[Defeated] Repeal "Reproductive Freedoms"

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: this is as much the reason for pariahhood as the abortion shit, as far as I'm concerned. Though the social conservatism tends to drive away those of us victimized or with family victimized by those values.

If you or anybody else don't want to associate with me -- whether because of my social conservatism or because of my approach to non-compliance -- that's your call. But I'm going to keep playing this game regardless.

Ooc: if life were perfect, it wouldn't be life. If you're playing, you probably shouldn't expect much political traction.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Anyone has the vote statistics on the previous repeal attempts that went to vote? I can't remember the exact numbers, but I'm fairly sure they've failed by a larger margin each time. And many don't even make it to vote.

God damn that dastardly villain Imperium Anglorum for building tools sans renumeration which make it easier to find out information about WA history, votes, proposals, etc! http://ifly6.no-ip.org/wa-records/

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: Anyone has the vote statistics on the previous repeal attempts that went to vote? I can't remember the exact numbers, but I'm fairly sure they've failed by a larger margin each time. And many don't even make it to vote.

God damn that dastardly villain Imperium Anglorum for building tools sans renumeration which make it easier to find out information about WA history, votes, proposals, etc! http://ifly6.no-ip.org/wa-records/

OOC:The last three were defeated at a similar margin of 82%

[Auralia]

MG, to be clear, I wouldn't submit unless you have a plan for how you're going to get GCR support.

Unless, of course, you know you're going to fail and you're submitting anyways just to make a point. But I would make sure you really want to do that, since it can poison the well for a "real" attempt later.

[Marxist Germany]

MG, to be clear, I wouldn't submit unless you have a plan for how you're going to get GCR support.

Unless, of course, you know you're going to fail and you're submitting anyways just to make a point. But I would make sure you really want to do that, since it can poison the well for a "real" attempt later.

OOC:Me and UM are making plans to campaign thoroughly. Still will plan to swing at least some GCRS.

[Kenmoria]

MG, to be clear, I wouldn't submit unless you have a plan for how you're going to get GCR support.

Unless, of course, you know you're going to fail and you're submitting anyways just to make a point. But I would make sure you really want to do that, since it can poison the well for a "real" attempt later.

OOC:Me and UM are making plans to campaign thoroughly. Still will plan to swing at least some GCRS.

(OOC: Even with a concrete, reliable plan to swing major delegates, you’ll be having a lot of trouble with trying to pass this. There’s also the possibility of an even more pro-choice proposal, and there have been a few drafted, passing instead. If this comes to vote, I think the replacement should be submitted almost immediately, if you want to get the compromise for which you are aiming.)

[United Massachusetts]

OOC:Me and UM are making plans to campaign thoroughly. Still will plan to swing at least some GCRS.

(OOC: Even with a concrete, reliable plan to swing major delegates, you’ll be having a lot of trouble with trying to pass this. There’s also the possibility of an even more pro-choice proposal, and there have been a few drafted, passing instead. If this comes to vote, I think the replacement should be submitted almost immediately, if you want to get the compromise for which you are aiming.)

This is the idea. We welcome pro-choice individuals to the table on a replacement.

[Araraukar]

IC: "Given that neither the author nor their supporters actually comply with the target resolution, why do they even need to repeal it? They are already ignoring its existence."

OOC: And only UM has ever said anything about actually considering the noncompliance causing things to happen in their IC, though obviously either the compliance committee is failing to sanction them badly enough or they're pretending the sanctions are less bad, as the sanctions aren't working...

---

I'm going to keep playing this game regardless.

OOC: And we're going to keep opposing you. If even the actual RL Pope can admit that they and the catholic church have made errors, there's still hope for you too.

[United Massachusetts]

IC: "Given that neither the author nor their supporters actually comply with the target resolution, why do they even need to repeal it? They are already ignoring its existence."

OOC: And only UM has ever said anything about actually considering the noncompliance causing things to happen in their IC, though obviously either the compliance committee is failing to sanction them badly enough or they're pretending the sanctions are less bad, as the sanctions aren't working...

To clarify, UM prefers to get around this by trading with non-members and making an agreement between nations that collectively refuse to enforce the ACA.

The point of that dispatch is to establish that frankly, all these claims about the anti-fetal rights camp being able to force their will on us are nonsense. The WA still holds no sovereignty, and ACA is flimsy when there is a numerous enough resistance.

[Araraukar]

To clarify, UM prefers to get around this by trading with non-members and making an agreement between nations that collectively refuse to enforce the ACA.

OOC: Hey I'm ignoring the existence of the compliance committee exactly because my IC nation would be all too happy to take the sanctions given in favour of ignoring anything requiring them to loosen up their slightly fanatic border control. Though Araraukar is the only WA nation on its planet (not counting the PPU, but that can make deals on personal basis rather than as a nation), so it might be different for you.

And like I said, you at least acknowledge there being some IC repercussions.

[Wallenburg]

No thanks, resign if you don't want to follow WA legislation.

[The New California Republic]

No thanks, resign if you don't want to follow WA legislation.

Agreed. If disagreeing with WA legislation results in you being so stubbornly recalcitrant as to RP non-compliance with it for half a decade, with a repeal of said legislation being nigh on impossible, then just leave.

[Marxist Germany]

No thanks, resign if you don't want to follow WA legislation.

Agreed. If disagreeing with WA legislation results in you being so stubbornly recalcitrant as to RP non-compliance with it for half a decade, with a repeal of said legislation being nigh on impossible, then just leave.

OOC:Just as a note, I am creatively compliant with the resolution. So some people may consider it noncompliance and some may not.

[The New California Republic]

Agreed. If disagreeing with WA legislation results in you being so stubbornly recalcitrant as to RP non-compliance with it for half a decade, with a repeal of said legislation being nigh on impossible, then just leave.

OOC:Just as a note, I am creatively compliant with the resolution. So some people may consider it noncompliance and some may not.

Wilfully misinterpreting WA legislation is non-compliance.

[Kenmoria]

“I’ve given my thoughts on this draft, written in red ink. Some of them are me playing devil’s advocate, and some are my personal opinions.

Repeal "Reproductive Freedoms"
Category: Repeal | Proposed by: Germany

---

The World Assembly,

Applauding the efforts of the resolution GA#286 "Reproductive Freedoms" to protect the right to access abortion; The way you refer to the resolution is unnecessarily clunky.

Noting that this resolution allows abortion on demand, disregarding the potential for sex-selective abortion, a practice that harms the gender balance and creates societal problems, and other discriminatory reasons for abortion such as disability and skin colour, reasons that this assembly is attempting to eradicate; You could go more into depth in this clause, since it is a concern that all reasonable nations should have. Mentioning the problems caused by a gender imbalance could be a start.

Understanding that numerous member states have legitimate moral and ethical concerns regarding the unconditional legality of abortions after fetal viability, especially when alternatives such as adoption are readily available; ‘Moral and ethical’ is tautology.

Frustrated that the term forces member nations to legalize Dilation and Extraction procedures, for example, commonly known as partial-birth abortions, which some of the most gruesome, bloody, and medically unneeded abortion procedures, in which a living and viable fetus is destroyed; This is a weak argument, as the gruesomeness and bloodiness of a procedure has nothing to do with its morality. Consider focusing on the pain experienced by the foetus, or the mental trauma to the pregnant individual.

Cognizant that "termination of pregnancy" is a medical procedure and is therefore protected by resolutions such as GA#29 "Patients Rights Act"; There’s no real need for the speech marks, as it makes it look as though you are using a euphemism.

Further Cognizant of the resolution GA#128 "On Abortion", which allows abortion in cases of extreme disability, rape or incest, and in life threatening conditions; Once again, there are easier ways to refer to the resolution.

Further Noting that the resolution does not make exceptions for minors who are still under their parents' or guardians' custody, whom might not understand the consequences behind the termination of their pregnancy; Having two ‘further’ clauses in a row looks unpleasant. Also, custody isn’t necessarily correlative with understanding, I suggest you reword this to focus on minors of a young age.

Aware that the radical approach of the target resolution has only caused division within this assembly and has led to many nations choosing to leave the assembly, thus reducing its power; This could be applied to any resolution at all, so I suggest making this more specific to 286 in some way.

Believing that the issue ought to be handled in a manner than guarantees the right to abortion whilst placing reasonable restrictions that prevent abuses such as those mentioned above; You've only mentioned one abuse of abortion itself, namely sex-selective one’s, so I recommend that you change this clause around.

Concerned with the many flaws present in the resolution, that ought to be replaced by a better replacement that addresses the issue properly; You want ‘which’ not ‘that’, and this clause could do with some re-wording anyway.


Hereby, There are other arguments that you haven’t included in this repeal, particularly those emanating from the pro-choice delegations’ repeals. If you want to be truly comprehensive, you should include those as well.

Repeals General Assembly Resolution 286, "Reproductive Freedoms". I’ve been rather picky here, and will mention that your text is overall of a good quality. Personally, I don’t think this will pass, but there’s more of a chance than some other repeals.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: Anti choice is quite a rude name, we're called pro life.

We're also anti-abortion. I'm not going to shy away from that phrase with euphemisms.

Personally, the term "pro-fetal rights" is starting to grow on me. I would very much like the other side to describe themselves as "anti-fetal rights" -- I'm sure even they would agree it's a correct description, but it doesn't sound very nice, does it!

On behalf of the anti-fetal-rights movement, I hereby dub thee "Wombslaver"

---

"Ambassador, we find the 'applauding' clause grossly disingenuous given your delegation's openly stated intentions. The 'further noting' clause is smug and patronizing, as the most important consequence - that children will not be put in the position of raising children - is quite obvious even to a minor. The 'aware' clause is silly at best, as we have no desire to maintain fraternity or trade with nations willing to submerge the rights of their childbearing people under the caprices of misfortune and sex-based domination. In short, you have a couple of reasonable arguments drowning in retrograde, self-superior smarm. We will not stand for this."

[Wallenburg]

Agreed. If disagreeing with WA legislation results in you being so stubbornly recalcitrant as to RP non-compliance with it for half a decade, with a repeal of said legislation being nigh on impossible, then just leave.

OOC:Just as a note, I am creatively compliant with the resolution. So some people may consider it noncompliance and some may not.

Creative compliance is to follow the letter of the law but not its full spirit. You just violate the guarantee to abortion on demand.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC:Just as a note, I am creatively compliant with the resolution. So some people may consider it noncompliance and some may not.

Creative compliance is to follow the letter of the law but not its full spirit. You just violate the guarantee to abortion on demand.

"We grant our citizens abortion on demand, granted abortion is extremely expensive due to our creative compliance."

"To the ambassador from Kenmoria, the changes and issues you have highlighted shall be fixed soon."

[Araraukar]

"We grant our citizens abortion on demand, granted abortion is extremely expensive due to our creative compliance."

"Which the state will then have to pay to be in compliance with other resolutions. I don't see how that's very useful to anyone."

God damn that dastardly villain Imperium Anglorum

OOC: I never said you were dastardly, just that you were a better villain than a minor nuisance fighting the windmills. You're like Lawful Evil instead of Chaotic Evil. That's a good thing. In an evil way.

Now yell at MG and UM and Auralia about being in noncompliance, as often as you yell about it to me for being in compliance with everything but the compliance committee, and I'll believe you're not just randomly hating RP and instead apply the rules evenly to everyone. I've heard you've already failed to do so on the GA Discord.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Ara has again missed the nuance of my position, opting instead for a vulgar simplification to compliance yes-no. My position, which has been repeatedly stated on this forum, in the SC forum when discussing non-compliance vis-à-vis commendations, and the GA discord, is that non-compliance is okay when you role play the consequences of that non-compliance in a realistic manner.

Ara does not comply with GA resolutions. That is okay. What is not okay is not roleplaying the consequences of that non-compliance. Pretending that sanctions don't happen or have no effect or that fines don't matter is not realistic role play, it is god modding. Setting up your nation to be the only nation on a planet of non-WA members might not be god-modding. It is also not realistic.

Obviously, this is my opinion and not a statement of universal truths divinely inspired by the gods beyond the comprehension of mere mortals. Interpreting it as the latter would be foolish.

[Araraukar]

OOC post.

IA, you seem to think I'm calling you out for having opinions. That's not the case. It's when you have opinions and use them - which are only opinions, not the holy truth, like you yourself said - to belittle and bully others, that I'm going to be calling you out on them. Even now I'm calling for you to apply your opinions equally, and to attack MG and UM and Auralia for their stated willful noncompliance. Go on. I'll be watching from the sidelines, rooting for you.

non-compliance is okay when you role play the consequences of that non-compliance in a realistic manner.

Yet creative compliance is not okay when it's roleplayed out in a realistic manner?

Ara does not comply with GA resolutions.

I don't comply with the compliance committee, I comply with the resolutions that actually do something. But in some cases via creative compliance (letter, not spirit), which is why I'm so picky on wording choices when helping people with their drafts.

Pretending that sanctions don't happen or have no effect or that fines don't matter is not realistic role play, it is god modding.

Roleplay generally requires two parties. Araraukarian government has yet to hear from the WA in regards to any noncompliance they might have problems with - in fact, they've only heard of their laws now being in compliance via WA magic (the TG you get when a resolution passes). Unless Max steps in to RP as the WA administration, it's rather unlikely to that more will happen. Also, you're the one saying the committees shouldn't be considered to be infallible, so maybe they've just forgotten to tick a box in some form somewhere.

Setting up your nation to be the only nation on a planet of non-WA members might not be god-modding. It is also not realistic.

If I remember correctly, SP also has his nation as the only WA nation on his planet, and I actually do have PPU in WA in IC as well, but like I said before, the hivemind can do deals with Araraukar as a private citizen, not as a nation, and last I looked, that can't be banned or the compliance thing would not be in compliance itself. Also, given the WA nations comprise only 13% even of the existing NS nations (or 14% if the number of WA nations doesn't include the number of regional delegates, though I think it does), given that apparently there are numerous WA nations on some planets/universes (how many on the one IA exists on? out of curiosity?), that makes it obvious there are plenty of planets/universes without none. (Even giving it the best numbers possible, there'd be on average 29 WA nations on a planet like RL Earth. That would mean there only needed to be 27 planets with more than one, for it to be realistic for the planet Araraukar is on to only have two.)

Also, realistic? You want to talk about realistic in anything to do with NationStates? You must be thinking of the wrong game, because nothing of NS can be ultra-realistic, even before figuring in people's RP'd realities. 150 thousand nations on a single planet? Even 20 thousand? Some with populations in hundreds of billions if not trillions? Your own past tech nation would have gotten rolled over by some modern tech nation long time ago (or if you're RPing your whole planet is past tech, then some future tech nation not bound by WA's rules on warfare), if there wasn't the whole "consensual RP" requirement. It's what has realistically happened in real life, whenever there has been a significant tech disparity.

Realism in NS is what you build, not what you have in Real Life, and pretending otherwise is a fool's errand.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Tell me when exactly I voted for Auralia's commendation and how I argued his godmodding-style non-compliance was okay in the WALL server. Go check when that happened and find out the date. Go into the Security Council forum and quote for me when I said his godmodding was just okay.

UM has a realistic conception of the consequences of the ACA. Setting up a secondary market separate from the compliant members of the WA is good realistic roleplay. If you think there's a no difference between that reasonable action of dealing with consequences ... and pretending that the Compliance Commission is fake news and doesn't exist ... then I'm unconvinced you have any ability to separate good roleplay from the bad.

[Auralia]

UM has a realistic conception of the consequences of the ACA. Setting up a secondary market separate from the compliant members of the WA is good realistic roleplay.

I'm glad you agree, since that's basically my approach as well! I explicitly stated in the ACA thread that "Auralia has poor diplomatic relations with and is being sanctioned by the majority of member states for its open non-compliance." How is that "godmodding-style non-compliance"?

[Wallenburg]

Setting up your nation to be the only nation on a planet of non-WA members might not be god-modding. It is also not realistic.

Ummm...what am I supposed to do then? Multi for the sake of having another WA nation on my planet, for the sake of your "realism"?

[Auralia]

Tell me when exactly I voted for Auralia's commendation and how I argued his godmodding-style non-compliance was okay in the WALL server.

Also, are WALL deliberations public now or something? How do you expect Ara to check this?