Auze wrote:Attempted Socialism wrote:The Socialist Delegation appears unaware or convincingly nonplussed by the Auzean scribbling. Instead, the Ambassador keeps reinforcing her point that the current state of legislation is the compromise, broken in bad faith by reactionary anti-choice delegations.
"It is not much of a compromise to mandate the legalization of abortion up until birth. While we applaud your commitment to a policy that is infanticidal in its lack of restriction, and to using name-calling to make your opponents sound bad (seriously, your propaganda efforts are impressive), we kinda just wish that everyone would just go all in, and either ban thinking about abortion or make it legal to abort 20 year olds."
"Oh, Ambassador, it is so cute when you try to use big words! First, infanticide is the killing of infants, not foetuses. Second, propaganda is usually the biased or misleading dissemination of information, which applies to you but not to the mainstream pro-choice side. As examples, both your allegation that current abortion policy includes infanticide or that it would somehow be going 'all in' on current policy to abort people are excessively misleading. Any number of further examples can be found in the attempted repeals of On Abortion and Reproductive Freedoms if you care to look."
The ambassador takes a breath.
"Now, to get back to the compromise, because it is a compromise between all relevant parties, you had two options: Accept the deal or continue to maliciously attack the rights of women. The resolution On Abortion took all perspectives into account and adjudicated fairly, so that all sides gave a bit. No one party got quite what they wanted, even though the majority -- as subsequent legislation has shown -- could force through its will if so desired. The anti-choice crowd chose to continue fighting against their best available option, at which point the pro-choice crowd altered the deal a little. Now we stand in the same situation again, and have to alter the deal a tiny step again. Had the anti-choice delegations accepted that On Abortion was the law of the land, subsequent rallying to the rights of women would have had less fuel."
United Massachusetts wrote:Attempted Socialism wrote:The Socialist Delegation appears unaware or convincingly nonplussed by the Auzean scribbling. Instead, the Ambassador keeps reinforcing her point that the current state of legislation is the compromise, broken in bad faith by reactionary anti-choice delegations.
We never consented to such a compromise, so we cannot 'break" it.
"That also answers the objection to the delegation from United Massachusetts. The compromise was between all relevant parties, so if the delegation did not consent they must have been irrelevant. Now, that still means honouring the deal was and is in their best interest, of course. Obstinacy at this point is clearly just making the argument of the pro-choice side, who had the power to vote through Reproductive Freedoms, vote down all anti-choice repeals, and let us see whether the pro-choice side has the power to vote through Access to Abortion as well. When you are an irrelevant party to a compromise where any change will be a change against your posited policy goal, the best option is to sit still and pray the other parties do not alter the deal any further."
OOC: This is... all wrong. Good grief. "Abortionism" doesn't exist and cannot be an ideology (Is anti-slavery an ideology? Is supporting the right to bodily sovereignty an ideology?). I don't think Christians should ever talk about missionaries in polite society for your own damned interests, lest you invite responses such as Tinfects -- I can add Catholic missionary conduct being responsible for the AIDS epidemic in Africa, Anglican and Protestant missionaries being advocates for the enslavement of and genocide against Native Americans across the North American continent -- but it's also wrong to allege that there's anything "missionary" about women's rights. Your quoted spiel, and you really ought to remember to attribute your quote, otherwise people might be mislead to think it was yours, is also not relevant.Christian Democrats wrote:Wayneactia wrote:This is more unnecessary shit. Can we please repeal the rest of these damn resoultions and pass a blocker that leaves these matters up to national governments once and for all please?
Abortionism is a missionary ideology. Its adherents are committed to spreading a culture of death.This culture is actively fostered by powerful cultural, economic and political currents which encourage an idea of society excessively concerned with efficiency. Looking at the situation from this point of view, it is possible to speak in a certain sense of a war of the powerful against the weak: a life which would require greater acceptance, love and care is considered useless, or held to be an intolerable burden, and is therefore rejected in one way or another. A person who, because of illness, handicap or, more simply, just by existing, compromises the well-being or life-style of those who are more favoured tends to be looked upon as an enemy to be resisted or eliminated. In this way a kind of "conspiracy against life" is unleashed. This conspiracy involves not only individuals in their personal, family or group relationships, but goes far beyond, to the point of damaging and distorting, at the international level, relations between peoples and States.