United Massachusetts wrote: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.
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.
I see. Based on this, it appears that "Access to Abortion" is meant not as a sincere attempt to expand abortion access, but rather as an act of retaliation against the recent attempt to repeal GA#286 and, in a broader sense, as a display of spite towards the pro-lifers within the World Assembly. This is evident from the first paragraph of IA's telegram, in which they discuss the attempted repeal of GA#286 in order to imply afterwards that "Access to Abortion" is a response to that attempt. If that is not blatant enough, look at the proposal's use of the phrase "rabidly anti-choice nations," which serves no purpose other than to petulantly bash and display contempt for pro-lifers. Furthermore, when this proposal was first introduced, it was entitled "Abortionplexes for All" in order to mock pro-lifers by celebrating abortion, which defies the canard that pro-choicers are really "anti-abortion" and only support the legality of abortion as a matter of "choice." If a pro-choicer wanted to demonstrate that they were not obsessed with abortion, they would not be behaving this way. Taking all of these facts into consideration, it is quite apparent that this is merely an act of spite.
And before anyone ridicules me over the "abortionplex" thing, yes, I know that it is a reference from The Onion, and I know what you are trying to insinuate by making that reference. My only response is that for every idiot who falls for satire, there are many more people who are intelligent enough to recognize it. I think you know that painting an entire group with the same brush based on the stupidity of one person is fallacious and disingenuous.
Posted: Tue May 19, 2020 4:47 pm
by Awesomeland012345
You don't have to start a flame war (if you are). If you want to approve/vote for this, approve it! (and password your region so that you don't get raided and start another flame war) If you don't, then don't!
Posted: Tue May 19, 2020 4:51 pm
by Auze
Awesomeland012345 wrote:You don't have to start a flame war (if you are). If you want to approve/vote for this, approve it! (and password your region so that you don't get raided and start another flame war) If you don't, then don't!
The forums would be much quieter if we did that.
Posted: Tue May 19, 2020 4:56 pm
by Logon
OOC: Are you really going to approve something taken from the Onion? Isn't this supposed to be a serious roleplay?
Posted: Tue May 19, 2020 4:59 pm
by Stellonia
Logon wrote:OOC: Are you really going to approve something taken from the Onion? Isn't this supposed to be a serious roleplay?
Ask the people who approved IA's first proposal.
Posted: Tue May 19, 2020 5:02 pm
by La Xinga
As a Pro-life person, I think I'll vote against this, not like my vote counts or anything.
Posted: Tue May 19, 2020 5:02 pm
by Auze
Logon wrote:OOC: Are you really going to approve something taken from the Onion? Isn't this supposed to be a serious roleplay?
OOC: Hahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahaha... It is officially an RP thing, but in reality it’s more a bunch of personas that allow people to get heated arguing over topics without getting slapped over the face for it. As for the serious part, one of the resolutions literally has the recipe for an Orange Julius in it.
Logon wrote:OOC: Are you really going to approve something taken from the Onion? Isn't this supposed to be a serious roleplay?
OOC: Hahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahaha... It is officially an RP thing, but in reality it’s more a bunch of personas that allow people to get heated arguing over topics without getting slapped over the face for it. As for the serious part, one of the resolutions literally has the recipe for an Orange Julius in it.
Which one?
Posted: Tue May 19, 2020 5:07 pm
by Stellonia
La xinga wrote:As a Pro-life person, I think I'll vote against this, not like my vote counts or anything.
OOC: Unless you are an ambassador with at least a couple hundred endorsements, your vote doesn't count for shit. This system is reminiscent of the one used in Ancient Rome.
Auze wrote:OOC: Hahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahaha... It is officially an RP thing, but in reality it’s more a bunch of personas that allow people to get heated arguing over topics without getting slapped over the face for it. As for the serious part, one of the resolutions literally has the recipe for an Orange Julius in it.
La xinga wrote:As a Pro-life person, I think I'll vote against this, not like my vote counts or anything.
OOC: Unless you are an ambassador with at least a couple hundred endorsements, your vote doesn't count for shit. Many of the nations who do have that many endorsements feel compelled to bend the WA to their every whim and will. This system is reminiscent of the one used in Ancient Rome.
even in you have many endos, your vote does not count unless you are a delegate correct?
Stellonia wrote:OOC: Unless you are an ambassador with at least a couple hundred endorsements, your vote doesn't count for shit. Many of the nations who do have that many endorsements feel compelled to bend the WA to their every whim and will. This system is reminiscent of the one used in Ancient Rome.
even in you have many endos, your vote does not count unless you are a delegate correct?
Logon wrote:OOC: Are you really going to approve something taken from the Onion? Isn't this supposed to be a serious roleplay?
If you think this is plagiarized, notify Moderation. Otherwise, you don't seem to have an argument.
Plagiarism isn't the my issue here (though this is lifted nearly word for word from an Onion article about an abortionplex with over 2000 rooms, including theaters, shops, and casinos), but the fact that for a "serious" RP we shouldn't be using satirical articles as inspiration.
United Massachusetts wrote:I am against it. In fact, it was written in order to spite me, by the admission of the resolution's proponents.
You have an overinflated sense of self-importance to think this is a personal jab at you specifically.
I disagree. Perhaps it was not meant at United Massachusetts specifically (and he never said it was), but it was meant out of spite. I refer you to this.
United Massachusetts wrote:Per Stellonia's request:
Imperium Anglorum:
The COT Corporation:
Separatist Peoples:
Trillmore:
I see. Based on this, it appears that "Access to Abortion" is meant not as a sincere attempt to expand abortion access, but rather as an act of retaliation against the recent attempt to repeal GA#286 and, in a broader sense, as a display of spite towards the pro-lifers within the World Assembly. This is evident from the first paragraph of IA's telegram, in which they discuss the attempted repeal of GA#286 in order to imply afterwards that "Access to Abortion" is a response to that attempt. If that is not blatant enough, look at the proposal's use of the phrase "rabidly anti-choice nations," which serves no purpose other than to petulantly bash and display contempt for pro-lifers. Furthermore, when this proposal was first introduced, it was entitled "Abortionplexes for All" in order to mock pro-lifers by celebrating abortion, which defies the canard that pro-choicers are really "anti-abortion" and only support the legality of abortion as a matter of "choice." If a pro-choicer wanted to demonstrate that they were not obsessed with abortion, they would not be behaving this way. Taking all of these facts into consideration, it is quite apparent that this is merely an act of spite.
And before anyone ridicules me over the "abortionplex" thing, yes, I know that it is a reference from The Onion, and I know what you are trying to insinuate by making that reference. My only response is that for every idiot who falls for satire, there are many more people who are intelligent enough to recognize it. I think you know that painting an entire group with the same brush based on the stupidity of one person is fallacious and disingenuous.
Posted: Tue May 19, 2020 4:46 pm