by Dobrobyt » Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:31 pm
by Wallenburg » Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:09 pm
by Dobrobyt » Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:10 pm
by Wallenburg » Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:12 pm
by Dobrobyt » Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:14 pm
by United Islands of Evergreen » Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:15 pm
by Wallenburg » Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:15 pm
Dobrobyt wrote:Wallenburg wrote:I would think that the answer is obvious. The target is essential to the protection of abortion rights.
Why do you want to keep current abortion rights? I acknowledge in some cases it is necessary, but in many, there are other options to be considered, such as adoption. Why do you still back abortion, when there are other ways the child can be alive, and the parents will not have to take care of him/her if they don't please to?
by Dobrobyt » Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:17 pm
Wallenburg wrote:Dobrobyt wrote:Why do you want to keep current abortion rights? I acknowledge in some cases it is necessary, but in many, there are other options to be considered, such as adoption. Why do you still back abortion, when there are other ways the child can be alive, and the parents will not have to take care of him/her if they don't please to?
This is not NSG, this is the GA.
by Wallenburg » Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:21 pm
by Dobrobyt » Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:22 pm
Wallenburg wrote:Dobrobyt wrote:Can you answer my questions with a logical answer please?
I gave you a logical answer. I've been involved in plenty of GA abortion threadjacks. I'm cutting this one off before it starts. This thread is for discussing your repeal, not the merits of one abortion policy or another. If you want to talk politics, go to NSG.
by Wallenburg » Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:26 pm
Dobrobyt wrote:Wallenburg wrote:I gave you a logical answer. I've been involved in plenty of GA abortion threadjacks. I'm cutting this one off before it starts. This thread is for discussing your repeal, not the merits of one abortion policy or another. If you want to talk politics, go to NSG.
What I'm saying is, what is your reason for backing the bill except for 'abortion rights'? Be more specific.
by The Sheika » Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:27 pm
by Dobrobyt » Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:30 pm
The Sheika wrote:Opposed. The Federation stands behind the right to choose to have an abortion so long as it is not late in the pregnancy and definitely not a partial birth abortion. The reasons why are more than just because "the parents don't want a child". The world is not that simple. There are medical reasons such as finding out that the fetus would not have a working vital organ and could not survive outside the mother's body without support. There are personal reasons such as contraception not working, even if both parties had used multiple levels, sometimes there is that chance no matter how slim that conception does take place. Lest we forget pregnancies that are the result of heinous sexual crimes; no sapient being should have to be forced to live with that if they choose not to.
These are just reasons I can think of off the top of my head, and I am sure these can be echoed and supplemented with others by other ambassadors.
by United Islands of Evergreen » Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:31 pm
The Sheika wrote:Opposed. The Federation stands behind the right to choose to have an abortion so long as it is not late in the pregnancy and definitely not a partial birth abortion. The reasons why are more than just because "the parents don't want a child". The world is not that simple. There are medical reasons such as finding out that the fetus would not have a working vital organ and could not survive outside the mother's body without support. There are personal reasons such as contraception not working, even if both parties had used multiple levels, sometimes there is that chance no matter how slim that conception does take place. Lest we forget pregnancies that are the result of heinous sexual crimes; no sapient being should have to be forced to live with that if they choose not to.
These are just reasons I can think of off the top of my head, and I am sure these can be echoed and supplemented with others by other ambassadors.
by Dobrobyt » Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:33 pm
United Islands of Evergreen wrote:The Sheika wrote:Opposed. The Federation stands behind the right to choose to have an abortion so long as it is not late in the pregnancy and definitely not a partial birth abortion. The reasons why are more than just because "the parents don't want a child". The world is not that simple. There are medical reasons such as finding out that the fetus would not have a working vital organ and could not survive outside the mother's body without support. There are personal reasons such as contraception not working, even if both parties had used multiple levels, sometimes there is that chance no matter how slim that conception does take place. Lest we forget pregnancies that are the result of heinous sexual crimes; no sapient being should have to be forced to live with that if they choose not to.
These are just reasons I can think of off the top of my head, and I am sure these can be echoed and supplemented with others by other ambassadors.
This is true in a sense. If there was a heinous sexual crime committed, there should be exceptions there. The exceptions should be better explained.
by Wallenburg » Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:34 pm
United Islands of Evergreen wrote:The Sheika wrote:Opposed. The Federation stands behind the right to choose to have an abortion so long as it is not late in the pregnancy and definitely not a partial birth abortion. The reasons why are more than just because "the parents don't want a child". The world is not that simple. There are medical reasons such as finding out that the fetus would not have a working vital organ and could not survive outside the mother's body without support. There are personal reasons such as contraception not working, even if both parties had used multiple levels, sometimes there is that chance no matter how slim that conception does take place. Lest we forget pregnancies that are the result of heinous sexual crimes; no sapient being should have to be forced to live with that if they choose not to.
These are just reasons I can think of off the top of my head, and I am sure these can be echoed and supplemented with others by other ambassadors.
This is true in a sense. If there was a heinous sexual crime committed, there should be exceptions there. The exceptions should be better explained.
by United Islands of Evergreen » Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:36 pm
Wallenburg wrote:United Islands of Evergreen wrote:This is true in a sense. If there was a heinous sexual crime committed, there should be exceptions there. The exceptions should be better explained.
The repeal makes no such exceptions, because it is a repeal. It cannot make new legislation, it can only remove existing legislation. The author is avoiding illegality.
by Dobrobyt » Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:38 pm
Wallenburg wrote:United Islands of Evergreen wrote:This is true in a sense. If there was a heinous sexual crime committed, there should be exceptions there. The exceptions should be better explained.
The repeal makes no such exceptions, because it is a repeal. It cannot make new legislation, it can only remove existing legislation. The author is avoiding illegality.
by The Islands of Versilia » Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:38 pm
by Wallenburg » Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:38 pm
United Islands of Evergreen wrote:Wallenburg wrote:The repeal makes no such exceptions, because it is a repeal. It cannot make new legislation, it can only remove existing legislation. The author is avoiding illegality.
I understand. Thank you for further explaining. Is there a way I could read the original legislation?
by The Sheika » Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:38 pm
Dobrobyt wrote:
As seen in my planned replacement, "Abortion Limitation Act", I stand behind certain cases of abortion such as the ones you listed. We would preserve that part of the bill.
by United Islands of Evergreen » Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:40 pm
Wallenburg wrote:United Islands of Evergreen wrote:
I understand. Thank you for further explaining. Is there a way I could read the original legislation?
Original resolution: viewtopic.php?p=19281778#p19281778
Proposed "replacement": viewtopic.php?f=9&t=420332
by Dobrobyt » Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:40 pm
Wallenburg wrote:United Islands of Evergreen wrote:
I understand. Thank you for further explaining. Is there a way I could read the original legislation?
Original resolution: viewtopic.php?p=19281778#p19281778
Proposed "replacement": viewtopic.php?f=9&t=420332
by Dobrobyt » Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:42 pm
The Sheika wrote:Dobrobyt wrote:
As seen in my planned replacement, "Abortion Limitation Act", I stand behind certain cases of abortion such as the ones you listed. We would preserve that part of the bill.
I had taken note of that and applaud you for that consideration, however the Federation will always stand behind the right to choose. Yes, I would rather other choices be made, as would many in the Federation, but choice is the solid foundation we stand upon.
I do have one question in regard to this repeal. What defines "moral"?
by Wallenburg » Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:42 pm
Dobrobyt wrote:Wallenburg wrote:Original resolution: viewtopic.php?p=19281778#p19281778
Proposed "replacement": viewtopic.php?f=9&t=420332
If this repeal passes, we will have more than just the proposed replacement to choose from, as all WA can contribute on a new law.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement