by Old Hope » Thu Aug 06, 2020 10:23 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The format wars are a waste of time.
by Kenmoria » Fri Aug 07, 2020 4:52 am
by Old Hope » Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:48 am
Kenmoria wrote:“I disagree with your arguments. Clause 1 doesn’t work in the context that member states could prohibit the production of environmentally-harmful abortifacients if they were other abortifacients of equal efficacy. Clause 3d does not require that inhabitants must be granted access to each and every drug that could conceivably be used to end a pregnancy, but that people have the right of access to at least one effective abortifacient.
Clause 2 would only work if a member state chose not to build a clinic in a less environmentally-sensitive area, and I can’t see why one would do so. It makes far more sense economically speaking to construct a clinic in an area that already has suitable infrastructure in place. Your clause 2b seems somewhat unimportant, since it is true of every building.
Clause 3 is remedied by the authorisation of the GA to construct clinics that do not use member states’ resources, except indirectly via the WAGF, in case of an inability to pay. Lastly, clause 4 simply doesn’t work, since the GA has agreed that procuring an abortion is not immoral. I won’t address exactly why, since there are transcripts in almost every abortion-related drafting chamber discussing this at length.”
No members may:[...]prohibit or levy discriminatory tariffs or tax against section 7 compliant contraceptives or abortifacients,
Health and safety. The World Health Authority (WHA) must issue regulations to ensure abortions, abortifacients, and contraceptives available to the general public are safe and effective for end-users and those with which they may be in close contact. Such regulations overrule those made by members unless it can be shown to the IAO that those WHA regulations are insufficient in fulfilling the mandates of this section.
. This doesn`t mean small forests. It means hundreds of kilometers(OOC:the Amazon rainforest, for example) which would definitely violate section 2:large areas vital to the ecosystem
Funding. Members must pay for or provide directly abortions, abortifacients, and contraceptives to any recipient bona fide within their jurisdiction upon request. Members must also provide a means to access such services and commodities speedily and free at the point of service or provision.
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The format wars are a waste of time.
by Ardiveds » Fri Aug 07, 2020 6:11 am
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Aug 07, 2020 9:53 am
by Tinfect » Fri Aug 07, 2020 10:09 am
Imperium Central News Network: EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL CITIZENS ARE TO PROCEED TO EVACUATION SITES IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL FURTHER SUBSPACE SIGNALS AND SYSTEMS ARE TO BE DISABLED IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: THE FOLLOWING SYSTEMS ARE ACCESS PROHIBITED BY STANDARD/BLACKOUT [Error: Format Unrecognized] | Indomitable Bastard #283
by The New California Republic » Fri Aug 07, 2020 11:04 am
by Godular » Fri Aug 07, 2020 11:10 am
by Outer Sparta » Fri Aug 07, 2020 11:59 am
by Farnhamia » Fri Aug 07, 2020 12:29 pm
Tinfect wrote:OOC:
Nevermind what I've said before, this is officially the worst repeal argumentation I've ever seen. You manage to set a new bar every time you come back, it's genuinely incredible.
by Old Hope » Sat Aug 08, 2020 2:04 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The format wars are a waste of time.
by Honeydewistania » Sat Aug 08, 2020 2:05 am
Old Hope wrote:Yes, you are right. I overlooked one important environmental legislation. This, however, means that the rest of the arguments won't be good enough to pass a repeal. I might come back to this if I ever find some convincing argument.
Alger wrote:if you have egoquotes in your signature, touch grass
by Kenmoria » Sat Aug 08, 2020 2:43 am
Old Hope wrote:Yes, you are right. I overlooked one important environmental legislation. This, however, means that the rest of the arguments won't be good enough to pass a repeal. I might come back to this if I ever find some convincing argument.
by Old Hope » Sat Aug 08, 2020 3:53 am
Kenmoria wrote:Old Hope wrote:Yes, you are right. I overlooked one important environmental legislation. This, however, means that the rest of the arguments won't be good enough to pass a repeal. I might come back to this if I ever find some convincing argument.
(OOC: It doesn’t really make sense to mark some legislation for a repeal, then try to think of something to repeal it for. There simply aren’t flaws in Access to Abortion. I suggest looking at different potential repeals.)
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The format wars are a waste of time.
by Outer Sparta » Sat Aug 08, 2020 10:13 am
Old Hope wrote:Yes, you are right. I overlooked one important environmental legislation. This, however, means that the rest of the arguments won't be good enough to pass a repeal. I might come back to this if I ever find some convincing argument.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement