by Dutha Gropi » Sat Aug 08, 2020 5:30 am
by Kenmoria » Sat Aug 08, 2020 5:52 am
by Ardiveds » Sat Aug 08, 2020 6:00 am
by Old Hope » Sat Aug 08, 2020 6:30 am
CONCERNED, that GAR#499 does not recognise that abortions in the later stage of the pregnancy puts the mother and the child at serious danger,
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The format wars are a waste of time.
by Ardiveds » Sat Aug 08, 2020 7:03 am
Old Hope wrote:CONCERNED, that GAR#499 does not recognise that abortions in the later stage of the pregnancy puts the mother and the child at serious danger,
Add that the pregnant person could even willingly pursue an abortion leading to the death of the otherwise viable unborn even if there would be methods of equal risk that would allow the unborn to have a chance to survive outside of pregnancy(under both this and another abortion resolution, the (in)famous Reproductive Freedoms); and that these unborn can clearly feel pain at this stage, causing that decision to be deeply immoral.
by Old Hope » Sat Aug 08, 2020 7:22 am
Ardiveds wrote:Old Hope wrote:Add that the pregnant person could even willingly pursue an abortion leading to the death of the otherwise viable unborn even if there would be methods of equal risk that would allow the unborn to have a chance to survive outside of pregnancy(under both this and another abortion resolution, the (in)famous Reproductive Freedoms); and that these unborn can clearly feel pain at this stage, causing that decision to be deeply immoral.
OOC: from what I understand, transferring a viable foetus to an artifical womb also falls within the resolution's definition of 'abortion' sonce the defintion makes no mention of whether the child has to live or die.
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The format wars are a waste of time.
by Ardiveds » Sat Aug 08, 2020 7:33 am
Old Hope wrote:Ardiveds wrote:OOC: from what I understand, transferring a viable foetus to an artifical womb also falls within the resolution's definition of 'abortion' sonce the defintion makes no mention of whether the child has to live or die.
OOC:Yes, but if you legalize all forms of abortion except for health and safety of persons another resolution applies that lets the pregnant person choose what they want.
by Sierra Lyricalia » Sat Aug 08, 2020 9:59 am
by Old Hope » Sat Aug 08, 2020 5:22 pm
Ardiveds wrote:OOC: Not gonna lie, I'm not entirely sure what you wanted to say there, please use punctuations . Anyway, I read RF, and it doesn't really say we have to legalize all forms of abortion, it simply says we have to legalize termination of pregnancy. AtA simply mandates that termination of pregnanacy has to be paid for by the government so still no where does it mandate a that a nation has to legalize all forms of abortion.
No members may:[...]prosecute any person for receiving or providing section 7 compliant abortions, contraceptives, truthful medical advice, or education thereon,
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:"As usual, the drafting delegation is under the absurd misapprehension that abortion and contraception are more expensive than years and years of the social welfare costs that are already mandated by the World Assembly. Math is your friend, ambassador."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The format wars are a waste of time.
by Sierra Lyricalia » Sat Aug 08, 2020 6:25 pm
Old Hope wrote:IC:Sierra Lyricalia wrote:"As usual, the drafting delegation is under the absurd misapprehension that abortion and contraception are more expensive than years and years of the social welfare costs that are already mandated by the World Assembly. Math is your friend, ambassador."
Probably, but does this make the argument invalid? After all, if you already have these costs putting a strain on the finances of member states, then adding more expenses might not be the best idea... and no giving out contraceptives and providing abortions without compensation costs more than you might think.
by Separatist Peoples » Sat Aug 08, 2020 6:41 pm
Old Hope wrote:Ardiveds wrote:OOC: Not gonna lie, I'm not entirely sure what you wanted to say there, please use punctuations . Anyway, I read RF, and it doesn't really say we have to legalize all forms of abortion, it simply says we have to legalize termination of pregnancy. AtA simply mandates that termination of pregnanacy has to be paid for by the government so still no where does it mandate a that a nation has to legalize all forms of abortion.
OOC:No, not Reproductive Freedoms alone, but General Assembly Resolution 29, Patients Rights Act.
AndNo members may:[...]prosecute any person for receiving or providing section 7 compliant abortions, contraceptives, truthful medical advice, or education thereon,
IC:Sierra Lyricalia wrote:"As usual, the drafting delegation is under the absurd misapprehension that abortion and contraception are more expensive than years and years of the social welfare costs that are already mandated by the World Assembly. Math is your friend, ambassador."
Probably, but does this make the argument invalid? After all, if you already have these costs putting a strain on the finances of member states, then adding more expenses might not be the best idea... and no giving out contraceptives and providing abortions without compensation costs more than you might think.
by Godular » Sat Aug 08, 2020 6:46 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Sat Aug 08, 2020 6:50 pm
Godular wrote:“Hee hee hee! I like that metaphor! Axe murders behind the woodshed, awesome. Oh, and opposed. I would note that the only reason the WA would be even remotely amenable to repealing 499, it would be solely to enact an even more pervasive replacement.”
by Ardiveds » Sat Aug 08, 2020 7:10 pm
Old Hope wrote:Ardiveds wrote:OOC: Not gonna lie, I'm not entirely sure what you wanted to say there, please use punctuations . Anyway, I read RF, and it doesn't really say we have to legalize all forms of abortion, it simply says we have to legalize termination of pregnancy. AtA simply mandates that termination of pregnanacy has to be paid for by the government so still no where does it mandate a that a nation has to legalize all forms of abortion.
OOC:No, not Reproductive Freedoms alone, but General Assembly Resolution 29, Patients Rights Act.
AndNo members may:[...]prosecute any person for receiving or providing section 7 compliant abortions, contraceptives, truthful medical advice, or education thereon,
by Dutha Gropi » Sun Aug 09, 2020 11:43 am
Old Hope wrote:CONCERNED, that GAR#499 does not recognise that abortions in the later stage of the pregnancy puts the mother and the child at serious danger,
Add that the pregnant person could even willingly pursue an abortion leading to the death of the otherwise viable unborn even if there would be methods of equal risk that would allow the unborn to have a chance to survive outside of pregnancy(under both this and another abortion resolution, the (in)famous Reproductive Freedoms); and that these unborn can clearly feel pain at this stage, causing that decision to be deeply immoral.
by Separatist Peoples » Sun Aug 09, 2020 12:33 pm
Dutha Gropi wrote:
Also, can anyone come up with a way to sensibly include the immorality of abortions in the proposal?
by Godular » Sun Aug 09, 2020 12:54 pm
Dutha Gropi wrote:Old Hope wrote:Add that the pregnant person could even willingly pursue an abortion leading to the death of the otherwise viable unborn even if there would be methods of equal risk that would allow the unborn to have a chance to survive outside of pregnancy(under both this and another abortion resolution, the (in)famous Reproductive Freedoms); and that these unborn can clearly feel pain at this stage, causing that decision to be deeply immoral.
I will add that, thx.
Also, can anyone come up with a way to sensibly include the immorality of abortions in the proposal?
by Kenmoria » Sun Aug 09, 2020 1:37 pm
Dutha Gropi wrote:Old Hope wrote:Add that the pregnant person could even willingly pursue an abortion leading to the death of the otherwise viable unborn even if there would be methods of equal risk that would allow the unborn to have a chance to survive outside of pregnancy(under both this and another abortion resolution, the (in)famous Reproductive Freedoms); and that these unborn can clearly feel pain at this stage, causing that decision to be deeply immoral.
I will add that, thx.
Also, can anyone come up with a way to sensibly include the immorality of abortions in the proposal?
by Attempted Socialism » Sun Aug 09, 2020 4:42 pm
"We tried, Ambassador. First with On Abortion, later with Reproductive Freedom. Anti-choice advocates would not adhere to their legal obligations and continued to deny their citizens basic human rights. At some point, enough becomes enough. There is no good reason for repealing Access to Abortion, unless it is to pass a resolution identical except for mandating that exclusively self-identifying 'pro-life' nations and individuals must pay for all abortions across the multiverse."Dutha Gropi wrote: ENCOURAGING the member nations of the General Assembly to craft new resolutions allowing abortion of pregnancy in certain, more limited circumstances,
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 Wallenburg » Mon Aug 10, 2020 7:41 pm
by Attempted Socialism » Mon Aug 17, 2020 1:57 pm
Dutha Gropi wrote:Any other concerns?
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: The Pacific Northwest
Advertisement