[PASSED] Access to Abortion

[Morover]

Can we? It might get rid of the anti-choice lobby once and for all.

OOC: anti-"choice" is a needlessly haughty and inflammatory term.

The failure lies with the anti-life States

What happened to when the anti-life crowd.

I did a search for people using it outside of this thread, as well, and there were quite a few cases of it, but I'm too tired right now to make any sort of semi-comprehensive list on the subject. I just woke up from a nap!

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: anti-"choice" is a needlessly haughty and inflammatory term.

The failure lies with the anti-life States

What happened to when the anti-life crowd.

I did a search for people using it outside of this thread, as well, and there were quite a few cases of it, but I'm too tired right now to make any sort of semi-comprehensive list on the subject. I just woke up from a nap!

OOC: Turnabout is fair play, it seems.

[The New California Republic]

Reiterating my full support for this.

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

OOC: anti-"choice" is a needlessly haughty and inflammatory term.

The failure lies with the anti-life States

What happened to when the anti-life crowd.

I did a search for people using it outside of this thread, as well, and there were quite a few cases of it, but I'm too tired right now to make any sort of semi-comprehensive list on the subject. I just woke up from a nap!

OOC: I used the term "anti-life" as a way of pointing out how ridiculous the term 'anti-choice' is, I don't actually see supports of abortion as such. Those against abortion are not necessarily 'pro-life' in every instance, nor 'anti-choice' in every instance, and vice versa. "Pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" are the best terms.

[The New California Republic]

Those in favour of abortion are not necessarily 'pro-life' in every instance

...I think you are getting mixed up with the terms.

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

Those in favour of abortion are not necessarily 'pro-life' in every instance

...I think you are getting mixed up with the terms.

OOC: Well it's getting late. Amended, thanks.

[Wallenburg]

"The effort to repeal 'Reproductive Freedoms' is not merely not certain to succeed. It is certain to fail. Success is impossible. And that is a good thing, else this body fail the people of its member states on that issue as well."

"Without a determined countercampaign, any trash proposal can be brought to Vote."

"I'd like to point out that the most recent repeal stood a dedicated counter campaign and several raids conducted to topple approving delegates."

"As did this proposal in its prior edition."

[Stellonia]

OOC: anti-"choice" is a needlessly haughty and inflammatory term.

The failure lies with the anti-life States

What happened to when the anti-life crowd.

I did a search for people using it outside of this thread, as well, and there were quite a few cases of it, but I'm too tired right now to make any sort of semi-comprehensive list on the subject. I just woke up from a nap!

OOC: The use of "anti-life" is mostly a rhetorical counter to the use of "anti-choice." If you were to refer to us as "pro-life" or "anti-abortion," we would refer to you as "pro-choice" or "pro-abortion."

Think of it like this. There are three pairs of terms that are counterparts to each other, being opposite in meaning but similar in connotation: "pro-life" and "pro-choice," "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion," and "anti-choice" and "anti-life." The first pair of terms uses platitudes that are meant to make people feel supportive of each side — one would rather be in favor of "life" or "choice," as society cherishes both of those things. The second is more accurate and sincere, as it directly addresses the issue at hand (i.e. abortion). The third is like the first, except negative instead of positive — who would come out against "life" or "choice"?

[Wallenburg]

"Anti-choice" is as accurate when used in relation to opponents of abortion as when used in relation to opponents of school choice, opponents of the choice to use drugs, or opponents of any other choice. That is to say, it is maybe accurate in the most literal sense, but it is misleading and imprecise.

Unless, of course, you are willing to call yourself "anti-choice" in relation to the choice of how nations address the issue of abortion.

That's not how words work. Defending individual agency in the decision to have an abortion is pro-choice, defending the "right" of a government to strip its people of that agency is anti-choice.

OOC:
You throughly roasted them!

OOC: This is what passes for a roasting?

Gotta take a win wherever you can, even if the victory celebration itself speaks to the futility and vapidness of their arguments.

[Separatist Peoples]

"I'd like to point out that the most recent repeal stood a dedicated counter campaign and several raids conducted to topple approving delegates."

"As did this proposal in its prior edition."

"A fact the Marxist delegation would rather not recall, I imagine."

[Stellonia]

"Anti-choice" is as accurate when used in relation to opponents of abortion as when used in relation to opponents of school choice, opponents of the choice to use drugs, or opponents of any other choice. That is to say, it is maybe accurate in the most literal sense, but it is misleading and imprecise.

Unless, of course, you are willing to call yourself "anti-choice" in relation to the choice of how nations address the issue of abortion.

That's not how words work. Defending individual agency in the decision to have an abortion is pro-choice, defending the "right" of a government to strip its people of that agency is anti-choice.

OOC: In the same vein, I could say that the defense of the unborn's right to live and not be aborted is "pro-life," and the defense of the right to take the life of the unborn is "anti-life." I think that you can discuss the issue of abortion and defend your point of view without vilifying the opposing point of view.

[Wallenburg]

I did a search for people using it outside of this thread, as well, and there were quite a few cases of it, but I'm too tired right now to make any sort of semi-comprehensive list on the subject. I just woke up from a nap!

OOC: I used the term "anti-life" as a way of pointing out how ridiculous the term 'anti-choice' is,

Sure you do.

I don't actually see supports of abortion as such. Those against abortion are not necessarily 'pro-life' in every instance, nor 'anti-choice' in every instance, and vice versa. "Pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" are the best terms.

Except these terms aren't accurate at all. The pro-choice camp is almost unanimously not pro-abortion. We approach abortion as a morally neutral medical procedure, which it is. To be pro-abortion would be to encourage or even require abortion instead of carrying a pregnancy to term.

Anti-choice, however, is entirely accurate for the rather prevalent faction of the anti-abortion camp which opposes abortion not out of concern for life, but out of a desire to control women.

[Morover]

I did a search for people using it outside of this thread, as well, and there were quite a few cases of it, but I'm too tired right now to make any sort of semi-comprehensive list on the subject. I just woke up from a nap!

OOC: The use of "anti-life" is mostly a rhetorical counter to the use of "anti-choice." If you were to refer to us as "pro-life" or "anti-abortion," we would refer to you as "pro-choice" or "pro-abortion."

Think of it like this. There are three pairs of terms that are counterparts to each other, being opposite in meaning but similar in connotation: "pro-life" and "pro-choice," "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion," and "anti-choice" and "anti-life." The first pair of terms uses platitudes that are meant to make people feel supportive of each side — one would rather be in favor of "life" or "choice," as society cherishes both of those things. The second is more accurate and sincere, as it directly addresses the issue at hand (i.e. abortion). The third is like the first, except negative instead of positive — who would come out against "life" or "choice"?

I think it's unfair to say that one is inherently counter to the other, as the "anti-life" side could just as easily say that about claims of the opposition being "anti-choice." Regardless, such semantics are irrelevant and I was merely pointing it out to demonstrate that claiming that one phrase is "needlessly haughty and inflammatory" without pointing out the other phrase which is equally so, simply because it's more beneficial to your position, is generally a more way to go about arguments - at least in my experience.

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

That's not how words work. Defending individual agency in the decision to have an abortion is pro-choice, defending the "right" of a government to strip its people of that agency is anti-choice.

Well, why would the same logic not apply to speed limits? Don't I have the "individual agency" to decide how I move my feet that is on the pedal?

In addition, no-one seems concerned with the right to choose when it concerns the unborn baby. Did s/he choose to die?

--Saint Gerard Majella, C.Ss.R., patron of the unborn children
Senior consuasor ad Sancti Imperium

[Solomons Land]

OOC: This is a giant overstep of the WA's powers. The WA's job is not to set restrictions on heavily debated matters that concern domestic policy; that is the job of sovereign states.

[Wallenburg]

That's not how words work. Defending individual agency in the decision to have an abortion is pro-choice, defending the "right" of a government to strip its people of that agency is anti-choice.

Well, why would the same logic not apply to speed limits? Don't I have the "individual agency" to decide how I move my feet that is on the pedal?

In addition, no-one seems concerned with the right to choose when it concerns the unborn baby. Did s/he choose to die?

--Saint Gerard Majella, C.Ss.R., patron of the unborn children
Senior consuasor ad Sancti Imperium

"In some cases, agency is good. In others, it is not. I should not have to lecture a fellow civil servant on this."

[Separatist Peoples]

This is a giant overstep of the WA's powers. The WA's job is not to set restrictions on heavily debated matters that concern domestic policy; that is the job of sovereign states.

"That makes absolutely no sense, ambassador. That an issue is hotly debated does not place it out of the WA's grasp. Even if a debate had that power, the WA's jurisdiction is almost unlimited as a matter of how states voluntarily cede authority upon joining."

[The New California Republic]

This is a giant overstep of the WA's powers. The WA's job is not to set restrictions on heavily debated matters that concern domestic policy; that is the job of sovereign states.

Strange, as the WA has already been doing that for a long time, so you are off-beam in your understanding of what the "WA's job" is...

[Solomons Land]

Well, why would the same logic not apply to speed limits? Don't I have the "individual agency" to decide how I move my feet that is on the pedal?

In addition, no-one seems concerned with the right to choose when it concerns the unborn baby. Did s/he choose to die?

--Saint Gerard Majella, C.Ss.R., patron of the unborn children
Senior consuasor ad Sancti Imperium

"In some cases, agency is good. In others, it is not. I should not have to lecture a fellow civil servant on this."

"...and women should not have the agency to murder their children."
-President Solomon Rusk

[Stellonia]

Anti-choice, however, is entirely accurate for the rather prevalent faction of the anti-abortion camp which opposes abortion not out of concern for life, but out of a desire to control women.

I cannot engage with someone who would rather make dishonest assertions about my point of view than make any attempt to understand it. You should know that maligning someone is not going to change their mind, even if you believe what you are saying. If you truly think that I want to oppress women, then arguing with me is an exercise in futility because you cannot change my mind, but if you think that I oppose abortion for sincere reasons, then you can explain why those sincere reasons are wrong.

This is a giant overstep of the WA's powers. The WA's job is not to set restrictions on heavily debated matters that concern domestic policy; that is the job of sovereign states.

"In all candidness, we agree with this. Unfortunately, the WA made a wrong turn long ago, and it would rather travel down the wrong road than go all the way back. Such is life."

Well, why would the same logic not apply to speed limits? Don't I have the "individual agency" to decide how I move my feet that is on the pedal?

In addition, no-one seems concerned with the right to choose when it concerns the unborn baby. Did s/he choose to die?

--Saint Gerard Majella, C.Ss.R., patron of the unborn children
Senior consuasor ad Sancti Imperium

"In some cases, agency is good. In others, it is not. I should not have to lecture a fellow civil servant on this."

"This goes without saying. But evidently, we cannot agree on when it is good or not."

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

Well, why would the same logic not apply to speed limits? Don't I have the "individual agency" to decide how I move my feet that is on the pedal?

In addition, no-one seems concerned with the right to choose when it concerns the unborn baby. Did s/he choose to die?

--Saint Gerard Majella, C.Ss.R., patron of the unborn children
Senior consuasor ad Sancti Imperium

"In some cases, agency is good. In others, it is not. I should not have to lecture a fellow civil servant on this."

The point that the Holy Empire has been making is that "anti-choice" is unnecessarily vague and covers anything from speed limits to abortion, whereas a term like "anti-abortion" is much more applicable.

--Saint Gerard Majella, C.Ss.R., patron of the unborn children
Senior consuasor ad Sancti Imperium

[Stellonia]

OOC: Since you and Separatist Peoplee are evidently privy to the contents of some mass telegram that pro-lifers have sent to criticize your proposal, could one of you be willing to share the contents of that telegram so we could see what "lies" and "false information" it contains? I have also heard that you sent one or two mass telegrams of your own. Could you share the contents of that or those telegrams?

OOC: I would like to ask Imperium Anglorium and Separatist Peoples, or anyone else who can, for that matter, to share the contents of these mass telegrams. Everyone should be able to see the telegrams in question for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

[Wallenburg]

"In some cases, agency is good. In others, it is not. I should not have to lecture a fellow civil servant on this."

"...and women should not have the agency to murder their children."
-President Solomon Rusk

"Agreed. We are truly fortunate then that abortion is definitively not murder, and that terminating a pregnancy doesn't kill children. These are not compelling arguments, President."

Anti-choice, however, is entirely accurate for the rather prevalent faction of the anti-abortion camp which opposes abortion not out of concern for life, but out of a desire to control women.

I cannot engage with someone who would rather make dishonest assertions about my point of view than make any attempt to understand it. You should know that maligning someone is not going to change their mind, even if you believe what you are saying. If you truly think that I want to oppress women, then arguing with me is an exercise in futility because you cannot change my mind, but if you think that I oppose abortion for sincere reasons, then you can explain why those sincere reasons are wrong.

I didn't say anything about you. I very clearly said that there exists such a faction in the anti-abortion camp. I assigned nobody to that faction. I am, however, conscious of your failure to pay attention to that and your knee-jerk reaction against a perceived slight. Most anti-abortion individuals who don't want to control women wouldn't behave like that.

OOC: Since you and Separatist Peoplee are evidently privy to the contents of some mass telegram that pro-lifers have sent to criticize your proposal, could one of you be willing to share the contents of that telegram so we could see what "lies" and "false information" it contains? I have also heard that you sent one or two mass telegrams of your own. Could you share the contents of that or those telegrams?

OOC: I would like to ask Imperium Anglorium and Separatist Peoples, or anyone else who can, for that matter, to share the contents of these mass telegrams. Everyone should be able to see the telegrams in question for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

If you are so adamant that these TGs ought to be public, you should probably see to it that the anti-abortion countercampaigns are published here as well.

[United Massachusetts]

Per Stellonia's request:

Imperium Anglorum:

Hello—

A few weeks ago, you may recall a repeal of the resolution Reproductive Freedoms, a resolution central to abortion rights in the World Assembly. Certain elements supported the repeal by employing military operations to overthrow the legitimate regional officers in some 20–30 regions, attempting by authoritarian measures to manipulate the Assembly.

I have for you a proposal to ensure public access to abortion services in all member nations for any person of any means. This solves the problem that emerges from nations that could act in an overly regulatory manner or nations that themselves have very few doctors willing to perform abortions. In such nations, inhabitants would be unable to access family planning services.

By ensuring that citizens can lawfully travel to access such services and that they are not prohibited from doing so by poverty or discrimination, this problem is fully averted.

I am aware that many people have differing views on this topic. If you are on the fence, however, I ask you to think of democracy in NationStates. Every approval given makes it harder for raiders—by sheer numbers—to attack the Assembly and prevent the people from being heard. Your approval is necessary for this proposal to go to a vote. Without it, the people forced to silence.

You can approve below:

page=UN_view_proposal/id=imperium_anglorum_1589840511

If you have any questions, please reach out to me by telegram.

Yours,

Imperium Anglorum
Delegate, Europe

The COT Corporation:

Greetings United Massachusetts,

Either you have already received or will receive a telegram from Imperium Anglorum asking your approval for a General Assembly resolution entitled Access to Abortion. Not only is it a misnomer (the right to abortion is already protected), it also is deeply problematic for the following reasons:

This proposal hurts low-income nations. The resolution requires nations to pay for the upkeep of World Assembly abortion clinics in their own respective nations, proportional to the cost of those clinics. Well, abortion is more common in low-income countries, so poor nations end up having to pay a disproportionate amount of money that they don't have to begin with.

Clause 2 is easily exploitable and has no provision for sensible limitations on governmental requests for contraception - this particularly hurts poorer nations. What if someone asked for a million condoms? What if they just want to resell them?

I deeply encourage you not to approve it until the author improves it substantially. Instead, consider offering constructive criticism and advice to make it quorum worthy on the forum.

Warmly,
The COT Corporation

Link to unapprove: page=UN_view_proposal/id=imperium_anglorum_1589840511

Separatist Peoples:

Good day Delegate United Massachusetts

I’m reaching out to you today regarding some falsehoods shared by The COT Corporation in his recent telegram. In full disclosure, I have included him in this campaign, although he did not do Imperium Anglorum that courtesy.

The COT Corporation articulated two reasons that are, at best woefully incorrect and at worst deliberate lies for you to oppose Access To Abortion.

The COT Corporation first argues that the proposal will disproportionately harm poor nations. However, as Quality in Health Services (GAR#97) already offers funding for health services to those nations which request aid in good faith, this is incorrect. If your nation suffers from an underfunded health service, Access to Abortion will not harm it.

The COT Corporation next argues that clinics, and therefore member states, must fund and provide for bad faith requests. The COT Corporation mentions one million condoms specifically. This has been long covered by the venerable Rights and Duties of WA States (GAR#2) which obligates good-faith compliance with WA resolutions. There is no good faith requirement to fulfil bad faith demands. Indeed, if that argument were part of a repeal of Access to Abortion (assuming it passes), it would certainly be the subject of a Legality Challenge for Honest Mistake. Further, Access to Abortion already addressed this by requiring recipients be bone fide recipients, cutting out bad faith requests.

Delegate United Massachusetts, there will be many telegram campaigns in this process, not all of which are honest. Regardless of your vote, please do not be swayed by campaign telegrams that, if placed in a repeal, would face legal scrutiny under the GA Rules. If you have any questions about the GA Rules and how they apply, I will be more than happy to discuss them player-to-player!

Stay safe and secure,

-Sep

Trillmore:

Hey there, Delegate United Massachusetts:

I'm so sorry you all have been caught up in the flurry of back-and-forths, but I just couldn't let that telegram from Separatist Peoples pass by without some sort of response. The COT Corporation's arguments are actually pretty strong. Let's go through them:

Poorer Nations and Funding: Quality in Health Services (GA 97) does provide some help for poorer nations. But the World Assembly's money is not a bottomless pit -- it comes from actual nations, you and me. Every other initiative the WA approves is more money out of our pockets, particularly when these initiatives impose burdensome restrictions on poorer nations. Plus, it forces poorer nations to depend on the WA for their health services. It reeks of imperialism. When poorer nations are dependent on others for their very survival, they will never be able to establish their own economic independence.

Good Faith: While COT's example may have been hyperbolic, the problem he describes isn't at all. "Good faith" is a broad term, honestly. And people can be wrong in good faith. For example, one could believe that a person ought to wear two condoms, just to be safe, in every sexual encounter. This is a falsehood -- in fact, doing so decreases the effectiveness of condoms. But WA nations -- and poorer ones in particular, who lack sufficient education -- could be forced to approve bad requests, if made in good faith. And it's very important that member nations know exactly what they need to do to implement a resolution. Between an ill-defined "good faith" and failures to account for poorer nations in a lot of areas, this resolution doesn't tell nations exactly what they need to do. There are loads of borderline cases. And when nations fail to implement World Assembly Resolutions, they can be levied with fines and sanctions under the Administrative Compliance Act. Ambiguities cannot just be washed away like that.

And there are loads of other reasons to oppose this resolution. It was written to spite certain authors, its initial drafts called for resort casino "abortionplexes," it isn't needed (abortion rights are already guaranteed under existing resolutions), and many anti-abortion nations have already flat-out said they won't comply with it.

What's the point of a needless resolution jam-packed with problems when the nations most affected -- anti-abortion nations -- won't even follow it? There is no point, because this resolution is nothing but sophistry and illusion.

Sincerely, Trillmore.

[Stellonia]

I cannot engage with someone who would rather make dishonest assertions about my point of view than make any attempt to understand it. You should know that maligning someone is not going to change their mind, even if you believe what you are saying. If you truly think that I want to oppress women, then arguing with me is an exercise in futility because you cannot change my mind, but if you think that I oppose abortion for sincere reasons, then you can explain why those sincere reasons are wrong.

I didn't say anything about you. I very clearly said that there exists such a faction in the anti-abortion camp. I assigned nobody to that faction. I am, however, conscious of your failure to pay attention to that and your knee-jerk reaction against a perceived slight. Most anti-abortion individuals who don't want to control women wouldn't behave like that.

How do you reckon they would behave, and why do you reckon so?

OOC: I would like to ask Imperium Anglorium and Separatist Peoples, or anyone else who can, for that matter, to share the contents of these mass telegrams. Everyone should be able to see the telegrams in question for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

If you are so adamant that these TGs ought to be public, you should probably see to it that the anti-abortion countercampaigns are published here as well.

I see that United Massachusetts has posted them. If there are any more you wish to share, let me know.