[PASSED] Access to Abortion

[Logon]

I present to you: https://www.theonion.com/planned-parent ... 1819572640

This article, published 5/18/11 on the Onion (a satirical website for those who don't know) details a Planned Parenthood "abortionplex" featuring bars, shops, and a lazy river.

This resolution was clearly taken from the Onion, ironic as this article was making fun of anti-life/pro-death extremism.

Note the part I highlighted for you. See it?

OOC: Still came from an original joke to spite pro-lifers so yeah, doesn't change much.

"If you pro-deather delegations want to kill children in your own countries go ahead, but you're not making Logon do so."

[United Massachusetts]

I present to you: https://www.theonion.com/planned-parent ... 1819572640

This article, published 5/18/11 on the Onion (a satirical website for those who don't know) details a Planned Parenthood "abortionplex" featuring bars, shops, and a lazy river.

This resolution was clearly taken from the Onion, ironic as this article was making fun of anti-life/pro-death extremism.

Note the part I highlighted for you. See it?

The first draft was submitted. And frankly, I doubt IA's motives have changed since then. He's just been pressed into a bit of a corner by the utter lunacy of the abortionplex idea.

[Wallenburg]

OOC:Abortion was already legal but now the nations also have to pay for it??. This Proposal is only a way to spite and make fun of the Pro Life people in the forum, Completely and utterly opposed.

They openly admitted this is just to spite the pro-life crowd.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1375523

Yes, how obvious! A shitposting convo from May 2019 in which the author is absent is clearly talking about the author's spiteful legislative effort in April 2020.

Ooc: except it isnt. You'd be hard pressed to take the submitted draft and find useful comparisons.

I present to you: https://www.theonion.com/planned-parent ... 1819572640

This article, published 5/18/11 on the Onion (a satirical website for those who don't know) details a Planned Parenthood "abortionplex" featuring bars, shops, and a lazy river.

Hey, check it out! None of that appears in the actual submitted resolution.

This resolution was clearly taken from the Onion, ironic as this article was making fun of anti-life/pro-death extremism.

Reported in Moderation for flamebaiting.

[Logon]

I present to you: https://www.theonion.com/planned-parent ... 1819572640

This article, published 5/18/11 on the Onion (a satirical website for those who don't know) details a Planned Parenthood "abortionplex" featuring bars, shops, and a lazy river.

This resolution was clearly taken from the Onion, ironic as this article was making fun of anti-life/pro-death extremism.

Ooc: there are no references to Lazy Rivers in the submitted proposal. Or the other details. Even assuming that the first iteration was a joke, that does not mean the current iteration is. This sounds an awful lot like a genetic fallacy.

OOC: Considering the "genes" of this resolution are rooted in spite and jokes, I'm inclined to think nothing good comes of it.

[Logon]

Reported in Moderation for flamebaiting.

Should I report others for calling us "anti-choice" then?

[The New California Republic]

I present to you: https://www.theonion.com/planned-parent ... 1819572640

This article, published 5/18/11 on the Onion (a satirical website for those who don't know) details a Planned Parenthood "abortionplex" featuring bars, shops, and a lazy river.

This resolution was clearly taken from the Onion, ironic as this article was making fun of anti-life/pro-death extremism.

Note the part I highlighted for you. See it?

OOC: Still came from an original joke to spite pro-lifers so yeah, doesn't change much.

Nonsense, your claim that "this resolution is clearly taken from the Onion" is clearly total shit, as it is nothing like the content as shown in the Onion.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: there are no references to Lazy Rivers in the submitted proposal. Or the other details. Even assuming that the first iteration was a joke, that does not mean the current iteration is. This sounds an awful lot like a genetic fallacy.

OOC: Considering the "genes" of this resolution are rooted in spite and jokes, I'm inclined to think nothing good comes of it.

Ooc: you and I have freedom of conscience. We are entitled to believe what we wish regardless of the basis of that belief. That does not, however, itself validate a logical fallacy.

[Tinhampton]

Reported in Moderation for flamebaiting.

Should I report others for calling us "anti-choice" then?

NatSov on abortion = pro-choice by Historical precedent

[The New California Republic]

The first draft was submitted. And frankly, I doubt IA's motives have changed since then. He's just been pressed into a bit of a corner by the utter lunacy of the abortionplex idea.

It isn't the current draft though, which has changed substantially since the first one.

[Logon]

Should I report others for calling us "anti-choice" then?

NatSov on abortion = pro-choice by Historical precedent

I'm not talking about NatSov (which I think this should be for natins to decide, even if precedence says otherwise), I'm talking about him reporting me for "flamebaiting" despite he and his allies calling us "anti-choice" all the time.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

They openly admitted this is just to spite the pro-life crowd.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1375523

Yes, how obvious! A shitposting convo from May 2019 in which the author is absent is clearly talking about the author's spiteful legislative effort in April 2020.

I present to you: https://www.theonion.com/planned-parent ... 1819572640

This article, published 5/18/11 on the Onion (a satirical website for those who don't know) details a Planned Parenthood "abortionplex" featuring bars, shops, and a lazy river.

Hey, check it out! None of that appears in the actual submitted resolution.

This resolution was clearly taken from the Onion, ironic as this article was making fun of anti-life/pro-death extremism.

Reported in Moderation for flamebaiting.

OOC: If there's "anti-choice" as a slur why not "pro-death?"
I hope nothing comes of your false, malicious report.
And expressing a relevant and inoffensive opinion isn't flame-baiting.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

NatSov on abortion = pro-choice by Historical precedent

I'm not talking about NatSov (which I think this should be for natins to decide, even if precedence says otherwise), I'm talking about him reporting me for "flamebaiting" despite he and his allies calling us "anti-choice" all the time.

OOC: true.

[Auralia]

My support is totally born of spite.

The fact that someone from GenSec would openly admit this tells us pretty much all we need to know about GA culture nowadays.

[Logon]

My support is totally born of spite.

The fact that someone from GenSec would openly admit this tells us pretty much all we need to know about GA culture nowadays.

It's like Trump threatening to cut aid to blue states.

The leadership disagrees/hates us and will therefore do what they can to hurt us, our cause, and our legitimacy.

[Wallenburg]

The fact that someone from GenSec would openly admit this tells us pretty much all we need to know about GA culture nowadays.

It's like Trump threatening to cut aid to blue states.

The leadership disagrees/hates us and will therefore do what they can to hurt us, our cause, and our legitimacy.

Show me a single way that GenSec has unfairly ruled on abortion-related legislation.

[Separatist Peoples]

My support is totally born of spite.

The fact that someone from GenSec would openly admit this tells us pretty much all we need to know about GA culture nowadays.

Ooc: if you feel I abused my position, you are absolutely welcome to file a report. However, since you and I both know that members of gensec are allowed to play the game as players, I doubt you'll get anywhere. Not a bad way to subtly cast aspersions on my character, but not a very effective argument. Par for the course.

[Logon]

The fact that someone from GenSec would openly admit this tells us pretty much all we need to know about GA culture nowadays.

Ooc: if you feel I abused my position, you are absolutely welcome to file a report. However, since you and I both know that members of gensec are allowed to play the game as players, I doubt you'll get anywhere. Not a bad way to subtly cast aspersions on my character, but not a very effective argument. Par for the course.

OOC: Oh yes, a member of the "leadership" (if that's the word for it) of the WA openly admitting his spite for us really reinforces my belief in its neutrality.

You don't deserve your position. You should resign.

[United Massachusetts]

The first draft was submitted. And frankly, I doubt IA's motives have changed since then. He's just been pressed into a bit of a corner by the utter lunacy of the abortionplex idea.

It isn't the current draft though, which has changed substantially since the first one.

By political necessity, not a genuine change in belief or motive. The initial context makes it clear to me that this resolution is written to spite pro-foetal rights authors. And regardless, I think it underlines a hefty insensibility to those women who have actually had to abort and the pain that comes along with that decision.

If abortion is truly "one of the hardest decisions a woman has to make," as anti-foetal rights delegations are keen on reminding us, why are we trying to make a mockery of it?

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: if you feel I abused my position, you are absolutely welcome to file a report. However, since you and I both know that members of gensec are allowed to play the game as players, I doubt you'll get anywhere. Not a bad way to subtly cast aspersions on my character, but not a very effective argument. Par for the course.

OOC: Oh yes, the "leadership" (if that's the word for it) of the WA openly admitting his spite for us really reinforces my belief in its neutrality.

You don't deserve your position. You should resign.

Ooc: you don't know enough about how gensec works for that demand to be remotely credible.

[Logon]

OOC: Oh yes, the "leadership" (if that's the word for it) of the WA openly admitting his spite for us really reinforces my belief in its neutrality.

You don't deserve your position. You should resign.

Ooc: you don't know enough about how gensec works for that demand to be remotely credible.

OOC: You don't know about being nonbiased now do you?

I said it once, I'll say it again. Resign.

"Hey hey ho ho Sep Peoples has got to go!"

[Logon]

It isn't the current draft though, which has changed substantially since the first one.

By political necessity, not a genuine change in belief or motive. The initial context makes it clear to me that this resolution is written to spite pro-foetal rights authors. And regardless, I think it underlines a hefty insensibility to those women who have actually had to abort and the pain that comes along with that decision.

If abortion is truly "one of the hardest decisions a woman has to make," as anti-foetal rights delegations are keen on reminding us, why are we trying to make a mockery of it?

For a faction that calls themselves "pro-choice" they're hellbent on enforcing their opinion on anyone who disagrees.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: you don't know enough about how gensec works for that demand to be remotely credible.

OOC: You don't know about being nonbiased now do you?

I said it once, I'll say it again. Resign.

"Hey hey ho ho Sep Peoples has got to go!"

Ooc: please point to a situation where I, while acting in an official capacity, behaved in a biased fashion. Spoiler alert: none of my actions in this thread have been acting in an official capacity.

[Wallenburg]

Ooc: you don't know enough about how gensec works for that demand to be remotely credible.

OOC: You don't know about being nonbiased now do you?

I said it once, I'll say it again. Resign.

"Hey hey ho ho Sep Peoples has got to go!"

Posturing about imagined persecution doesn't belong in this thread.

[Logon]

OOC: You don't know about being nonbiased now do you?

I said it once, I'll say it again. Resign.

"Hey hey ho ho Sep Peoples has got to go!"

Posturing about imagined persecution doesn't belong in this thread.

Imagined?

[The New California Republic]

It isn't the current draft though, which has changed substantially since the first one.

By political necessity, not a genuine change in belief or motive.

I really don't care what the motivation was, the point is that it has changed substantially since the first draft which is being used as a stick to hit the author with.

If abortion is truly "one of the hardest decisions a woman has to make," as anti-foetal rights delegations are keen on reminding us, why are we trying to make a mockery of it?

I think you misunderstand, it isn't abortion that is being made a mockery of here.