NationStates

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Whoa, this thing turned into a de facto Condemnation of Christian Democrats . . . Sneaky Unibotian bastards. Opposed.

Christian Democrats wrote:

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Whoa, this thing turned into a de facto Condemnation of Christian Democrats . . . Sneaky Unibotian bastards. Opposed.

^ This.

Kulaloe wrote:

Christian Democrats wrote:^ This.

Indeed. While TCT completely destroyed one of my proposals by "proving" that it was a borderline duplication of an existing one (my personal interpretation of TCT and Ard's ruling) I am in favour of a comendation of TCT. However, I feel that CD should not have been named speciffically as the "bad guy" in this resolution, so I am therefore opposed to this. If you want to condemn Christian Democrats then do so seperately. Oh wait, CD has not done anything that legally can be condemned without breaking the ideology suppression rule! If you want to condemn a pro-lifer then condemn MY country since we have actually done some evil things before in the past!

The Cat-Tribe wrote:I generally want to stay out of this, but wanted to make two points:

1. Despite things that may have been said in the "heat of battle," Christian Democrats and I have a mutual respect, I openly opposed attempts in the SC to condemn him, and I openly praised him in the WA after the abortion kerfluffle was over. I didn't write this proposal, but I am sorry that some seem to feel it attacks CD. I am especially sorry that CD feels that way. I never read it that way. If for no other reason than not to cause offense, the proposal probably should not have mentioned CD by name (although I think it did so primarily to reference a specific set of events that WA members would recall).

2. That said. Can someone point out what about the following language actually (a) condemns CD, (b) even criticizes CD, and/or (c) is inaccurate?

BEARING IN MIND that the nominee recently returned to the hallowed halls of the World Assembly to ardently counter Christian Democrats and several of its allies during a resurgence of the Abortion debate in the World Assembly. The Cat-Tribe's presence in the debate was instrumental --alongside several other actors-- in establishing a compelling case against numerous prohibitive abortion proposals and an attempted repeal of GA#128,

Mahaj WA Seat wrote:

The Cat-Tribe wrote:I generally want to stay out of this, but wanted to make two points:

1. Despite things that may have been said in the "heat of battle," Christian Democrats and I have a mutual respect, I openly opposed attempts in the SC to condemn him, and I openly praised him in the WA after the abortion kerfluffle was over. I didn't write this proposal, but I am sorry that some seem to feel it attacks CD. I am especially sorry that CD feels that way. I never read it that way. If for no other reason than not to cause offense, the proposal probably should not have mentioned CD by name (although I think it did so primarily to reference a specific set of events that WA members would recall).

2. That said. Can someone point out what about the following language actually (a) condemns CD, (b) even criticizes CD, and/or (c) is inaccurate?

BEARING IN MIND that the nominee recently returned to the hallowed halls of the World Assembly to ardently counter Christian Democrats and several of its allies during a resurgence of the Abortion debate in the World Assembly. The Cat-Tribe's presence in the debate was instrumental --alongside several other actors-- in establishing a compelling case against numerous prohibitive abortion proposals and an attempted repeal of GA#128,

I think some could assume that it implies that CD's proposal was prohibitive.

Unibot II wrote:

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Whoa, this thing turned into a de facto Condemnation of Christian Democrats without my even noticing. Sneaky Unibotian bastards. Opposed.

Alas, I have to claim it went without notice from me either. The mere contrast between people we approved and people we disprove of, is a contrast, not necessarily condemnation/commendation. See "Condemn Greater Tez" for an example of the inverse circumstance, where people we approved of are given recognition during a condemnation of someone else.

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:

Unibot II wrote:Alas, I have to claim it went without notice from me either. The mere contrast between people we approved and people we disprove of, is a contrast, not necessarily condemnation/commendation. See "Condemn Greater Tez" for an example of the inverse circumstance, where people we approved of are given recognition during a condemnation of someone else.

There is the issue as to why after complaining about all the abortion proposals coming up for vote in the GA -- even after Charlotte's "compromise" draft passed -- you would bring the subject up yet again, in a Security Council resolution, no less? If the GA's debates are so corrosive that they eventually find their way into SC debates as well, it doesn't say much for either branch. Not to mention the chilling effect it would have on the normal free exchange of ideas in the GA if legislators can expect their opponents to use the SC to gripe about them -- or in this case, gloat over their defeat. In the GA the tradition has always been for new players to learn from their mistakes and move on, and hopefully in the process become better players; but they're not going to learn much if it also becomes requisite for them to continue to defend their past regrets in future SC pissing contests. The main lesson to take from this is, there already is a preferred forum for hammering out GA political disputes: the GA forum, and if it becomes habit for players to circumvent the normal political process by pestering SC with previously concluded GA matters, you can be sure the mods will be only to happy to amend Rule 2.

(...Or maybe I should have just posted that old "beating a dead horse" card? )

Mahaj WA Seat wrote:I think some could assume that it implies that CD's proposal was prohibitive.

Unibot II wrote:Um... Kenny. I think you're griping about something that doesn't exist in the resolution purely to gripe about something.

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:

Unibot II wrote:Um... Kenny. I think you're griping about something that doesn't exist in the resolution purely to gripe about something.

No, I really don't think I am.

The Rich Port wrote:

Mahaj WA Seat wrote:I think some could assume that it implies that CD's proposal was prohibitive.

A pointless point to make, since it's a fact CD's proposal was more extreme than other proposals.

Christian Democrats wrote:Defense of Life Act

Council: General Assembly
Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Significant
----------------------------
THE WORLD ASSEMBLY

DEFINING pregnancy as the condition of carrying a developing offspring within the body,

DEFINING viability as a developing offspring's ability to survive outside of the body of another living organism,

DEFINING limit of viability as the gestational age at which a developing offspring has a fifty percent chance of being viable,

DEFINING abortion as the intentional termination of a pregnancy resulting in the end of biological functions in a developing offspring,

DEFINING late-term abortion as abortion that occurs when a developing offspring is older than the limit of viability, is able to feel pain, has substantial mental activity, and has consciousness of existence,

RECOGNIZING that many World Assembly member states have legalized abortion and that many nations neglect to regulate abortion,

ENCOURAGING those pregnant carefully to consider decisions related to their reproductive health,

ACKNOWLEDGING that some abortions are not covered by existing legislation protecting patients' access to necessary and beneficial medical procedures,

BELIEVING there is a "compelling practical purpose" in protecting developing offspring late in pregnancies, and

BELIEVING there is a "compelling practical puropose" to regulate late-term abortions because of grave risks posed to the life and health of those undergoing such procedures,

HEREBY

DIRECTS member states to prohibit late-term abortion, except when such an abortion is performed because a pregnancy itself or continuance of a pregnancy poses an immediate and significant threat to a pregnant individual's life or health, there is a severe abnormality in a pregnancy, a developing offspring is believed to have severe defects, or a developing offspring provably was conceived because of illegal sexual activity,

REQUIRES surgical abortions to be performed by qualified physicians,

RECOGNIZES an individual's right to refuse to perform or participate in abortions because of personal beliefs,

PROTECTS such individuals, as mentioned in the preceding clause, from being penalized in any way for their beliefs,

ESTABLISHES the International Abortion Regulatory Board (IARB) to determine when a developing offspring must receive protection under the provisions of this resolution, to provide oversight and ensure that legal abortions are performed safely, and to collect and report to member states data about abortion,

AFFIRMS that the time during which a developing offspring must receive protection, as determined by IARB, must be uniform internationally for a given species or subspecies,

DISCOURAGES sex-selective abortion,

DISCOURAGES intact dilation and extraction, sometimes called partial birth abortion,

ALLOWS those pregnant to induce labor unless such induction is part of an attempted illegal abortion,

AFFIRMS that the definitions of this resolution are only for the purposes of this resolution,

AFFIRMS that this resolution creates only minimal restrictions and does not prevent member states from imposing additional or stronger restrictions on abortion so long as such restrictions comply with other World Assembly resolutions, and

AFFIRMS that this resolution does not prevent the World Assembly from further leglislating with regard to abortion.

Unibot II wrote:CD, this thread is not about your resolution [sic]

BEARING IN MIND that the nominee recently returned to the hallowed halls of the World Assembly to ardently counter Christian Democrats and several of its allies during a resurgence of the Abortion debate in the World Assembly. The Cat-Tribe's presence in the debate was instrumental --alongside several other actors-- in establishing a compelling case against numerous prohibitive abortion proposals and an attempted repeal of GA#128

Christian Democrats wrote:

Unibot II wrote:CD, this thread is not about your resolution [sic]

Actually, you made it about my proposals when you included this clause:

BEARING IN MIND that the nominee recently returned to the hallowed halls of the World Assembly to ardently counter Christian Democrats and several of its allies during a resurgence of the Abortion debate in the World Assembly. The Cat-Tribe's presence in the debate was instrumental --alongside several other actors-- in establishing a compelling case against numerous prohibitive abortion proposals and an attempted repeal of GA#128

Christian Democrats wrote:An abortion ban beginning at 30 weeks isn't that radical, especially considering the number of exceptions that were provided.

Christian Democrats wrote:

Unibot II wrote:CD, this thread is not about your resolution [sic]

Actually, you made it about my proposals when you included this clause:

BEARING IN MIND that the nominee recently returned to the hallowed halls of the World Assembly to ardently counter Christian Democrats and several of its allies during a resurgence of the Abortion debate in the World Assembly. The Cat-Tribe's presence in the debate was instrumental --alongside several other actors-- in establishing a compelling case against numerous prohibitive abortion proposals and an attempted repeal of GA#128

The Cat-Tribe wrote:I want to thank the entire NS community for this honor. It is most flattering and truly appreciated.

Special thanks to Unibot for writing and sheparding to passage this Commendation.

Thanks to all of you who have supported me and/or congratulated me.

I also want to thank those who, in the threads leading up to this, have provided constructive criticism. I am trying to take it to heart (although I can't promise success). I also note the number who voted against this -- some of whom have informed me why -- and I appreciate their views. I know I'm already pompous, so I'll try to keep this from making me worse.

Also, thanks to Christian Democrats for acting with dignity and honor in a difficult situation. My respect continues and grows.

Anyway, before I get teary-eyed and start bleating "you like me," I'll stop with a final thanks to you all.