Because voluntary manslaughter is for cases where the crime was willingly committed however the perpetrator did not wish the crime to result in the death of the victim.
Advertisement
by Vitaphone Racing » Fri Dec 17, 2010 9:58 pm
Parhe wrote:Guess what, maybe you don't know what it is like to be Asian.
by Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:27 am
by Rutianas » Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:39 am
by Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:45 am
Kulaloe wrote:You need to change it so that it applies to all sentient races. I suggest wording it so that it bans the last third of pregnancy.
by Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:46 am
Rutianas wrote:We've got lots of issues with it. However, since the kittens are not human, it doesn't apply to them, not to mention those in the Imperial Republic are also not human. We still intent on voting against.
As to your poll, considering only 41 representatives made their opinion known in it, I highly doubt that is a decent cross-section of the GA as a whole or how representatives will actually vote.
Paula Jenner, Rutianas and Swarming Cute Kittens Ambassador
by The Cat-Tribe » Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:49 am
Christian Democrats wrote:Some of you accused my previous proposal of not being straightforward enough. You said that I was trying to "backdoor" abortion regulations. This time I'm being more straightforward. I want to ban third trimester abortions. While I don't believe this is very controversial, I'm sure some of you will disagree.
Any suggestions on how I can improve the language of this proposal?
Comments?Beginning of Life Act
Council: General Assembly
Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Strong
----------------------------
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
DEFINING pregnancy as the condition of carrying a developing offspring within the body,
DEFINING abortion as the intentional, or induced, termination of a pregnancy,
DEFINING elective abortion as abortion performed for reasons other than protecting the life or physical health of a pregnant person1,
DEFINING fetal age as the gestational age,
RECOGNIZING that many World Assembly member states have legalized abortion and that many nations have no restrictions whatsoever on abortion,
EMPHASIZING that a human fetus has a 50 to 70 percent chance of survival after the 24th week of pregnancy and therefore can be considered viable,
RECOGNIZING that shortly after the 24th week of pregnancy, a fetus is able to feel pain,
RECOGNIZING that most of a fetus' organs have developed by the 24th week of pregnancy,
NOTING that after the 24th week of pregnancy, a fetus easily can be distinguished by most as a developing human offspring,
NOTING that less than one percent of abortions occur after the 24th week of pregnancy2, and
BELIEVING that 24 weeks gives a person ample time to decide whether or not to continue a pregnancy3,
HEREBY
REQUIRES member states to recognize a fetus' personhood before or during the 24th week of pregnancy4,
DIRECTS member states to prohibit ELECTIVE ABORTION after the 24th week of pregnancy unless such an abortion is performed because of severe fetal defects or abnormalities,5
AFFIRMS that this resolution does not prevent member states from banning abortion before the 24th week of pregnancy or from imposing additional restrictions on abortion, including complete prohibition,
AFFIRMS that this resolution does not prevent the General Assembly from imposing further restrictions on abortion (i.e., in the future), and
DECLARES that the provisions of this resolution apply only to the modern human species known taxonomically as Homo sapiens.
by Rutianas » Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:51 am
Christian Democrats wrote:I believe 41 ambassadors is a decent cross-section. Even the most popular polls don't have more than a few hundred nations vote.
by Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:56 am
Rutianas wrote:Christian Democrats wrote:I believe 41 ambassadors is a decent cross-section. Even the most popular polls don't have more than a few hundred nations vote.
Are you forgetting that some Delegates have hundreds of votes at their disposal? You get those against the proposal and it will likely fail. Therefore, 41 representatives is not a decent cross-section.
Also, if you cannot make this work for non-humans, why bother for humans? Just pass the laws in your own nation and leave the rest of us alone. I will not vote for any proposal that affects only a portion of individuals in the GA.
Paula Jenner, Rutianas and Swarming Cute Kittens Ambassador
by Rutianas » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:03 am
Christian Democrats wrote:Just Guy, who has the most votes and whose support or lack thereof is responsible for the passage or failure of most resolutions, has commented on this thread, and he expressed neither opposition nor support.
by Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:08 am
by Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:10 am
Just Guy wrote:May I remind you that this body has passed numerous highly popular resolutions that only apply to humans. Not all proposals can apply to your species, ambassador.
by Urgench » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:12 am
by Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:14 am
by Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:19 am
Urgench wrote:This proposal duplicates or otherwise violates several preexisting WA resolutions. The Ambassador for Christian Democrats seems to be suffering from cognitive dissonance since it is clear that the Patient's Rights Act, the CoCR and other statutes which prevented the Ambassador from attempting to introduce other immoral and reprehensible measures depriving women of bodily autonomy also make this proposal illegal.
We will not bother to engage in a pointless back and forth on the matter, the Ambassador for Christian Democrats has shown themselves peculiarly incapable of comprehending plain English in the past, but suffice it to say we do not expect that the WA will ever be forced to vote on this barbarous measure.
Yours,
by The Emmerian Unions » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:27 am
Christian Democrats wrote:Which of my ideas are conflicting? I want to reduce abortions.
Christian Democrats wrote:B) What makes this proposal illegal? If fetal personhood has begun (under this proposal), then the developing child has bodily autonomy in his/her own right, that is, rights independent of and equal to those of the mother.
Ifreann wrote:"And in world news, the United States has recently elected Bill Gates as God Emperor For All Time. Foreign commentators believe that Gates' personal fortune may have played a role in his victory, but criticism from the United States of Gates(as it is now known) has been sparse and brief."
by Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:27 am
by Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:30 am
The Emmerian Unions wrote:Christian Democrats wrote:Which of my ideas are conflicting? I want to reduce abortions.
Actually, THERE is already a Resolution FOR reducing abortions!Christian Democrats wrote:B) What makes this proposal illegal? If fetal personhood has begun (under this proposal), then the developing child has bodily autonomy in his/her own right, that is, rights independent of and equal to those of the mother.
Actually it's the glaring optionality of this piece of trash. this thing isn't even fit for the bathroom as toilet paper, or the damn shredder! I move that this thing and all copies as made into a great big bonfire!
by Cinistra » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:35 am
by Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:37 am
by Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:38 am
Cinistra wrote:OK, let's make a deal here, shall we? If you and your region support the "Repeal "Prevention of Torture"" resolution, the Cinistran government will campaign your resolution in its own region.
by Rutianas » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:41 am
by The Emmerian Unions » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:44 am
Christian Democrats wrote:The resolution of which you are speaking does nothing to define personhood nor does it include any prohibitions on certain kinds of abortions.
Christian Democrats wrote:Concerning optionality, your species is not an option. A person/thing cannot choose what species he/she/it wants to be nor can someone/something change his/her/its species.
Ifreann wrote:"And in world news, the United States has recently elected Bill Gates as God Emperor For All Time. Foreign commentators believe that Gates' personal fortune may have played a role in his victory, but criticism from the United States of Gates(as it is now known) has been sparse and brief."
by Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:56 am
Rutianas wrote:Recognising fetal personhood is a question for each nation to address on their own. It is not something the GA should address due to the differences in religion and spiritual beliefs, or lack thereof. You say personhood starts at 24 weeks. The Imperial Republic believes it begins at conception. I'm certain there are those out there who believe that life beings at birth. Who's belief is correct and how do we prove it?
Paula Jenner, Rutianas and Swarming Cute Kittens Ambassador
by Just Guy » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:57 am
The Emmerian Unions wrote:That may be true, however a resolution must affect ALL member nations, not just one group of member nations. Plus if some nation of humans wants to get out of this, they could just say that they are not humans. Ok? Now Ambassador, please drop this, before I, or someone else with a more powerful nation, drop-kicks you into the Reflection Pool, or does something "worse" to your nation.
by Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:58 am
The Emmerian Unions wrote:Christian Democrats wrote:The resolution of which you are speaking does nothing to define personhood nor does it include any prohibitions on certain kinds of abortions.
Yer point? There is still a resolution on abortion.Christian Democrats wrote:Concerning optionality, your species is not an option. A person/thing cannot choose what species he/she/it wants to be nor can someone/something change his/her/its species.
That may be true, however a resolution must affect ALL member nations, not just one group of member nations. Plus if some nation of humans wants to get out of this, they could just say that they are not humans. Ok? Now Ambassador, please drop this, before I, or someone else with a more powerful nation, drop-kicks you into the Reflection Pool, or does something "worse" to your nation.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Tinhampton, Zandos
Advertisement