Advertisement
by Arivali » Mon Jun 20, 2011 1:45 pm
by Moronist Decisions » Mon Jun 20, 2011 2:35 pm
by Baptovia » Mon Jun 20, 2011 2:42 pm
by Three Weasels » Mon Jun 20, 2011 2:48 pm
Moronist Decisions wrote:The gnomes just check that you have access; it doesn't actually do it if you actually made sure there was access.
We have to worship and maybe start making regular tributes to the DoT.
by Unibot II » Mon Jun 20, 2011 4:04 pm
Glen-Rhodes wrote:Furthermore, I believe that you are actually mistaken about the resolution. You assert that it only affirms the right of individuals to, quote, 'read literature on many things including ... abstinence.' However, the affirmation is much more than that. Just as Glen-Rhodes is required to build and operate public schools because all citizens, according to the World Assembly, have the right to a basic education, Glen-Rhodes has been required to teach abstinence education in its schools as well. That is what is entailed by a 'right to access information.' The right forces governments to provide that information, because otherwise it may not be provided and as such individuals would be having their right to access that information violated.
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
General Halcones wrote:Look up to Unibot as an example.
by The Cat-Tribe » Mon Jun 20, 2011 4:34 pm
by The Altani Confederacy » Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:45 pm
The Cat-Tribe wrote:With that, I am done with these shenanigans. Do as thou wilt.
by Knootoss » Mon Jun 20, 2011 11:43 pm
The Cat-Tribe wrote:(1) Would Ambassador Koopman support a replacement of the RRA that was identical except for the "abstinence education" language? Or is that just a convenient hook?
[/quote]The Cat-Tribe wrote:With that, I am done with these shenanigans. Do as thou wilt.
by Eternal Yerushalayim » Tue Jun 21, 2011 5:46 am
The Altani Confederacy wrote:The Cat-Tribe wrote:With that, I am done with these shenanigans. Do as thou wilt.
Can't miss you until you're gone, Ambassador. Seriously, your delegation is like one of those stores that has a "Going Out Of Business" sale for twenty years. Stay or go, already.
That being said, we support this repeal, as we don't see anything in the resolution in question that can't be done on the national level without micromanaging.
-Sophie Fournier, Delegate of Lavinium and Confederate WA Ambassador
by Knootoss » Tue Jun 21, 2011 6:19 am
by Eternal Yerushalayim » Tue Jun 21, 2011 6:25 am
by Knootoss » Tue Jun 21, 2011 6:28 am
by Darenjo » Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:27 am
by Bergnovinaia » Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:38 am
Darenjo wrote:Good to see this going through.
I essentially have three things on my "Abortion To-Do List":
1. Support this
2. Help refine and support EY's proposal
3. Strangle any other delegation who mentions abortion ever again.
Unibot II wrote:Dr. Castro apparently has not read Reduction of Abortion thoroughly , the topic of Reduction of Abortion is not blocking abortion, but exactly what it says, reducing the need for abortion by providing contraceptives and promoting a comprehensive sex education. Osteric death was and is continued to be prevented when this Assembly put aside its petty differences momentarily to pass this landmark piece of legislation.
OOC: Kenny's ethics proposal is also not contradicting to the Reduction of Abortion and is fully compatible, I believe. That's the beauty of Reduction of Abortion.
Koopman's proposal is a lie. NOTHING in Reduction of Abortion says that member-nations do not maintain their own ability to write literature on sex education, 5.b states that the WA will coordinate its own research and publish, but nowhere in the bill does the letter of the law actually state that the WA and member-nations cannot conduct their own research and publish their own research independently. The burden of proof lies on Koopman to find this clause which simply does not exist.
"DEEPLY CONCERNED" of this repeal uses misleading language, Koopman's 'think-of-the-children' rhetoric neglects to inform readers that GA#44 does not require students to be actively taught about abortion reduction services. The resolution specifically writes : "AFFIRMS the right of individuals to access information regarding abortion reduction services". It affirms that as an individual you have the right to read literature on many things including, yes, abstinence. Should we ought to limit the right to information? No. Does GA#44 mandate this information be taught in classrooms? No. GA#44 simply says an individual has the right to access this information.
Why should we not limit the right to information? (1) If a belief is true but thought to false, whether or not Koopman believes it to be true, people can benefit from it and re-declare/declare it as true information, (2) If a belief is false but thought to be true, through reading, discourse and thought -- these myths can be exposed as false, (3) if a belief is true and known to be true, you're hiding beneficial information from the people, (4) If a belief is false and known to be false, its existence will allow it to be considered and ultimately rejected by those who argue it -- allowing the reasons for the information's rejection to be freshly circulated and not forgotten.
I am OPPOSED to this repeal and indefinitely roll my eyes at Koopman's inability to either, (1) read clearly and interpret without aimlessly including his own strawman clauses as c.4½, c.4¼ ...ect. into resolutions' text other than his own, or, (2) withdraw his agenda of hackery and political deception.
by Darenjo » Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:47 am
by Bears Armed » Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:16 am
Darenjo wrote:But RoAA can easily be handled at a sub-national level, therefore I don't see the need for it to be a WA resolution.
by Snefaldia » Tue Jun 21, 2011 1:17 pm
5. EXPANDS the mission of the World Health Authority and its offices in WA member states to include:
a. providing universal access to abortion reduction services in accordance with national and local laws,
by Knootoss » Tue Jun 28, 2011 12:22 pm
by Knootoss » Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:31 am
by EY Diplomatic Headquarters » Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:34 am
Knootoss wrote:Since it looks like another vote on the subject of abortion is coming up, the pushing of this act will be revived when that particular resolution reaches the floor. This leaves everyone with.. hmm.. about a week to give more commentary on improving this repeal!
by EY Diplomatic Headquarters » Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:37 am
by Knootoss » Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:38 am
EY Diplomatic Headquarters wrote:Knootoss wrote:Since it looks like another vote on the subject of abortion is coming up, the pushing of this act will be revived when that particular resolution reaches the floor. This leaves everyone with.. hmm.. about a week to give more commentary on improving this repeal!
I'm not too optimistic about it achieving quorum.
by Knootoss » Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:38 am
EY Diplomatic Headquarters wrote:Perhaps a statement that the effectiveness of the methods of "abortion reduction" in the RRA, although appreciated, is questionable?
by Eternal Yerushalayim » Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:41 am
by Knootoss » Thu Jul 14, 2011 7:23 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement