Advertisement
by Jesoland » Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:43 am
by The People of Belfast » Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:47 am
Jesoland wrote:Honorable colleague of Christian Democrats,
because of my deep collaboration with Ms. Harper of Minoa in order to make her proposal the best compromise WA may accept, I can't see where "On abortions" legalizes every kind of abortions for people under the age or consent.
If it were true, this would be a big leak of the resolution, which aims to limit (international) laws about abortion, providing a basic list of cases in which (generally, but in great generality) nations ANYWAY admit abortion.
Concerning the other objections of yours, they're quite a lot and - above all - not all are coherent with each other (too permissive, too strict, vocabulary matter...)
I'll be glad to discuss with you and other distinguished ambassadors who oppose "On abortion" about the single issues, but I beg you to consider that, as a compromise, every side has to accept to be a little disappointed.
by St George of England » Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:50 am
Albaire wrote:Umbra Ac Silentium wrote:Hah, no, I hope it succeeds, more power to the women!
...and more death to the future of the human race!
When your 'right to choose' interferes with my future generations, I must take offense.
If you don't want kids: STOP F***ING so many guys! Try that as a CHOICE
by Umbra Ac Silentium » Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:51 am
Albaire wrote:Umbra Ac Silentium wrote:Hah, no, I hope it succeeds, more power to the women!
...and more death to the future of the human race!
When your 'right to choose' interferes with my future generations, I must take offense.
If you don't want kids: STOP F***ING so many guys! Try that as a CHOICE
The Holy Therns wrote:Your thought pattern is so bizarre I can't even be offended anymore.
by Jesoland » Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:55 am
The People of Belfast wrote:Jesoland wrote:Honorable colleague of Christian Democrats,
because of my deep collaboration with Ms. Harper of Minoa in order to make her proposal the best compromise WA may accept, I can't see where "On abortions" legalizes every kind of abortions for people under the age or consent.
If it were true, this would be a big leak of the resolution, which aims to limit (international) laws about abortion, providing a basic list of cases in which (generally, but in great generality) nations ANYWAY admit abortion.
Concerning the other objections of yours, they're quite a lot and - above all - not all are coherent with each other (too permissive, too strict, vocabulary matter...)
I'll be glad to discuss with you and other distinguished ambassadors who oppose "On abortion" about the single issues, but I beg you to consider that, as a compromise, every side has to accept to be a little disappointed.
Clause 1-A:
"REQUIRES member countries to legalise abortion for cases where: The pregnancy resulted from ... sexual activity in which at least one of the parties could not legally give consent"
In order to legally consent one must be of the age to legally consent. It means that abortion is required to be legalised in all member countries where one of the parties was under the age of consent. The reason for requiring an abortion is not required to be to save the life of the mother or any of the other areas in the resolution. It could be an elective abortion but must be legalised because one of the participants in the sexual act was under the age of consent.
by The People of Belfast » Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:59 am
Jesoland wrote:The People of Belfast wrote:
Clause 1-A:
"REQUIRES member countries to legalise abortion for cases where: The pregnancy resulted from ... sexual activity in which at least one of the parties could not legally give consent"
In order to legally consent one must be of the age to legally consent. It means that abortion is required to be legalised in all member countries where one of the parties was under the age of consent. The reason for requiring an abortion is not required to be to save the life of the mother or any of the other areas in the resolution. It could be an elective abortion but must be legalised because one of the participants in the sexual act was under the age of consent.
I deem sex under the age of consent is, according to law, the same as rape.
We don't agree with the fact that rape is a good reason to obtain abortion but, in fact, there is no "good" reason for a bad thing as abortion. It might be the lesser evil.
by St George of England » Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:04 am
The People of Belfast wrote:Jesoland wrote:
I deem sex under the age of consent is, according to law, the same as rape.
We don't agree with the fact that rape is a good reason to obtain abortion but, in fact, there is no "good" reason for a bad thing as abortion. It might be the lesser evil.
But I don't think it is even the same as rape. If two 15 year olds have sex this resolution mandates nation states to provide her with access to abortion if she becomes pregnant. It severly weakens the resolution's cause of providing life saving abortions.
by The People of Belfast » Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:07 am
St George of England wrote:The People of Belfast wrote:
But I don't think it is even the same as rape. If two 15 year olds have sex this resolution mandates nation states to provide her with access to abortion if she becomes pregnant. It severly weakens the resolution's cause of providing life saving abortions.
No it doesn't. The two are unrelated.
by Jesoland » Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:08 am
The People of Belfast wrote:Jesoland wrote:
I deem sex under the age of consent is, according to law, the same as rape.
We don't agree with the fact that rape is a good reason to obtain abortion but, in fact, there is no "good" reason for a bad thing as abortion. It might be the lesser evil.
But I don't think it is even the same as rape. If two 15 year olds have sex this resolution mandates nation states to provide her with access to abortion if she becomes pregnant. It severly weakens the resolution's cause of providing life saving abortions.
the age of consent is the minimum age at which a person is considered to be legally competent of consenting to sexual acts
by The People of Belfast » Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:11 am
Jesoland wrote:The People of Belfast wrote:
But I don't think it is even the same as rape. If two 15 year olds have sex this resolution mandates nation states to provide her with access to abortion if she becomes pregnant. It severly weakens the resolution's cause of providing life saving abortions.
I'm sorry for quoting wikipedia,the age of consent is the minimum age at which a person is considered to be legally competent of consenting to sexual acts
If one can't consent to sexual acts, the law ought to consider them against the person's will, and rape sequitur.
This resolution provides saving abortions AND abortions in case of rape. I repeat, Jesoland hoped we could do better and not consider them, too, but it wasn't possible. (Please note, if you want to read all the debate about "On abortions", that we have succeeded in carving out incest as a cause for abortions)
by St George of England » Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:18 am
The People of Belfast wrote:Jesoland wrote:
I'm sorry for quoting wikipedia,
If one can't consent to sexual acts, the law ought to consider them against the person's will, and rape sequitur.
This resolution provides saving abortions AND abortions in case of rape. I repeat, Jesoland hoped we could do better and not consider them, too, but it wasn't possible. (Please note, if you want to read all the debate about "On abortions", that we have succeeded in carving out incest as a cause for abortions)
But that looks at it in purely legal theory. The fact is that underage sex between two minors is not criminalised in a large number of countries. Two 15 years olds who have sex with each other aren't going to go to gaol for it. All this does is give underage mothers access to abortion on demand, even if they themselves have, in theory, raped a 15 year old boy.
by The People of Belfast » Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:19 am
St George of England wrote:The People of Belfast wrote:
But that looks at it in purely legal theory. The fact is that underage sex between two minors is not criminalised in a large number of countries. Two 15 years olds who have sex with each other aren't going to go to gaol for it. All this does is give underage mothers access to abortion on demand, even if they themselves have, in theory, raped a 15 year old boy.
Rape is rape is rape, regardless of the age.
by St George of England » Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:23 am
The People of Belfast wrote:
But that looks at it in purely legal theory. The fact is that underage sex between two minors is not criminalised in a large number of countries. Two 15 years olds who have sex with each other aren't going to go to gaol for it. All this does is give underage mothers access to abortion on demand, even if they themselves have, in theory, raped a 15 year old boy.
by Seperate Vermont » Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:23 am
by Jesoland » Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:24 am
The People of Belfast wrote:But that looks at it in purely legal theory. The fact is that underage sex between two minors is not criminalised in a large number of countries. Two 15 years olds who have sex with each other aren't going to go to gaol for it. All this does is give underage mothers access to abortion on demand, even if they themselves have, in theory, raped a 15 year old boy.
by Seperate Vermont » Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:29 am
Jesoland wrote:The People of Belfast wrote:But that looks at it in purely legal theory. The fact is that underage sex between two minors is not criminalised in a large number of countries. Two 15 years olds who have sex with each other aren't going to go to gaol for it. All this does is give underage mothers access to abortion on demand, even if they themselves have, in theory, raped a 15 year old boy.
We don't know how the thing works in your nation, but in Jesoland sex under the age of consent is criminalized. In a large number of countries it isn't, but in a large number of countries abortion is legalized at all, and we don't deem it as a good reason to legalize it without exceptions.
by Licana » Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:31 am
The People of Belfast wrote:But that looks at it in purely legal theory. The fact is that underage sex between two minors is not criminalised in a large number of countries. Two 15 years olds who have sex with each other aren't going to go to gaol for it. All this does is give underage mothers access to abortion on demand, even if they themselves have, in theory, raped a 15 year old boy.
Puzikas wrote:Gulf War One was like Slapstick: The War. Except, you know, up to 40,000 people died.
Vitaphone Racing wrote:Never in all my years have I seen someone actually quote the dictionary and still get the definition wrong.
Senestrum wrote:How are KEPs cowardly? Surely the "real man" would in fact be the one firing giant rods of nuclear waste at speeds best described as "hilarious".
by The People of Belfast » Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:32 am
St George of England wrote:The People of Belfast wrote:
Rape is rape. Two 15 years olds shagging each other is not.
But going by your hypothetical:The People of Belfast wrote:
But that looks at it in purely legal theory. The fact is that underage sex between two minors is not criminalised in a large number of countries. Two 15 years olds who have sex with each other aren't going to go to gaol for it. All this does is give underage mothers access to abortion on demand, even if they themselves have, in theory, raped a 15 year old boy.
Note the bold. If a 15 year old rapes another 15 year old, it is still rape.
by Sionis Prioratus » Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:33 am
by Philimbesi » Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:35 am
If you don't want kids: STOP F***ING so many guys! Try that as a CHOICE
by The People of Belfast » Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:35 am
Licana wrote:The People of Belfast wrote:But that looks at it in purely legal theory. The fact is that underage sex between two minors is not criminalised in a large number of countries. Two 15 years olds who have sex with each other aren't going to go to gaol for it. All this does is give underage mothers access to abortion on demand, even if they themselves have, in theory, raped a 15 year old boy.
How is it bad if a nation allows to for an underaged citizen to abort a baby, especially since it's still an action that is completely voluntary on behalf of the mother in question? In all likelyhood, the baby will only negatively impact the parent's lives at that age, if they decide to keep it.
To add, I suppose adoption is an option, but in overpopulated nations, this is not always preferred. Also, adopted children can feel less accepted or wanted, due to their biological parents seeming to "not want them." Now, that is very subjective, and will vary in severity from person to person, and some may not even feel that at all.
The current resolution at vote is, in my personal opinion, the best compromise possible in this situation. Although it states that it most provide people under certain circumstances with the capability to have an abortion, it doesn't force them to have one. If the person in question has a reason not to have an abortion, they can opt not to get one.
by Seperate Vermont » Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:37 am
If you don't want kids: STOP F***ING so many guys! Try that as a CHOICE
by Jesoland » Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:39 am
Seperate Vermont wrote:Jesoland wrote:
We don't know how the thing works in your nation, but in Jesoland sex under the age of consent is criminalized. In a large number of countries it isn't, but in a large number of countries abortion is legalized at all, and we don't deem it as a good reason to legalize it without exceptions.
So, may we ask your delegation how you counter such incidents of rape, if possible? Ignore it happens and think your magic laws solve everything?
by St George of England » Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:42 am
The People of Belfast wrote:St George of England wrote:But going by your hypothetical:
Note the bold. If a 15 year old rapes another 15 year old, it is still rape.
Yes, as per the previous comments that underage sex is identical to rape. So a 15 year old girl has sex with a 15 year old boy she has, in their eyes, raped him.
by Urgench » Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:43 am
The People of Belfast wrote: But many people view the issue as not being a one sided issue. The woman is not the only person involved in the situation. There are two people involved (in the opinion of some people), the mother and the child. As the child is not able to defend itself should the state not be able to act as an advocate for it?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement