by Noe-Classic Peoples » Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:47 pm
by Tinfect » Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:01 pm
Tinfect wrote:OOC:
Oh boy, here friend, let me show you a sneak-peak of the next thing to hit the queue if that passes:Condemning the act of legally preventing an individual from accessing abortion services in the strongest possible terms,
[...]
Requires Member-States to legalize abortion in all cases,
Further requires Member-States to offer this service free of charge, or at fully-subsidized rates with no obligation of repayment, if:Continued pregnancy or birth poses substantial risk to the life or health of the parent,
Conception occurred due rape or other sexual activity in which one party did not consent, or was legally incapable of consenting, to sexual activity,
[...]
Requires that Member-States protect individuals that have had an abortion or are seeking an abortion from discrimination or violence as a result of having or seeking an abortion,
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 Jebslund » Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:26 pm
Noe-Classic Peoples wrote:This is what I have got so far any advice would be helpful. Just please be civil about it.
The World Assembly,
UNDERSTANDING that the intention of this resolution was to ensure that pregnant persons in extraordinary circumstances be aloud the right to terminate said pregnancy, thus allowing for such persons to not suffer the horrible effects of there pregnancy (ie; death or the disability)
Noe-Classic Peoples wrote:NEVER THE LESS is considered that Section 2 of the legislation would place a substantial burden on poor nation and on large and sparse populated ones which would be forced to spend money on ensuring that abortions can be easily provided to all there citizens should they wish it.
Noe-Classic Peoples wrote:FURTHER CONSIDERED that such a recruitment effectively forces member nations to use government revenue to fund at least the creation if not also the maintenance of facilities and personal for the purpose of providing abortions which is likely to cause substantial resentment towards the government in highly religious and/or conservative societies
Noe-Classic Peoples wrote:FURTHERMORE, the provision that "no physician may be compelled to perform abortion against their moral stance", although on its own a reasonable measure, when combined with the above mentioned issues would mean that nations with very large religious populations could well find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to find enough qualified medical personal to ensure that section 2 of the resolution is met, which could force them to spend substantial resources trying to attract enough doctors to move from other nations to comply to this law.
Noe-Classic Peoples wrote:IS THUS RESOLVED to repeal this legislation in the hopes that another resolution shall be passed on the topic to more address the condensers here raised
by Noe-Classic Peoples » Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:29 pm
Jebslund wrote:Noe-Classic Peoples wrote:This is what I have got so far any advice would be helpful. Just please be civil about it.
The World Assembly,
UNDERSTANDING that the intention of this resolution was to ensure that pregnant persons in extraordinary circumstances be aloud the right to terminate said pregnancy, thus allowing for such persons to not suffer the horrible effects of there pregnancy (ie; death or the disability)
OOC: Minor gripe, to be sure, but "allowed", not "aloud". The former is synonymous with 'permitted', the latter with "out loud".Noe-Classic Peoples wrote:NEVER THE LESS is considered that Section 2 of the legislation would place a substantial burden on poor nation and on large and sparse populated ones which would be forced to spend money on ensuring that abortions can be easily provided to all there citizens should they wish it.
OOC: Seems to be in order, though I believe you mean "poor nations". "Nevertheless" is also one word, and a comma between 'ones' and 'which' would help as far as tidiness goes.Noe-Classic Peoples wrote:FURTHER CONSIDERED that such a recruitment effectively forces member nations to use government revenue to fund at least the creation if not also the maintenance of facilities and personal for the purpose of providing abortions which is likely to cause substantial resentment towards the government in highly religious and/or conservative societies
OOC: While this may be considered a NatSov argument, this isn't NatSov-only, so you should be okay here (anyone with more experience feel free to correct me). As for mechanics, I'd recommend "FURTHER CONSIDERING", and I believe you meant 'personnel', as in staff, not 'personal' as in pertaining to a person/private.Noe-Classic Peoples wrote:FURTHERMORE, the provision that "no physician may be compelled to perform abortion against their moral stance", although on its own a reasonable measure, when combined with the above mentioned issues would mean that nations with very large religious populations could well find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to find enough qualified medical personal to ensure that section 2 of the resolution is met, which could force them to spend substantial resources trying to attract enough doctors to move from other nations to comply to this law.
OOC: Bolded text is my fixes for mechanics. Nothing legally wrong here I can see, more well-versed people may correct me on that.Noe-Classic Peoples wrote:IS THUS RESOLVED to repeal this legislation in the hopes that another resolution shall be passed on the topic to more address the condensers here raised
OOC: I'd change the wording to "HEREBY REPEALS GAR #XXX "On Abortion.". It sounds a bit more professional/legal, but that's more personal taste than anything.
On the whole, a good job, though, and kudos to you on drafting it instead of rushing it to the proposal floor!
by The Greater Siriusian Domain » Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:31 pm
by Noe-Classic Peoples » Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:32 pm
The Greater Siriusian Domain wrote:*Ambassador Teran Saber rests his forehead in the palms of his hand, groaning in annoyance.*
Teran Saber: "Not this... again..."
by The Greater Siriusian Domain » Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:38 pm
by Dirty Americans » Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:22 pm
by Attempted Socialism » Thu Jan 11, 2018 3:36 pm
"Abortion is not a controversial issue. We have reproductive freedoms, women can have abortions, and everyone, except a tiny, but very loud, minority are in agreement. These drafted repeals are always failures because people are so overwhelmingly in favour of Reproductive Freedoms and On Abortion that even the best written repeals fail. As the delegation of Tinfect demonstrated earlier, this resolution is also very much the best compromise that anti-choice nations can ever have, since it does not in itself require nations to pay for abortions, it allows physicians to opt out in performing abortions per their individual ethics and it does not provide total security from harassers and attempts to convince women not to have abortions despite their own interests. Any replacement to On Abortion could include requirements for public funding for abortion, no option to opt out based on the physicians ethics, and adequate security for abortion clinics and abortion seekers."
Represented in the World Assembly by Ambassador Robert Mortimer Pride, called The Regicide Assume OOC unless otherwise indicated. My WA Authorship. | Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt? Bobberino: "The academic tone shines through." | Who am I in real life, my opinions and notes My NS career |
by The Unfounded » Thu Jan 11, 2018 8:30 pm
by Pinochetiannia » Fri Jan 12, 2018 3:55 am
Noe-Classic Peoples wrote:This is what I have got so far any advice would be helpful. Just please be civil about it.
The World Assembly,
UNDERSTANDING that the intention of this resolution was to ensure that pregnant persons in extraordinary circumstances be aloud the right to terminate said pregnancy, thus allowing for such persons to not suffer the horrible effects of there pregnancy (ie; death or the disability)
NEVER THE LESS is considered that Section 2 of the legislation would place a substantial burden on poor nation and on large and sparse populated ones which would be forced to spend money on ensuring that abortions can be easily provided to all there citizens should they wish it.
FURTHER CONSIDERED that such a recruitment effectively forces member nations to use government revenue to fund at least the creation if not also the maintenance of facilities and personal for the purpose of providing abortions which is likely to cause substantial resentment towards the government in highly religious and/or conservative societies
FURTHER MORE the provision that "no physician may be compelled to perform abortion against their moral stance" all though on its own a reasonable measure when combined with the above mentioned issues would mean that nations with very large religious populations could well find it extremely difficult if not impossible to find enough qualified medical personal to ensure that section 2 of the resolution is met which could force them to spend substantial resources trying to attract enough doctors to move from other nations to comply to this law.
IS THUS RESOLVED to repeal this legislation in the hopes that another resolution shall be passed on the topic to more address the condensers here raised
by Kenmoria » Fri Jan 12, 2018 4:09 am
by Attempted Socialism » Fri Jan 12, 2018 5:11 am
"Your use of "immorality", "killing", "indefensible", "child", "innocent" and "infant" is wrong, and it instantly invalidates any argument you may think you just presented. Furthermore, since murder is by definition a homicide that is illegal, any legal homicide cannot be murder. Your abuse of terms is an affront to basic communication. Next, a foetus is not a person, so an abortion cannot be homicide, therefore even if we substituted the right words you would be incorrect. In addition to everything you just said being wrong, repealing On Abortion would not end abortion, since we have Reproductive Freedom on the books. It would open up for untrained people to perform abortions, and it would allow nations to decide for themselves whether physicians can opt out of performing abortions on the basis of personal belief. That is the basic change you are proposing. Good luck getting that through."Pinochetiannia wrote:The fact still remains that there is a certain immorality to abortion. The act itself of killing an indefensible child cannot possibly be allowed but also funded by the government. There is no scenario in which the killing of an innocent infant who has committed no crime can be justified. No one can be given the legal authority to carry out unjust murder. I would love to hear any opinions on this and am willing to give any answers to question one might have on my stance with this issue.
- L Lopez
Represented in the World Assembly by Ambassador Robert Mortimer Pride, called The Regicide Assume OOC unless otherwise indicated. My WA Authorship. | Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt? Bobberino: "The academic tone shines through." | Who am I in real life, my opinions and notes My NS career |
by Kenmoria » Fri Jan 12, 2018 5:25 am
Rukiana wrote:Do note that there is a repeal currently in the proposal stage. Please approve or share it if you desire.
by Pinochetiannia » Fri Jan 12, 2018 11:39 pm
Attempted Socialism wrote:"Your use of "immorality", "killing", "indefensible", "child", "innocent" and "infant" is wrong, and it instantly invalidates any argument you may think you just presented. Furthermore, since murder is by definition a homicide that is illegal, any legal homicide cannot be murder. Your abuse of terms is an affront to basic communication. Next, a foetus is not a person, so an abortion cannot be homicide, therefore even if we substituted the right words you would be incorrect. In addition to everything you just said being wrong, repealing On Abortion would not end abortion, since we have Reproductive Freedom on the books. It would open up for untrained people to perform abortions, and it would allow nations to decide for themselves whether physicians can opt out of performing abortions on the basis of personal belief. That is the basic change you are proposing. Good luck getting that through."Pinochetiannia wrote:The fact still remains that there is a certain immorality to abortion. The act itself of killing an indefensible child cannot possibly be allowed but also funded by the government. There is no scenario in which the killing of an innocent infant who has committed no crime can be justified. No one can be given the legal authority to carry out unjust murder. I would love to hear any opinions on this and am willing to give any answers to question one might have on my stance with this issue.
- L Lopez
by Attempted Socialism » Sat Jan 13, 2018 1:50 am
"Cancer cells and ants are alive, but I have not seen Ambassador Lopez fight for the end of cancer operations or insecticides. "Life" is a nonsense argument, Ambassador. Furthermore, your three basic human rights are pulled straight from your backside. Liberty even shows your inherent immorality and hypocrisy, since you suggest taking the woman's bodily autonomy away. You would in essence make pregnant women into property for nine months. Now, I would not put it past some anti-choice nations to really be in favour of that, but it ought to be pointed out.Pinochetiannia wrote:Attempted Socialism wrote:"Your use of "immorality", "killing", "indefensible", "child", "innocent" and "infant" is wrong, and it instantly invalidates any argument you may think you just presented. Furthermore, since murder is by definition a homicide that is illegal, any legal homicide cannot be murder. Your abuse of terms is an affront to basic communication. Next, a foetus is not a person, so an abortion cannot be homicide, therefore even if we substituted the right words you would be incorrect. In addition to everything you just said being wrong, repealing On Abortion would not end abortion, since we have Reproductive Freedom on the books. It would open up for untrained people to perform abortions, and it would allow nations to decide for themselves whether physicians can opt out of performing abortions on the basis of personal belief. That is the basic change you are proposing. Good luck getting that through."
If you want to go into semantics that's fine. When you have an abortion you are still ending a life. We, as humans, have 3 basic rights; Life, Liberty and Property. Unless an unlawful act is committed these rights cannot be taken away. Then you bring up the point that if we repealed "On Abortion" then untrained people would perform abortions. You are now proposing that people will kill dangerously so we should make killing legal. This notion is absurd. THe change I am proposing is that when a woman is impregnated she and father should take responsibility of the child rather than ending its life.
- L Lopez
Represented in the World Assembly by Ambassador Robert Mortimer Pride, called The Regicide Assume OOC unless otherwise indicated. My WA Authorship. | Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt? Bobberino: "The academic tone shines through." | Who am I in real life, my opinions and notes My NS career |
by Pinochetiannia » Sat Jan 13, 2018 4:26 am
Attempted Socialism wrote:"Cancer cells and ants are alive, but I have not seen Ambassador Lopez fight for the end of cancer operations or insecticides. "Life" is a nonsense argument, Ambassador. Furthermore, your three basic human rights are pulled straight from your backside. Liberty even shows your inherent immorality and hypocrisy, since you suggest taking the woman's bodily autonomy away. You would in essence make pregnant women into property for nine months. Now, I would not put it past some anti-choice nations to really be in favour of that, but it ought to be pointed out.Pinochetiannia wrote:
If you want to go into semantics that's fine. When you have an abortion you are still ending a life. We, as humans, have 3 basic rights; Life, Liberty and Property. Unless an unlawful act is committed these rights cannot be taken away. Then you bring up the point that if we repealed "On Abortion" then untrained people would perform abortions. You are now proposing that people will kill dangerously so we should make killing legal. This notion is absurd. THe change I am proposing is that when a woman is impregnated she and father should take responsibility of the child rather than ending its life.
- L Lopez
Abortions are not killings, there is nothing there to kill yet. Abortions can not end the lives of children either, since a child is by definition past the point where it can be aborted.
The reason I brought up the consequences of repealing On Abortion is simple. Repealing On Abortion would not enable states to make abortions illegal, but would bring other changes instead, such as open up for abortions performed by untrained personnel without the possibility of opting out. Those are legal consequences, not an argument for or against the availability of abortions.
Your facile argument about responsibility is simply laughable. Having an abortion is a way of being responsible.
Last, while I am not looking forward to teaching anti-choice delegations basic biology, language and ethics again, I would like it to at least be in the context of a draft, not simply your vacuous musings on how to make women second-rate citizens. Read the proposal that the draft attempts to counter, read Reproductive Freedoms so you at least know what each resolution does."
by Attempted Socialism » Sat Jan 13, 2018 4:39 am
OOC: Apart from this being a ramble that failed to even coherently respond to my points, it is also not about the draft about repealing On Abortion, or anything that is about On Abortion apart from the title. If you want to discuss real life philosophers and abortion politics, here's your option to do so. If you want to have my take on why your position is deeply anti-ethical, I lay out my thoughts here.Pinochetiannia wrote:Attempted Socialism wrote:"Cancer cells and ants are alive, but I have not seen Ambassador Lopez fight for the end of cancer operations or insecticides. "Life" is a nonsense argument, Ambassador. Furthermore, your three basic human rights are pulled straight from your backside. Liberty even shows your inherent immorality and hypocrisy, since you suggest taking the woman's bodily autonomy away. You would in essence make pregnant women into property for nine months. Now, I would not put it past some anti-choice nations to really be in favour of that, but it ought to be pointed out.
Abortions are not killings, there is nothing there to kill yet. Abortions can not end the lives of children either, since a child is by definition past the point where it can be aborted.
The reason I brought up the consequences of repealing On Abortion is simple. Repealing On Abortion would not enable states to make abortions illegal, but would bring other changes instead, such as open up for abortions performed by untrained personnel without the possibility of opting out. Those are legal consequences, not an argument for or against the availability of abortions.
Your facile argument about responsibility is simply laughable. Having an abortion is a way of being responsible.
Last, while I am not looking forward to teaching anti-choice delegations basic biology, language and ethics again, I would like it to at least be in the context of a draft, not simply your vacuous musings on how to make women second-rate citizens. Read the proposal that the draft attempts to counter, read Reproductive Freedoms so you at least know what each resolution does."
So you recognise that a Foetus is living. When you have an abortion you are not killing cancer cells or insects you are killing a human being in one of its lowest stages of development. The three basic human rights or the three natural human rights (Life, Liberty and Property) is actually according to 17th century philosopher John Locke. Having an abortion is not a way of being responsible. If you make the choice to have sexual intercourse without contraception you handle the consequences. This does not give you the right to end a life. If you are impregnated you either give it up for adoption or you take care of it yourself. If repealing "On Abortion" won't allow states to make abortions illegal then we are purely forgetting the role of government. To protect rights. A foetus is as valuable as every other innocent life. So it is therefore a governments duty to protect them from abortions. My aim is not to make women second-rate citizens. This accusation has not backing because you yourself recognised foetus' are living. Why would making the ending of innocent lives make women second-rate citizens
I am also yet to hear a scenario where abortion is appropriate.
Life, Liberty and Property are in order for a reason. Life comes before Liberty.
-L Lopez
Represented in the World Assembly by Ambassador Robert Mortimer Pride, called The Regicide Assume OOC unless otherwise indicated. My WA Authorship. | Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt? Bobberino: "The academic tone shines through." | Who am I in real life, my opinions and notes My NS career |
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: SimTropican, The Overmind
Advertisement