NationStates

We support this.

Mesrane wrote:

Gallifrey Secundaria wrote:I really doubt you can take on a civilization as advanced as ours, especially with our population. But sure, try

OOC: In what fucked up universe do you live in that nations invade with 300 million men over a homosexuality law? In what universe do nations even have 300 million men?

Jute wrote:The "MT" was added later, though.

OOC: So? You honestly don't have an issue with 300 million men and space fleets fighting it out . . . over a homosexuality law?

OOC: I've redacted the space fleet, after it was decided that the timeframe was MT. However, my RP population is the same as my IG population, meaning that 300 million isn't an extreme number to have for a military, especially considering the amount of cash I spend on it.

I'll change it to 150 million. Is that okay with you?

Herargon wrote:

OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE GOVERNMENT:

The Imperial Government of Herargon,

Hereby declares it position:

That homosexuality is debatable, however not punishable. You are born, grow up and then you encounter your own sexual desires. Some are acceptable, such as heterosexualism and bisexualism; some are certainly bad, such as pedosexualism. Homosexualism is a grey border in this, a known place to mankind. But does that say we should tolerate this fully, or make it punishable? No. Therefore, we declare that homosexualism is not punishable if done privately, but if it is shown in public (that means, having sex with another of the same gender in public, and not promoting homosexualism), you will be punished, according to the ''Public Sexual Propriety Act'', which makes homo-sexual acts in public punishable, but makes private homosexualism tolerable.

IN SHORT: Homosexualism in public is not to be tolerated; in private, that's another matter. Homosexuality in private is tolerated.

Herargon condemns the nations that reasoned they are currently at war with Burlonia because they do not want the law to be passed, because Burlonia is a sovereign country.
We hereby support Burlonia for their war, but not because they want to pass the law; we support Burlonia because they're wrongly and unjust being attacked.


SEALED AND APPROVED BY THE EMPEROR OF THE SENATE AND THE PEOPLE OF HERARGON

OOC: Just so you know, it isn't just the imprisonment of people occurring. In several counties, people are being killed over it. That's why war was declared.

Burleson wrote:

Jute wrote:OOC: How the heck is abortion worse than the death penalty?
Other than that, I tend to mostly agree with the position, I guess. Invading will most likely only make things worse.

Abortion kills children inhumanely in the name of inconvenience. The death penalty kills criminals in a relatively humane way.

OOC: Fetuses aren't children

The Federation of Coreyea vigorously applauds your laws and offers utmost support.

We support this bill and wish you the best in having it enacted quickly and without interruption from other meddlesome nations.

Gallifrey Secundaria wrote:

Burleson wrote:Abortion kills children inhumanely in the name of inconvenience. The death penalty kills criminals in a relatively humane way.

OOC: Fetuses aren't children

If fetuses are less human than babies, does that mean an 8 year old is less human than a 20 year old?

Burleson wrote:

Gallifrey Secundaria wrote:OOC: Fetuses aren't children

If fetuses are less human than babies, does that mean an 8 year old is less human than a 20 year old?

Volume wise, yes

Burleson wrote:

Gallifrey Secundaria wrote:OOC: Fetuses aren't children

If fetuses are less human than babies, does that mean an 8 year old is less human than a 20 year old?

He never said fetuses were less human, he said they were not children, thus the age comparison is not valid (nobody would ask if an orange is less apple than an apple.) A newborn can maintain its biological functions on its own, while the fetus needs the mother to survive. Of course babies don't feed on their own, but they have their own antibodies, fully functional respiratory system, etc., making them fully fledged individuals. I'm playing devil's advocate here though, does Burleson reject all abortions including early embryos?

Cuatro wrote:

Burleson wrote:If fetuses are less human than babies, does that mean an 8 year old is less human than a 20 year old?

He never said fetuses were less human, he said they were not children, thus the age comparison is not valid (nobody would ask if an orange is less apple than an apple.) A newborn can maintain its biological functions on its own, while the fetus needs the mother to survive. Of course babies don't feed on their own, but they have their own antibodies, fully functional respiratory system, etc., making them fully fledged individuals. I'm playing devil's advocate here though, does Burleson reject all abortions including early embryos?

Studies show that fetuses are in fact developing babies.

Shocking!

The Nexus of Man wrote:

Cuatro wrote:
He never said fetuses were less human, he said they were not children, thus the age comparison is not valid (nobody would ask if an orange is less apple than an apple.) A newborn can maintain its biological functions on its own, while the fetus needs the mother to survive. Of course babies don't feed on their own, but they have their own antibodies, fully functional respiratory system, etc., making them fully fledged individuals. I'm playing devil's advocate here though, does Burleson reject all abortions including early embryos?

Studies show that fetuses are in fact developing babies.

Shocking!

So is an egg after fertilization, abortion isn't even cruel - and as for the death penalty being humane, that's not exactly the case, the three drugs used in it aren't very nice and can go terribly wrong - I still agree with it though.

Burleson wrote:

Gallifrey Secundaria wrote:OOC: Fetuses aren't children

If fetuses are less human than babies, does that mean an 8 year old is less human than a 20 year old?

In volume, yes. Also, fetuses can't survive outside their mother's body. Therefore, they are but parasites until they grow enough that they can survive outside the womb. As such, the mother has all the right to remove the parasite should she wish to do so.

---

---

Brightest blessings;

It is the opinion of The Magnificent and Beautiful, Wise and Powerful, Perfect and Almighty, Avatar of the Divine Glory, Queen Lyta of Brellach, Her horses swift and Her blade true, that the acts of the Burlesconian government are worthy of Her condemnation, and thus it befalls me to convey this message.

In Her wisdom She fails to comprehend how the activities of 'homosexuals' is, in any way, the business of your government, yet they have made it an international issue. The Burlesconians criticise those threatening 'innocent civilians' with death, while She watches their people condemn 'homosexuals' to death in the same breath. The Burlesconian government claims it has no responsibility for the acts of its own people - thus She asks who should be held accountable, if not the Burlesconian government which allows Ranch County to act in the first place, defends their right to do so with threats of force, and is the sovereign power responsible for representing the Burlescon nation?

It is not for us to interfere in the affairs of Other Places, but I must voice Her strong dismay at the barbarism of Burlescon, and that your excuses for this barbarism are illogical, contradictory, and hypocritical. She implores you rethink these acts of barbarism, which will produce nothing but misery and death for thousands of people.

Most humbly,

Rena Vaska
Devout Advisor of Her Court,
With Responsibility for Speaking with Those of Other Places
Holy Queendom of Brellach

Cuatro wrote:

Burleson wrote:If fetuses are less human than babies, does that mean an 8 year old is less human than a 20 year old?

He never said fetuses were less human, he said they were not children, thus the age comparison is not valid (nobody would ask if an orange is less apple than an apple.) A newborn can maintain its biological functions on its own, while the fetus needs the mother to survive. Of course babies don't feed on their own, but they have their own antibodies, fully functional respiratory system, etc., making them fully fledged individuals. I'm playing devil's advocate here though, does Burleson reject all abortions including early embryos?

All abortion is illegal in Burleson and anyone that takes part in these activities is tried for infanticide.

Burleson wrote:

Cuatro wrote:
He never said fetuses were less human, he said they were not children, thus the age comparison is not valid (nobody would ask if an orange is less apple than an apple.) A newborn can maintain its biological functions on its own, while the fetus needs the mother to survive. Of course babies don't feed on their own, but they have their own antibodies, fully functional respiratory system, etc., making them fully fledged individuals. I'm playing devil's advocate here though, does Burleson reject all abortions including early embryos?

All abortion is illegal in Burleson and anyone that takes part in these activities is tried for infanticide.

No exceptions?

This is for roleplay, not for debating.

Burleson wrote:

Cuatro wrote:
He never said fetuses were less human, he said they were not children, thus the age comparison is not valid (nobody would ask if an orange is less apple than an apple.) A newborn can maintain its biological functions on its own, while the fetus needs the mother to survive. Of course babies don't feed on their own, but they have their own antibodies, fully functional respiratory system, etc., making them fully fledged individuals. I'm playing devil's advocate here though, does Burleson reject all abortions including early embryos?

All abortion is illegal in Burleson and anyone that takes part in these activities is tried for infanticide.

*sigh*

I'm getting the fuck out of this RP. The fact that you can't understand that all GA resolutions are binding is mindbogglingly stupid.

Jute wrote:

Burleson wrote:All abortion is illegal in Burleson and anyone that takes part in these activities is tried for infanticide.

No exceptions?

Affirmitive.
Now lets get back to the rp.

The Union of Tentacles and Grapes wrote:

Mesrane wrote:Accidentally put two of the same one, but that doesn't make the whole "Civil rights violations? Attack!" logic/lack of logic any less ridiculous.

I think I hold the moral high ground here, with the zero blood and lots of lube on my hands. My nation isn't the one literally holding its gay citizens hostage. I think there might be a WA resolution against at least one part of that.

To: Burleson
From: Mesrane

While it is very much up to the Burlesonian counties to manage their own affairs if the Burlesonian constitution requires that the federal government lay off the counties, some sort of central authority, a special police force, an army unit, something, needs to be implemented to ensure that LGBT individuals are not killed for their sexuality. I also implore you to in turn demand that Branch County repeal this execution law, or do something to nullify it for the time being until a more constitution-friendly way to remove the execution law can be devised. In the meantime, Mesrane stand with Burleson, and my nation expresses disapproval at the various nations who think Burleson's affairs are their affairs, which they most certainly are not.

Sincerely,
Sonnac Eriadunn, President of the Republic of Mesrane

The Union is engaged in this conflict per its duties as a WA member state, under resolution #38, the Convention against genocide. As Burlesonian governmental authority is being used for the express purpose of genocide, that nation is engaged in a crime against sentient beings. We will not stand for this.

1. (1) Genocide shall be defined as any act committed, or measure enacted, with the intent to destroy, in whole or partially, an identifiable group of persons on the basis of belief, ethnicity, nationality, culture, or a perceived innate characteristic, which for the purposes of this resolution shall include sexual orientation.

(2) Acts of genocide include, but are not limited to: killing or inflicting serious harm upon members of the group, creating living conditions for the group which tend to bring about its physical destruction, forcibly removing children from the group, or taking measures to prevent births within the group.

2. Member nations are prohibited from perpetrating acts of genocide, and must take action against non-state groups undertaking such activities whithin their borders.

3. Member nations must provide aid, protection and refuge to victims of genocide to the best of their ability, and must deny such aid to the perpetrators of genocide.

4. Genocide, conspiring to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to genocide, attempting to commit genocide, and complicity in genocide shall be punishable acts in all member states.

5. (1) Nations must facilitate the extradition of those suspected of the crimes specified in section 4 to the appropriate authority should they have escaped outside of the appropriate authority's control, subject to national and international law.

(2) The crimes specified in section 4 may not be considered political crimes for the purposes of preventing extradition proceedings.

6. In consideration of the gravity of the crime of genocide, member nations are strongly urged to apply the harshest penalties under their laws for the punishment of those convicted of genocide, and part of the sentence shall include measures to prevent those found guilty of genocide from repeating such acts.

7. The final goal of action against genocide is to uphold the rights of sapient beings, and actions taken against genocide should be consistent with this higher goal.

The Union of Tentacles and Grapes wrote:The Union is engaged in this conflict per its duties as a WA member state, under resolution #38, the Convention against genocide. As Burlesonian governmental authority is being used for the express purpose of genocide, that nation is engaged in a crime against sentient beings. We will not stand for this.

1. (1) Genocide shall be defined as any act committed, or measure enacted, with the intent to destroy, in whole or partially, an identifiable group of persons on the basis of belief, ethnicity, nationality, culture, or a perceived innate characteristic, which for the purposes of this resolution shall include sexual orientation.

(2) Acts of genocide include, but are not limited to: killing or inflicting serious harm upon members of the group, creating living conditions for the group which tend to bring about its physical destruction, forcibly removing children from the group, or taking measures to prevent births within the group.

2. Member nations are prohibited from perpetrating acts of genocide, and must take action against non-state groups undertaking such activities whithin their borders.

3. Member nations must provide aid, protection and refuge to victims of genocide to the best of their ability, and must deny such aid to the perpetrators of genocide.

4. Genocide, conspiring to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to genocide, attempting to commit genocide, and complicity in genocide shall be punishable acts in all member states.

5. (1) Nations must facilitate the extradition of those suspected of the crimes specified in section 4 to the appropriate authority should they have escaped outside of the appropriate authority's control, subject to national and international law.

(2) The crimes specified in section 4 may not be considered political crimes for the purposes of preventing extradition proceedings.

6. In consideration of the gravity of the crime of genocide, member nations are strongly urged to apply the harshest penalties under their laws for the punishment of those convicted of genocide, and part of the sentence shall include measures to prevent those found guilty of genocide from repeating such acts.

7. The final goal of action against genocide is to uphold the rights of sapient beings, and actions taken against genocide should be consistent with this higher goal.

First of all, just in case you haven't got the message yet, the Burlesonian government has not issued the death penalty based on sexuality, these are just the actions of a few county governments. And they are not killing people for being gay, they're killing people for having gay sex. That's not genocide.

Furry Alairia and Algeria wrote:

Gallifrey Secundaria wrote:In volume, yes. Also, fetuses can't survive outside their mother's body. Therefore, they are but parasites until they grow enough that they can survive outside the womb. As such, the mother has all the right to remove the parasite should she wish to do so.

Levistavia wrote:
So is an egg after fertilization, abortion isn't even cruel - and as for the death penalty being humane, that's not exactly the case, the three drugs used in it aren't very nice and can go terribly wrong - I still agree with it though.

The Nexus of Man wrote:
Studies show that fetuses are in fact developing babies.

Shocking!

Cuatro wrote:
He never said fetuses were less human, he said they were not children, thus the age comparison is not valid (nobody would ask if an orange is less apple than an apple.) A newborn can maintain its biological functions on its own, while the fetus needs the mother to survive. Of course babies don't feed on their own, but they have their own antibodies, fully functional respiratory system, etc., making them fully fledged individuals. I'm playing devil's advocate here though, does Burleson reject all abortions including early embryos?

Dewhurst-Narculis wrote:
Volume wise, yes

Burleson wrote:If fetuses are less human than babies, does that mean an 8 year old is less human than a 20 year old?

Gallifrey Secundaria wrote:OOC: Fetuses aren't children

This is for roleplay, not for debating.

Yet you're posting like this? gg

---

We'll be silently watching.

Perhaps I have overestimated Burleson in assuming that its representatives were able to read.

Perhaps your allies of the Nexus would be so kind as to read section 1(2) to you, perhaps while sitting on their lap and nodding off to dreams of snuggling with guns.

The Nexus of Man wrote:

Furry Alairia and Algeria wrote:

This is for roleplay, not for debating.

Yet you're posting like this? gg

Thank you for your unconditional surrender. I'd think you'd speak for Burleson, but that would be a overstatement on leadership

---

Burleson, I strongly recommend you read WA law before you try to overrule it.

Furry Alairia and Algeria wrote:

The Nexus of Man wrote:
Yet you're posting like this? gg

Thank you for your unconditional surrender. I'd think you'd speak for Burleson, but that would be a overstatement on leadership

---

Burleson, I strongly recommend you read WA law before you try to overrule it.

If we weren't even at war, no surrender can be held. Nice try mate.

---

We'll still be watching.