Advertisement
by Godular » Mon Jul 13, 2020 2:55 pm
by Godular » Mon Jul 13, 2020 2:57 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Access to Pre-Natal Healthcare
by Confused No Name » Mon Jul 13, 2020 3:34 pm
by Godular » Mon Jul 13, 2020 5:01 pm
Confused No Name wrote:Supporting At-Risk Pregnancies?
Also, "Such supports can and should remain subject to any currently established eligibility requirements" might be slightly strict. We get that it exists to prevent certain groups of people, such as criminals, from getting welfare, but many nations in the WA already have excessively strict welfare regulations preventing all poor and pregnant people from getting welfare that would continue to exist because of this clause. Something like "Such supports are to remain subject to all current and future General Assembly Resolutions" might be better, as we sadly can't trust all nations to restrict welfare fairly.
by Union of Sovereign States and Republics » Mon Jul 13, 2020 5:32 pm
News: BREAKING NEWS: Unceremoniously, USSR officially departs from the European Union 2 years before schedule
by Godular » Mon Jul 13, 2020 5:45 pm
Union of Sovereign States and Republics wrote:OOC: What about "Support for Families at Risk"? It changes the words just slightly but it sounds better IMO.
by Flying Eagles » Mon Jul 13, 2020 8:28 pm
Godular wrote:Confused No Name wrote:Supporting At-Risk Pregnancies?
Also, "Such supports can and should remain subject to any currently established eligibility requirements" might be slightly strict. We get that it exists to prevent certain groups of people, such as criminals, from getting welfare, but many nations in the WA already have excessively strict welfare regulations preventing all poor and pregnant people from getting welfare that would continue to exist because of this clause. Something like "Such supports are to remain subject to all current and future General Assembly Resolutions" might be better, as we sadly can't trust all nations to restrict welfare fairly.
I'm thinking that's sort of an unspoken thing that's already standard for any World Assembly resolution.
As for the name... hmm... I'm on the fence about changing the name in general... though I do admit that it probably needs SOME KIND of change.
by Godular » Mon Jul 13, 2020 10:32 pm
Flying Eagles wrote:Godular wrote:
I'm thinking that's sort of an unspoken thing that's already standard for any World Assembly resolution.
As for the name... hmm... I'm on the fence about changing the name in general... though I do admit that it probably needs SOME KIND of change.
“Such supports can and should remain subject to any currently established eligibility requirements”. Would eligibility requirements include national laws? As that would make any nation with a law that states that “poor people who get pregnant can’t get welfare” exempt from this clause.
by Araraukar » Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:21 am
Godular wrote:The Nations of the World Assembly,
ACKNOWLEDGING that access to abortion services is one of the most heavily ensconced rights among the nations of the WA, yet also one of the most heavily debated and contentious issues on the floor, that many nations have moral qualms regarding abortion access, and often feel disenfranchised by the prevailing atmosphere of perceived lack of compromise and understanding;
COGNIZANT of the fact that many abortions aretakenperformed because of the impact thatsucha pregnancy would have upon one's economicandor educational circumstances, in addition to any medical or psychological ramifications, and that the costs ofmedical serviceschildcare are often seen as prohibitivetowith unplanned pregnancies;
RESOLVED to put forwardasome meansof reducing abortions inby which member statesby presenting a means tomay ameliorate the financialand physiologicalramifications of unplannedpregnancypregnancies, which are often among the root causes of the need for abortion services, thereby preventing them from becoming unwanted pregnancies,
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Flying Eagles » Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:33 am
Araraukar wrote:Didn't go beyond the preamble, because you will likely need to edit some of the active clauses anyway, given the passage of the latest abortion resolution.
by Araraukar » Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:37 am
Flying Eagles wrote:Araraukar wrote:Didn't go beyond the preamble, because you will likely need to edit some of the active clauses anyway, given the passage of the latest abortion resolution.
We're going to disagree with that assessment, as this resolution does not ban abortion, but rather provides socioeconomic and holistic supports in the hope that it is not necessary.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Flying Eagles » Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:42 am
by Godular » Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:54 am
Flying Eagles wrote:Araraukar wrote:OOC: The combination of 1.a. and 2.a. at least.
I believe the point that the Ambassador from Araraukar is making is that providing "termination of pregnancy" "free of charge" would be an illegal duplication of GA#286 and GA#499. We would agree with that assessment.
by Flying Eagles » Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:03 am
Godular wrote:Flying Eagles wrote:I believe the point that the Ambassador from Araraukar is making is that providing "termination of pregnancy" "free of charge" would be an illegal duplication of GA#286 and GA#499. We would agree with that assessment.
“I did wonder if it would be, though I do believe that none of the active clauses incorporated ‘abortion’ in its terminology. The only non-preamble portion that spoke of it was in the definitions.“
OOC: Will look into the additional changes later. Got some errands to run.
by Godular » Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:22 am
Flying Eagles wrote:Godular wrote:
“I did wonder if it would be, though I do believe that none of the active clauses incorporated ‘abortion’ in its terminology. The only non-preamble portion that spoke of it was in the definitions.“
OOC: Will look into the additional changes later. Got some errands to run.
OOC: GAR#499 states that an "abortion means a medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy deliberately" Therefore, I'd say that they would be synonyms, and this is illegal duplication.
by Kenmoria » Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:25 am
Flying Eagles wrote:Godular wrote:
“I did wonder if it would be, though I do believe that none of the active clauses incorporated ‘abortion’ in its terminology. The only non-preamble portion that spoke of it was in the definitions.“
OOC: Will look into the additional changes later. Got some errands to run.
OOC: GAR#499 states that an "abortion means a medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy deliberately" Therefore, I'd say that they would be synonyms, and this is illegal duplication.
by Flying Eagles » Tue Jul 14, 2020 11:22 am
Godular wrote:Flying Eagles wrote:OOC: GAR#499 states that an "abortion means a medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy deliberately" Therefore, I'd say that they would be synonyms, and this is illegal duplication.
OOC: I didn't say I was gonna avoid changing it, just that I'm not sure if having that mentioned in the definitions means that it specifically duplicates other legislation. Also, I guess I have time after all.
Araraukar: Many of the changes have been entered in.
by Godular » Tue Jul 14, 2020 1:59 pm
Kenmoria wrote:Flying Eagles wrote:OOC: GAR#499 states that an "abortion means a medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy deliberately" Therefore, I'd say that they would be synonyms, and this is illegal duplication.
(OOC: I see this as acceptable duplication to expand upon an area. This is a piece of legislation about pre-, mid- and post-natal care, of which abortion is only a small part.)
Flying Eagles wrote:Godular wrote:
OOC: I didn't say I was gonna avoid changing it, just that I'm not sure if having that mentioned in the definitions means that it specifically duplicates other legislation. Also, I guess I have time after all.
Araraukar: Many of the changes have been entered in.
I was just trying to help answer your question
by Flying Eagles » Tue Jul 14, 2020 4:26 pm
by Godular » Tue Jul 14, 2020 4:46 pm
Flying Eagles wrote:Godular wrote:
OOC: My apologies if I gave the impression that I was disputing your comment, as such was not my intent.
It’s fine. Sorry for giving the impression that I was trying to overrule you.
P.S. My concern was that in your active clauses, you require termination of pregnancy to be provided for free. Other resolutions require abortion to be provided for free in their active clauses. It could be argued termination of pregnancy and abortion are synonyms, and I was using the GAR#499 definition of abortion to try to show how one may come to this conclusion. Not sure if you understood this, BTW. These also seemed to be Araraukar’s concerns, can Araraukar clarify please?
by Godular » Fri Jul 17, 2020 7:53 am
by Kenmoria » Fri Jul 17, 2020 8:06 am
by Godular » Fri Jul 17, 2020 8:16 am
Kenmoria wrote:“Your ‘cognisant’ clause ends with a semicolon, whereas your ‘resolved’ clause ends with a comma. You should stick to one or the other.”
by Flying Eagles » Fri Jul 17, 2020 1:16 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Gepamo
Advertisement