NationStates

The World Assembly,

NOTING in this context that "child" and "baby" are used as synonyms for the unborn human in the womb,

BELIEVING that the child has the same rights as everyone else,

BEMOANING the fact that abortions are allowed left and right without considering the rights of the baby,

YEARNING for all people to be equal,

RECOGNISING that abortion may be essential when the mother is in grave risk of dying,

THEREFORE repeals Resolution #286.

You should submit this.

"One at a time ambassador, as they say, its a marathon not a sprint, and you are sprinting with two repeals and a resolution."

"I have only submitted this repeal, Honourable Ambassador. I will not submit the others yet."

Staypuftonia wrote:"I have only submitted this repeal, Honourable Ambassador. I will not submit the others yet."

"Best of luck to you Ambassador, may your long journey see success in the end."

This proposal is illegal because it was submitted as Civil Rights – Significant.

OOC: I know I may have pulled something illegal, but I cannot find the "Repeals" option when submitting it to the General Assembly.

Are you trying to repeal two resolutions related to abortion at the same time?

OOC:
Oh boy here we go again.

The pro-life faction wants to repeal all the pro-choice legislation? I can't say I'm surprised.

Full oppose, for obvious reasons.

Supporting on grounds of national sovereignty.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:The pro-life faction wants to repeal all the pro-choice legislation? I can't say I'm surprised.

Nothing in the repeal of #286 would criminalize abortion across the WA. Members would finally be free to pursue their own policy. I would suggest the Ambassador try again without intentionally mischaracterizing the arguments of his opponents, but based on past performance, that suggestion would fail on deaf ears...

Fluvannia wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:The pro-life faction wants to repeal all the pro-choice legislation? I can't say I'm surprised.

Nothing in the repeal of #286 would criminalize abortion across the WA. Members would finally be free to pursue their own policy. I would suggest the Ambassador try again without intentionally mischaracterizing the arguments of his opponents, but based on past performance, that suggestion would fail on deaf ears...

Ambassador, while the proposal may not criminalize abortion, it offers an obviously politically biased stance.

Union of Sovereign States and Republics wrote:

Fluvannia wrote:
Nothing in the repeal of #286 would criminalize abortion across the WA. Members would finally be free to pursue their own policy. I would suggest the Ambassador try again without intentionally mischaracterizing the arguments of his opponents, but based on past performance, that suggestion would fail on deaf ears...

Ambassador, while the proposal may not criminalize abortion, it offers an obviously politically biased stance.

I assume the introduction to “Access to Abortion” means that resolution will not be receiving your support on similar grounds then.

"Categorically opposed. Also, I have difficulty understanding how your reasoning in the resolution supports the action to be taken under current WA conventions."

Staypuftonia wrote:OOC: I know I may have pulled something illegal, but I cannot find the "Repeals" option when submitting it to the General Assembly.

(OOC: You need to go onto the page for #286 in the GA resolution list gameside, and press the button saying ‘repeal this resolution’.)

Fluvannia wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:The pro-life faction wants to repeal all the pro-choice legislation? I can't say I'm surprised.

Nothing in the repeal of #286 would criminalize abortion across the WA. Members would finally be free to pursue their own policy. I would suggest the Ambassador try again without intentionally mischaracterizing the arguments of his opponents, but based on past performance, that suggestion would fail on deaf ears...

IA saying repeal would criminalise abortion across the World Assembly?



IA speaking with an ambassador in this thread?



Anti-choice faction members denying that Staypuftonia has in fact written up repeals for all the pro-choice legislation?



Yet somehow I'm the one mischaracterising arguments? LOL. Buy a mirror.

Fluvannia wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:The pro-life faction wants to repeal all the pro-choice legislation? I can't say I'm surprised.

Nothing in the repeal of #286 would criminalize abortion across the WA. Members would finally be free to pursue their own policy. I would suggest the Ambassador try again without intentionally mischaracterizing the arguments of his opponents, but based on past performance, that suggestion would fail on deaf ears...

Ooc: theres a lot to unpack here.

First, IA has been clearly acting ooc here. Let's not conflate that with roleplay.

Second, defy you to find a quote from Imperium anglorum that explicitly states this. Truly, the pro-life side has been the side with the most mischaracterizations in this process, especially of IA's work in A2A. Throwing stones. Glass houses.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Fluvannia wrote:
Nothing in the repeal of #286 would criminalize abortion across the WA. Members would finally be free to pursue their own policy. I would suggest the Ambassador try again without intentionally mischaracterizing the arguments of his opponents, but based on past performance, that suggestion would fail on deaf ears...

Ooc: theres a lot to unpack here.

First, IA has been clearly acting ooc here. Let's not conflate that with roleplay.

Second, defy you to find a quote from Imperium anglorum that explicitly states this. Truly, the pro-life side has been the side with the most mischaracterizations in this process, especially of IA's work in A2A. Throwing stones. Glass houses.

OOC: Fair on the IC/OOC conflation, it does get murky.

As to mischaracterizations, there’s no glass in the way of the stones I’m throwing, so perhaps you were referring to someone else.

Fluvannia wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:Ooc: theres a lot to unpack here.

First, IA has been clearly acting ooc here. Let's not conflate that with roleplay.

Second, defy you to find a quote from Imperium anglorum that explicitly states this. Truly, the pro-life side has been the side with the most mischaracterizations in this process, especially of IA's work in A2A. Throwing stones. Glass houses.

OOC: Fair on the IC/OOC conflation, it does get murky.

As to mischaracterizations, there’s no glass in the way of the stones I’m throwing, so perhaps you were referring to someone else.

OOC: IA never made any argument that repealing GAR#286 will criminalize abortion. That is itself a mischaractarization. Lets not and say we didn't, hmm?

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Fluvannia wrote:
OOC: Fair on the IC/OOC conflation, it does get murky.

As to mischaracterizations, there’s no glass in the way of the stones I’m throwing, so perhaps you were referring to someone else.

OOC: IA never made any argument that repealing GAR#286 will criminalize abortion. That is itself a mischaractarization. Lets not and say we didn't, hmm?

He mischaracterized the goals of this resolutions author in the above thread.

For the unaware — and even more so for the willfully so:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:The pro-life faction wants to repeal all the pro-choice legislation? I can't say I'm surprised.

Fluvannia wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: IA never made any argument that repealing GAR#286 will criminalize abortion. That is itself a mischaractarization. Lets not and say we didn't, hmm?

He mischaracterized the goals of this resolutions author in the above thread.

For the unaware — and even more so for the willfully so:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:The pro-life faction wants to repeal all the pro-choice legislation? I can't say I'm surprised.

OOC: Its pretty clear that they do. They have no more incentive to leave it at national level than the pro-choice crowd does, unless they don't believe their own moral stance. The only real defense is that they lack the political capital to do so, which is simply not the case for the pro choice side.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Fluvannia wrote:
He mischaracterized the goals of this resolutions author in the above thread.

For the unaware — and even more so for the willfully so:

OOC: Its pretty clear that they do. They have no more incentive to leave it at national level than the pro-choice crowd does, unless they don't believe their own moral stance. The only real defense is that they lack the political capital to do so, which is simply not the case for the pro choice side.

So you’re pretty openly declaring that you want to squish the opposition? Rather disturbing, but your own signature has some relevant advice.

Fluvannia wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:
OOC: Its pretty clear that they do. They have no more incentive to leave it at national level than the pro-choice crowd does, unless they don't believe their own moral stance. The only real defense is that they lack the political capital to do so, which is simply not the case for the pro choice side.

So you’re pretty openly declaring that you want to squish the opposition? Rather disturbing, but your own signature has some relevant advice.

OOC: It's less about squishing the opposition and more about acknowledging the fact that for all intents and purposes any intents said opposition make at pushing forward their agenda on this matter are functionally doomed to fail.