NationStates

Auze wrote:

Godular wrote:
“I’m certain with the funds provided by you due to the fines and sanctions that we could afford a substantial and non-ironic awards ceremony, were we ever to be inclined in that direction.”

"I assure you that you will find the value of the the quantity of turnips more than sufficient."

Flying Eagles wrote:While we are disappointed that this resolution includes unlimited abortions of already viable fetuses, we will instead focus our efforts on socioeconomic supports for families to hopefully make abortion less necessary in these cases. We will also focus on presenting alternative solutions to these families, such as adoption.

Ardiveds wrote:

Flying Eagles wrote:While we are disappointed that this resolution includes unlimited abortions of already viable fetuses, we will instead focus our efforts on socioeconomic supports for families to hopefully make abortion less necessary in these cases. We will also focus on presenting alternative solutions to these families, such as adoption.

"You know you could use the viability of those viable foetuses to avoid killing them while also being compliant. Let us be realistic, how many women actually decide to terminate their pregnancy after the third trimerster begins?"

Grenartia wrote:

Christian Democrats wrote:Why fund maternity care, childcare, education, and social services for indigent children when you can just kill them, right?

A fetus is not a child. A child has been born, a fetus, by definition, has not.

The Land of the Ephyral wrote:Good to finally have conclusive proof that the WA has zero respect for national sovereignty.

Why don't you just abolish individual nations?

Christian Democrats wrote:

Grenartia wrote:A fetus is not a child. A child has been born, a fetus, by definition, has not.

The definition of child includes individuals who have not been born yet.

Merriam-Webster
child, noun
3a: an unborn or recently born person
// Meghan Markle, married Prince Harry, now pregnant with child.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child

Apparently, Prince Harry was pregnant at some point. No matter.

In English, the original meaning of child is a "fetus, infant, unborn or newly born person."

https://www.etymonline.com/word/child

Of course, the dictionary is not the arbiter of personhood. But there is something particularly Orwellian about trying to exclude from the definition of child the class of persons to whom that term originally applied -- i.e., people in the womb or recently born.

Christian Democrats wrote:

Grenartia wrote:A fetus is not a child. A child has been born, a fetus, by definition, has not.

The definition of child includes individuals who have not been born yet.

Merriam-Webster
child, noun
3a: an unborn or recently born person
// Meghan Markle, married Prince Harry, now pregnant with child.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child

Apparently, Prince Harry was pregnant at some point. No matter.

In English, the original meaning of child is a "fetus, infant, unborn or newly born person."

https://www.etymonline.com/word/child

Of course, the dictionary is not the arbiter of personhood. But there is something particularly Orwellian about trying to exclude from the definition of child the class of persons to whom that term originally applied -- i.e., people in the womb or recently born.

Godular wrote:

Auze wrote:"I assure you that you will find the value of the the quantity of turnips more than sufficient."

“Indeed! The costs of transporting that much vegetation must be amusing. Turnips or otherwise, you’re losing resources that could be better spent elsewhere. The resources would be better spent in simply being compliant and working to ensure that families never feel driven to such recourse.”

Christian Democrats wrote:

Grenartia wrote:A fetus is not a child. A child has been born, a fetus, by definition, has not.

The definition of child includes individuals who have not been born yet.

Merriam-Webster
child, noun
3a: an unborn or recently born person
// Meghan Markle, married Prince Harry, now pregnant with child.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child

Apparently, Prince Harry was pregnant at some point. No matter.

In English, the original meaning of child is a "fetus, infant, unborn or newly born person."

https://www.etymonline.com/word/child

Of course, the dictionary is not the arbiter of personhood. But there is something particularly Orwellian about trying to exclude from the definition of child the class of persons to whom that term originally applied -- i.e., people in the womb or recently born.

Heavens Reach wrote:

Christian Democrats wrote:The definition of child includes individuals who have not been born yet.

Merriam-Webster
child, noun
3a: an unborn or recently born person
// Meghan Markle, married Prince Harry, now pregnant with child.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child

Apparently, Prince Harry was pregnant at some point. No matter.

In English, the original meaning of child is a "fetus, infant, unborn or newly born person."

https://www.etymonline.com/word/child

Of course, the dictionary is not the arbiter of personhood. But there is something particularly Orwellian about trying to exclude from the definition of child the class of persons to whom that term originally applied -- i.e., people in the womb or recently born.

We won't debate the content of your beliefs here, except to say that dictionaries only define words in terms of their possible uses, and not the appropriateness of using those words in different contexts. And what you're trying to do, besides, is evoke emotions by conflating the word "child," as it is generally used, in reference to something that looks like this:

With its less common use, as something that looks like this:

(Which is a picture of an elephant by the way). So, yeah, if your argument relies on an appeal to emotion that further relies on looking for support from a dictionary, your argument is already in serious trouble.

Stellar Colonies wrote:"This merely reinforces the current status quo as opposed to changing it."

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:

Stellar Colonies wrote:"This merely reinforces the current status quo as opposed to changing it."

Got a dictionary handy? Because I'm pretty sure that "reinforces the status quo" does NOT mean "passing a purely punitive measure obliging nations to also pay for, as opposed to simply legalizing, a procedure, just because a few countries (unwisely) chose to declare themselves in noncompliance with a resolution."

Bad RP in no way poses a threat to the WA's sovereignty. This measure was entirely unnecessary.

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:This measure was entirely unnecessary.

Wayneactia wrote:

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:This measure was entirely unnecessary.

Meh... It seems like one of the better blockers I've seen in quite a while. While unnecessary, it has effectively sealed off the topic of abortion.

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:

Stellar Colonies wrote:"This merely reinforces the current status quo as opposed to changing it."

Got a dictionary handy? Because I'm pretty sure that "reinforces the status quo" does NOT mean "passing a purely punitive measure obliging nations to also pay for, as opposed to simply legalizing, a procedure, just because a few countries (unwisely) chose to declare themselves in noncompliance with a resolution."

Bad RP in no way poses a threat to the WA's sovereignty. This measure was entirely unnecessary.

La xinga wrote:

Wayneactia wrote:Meh... It seems like one of the better blockers I've seen in quite a while. While unnecessary, it has effectively sealed off the topic of abortion.

Indeed, but some people create alliances and don't comply, while others find loopholes.

Tarsonis wrote:

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Got a dictionary handy? Because I'm pretty sure that "reinforces the status quo" does NOT mean "passing a purely punitive measure obliging nations to also pay for, as opposed to simply legalizing, a procedure, just because a few countries (unwisely) chose to declare themselves in noncompliance with a resolution."

Bad RP in no way poses a threat to the WA's sovereignty. This measure was entirely unnecessary.

Please, there's a reason only 10% of nations actually belong to the WA, and we all know why.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
Please, there's a reason only 10% of nations actually belong to the WA, and we all know why.

OOC: Yes, puppets.

Tarsonis wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: Yes, puppets.

I'd say that get's you an additional 40%.

La xinga wrote:

Wayneactia wrote:Meh... It seems like one of the better blockers I've seen in quite a while. While unnecessary, it has effectively sealed off the topic of abortion.

Indeed, but some people create alliances and don't comply, while others find loopholes.

Wayneactia wrote:

La xinga wrote:Indeed, but some people create alliances and don't comply, while others find loopholes.

People that choose to rp non-compliance feel it in the end.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
I'd say that get's you an additional 40%.

OOC: Hey, 50% aint bad.

La xinga wrote:

Wayneactia wrote:People that choose to rp non-compliance feel it in the end.

Feel it in the end?

Tarsonis wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: Hey, 50% aint bad.

No you still only have 10% of nations, those other 40% are just in limbo. So it's 50% to 10%. And most WA players only use it for Raiding/Defending. The number of players who actually take the legislation aspect seriously,...eh well, there's you... and a smattering of others.

Tarsonis wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: Hey, 50% aint bad.

No you still only have 10% of nations, those other 40% are just in limbo. So it's 50% to 10%. And most WA players only use it for Raiding/Defending. The number of players who actually take the legislation aspect seriously,...eh well, there's you... and a smattering of others.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

La xinga wrote:Feel it in the end?

OOC: The compliance mechanisms in the GA are, ICly speaking, extremely harsh for 99% of nations.