It denies nations the right to determine the morality of something. By deliberately protecting the "right" to abortion, you are acknowledging, albeit indirectly, that it is morally licit.
Advertisement
by United Massachusetts » Mon Aug 07, 2017 3:45 am
by Separatist Peoples » Mon Aug 07, 2017 4:19 am
by Greifenburg » Mon Aug 07, 2017 4:52 am
United Massachusetts wrote:It denies nations the right to determine the morality of something. By deliberately protecting the "right" to abortion, you are acknowledging, albeit indirectly, that it is morally licit.
by Bears Armed » Mon Aug 07, 2017 6:55 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:"In regards to the limitations on killing a human to protect one's bodily sovereignty, it is legal in the C.D.S.P. to shoot somebody for trying to jack your car, so that position looks perfectly reasonable to those of us with robust self defense laws."
by The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper » Mon Aug 07, 2017 7:11 am
Bears Armed wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:"In regards to the limitations on killing a human to protect one's bodily sovereignty, it is legal in the C.D.S.P. to shoot somebody for trying to jack your car, so that position looks perfectly reasonable to those of us with robust self defense laws."
"Even though the decision to 'jack your car' would have been made by the person being shot, whereas the the foetus being present within its mother is a situation into which the foetus itself had no conscious input and that -- in most cases, anyhows -- would have been at least partly due to a decision by the mother? That hardly seems a genuinely comparable situation...
"Tell me, please, if a motorist in your nation invites a hitchhiker into their car, are they then allowed to shoot that passenger even in the absence of any threats or hostile actions from the hitchhiker?"
Urrna Silvertrees,
Apprentice Voice, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.
by States of Glory WA Office » Mon Aug 07, 2017 7:58 am
Christian Democrats wrote:We support any and every attempt to repeal so-called "Reproductive Freedoms."
by Dobrobyt » Mon Aug 07, 2017 8:03 am
by Uinted Communist of Africa » Mon Aug 07, 2017 8:06 am
by New Waldensia » Mon Aug 07, 2017 8:19 am
Army of Freedom medals received:
• N-Day² Medals -- N-Day³ Medals -- N-Day⁴ Medals
• Z-Day6 Medals
by Separatist Peoples » Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:06 am
New Waldensia wrote:Josiah Garrett, the Delegate from New Waldensia, rises from his seat.
"New Waldensia stands in full support of repealing WAR286, the so-called "Reproductive Freedoms" act.
For one thing, I believe WAR286 violates WAR128 ('On Abortion'). For that reason alone it should be repealed.
My nation, and many others like it, is committed to protecting innocent life, that of the pre-born in particular.
To the delegates who oppose Repeal on the grounds of "legislating morality", WAR286 itself legislates a brand of morality. Every measure this body or any other legal, deliberative body passes legislates morality.
I urge my fellow delegates to support this measure."
Bears Armed wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:"In regards to the limitations on killing a human to protect one's bodily sovereignty, it is legal in the C.D.S.P. to shoot somebody for trying to jack your car, so that position looks perfectly reasonable to those of us with robust self defense laws."
"Even though the decision to 'jack your car' would have been made by the person being shot, whereas the the foetus being present within its mother is a situation into which the foetus itself had no conscious input and that -- in most cases, anyhows -- would have been at least partly due to a decision by the mother? That hardly seems a genuinely comparable situation...
"Tell me, please, if a motorist in your nation invites a hitchhiker into their car, are they then allowed to shoot that passenger even in the absence of any threats or hostile actions from the hitchhiker?"
Urrna Silvertrees,
Apprentice Voice, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.
by New Waldensia » Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:17 am
Army of Freedom medals received:
• N-Day² Medals -- N-Day³ Medals -- N-Day⁴ Medals
• Z-Day6 Medals
by Wallenburg » Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:20 am
by Dobrobyt » Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:22 am
Wallenburg wrote:Even if I supported this, I would disagree that your proposal is "ready to go".
by Chus Kruthe » Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:26 am
by Dobrobyt » Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:28 am
Chus Kruthe wrote:Chus Kruthe opposes this repeal effort strongly. Especially after having seen the authors horrid proposed replacement which would essentially outlaw abortion in most cases. We believe women have the right to an abortion and do not believe that we should allow the world assembly to legislate women's bodies.
by Wallenburg » Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:30 am
Dobrobyt wrote:Wallenburg wrote:Even if I supported this, I would disagree that your proposal is "ready to go".
I have consulted some, and revised the above-seen "Revised Draft" and I do not really see what else can be done. I modified the one sentence with a first-person perspective to make it legal, and changed wording. Do you wish to elaborate on why not? I think this will definitely satisfy pro-lifers and a decent amount of moderates as well.
by Chus Kruthe » Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:31 am
Dobrobyt wrote:Chus Kruthe wrote:Chus Kruthe opposes this repeal effort strongly. Especially after having seen the authors horrid proposed replacement which would essentially outlaw abortion in most cases. We believe women have the right to an abortion and do not believe that we should allow the world assembly to legislate women's bodies.
By repealing this, any nation or author would have the chance to make a replacement, not just Dobrobyt.
by Dobrobyt » Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:34 am
Wallenburg wrote:Dobrobyt wrote:
I have consulted some, and revised the above-seen "Revised Draft" and I do not really see what else can be done. I modified the one sentence with a first-person perspective to make it legal, and changed wording. Do you wish to elaborate on why not? I think this will definitely satisfy pro-lifers and a decent amount of moderates as well.
To begin with, you could follow United Massachusetts's advice. They are a rather capable writer and have made rather compelling arguments against Reproductive Freedoms, even if I still don't vote for them.
by Dobrobyt » Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:37 am
by Dobrobyt » Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:42 am
by States of Glory WA Office » Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:43 am
by Greifenburg » Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:45 am
Dobrobyt wrote:By repealing this, any nation or author would have the chance to make a replacement, not just Dobrobyt.
by Dobrobyt » Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:45 am
by Chus Kruthe » Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:49 am
Dobrobyt wrote:States of Glory WA Office wrote:Fairburn: Pointing out that all these repeals are a waste of paper is not irrelevant. Better authors than you have tried and failed; what's Einstein's definition of insanity again?
Mr. Fairburn, if you can realize this, new nations come in every day, with differing beliefs, so, there can always be another attempt and this may be won with a different demographic.
by Dobrobyt » Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:49 am
Greifenburg wrote:Dobrobyt wrote:By repealing this, any nation or author would have the chance to make a replacement, not just Dobrobyt.
"My office still doesn't see the need for a repeal or, even worse, a replacement that bans abortion. We are still waiting for compelling arguments why woman should be forced to go through the emotional and bodily stress of pregnancy just because someone decided that they don't deserve control over their own wombs."
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement