red herring in your argument; it makes you appear foolish. A morning after pill is not an abortion pill because it only prevents the fertilized egg from implanting itself. It has no affect if the egg has nested itself into the uterus. This type of pill is known as an inhibitor as it prevents the egg itself from implanting itself. If the egg itself is implanted, this pill had no affect whatsoever.

* It allows certain abortions for the entire term of a pregnancy, even when labor induction is a viable option.

That is not necessarily a fault or flaw in the legislation, it's a matter of opinion.

* Section 3 creates a distinct process under which consent is obtained for women who cannot consent to abortions whereas Resolution #29, the Patient’s Rights Act, outlines a different process whereby consent is obtained for incapacitated patients.

If the proposal proposed the same process, the proposal would overlap onto the resolution, which would no doubt cause issues.

* Section 7 implicitly blocks the General Assembly from considering legislation that would restrict or reduce abortion while still allowing it to consider proposals that would loosen international abortion law.

Really? It prevents resolution #44: Reduction of Abortion from existing?

* Section 3 allows an incapacitated woman’s legal next-of-kin to make the decision whether or not she should have an abortion, even in cases of rape and statutory rape wherein the incapacitated woman, if she could communicate, may not want an abortion.

If you're going to keep making this point, don't insert other arguments between these arguments.

This point is irrelevant, however, because there is no one single solution for this situation. If this was a perfect world, everything could be done by the book, but this isn't a perfect world and every contingency cannot be planned for. There are too many unknowns, and the proposal implicitly acknowledges that.

* Because being pregnant is inherently risky, it does not make sense to legalize abortion when pregnancy poses a risk to a woman’s life or health.

Ok... so if something is risky, there is no point in taking precautions is what you're saying here. Right.

I guess then I should remove the safety from my gun. It's risky to carry it, so there is no point in having the safety on. Oh? You didn't know? I always carried a concealed weapon, even when I was a Senator.

* Section 4 does not consider the pain that a late-term fetus can experience during an abortion.

It merely states that the process should be as painless as possible. Which means the clause is open to interpretation. It doesn't say that the process must be painless to the mother, just that the process must be as painless as possible, from which we can infer that it means the foetus should in theory not be subject to pain.

* Section 5, while allowing physicians to refuse to perform abortions, does not explicitly protect such doctors for being penalized, either by governments or their employers, for doing so.

Covered in section 6 of the proposal.

* It discriminates against defective fetuses.

How?

* Section 2 places an undue burden on nations in economic trouble and nations with primarily rural populations by requiring “countries to ensure that abortion facilities are easily available.”

There is more than one way to skin a cat. This clause leaves it up to the nation to ensure that the facilities are easily available, which can be accomplished in a number of ways. As long as the nation is compliant, it doesn't matter how it goes about ensuring availability,

* Section 1 does not define what constitutes an incurable and painful condition.

There are many conditions that exist which fit that description. It is needless to define those terms. What may be incurable for one nation may be treatable for another.

* It discriminates against pregnant males.

It took almost the entire proposal to find one valid point. This is the first and last valid point.

* ‘Mild’ is an inappropriate category for a piece of legislation with such sweeping effects.

The rationale for the category given by the author makes logical sense as it covers a small area of human rights. You may feel that it has a sweeping effect but it doesn't necessarily make it so.
Ambassador Gavriil Floros
Meekinos' Official WA Ambassador
Deputy Treasurer, North Pleides Merchant's Syndicate
CEO & Financial Manager of Delta Energy Ltd.
Madame Elina Nikodemos
Executive Senior Delegate
Educator
The Hellenic Republic of Meekinos
Factbook: Your Friendly Guide to Meekinos
The paranoid, isolationist, xenophobic capitalists.

User avatar
Sremski okrug
Minister
 
Posts: 3177
Founded: Jul 02, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Sremski okrug » Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:29 am

Great Nepal wrote:"On abortion" proposal is one of the most sensible proposal the world assembly has even seen; especially in sector of abortion. We will not be supporting any attempt to repeal it as we see no sensible reason to do so.


The Sremski Government supports this comment.
IC: The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
The IMF and World Bank are terrorist organizations.
"Our future destiny rests with us, sometimes this makes us afraid but then we remember we have Partisans blood and we know what we're here for. You can count on us" - Day of Youth
"We're Tito. Tito is Ours"

Druze Tito, Bela Lica
Tito, je naše sunce
Yugoslav culture
R.I.P Jovanka Broz

User avatar
The People of Belfast
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 142
Founded: Aug 03, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby The People of Belfast » Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:29 am

Meekinos wrote:Isn't that adorable? A little backwater nation wishes to forcefully deprive sentient beings of their natural right to bodily sovereignty in order to satisfy their perverse moral needs.


I do believe that the little backwater nations want to retain the soverignty to settle this contreversial matter at a national level instead of having it forced on them.
Economic Left/Right: -5.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.13

User avatar
St George of England
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8922
Founded: Aug 25, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby St George of England » Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:34 am

The People of Belfast wrote:
Meekinos wrote:Isn't that adorable? A little backwater nation wishes to forcefully deprive sentient beings of their natural right to bodily sovereignty in order to satisfy their perverse moral needs.


I do believe that the little backwater nations want to retain the soverignty to settle this contreversial matter at a national level instead of having it forced on them.

Then leave the World Assembly.
The Angline-Guanxine Empire
Current Monarch: His Heavenly Guanxine The Ky Morris
Population: As NS Page
Current RP: Closure of the Paulianus Passage
The United Coven of the Otherworlds
Current Leader: Covenwoman Paige Thomas
Population: 312,000,000
Military Size: 4,000,000
New to NS? TG me if you have questions.

User avatar
Albaire
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 10
Founded: Dec 15, 2010
Ex-Nation

If you give a mouse a cookie....

Postby Albaire » Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:36 am

The disease of the Left Wing ideology continues. It HAS to be done or you are violating someone's right to choose.

Forget the fact it's violating my religious rights to object to abortions. To them religion is a plague as well. They claim to want freedoms for everyone, but in fact only want control on everyone:

You have the right to your own religion [until your beliefs conflict with ours]
You have the right to free speech [until what you say contradicts or conflicts with what we say]
You have the right to vote [until you vote for the wrong person -then your vote is made by the courts]
You have the right to capitalist choices [until your choices are for corporations in it for the money]
You have the right to income and a steady job [until you make too much money]
You have the right to health insurance coverage [but you have to pay for your neighbors' first]
You have the right to travel where ever you choose [but you much give up your right to privacy in order to get there]

It's all about control. Forget the freedoms of choice and personal preferences. If you don't agree with them you are automatically wrong, filled with hate, and you are a menace and disease toward society. If it's not done their way then the entire system is corrupt and must be destroyed.

You're repeal will have my vote.

User avatar
Albaire
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 10
Founded: Dec 15, 2010
Ex-Nation

You're putting the right to choose in the wrong place

Postby Albaire » Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:40 am

Umbra Ac Silentium wrote:Hah, no, I hope it succeeds, more power to the women!



...and more death to the future of the human race!
When your 'right to choose' interferes with my future generations, I must take offense.

If you don't want kids: STOP F***ING so many guys! Try that as a CHOICE

User avatar
Sremski okrug
Minister
 
Posts: 3177
Founded: Jul 02, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Sremski okrug » Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:41 am

Albaire wrote:
Umbra Ac Silentium wrote:Hah, no, I hope it succeeds, more power to the women!



...and more death to the future of the human race!
When your 'right to choose' interferes with my future generations, I must take offense.

If you don't want kids: STOP F***ING so many guys! Try that as a CHOICE


What in cases of rape or if prevention methods like condoms fail?
IC: The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
The IMF and World Bank are terrorist organizations.
"Our future destiny rests with us, sometimes this makes us afraid but then we remember we have Partisans blood and we know what we're here for. You can count on us" - Day of Youth
"We're Tito. Tito is Ours"

Druze Tito, Bela Lica
Tito, je naše sunce
Yugoslav culture
R.I.P Jovanka Broz

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads