[PASSED] Access to Abortion

[Attancia]

With the exception of calling "Pro-Life" "Anti-Choice", and the fact that the WA would make my mostly Traditionalist population pay in tax to allow a marginally small minority to silence their children at will, my biggest problem with this resolution is that the Author originally wrote it as a joke, despite it being on the very serious topic of forced, payed in tax child death. To so openly joke about the support killing of a child and expect - and receive - support about it is appalling. Literally mocking the fact that children will be killed because you want to swing the mighty weight of the WA libertarian left at those nations that believe children deserve a right to life? Or did the author just mock child killing for humour's sake?

[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!"

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.

The fact you're showing clear bias in this thread calls into question your entire legitimacy. How do we know you don't rule legal on anything that we might dislike just to spite us? See my concerns?

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

[The New California Republic]

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.

The fact you're showing clear bias in this thread calls into question your entire legitimacy. How do we know you don't rule legal on anything that we might dislike just to spite us? See my concerns?

Using baseless accusations of impropriety as a weapon in a debate is just low. If you have genuine concerns then report it, instead of shamelessly using it here.

[Logon]

The fact you're showing clear bias in this thread calls into question your entire legitimacy. How do we know you don't rule legal on anything that we might dislike just to spite us? See my concerns?

Using baseless accusations of impropriety as a weapon in a debate is just low. If you have genuine concerns then report it, instead of shamelessly using it here.

I will in fact report it! But it's not baseless. If a judge for your trail openly said "I hate anyone who calls themself 'New California'" wouldn't you get worried?

It is easy to say bias doesn't exist when it's bias you agree with.

[Tinhampton]

Using baseless accusations of impropriety as a weapon in a debate is just low. If you have genuine concerns then report it, instead of shamelessly using it here.

I will in fact report it! But it's not baseless. If a judge for your trail openly said "I hate anyone who calls themself 'New California'" wouldn't you get worried?

It is easy to say bias doesn't exist when it's bias you agree with.

Where has Separatist Peoples ever said in this thread that "I hate anyone who calls himself Logon?"

[Logon]

I will in fact report it! But it's not baseless. If a judge for your trail openly said "I hate anyone who calls themself 'New California'" wouldn't you get worried?

It is easy to say bias doesn't exist when it's bias you agree with.

Where has Separatist Peoples ever said in this thread that "I hate anyone who calls himself Logon?"

He didn't, but he said he supported this resolution purely out of spite for pro-lifers. Worrisome, no?

[The New California Republic]

Using baseless accusations of impropriety as a weapon in a debate is just low. If you have genuine concerns then report it, instead of shamelessly using it here.

I will in fact report it! But it's not baseless. If a judge for your trail openly said "I hate anyone who calls themself 'New California'" wouldn't you get worried?

It is easy to say bias doesn't exist when it's bias you agree with.

You should probably note that frivolous reports are not looked upon kindly by Moderation, if this post and your previous ones are any indication of the content of the report.

[Wallenburg]

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

Imagined?

Yes, imagined. Considering this:

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.

The fact you're showing clear bias in this thread calls into question your entire legitimacy. How do we know you don't rule legal on anything that we might dislike just to spite us? See my concerns?

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

is the best you could come up with, you're clearly just ranting about imagined persecution. Your only argument is that Sep might in the future make an improper ruling. The same could be said for any member of GenSec, or for any person who might replace them. You are speculating and calling that speculation evidence.

[Attancia]

Where has Separatist Peoples ever said in this thread that "I hate anyone who calls himself Logon?"

He didn't, but he said he supported this resolution purely out of spite for pro-lifers. Worrisome, no?

Worrisome indeed. If a member of the Secretariat is showing clear bias purely because they have actively said they have a bias against a certain group, then they honestly shouldn't be a part of the body that approve resolutions. He may be entitled to retain his views, but to actively state them like this? Nah. Normally you'd never say something like this, but because he has the backing of the LibLeft (By that I mean, most of the Assembly), he's totally free.

[United Massachusetts]

We should return to the topic at hand -- this resolution and the sinister intent behind it.

[Auralia]

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.

Spite is objectively a bad reason to support a proposal and toxic to a game centred around collaborative authorship of legislation. It's even worse when it comes from a player in a position of authority and who serves as an example to others. Whether it technically violates a rule is irrelevant.

But of course, this can all be disregarded because of my stance on non-compliance, my misdeeds from six years ago, etc. So please, carry on.

[The New California Republic]

He didn't, but he said he supported this resolution purely out of spite for pro-lifers. Worrisome, no?

Worrisome indeed. If a member of the Secretariat is showing clear bias purely because they have actively said they have a bias against a certain group, then they honestly shouldn't be a part of the body that approve resolutions. He may be entitled to retain his views, but to actively state them like this? Nah. Normally you'd never say something like this, but because he has the backing of the LibLeft (By that I mean, most of the Assembly), he's totally free.

Unless it can be clearly demonstrated with evidence that their views have influenced their decisions as a member of GenSec then these accusations are totally spurious.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: This is a very minor point, but the category should be called ‘health’ rather than ‘healthcare’, in the opening post.)

[United Massachusetts]

(OOC: This is a very minor point, but the category should be called ‘health’ rather than ‘healthcare’, in the opening post.)

In the context of this debate, this is the most Kenmoria quote out there (and I mean that in the best of possible ways)

[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.

Spite is objectively a bad reason to support a proposal and toxic to a game centred around collaborative authorship of legislation. It's even worse when it comes from a player in a position of authority and who serves as an example to others. Whether it technically violates a rule is irrelevant.

But of course, this can all be disregarded because of my stance on non-compliance, my misdeeds from six years ago, etc. So please, carry on.

Ooc: if you can note any abuse of power based on my political position as a player, I will take it under serious considerstion. Until then, this is a bad attempt at smearing.

[Imperium Anglorum]

the sinister intent behind it.

Ooo ooo!

SiniSTer!

If you want me to take these absurd complaints in any serious way, please at least accuse me of doing things in Discord screenshots that actually contain my user account.

[Marxist Germany]

"I am glad to see how much backlash this proposal has received. I've also enjoyed using copies of this as toilet paper for the past few days."

[The New California Republic]

"I am glad to see how much backlash this proposal has received. I've also enjoyed using copies of this as toilet paper for the past few days."

I wouldn't call some predictable griping by the usual suspects "backlash", but whatever.

[Astrobolt]

OOC: I think we would all appreciate it if the criticisms of the proposal were about the actual text of the proposal rather than implying some GenSec conspiracy or using an ad hominem fallacy.

[United Massachusetts]

OOC: I think we would all appreciate it if the criticisms of the proposal were about the actual text of the proposal rather than implying some GenSec conspiracy or using an ad hominem fallacy.

OOC: I agree we should lay off Sep. Having said that, I think it's still reasonable to point out the questionable motives behind this resolution.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC:

file:facepalm.gif

This should be completely irrelevant, since all Onion references are long since removed, but I'll clarify for those who are unable to understand satire:

The "Abortionplex" article which I translated into a JOKE GA resolution draft last year is very specifically making fun of the particularly noxious brand of American conservative media that tries to rile up hate for anything (and anyone) abortion-related by portraying women who seek abortions as vapid fucking sluts out for a monstrous brand of sexual perversion.

If you don't portray women in this fashion, then it's not aimed at you. If you take offense at this particular satire, then it says a lot more about you than it does about the pro-choice (excuse me, babykiller) side. If all you're concerned about is the fact that the pro-choice side doesn't see fetuses as persons (or, if they do, they are still willing to put the liberty of a pregnant person above the alleged fetal person's right to life), then none of this "abortionplex" business should have any bearing on your feelings whatsoever.

ANYWAY, very little of the last like ten (edit: more like 15, actually) full pages of this thread has been more than tangentially relevant to the actual draft at hand. Notamod­®, but I would love to have a real discussion about the merits here.

[Stellonia]

Notamod­®, but I would love to have a real discussion about the merits here.

That would require the proposal to have merits in the first place.

[Astrobolt]

Notamod­®, but I would love to have a real discussion about the merits here.

That would require the proposal to have merits in the first place.

OOC: Would love to know the specific issues in the proposal.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Notamod­®, but I would love to have a real discussion about the merits here.

That would require the proposal to have merits in the first place.

OOC: This kind of exclusively rhetorical (and aggressive, to boot) comment is unhelpful.

[Stellonia]

That would require the proposal to have merits in the first place.

OOC: Would love to know the specific issues in the proposal.

OOC: Nations should not be compelled to legalize abortion, let alone pay for it. For me, and for many others, that is a sufficient reason to oppose this proposal.