It was poorly defined and didn't include the necessary elements. Mental health was not included. Mental health is not physical health.
Advertisement
by Meekinos » Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:00 pm
by Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:03 pm
Urgench wrote:Christian Democrats wrote:Men can also become pregnant.
If personhood is extended to late-term fetuses, then such rights equally apply to fetuses, and, once again, couldn't a woman just choose to induce labor (not procure an abortion)?
Cf. male abortions?
Your Excellency freely admits, indeed triumphantly taunts other delegations to this organisation with your assertion that this proposal only applies to humans, therefore your bizarre belief that human males may bear offspring is risible and nonsensical. In any case it hardly matters since this resolution discriminates against any person (of whatever sex, and whatever species) who is capable of bearing offspring, the CoCR clearly makes it illegal to use arbitrary and reductive categorisations of this kind to discriminate against anyone who inhabits a WA member state.
It is illegal under WA law to force anyone to obtain an inducement rather than an abortion because their right to obtain an abortion, where it is legal to do so, is protected by the Patient's Rights Act. The foetus is not a person by any credible definition and therefore does not have the same rights as the person within whom it is gestated.
Yours,
by Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:09 pm
by Eireann Fae WA Mission » Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:13 pm
Flibbleites wrote:The Cat-Tribe wrote:
Are you admitting that you are (a) completely wasting our time and/or (b) trying to force through a wedge issue?
Anyone who commented on his last proposal knows perfectly well that the answer is both.
Bob Flibble
WA Representative
by Mikedor » Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:14 pm
by Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:19 pm
by Urgench » Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:38 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:Real life example of a pregnant man: Thomas Beatie
You continue to ignore the fact that all WA resolutions would apply to all post-24 week fetuses if this resolution passed because such fetuses would be granted personhood.
^ I originally made this a "Human Rights" proposal, but a moderator said that it better fit in the "Moral Decency" category because it restricted a present, recognized right of women to have abortions where it is legal.
by Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:54 pm
Urgench wrote:This is not even a moral discussion, this is a point of law which your Excellency in pretense and hubris aping a lawmaker seems incapable of understanding.
Yours,
by Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:00 pm
by Urgench » Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:07 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:Urgench wrote:This is not even a moral discussion, this is a point of law which your Excellency in pretense and hubris aping a lawmaker seems incapable of understanding.
Yours,
You seem to mistakenly believe that law is created.
Law is not created; rather, it is discovered, or recognized.
by Unibot » Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:20 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:If a proposal restricts late-term abortions by recognizing the personhood of late-term fetuses, then should such a proposal be classified as "Human Rights" or "Moral Decency"?
"Human Rights" - a right to life is being recognized.
"Moral Decency" - a woman's "right to choose" simultaneously is being restricted because of the recognition of a fetal right to life.
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by Eireann Fae WA Mission » Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:21 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:If a proposal restricts late-term abortions by recognizing the personhood of late-term fetuses, then should such a proposal be classified as "Human Rights" or "Moral Decency"?
"Human Rights" - a right to life is being recognized.
"Moral Decency" - a woman's "right to choose" simultaneously is being restricted because of the recognition of a fetal right to life.
by Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:23 pm
Urgench wrote:Christian Democrats wrote:You seem to mistakenly believe that law is created.
Law is not created; rather, it is discovered, or recognized.
Your Excellency is clearly rather confused, here in this context Ambassadors to this organisation are in effect Lawmakers, Legislators. Legislators create law, courts or rather Judges discover or recognise law.
Law absolutely is created when ever legislators devise and promulgate statutes.
None of this has anything to do with the fact that your Excellency's proposal is thouroughly illegal.
Yours,
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:31 pm
I still vehemently oppose your resolution, btw. I'd likely vote against anything filed under 'Moral Decency', but I find your resolution particularly abhorrent. Just so you know.
by Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:36 pm
Eireann Fae WA Mission wrote:Human Rights is solely for granting rights . . .
by Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:37 pm
Unibot wrote:Because the language of your resolution is prohibitive [. . .] "Moral Decency" would make sense.
by Flibbleites » Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:37 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:If a proposal restricts late-term abortions by recognizing the personhood of late-term fetuses, then should such a proposal be classified as "Human Rights" or "Moral Decency"?
"Human Rights" - a right to life is being recognized.
"Moral Decency" - a woman's "right to choose" simultaneously is being restricted because of the recognition of a fetal right to life.
by Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:39 pm
Flibbleites wrote:Didn't I already answer this question? Why yes I did.
by Flibbleites » Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:41 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:Flibbleites wrote:Didn't I already answer this question? Why yes I did.
I wanted a second opinion. I restated the same question in the proposal thread.
by Urgench » Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:45 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:"Legislator" is a much better, more precise word because it comes from the Latin infinitive legere meaning "to collect" or "to gather."
A legislator gathers and codifies law; a legislator doesn't make law. Only God creates law.
Judges, in turn, interpret the laws which have been identified by a legislature. It is not a judge's job to "legislate from the bench" (in other words, "gather law from the bench").
"Promulgating" laws is correct because promulgate means "to make known." Legislators make law known.
by Kryozerkia » Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:46 pm
by Eireann Fae WA Mission » Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:52 pm
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:And he has a thread where you can post just that. Just so you know.
Christian Democrats wrote:A fetal right is recognized.
EDIT: Actually that makes little sense either, lots of Human Rights bills use prohibitive language, I guess what separates them and yours is, others establish liberties or claim-rights, you're establishing a duty or commitment to a person to deliver a baby regardless of if they don't want to.
by Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:06 pm
Kryozerkia wrote:Given the optionality clause of the proposal, it is clear that at this time, the current version (last edited by Christian Democrats on Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:24 pm) is illegal. If it is submitted to queue, it will be removed.
by Intellect and the Arts » Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:09 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:Kryozerkia wrote:Given the optionality clause of the proposal, it is clear that at this time, the current version (last edited by Christian Democrats on Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:24 pm) is illegal. If it is submitted to queue, it will be removed.
Currently, I am rewording the proposal.
What provision(s) is (are) optional?
by Eireann Fae WA Mission » Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:13 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement