NationStates

Attempted Socialism wrote:

Marxist Germany wrote:OOC:It's a compromise because we still have to live with legal abortion for cases of rape, or incest.

OOC: RF+OA is the compromise. It's the compromise between those who reasonably want women to have rights, and those who want the anti-choice advocates to be forced to pay for all abortions. Further, compromise is what is negotiated between two sides who cannot, or will not, dictate their will upon the other side. In this case, the anti-choice 'other side' is a handful of people and their futile attempt to turn back history. It will not happen, and any replacement of RF or OA will be even more pro-choice.

OOC: Anti choice is quite a rude name, we're called pro life.

Marxist Germany wrote:

Attempted Socialism wrote:OOC: RF+OA is the compromise. It's the compromise between those who reasonably want women to have rights, and those who want the anti-choice advocates to be forced to pay for all abortions. Further, compromise is what is negotiated between two sides who cannot, or will not, dictate their will upon the other side. In this case, the anti-choice 'other side' is a handful of people and their futile attempt to turn back history. It will not happen, and any replacement of RF or OA will be even more pro-choice.

OOC: Anti choice is quite a rude name, we're called pro life.

We're also anti-abortion. I'm not going to shy away from that phrase with euphemisms.

United Massachusetts wrote:MG, continue this draft.

OOC: This hill destroyed much of what credibility Auralia had left. You've only just managed to scrape yours back together, don't throw it away again just to encourage a bad idea.

Marxist Germany wrote:OOC: Anti choice is quite a rude name, we're called pro life.

OOC: No, you're anti-choice. If you weren't, you'd let other people decide for themselves.

If you were pro-life, you'd be making a proposal banning warfare entirely, and one for mandating vaccinations, and one for mandating easy access and completely free complete healthcare coverage for everyone, and for mandating oprhan adoptions into childless families, and everything else that would reduce the loss of life. And one for mandating comprehensive sex education and free access to preventative methods, to reduce unwanted pregnancies.

But instead you want to restrict someone else's rights to decide if they want to procreate or not, so you ARE anti-choice, whether you like the word or not.

---

OOC: Anyone has the vote statistics on the previous repeal attempts that went to vote? I can't remember the exact numbers, but I'm fairly sure they've failed by a larger margin each time. And many don't even make it to vote.

Marxist Germany wrote:OOC: we're called pro life.

Since you have now made it explicit that is your position, in conjunction with what you have previously said, it adds more weight to why I think that your endgame here is to repeal 128.

The New California Republic wrote:

Marxist Germany wrote:OOC: we're called pro life.

Since you have now made it explicit that is your position, in conjunction with what you have previously said, it adds more weight to why I think that your endgame here is to repeal 128.

OOC:There are many degrees to being pro life, its a spectrum, I believe that abortion should completely be illegal excluding cases of life threatening conditions. 128 is the best compromise we're going to get as it's harder to ban abortion than repeal GA#1.

Marxist Germany wrote:

Attempted Socialism wrote:OOC: RF+OA is the compromise. It's the compromise between those who reasonably want women to have rights, and those who want the anti-choice advocates to be forced to pay for all abortions. Further, compromise is what is negotiated between two sides who cannot, or will not, dictate their will upon the other side. In this case, the anti-choice 'other side' is a handful of people and their futile attempt to turn back history. It will not happen, and any replacement of RF or OA will be even more pro-choice.

OOC: Anti choice is quite a rude name, we're called pro life.

Anti-choice is accurate, though, unlike pro-life, which is why I use it when we're discussing whether women have the right to choose whether she remains pregnant.
If you think it's rude when I describe your preferred policy position, imagine how it must be for people who you want to subject to your policy position.

United Massachusetts wrote:The reality is that neither side can enforce its will on the other. At any moment, United Massachusetts could withdraw its membership. The WA possesses no genuine sovereignty.

We're not going to take this nonsensical lie that RF is permanent. Nothing is permanent, including forced legalisation of third trimester abortions.

That... doesn't change the fact that RF (And OA) is the compromise position between the conservatives and the radicals.

Marxist Germany wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Since you have now made it explicit that is your position, in conjunction with what you have previously said, it adds more weight to why I think that your endgame here is to repeal 128.

OOC:There are many degrees to being pro life, its a spectrum, I believe that abortion should completely be illegal excluding cases of life threatening conditions. 128 is the best compromise we're going to get as it's harder to ban abortion than repeal GA#1.

Sure, but even 286 won't be repealed. And the line about a "better replacement" is still in your draft. It's obvious by now that the line is disingenuous.

Marxist Germany wrote:OOC:There are many degrees to being pro life, its a spectrum

OOC: And you've chosen the anti-choice one.

I believe that abortion should completely be illegal excluding cases of life threatening conditions.

UM, are you entirely certain that this is someone you want your name to be associated with? Someone who wants to deny raped children (think 11-12 yo) the ability to have an abortion unless they develope a life threatening condition?

Araraukar wrote:

Marxist Germany wrote:OOC:There are many degrees to being pro life, its a spectrum

OOC: And you've chosen the anti-choice one.

I believe that abortion should completely be illegal excluding cases of life threatening conditions.

UM, are you entirely certain that this is someone you want your name to be associated with? Someone who wants to deny raped children (think 11-12 yo) the ability to have an abortion unless they develope a life threatening condition?

OOC: UM holds the same view except he includes rape and incest.

Marxist Germany wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: And you've chosen the anti-choice one.


UM, are you entirely certain that this is someone you want your name to be associated with? Someone who wants to deny raped children (think 11-12 yo) the ability to have an abortion unless they develope a life threatening condition?

OOC: UM holds the same view except he includes rape and incest.

OOC: Making it not the same view.

Marxist Germany wrote:

Araraukar wrote:UM, are you entirely certain that this is someone you want your name to be associated with? Someone who wants to deny raped children (think 11-12 yo) the ability to have an abortion unless they develope a life threatening condition?

OOC: UM holds the same view except he includes rape and incest.

So...he doesn't hold the same view at all then...

The New California Republic wrote:

Marxist Germany wrote:OOC: UM holds the same view except he includes rape and incest.

So...he doesn't hold the same view at all then...

OOC: I quoted it before the edit and didn't notice.

Marxist Germany wrote:Annoyed with the use of the undefined term "impediment", which means that nations cannot even counsel an individual before carrying out a termination of pregnancy;

OOC: This is wrong; the target says: "DEMANDS that Member Nations prohibit any impediment to the termination of pregnancy that is not applied to medical procedures of similar risk and complexity,"; therefore you can counsel as long as you do it for other medical procedures, as well.

Marxist Germany wrote:OOC: I quoted it before the edit and didn't notice.

OOC: If you'd quoted it before the edit, it wouldn't have shown the edit.

The New Nordic Union wrote:

Marxist Germany wrote:Annoyed with the use of the undefined term "impediment", which means that nations cannot even counsel an individual before carrying out a termination of pregnancy;

OOC: This is wrong; the target says: "DEMANDS that Member Nations prohibit any impediment to the termination of pregnancy that is not applied to medical procedures of similar risk and complexity,"; therefore you can counsel as long as you do it for other medical procedures, as well.

OOC:Ahh I see, will be fixed.

Araraukar wrote:

Marxist Germany wrote:OOC: I quoted it before the edit and didn't notice.

OOC: If you'd quoted it before the edit, it wouldn't have shown the edit.

OOC:You must've edited between the time I clicked on the thread and the time I pressed the quote button

Marxist Germany wrote:OOC:You must've edited between the time I clicked on the thread and the time I pressed the quote button

OOC: You not reading what you quote is neither my nor the forum's fault.

Araraukar wrote:

Marxist Germany wrote:OOC: I quoted it before the edit and didn't notice.

OOC: If you'd quoted it before the edit, it wouldn't have shown the edit.

Indeed, so I'm calling BS on that excuse.

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Anyone has the vote statistics on the previous repeal attempts that went to vote? I can't remember the exact numbers, but I'm fairly sure they've failed by a larger margin each time. And many don't even make it to vote.

"Repeal "Reproductive Freedoms"" was defeated 12,038 votes to 2,578.

(OOC: This is the most recent one I could find, and you are correct that they’ve failed by increasingly large margins. Marxist Germany, this really isn’t going to pass. As repeals of 286 go, this is by far not the worst, and possibly would make it into my top five. However, that is irrelevant, as none of that list have even a chance of passing. It isn’t about the arguments of the repeal; it’s about the GA members being unwilling to support any repeal of 286.)

“Categorically opposed, paper reserved for use as kindling.”

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Attempting this repeal will quickly make you very hated all too easily.

As far as I'm concerned, being hated for trying to repeal the legislative abomination that is Reproductive Freedoms is a badge of honour. MG, you should take pride in this attempt.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:You repeal, we pass abortionplexes for all. Is that what you want?

See, the problem is that the current legal situation in the GA is so extraordinarily pro-abortion that this really isn't much of a threat. Besides, there's always room for more resolutions on our list.

United Massachusetts wrote:

Marxist Germany wrote:OOC: Anti choice is quite a rude name, we're called pro life.

We're also anti-abortion. I'm not going to shy away from that phrase with euphemisms.

Personally, the term "pro-fetal rights" is starting to grow on me. I would very much like the other side to describe themselves as "anti-fetal rights" -- I'm sure even they would agree it's a correct description, but it doesn't sound very nice, does it!

Araraukar wrote:

United Massachusetts wrote:MG, continue this draft.

OOC: This hill destroyed much of what credibility Auralia had left. You've only just managed to scrape yours back together, don't throw it away again just to encourage a bad idea.

Yes, yes, I'm a pariah who apparently by some miracle managed to pass more than twenty GA resolutions, for the most part after my opposition to abortion was widely known. We've heard it all before.

Can we stop with this faux-concern about the "credibility" of social conservative players in the GA now, please?

Araraukar wrote:If you were pro-life, you'd be making a proposal banning warfare entirely, and one for mandating vaccinations, and one for mandating easy access and completely free complete healthcare coverage for everyone, and for mandating oprhan adoptions into childless families, and everything else that would reduce the loss of life. And one for mandating comprehensive sex education and free access to preventative methods, to reduce unwanted pregnancies.

And while we're at it, can we stop with this tired old false comparison as well? Reasonable people can hold that everybody has the right not to be killed by their parents in utero while disagreeing about the best way to structure a national healthcare system or what constitutes a just war.

Araraukar wrote:UM, are you entirely certain that this is someone you want your name to be associated with? Someone who wants to deny raped children (think 11-12 yo) the ability to have an abortion unless they develope a life threatening condition?

Oh, yes, UM, you have your reputation to consider. People might start to think you believe the right to life is a fundamental human right, unaffected by the circumstances of a child's conception, and we wouldn't want that!

"New Waldensia fully supports this effort."

Auralia wrote:As far as I'm concerned, being hated for trying to repeal the legislative abomination that is Reproductive Freedoms is a badge of honour. MG, you should take pride in this attempt.

Auralia wrote:...snip...

OOC: Whatever about the credibility of players based on their ideological views, there's no doubt that godmoding type non-compliance is ruinous to one's credibility. Your list is no different to the hit-and-run orcs in the at vote threads saying they won't comply anyway. If you won't comply anyway, why should we listen to anything you have to say about anything?

Bananaistan wrote:

Auralia wrote:...snip...

OOC: Whatever about the credibility of players based on their ideological views, there's no doubt that godmoding type non-compliance is ruinous to one's credibility. Your list is no different to the hit-and-run orcs in the at vote threads saying they won't comply anyway. If you won't comply anyway, why should we listen to anything you have to say about anything?

Ooc: this is as much the reason for pariahhood as the abortion shit, as far as I'm concerned. Though the social conservatism tends to drive away those of us victimized or with family victimized by those values.

Bananaistan wrote:OOC: Whatever about the credibility of players based on their ideological views, there's no doubt that godmoding type non-compliance is ruinous to one's credibility. Your list is no different to the hit-and-run orcs in the at vote threads saying they won't comply anyway. If you won't comply anyway, why should we listen to anything you have to say about anything?

Actually, it's quite different. Auralia's non-compliance is limited to certain key issues where non-compliance is morally obligatory, and a detailed rationale is provided in each case. There's plenty of World Assembly legislation that Auralia disagrees with on policy grounds, but which it complies with nonetheless.

As a player, I have already explained my position on non-compliance in significant detail in the debate thread on the Administrative Compliance Act. My position has not changed since then.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Bananaistan wrote:
OOC: Whatever about the credibility of players based on their ideological views, there's no doubt that godmoding type non-compliance is ruinous to one's credibility. Your list is no different to the hit-and-run orcs in the at vote threads saying they won't comply anyway. If you won't comply anyway, why should we listen to anything you have to say about anything?

Ooc: this is as much the reason for pariahhood as the abortion shit, as far as I'm concerned. Though the social conservatism tends to drive away those of us victimized or with family victimized by those values.

If you or anybody else don't want to associate with me -- whether because of my social conservatism or because of my approach to non-compliance -- that's your call. But I'm going to keep playing this game regardless.