NationStates Jolt Archive

This is my attempt at providing language for a balanced attempt at a repeal, hopefully acceptable by both principal factions.

I'm not interested in including a definition of when life begins. I'm not interested in arguments about DNA and cellular parasitism. I'm only interested in crafting a resolution that legally and fairly addresses the fact that Resolution #61 is unfair to a significant portion of the UN membership, and attempts to remedy that imbalance.

I have added letters to the preamble and numbers to the the resolution for convenience of discussion, but those would be removed in the final draft. I welcome your suggestions, and will post when something resembling a consensus is reached.

I further request that all nations who are dissatisfied with the language, position, or fairness of this Resolution, join me in an active campaign to promote this repeal.

Repeal Abortion Rights

(a) The issue of Abortion Rights is one of the most divisive and fractious concepts facing the worlds of NationStates. The opposing factions, commonly referred to as "pro-life" and "pro-choice", cannot by their very nature reach consensus or arrive at any middle ground, due to the nature of the issue.

(b) In very simplified form, the supporters known as Pro-life believe that abortion is the pre-meditated murder of a living soul, and that the government has the obligation to prevent such murders, given the opportunity to do so. The supporters known as Pro-choice will not willingly relinquish the rights of the mother, believing that the government should not have the power to make such a choice for them.

(c) Resolution 61, Abortion Rights, passed Sat Jun 5 2004, states, "Henceforth all women shall have the right to choose whether to have an abortion or not, no member nation will interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion"


(1) Having considered that the ongoing nature of this debate has made this organization one of Divided Nations rather than United Nations,

(2) Recognizing that the opposing sides cannot come to a compromise, due to fundamental and irreconcilable differences,

(3) Observing that the language of Resolution 61, Abortion Rights, in no way recognizes, acknowledges, or provides compromises towards the legitimate grievances of a significant proportion of the United Nations membership,

(4) Reaffirming the values espoused by the supporters of the Pro-choice position, that such monumental decisions should not be taken from them by force of governmental edict,

(5) Calls upon the membership to return this choice to the individual members and nations, and remove this language from the code of international law.

I have submitted the second draft to the List Proposals page. See post 19 (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7673721&postcount=19) of this topic for details.

Here is the submission:
Repeal "Abortion Rights"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #61
Proposed by: Frisbeeteria

Description: UN Resolution #61: Abortion Rights (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Resolution 61, Abortion Rights, adopted Sat Jun 5 2004, states, "Henceforth all women shall have the right to choose whether to have an abortion or not, no member nation will interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion".

The issue of Abortion Rights is one of the most divisive and fractious concepts facing NationStates, with opposing factions, commonly referred to as "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice", unable to reach consensus or arrive at any middle ground, due to the nature of the issue.

In very simplified form, the supporters known as Pro-Life believe that abortion is equivalent to pre-meditated murder, and that the government has the obligation to prevent such murders, given the opportunity to do so; while the supporters known as Pro-Choice will not willingly relinquish the rights of the mother, believing that the government should not have the power to make such a choice for them.

Therefore Let it Be Resolved,

1. Recognizing that the opposing sides cannot come to a compromise, due to fundamental and irreconcilable differences;

2. Observing that the language of Resolution 61 in no way recognizes, acknowledges, or permits compromises towards the legitimate grievances of a significant proportion of the United Nations membership;

3. Reaffirming the values espoused by the supporters of the Pro-Choice position, that such monumental decisions should not be taken from them by force of governmental edict;

4. Calls upon the membership to return this choice to the individual members and nations, and remove this language from the code of international law.

Approvals: 1 (Frisbeeteria)
Status: Lacking Support (requires 141 more approvals)
Voting Ends: Mon Dec 13 2004

I'm making some in-line edits. However, I actually don't like lettered preambulatory clauses for two reasons: (1) standard outline form suggests that letters and numerics alternate as to represent different levels of a hierarchy, and (2) the standard convention often is to just number the clauses ... the preambles shouldn't be that contraversial.

I'd avoid talking about "worlds" altogether, just say NationStates. In fact, there may be some robot planet that doesn't care about abortion. They might make up some other word. (Who knows ...)

Repeal Abortion Rights

The issue of Abortion Rights is one of the most divisive and fractious concepts facing NationStates, with opposing factions, commonly referred to as "pro-life" and "pro-choice", unable to reach consensus or arrive at any middle ground, due to the nature of the issue.

In very simplified form, the supporters known as Pro-life believe that abortion is the pre-meditated murder of a living soul, and that the government has the obligation to prevent such murders, given the opportunity to do so, while the supporters known as Pro-choice will not willingly relinquish the rights of the mother, believing that the government should not have the power to make such a choice for them.

Resolution 61, Abortion Rights, adopted Sat Jun 5 2004, states, "Henceforth all women shall have the right to choose whether to have an abortion or not, no member nation will interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion".

Therefore Let it Be Resolved,

(1) Recognizing that the opposing sides cannot come to a compromise, due to fundamental and irreconcilable differences;

(2) Observing that the language of Resolution 61, Abortion Rights, in no way recognizes, acknowledges, or provides compromises towards the legitimate grievances of a significant proportion of the United Nations membership;

(3) Reaffirming the values espoused by the supporters of the Pro-choice position, that such monumental decisions should not be taken from them by force of governmental edict; and

(4) Calls upon the membership to return this choice to the individual members and nations, and remove this language from the code of international law.

I did not like your original first activating clause, but other than some very minor suggestions in the preamble (again for "government like appearances), I love it. The CACE may be worth paying a visit to. I'll have time tomorrow night to fire off 50 or so telegrams to UN Delegates, so if you would prepare a list of whom you'd like me to telegram, I'd be happy to ... because even though I deleted your first clause it was dead on. The sad thing about formal motions to repeal, they are legal documents, and I don't think we should publically enter into the record anything suggesting that we are completely divided. We aren't in fact, as the vote in favour of the Eon Convention passed by a supermajority, which to many signifies strong consensus.

Good job!

Repeal Abortion Rights

(a) The issue of Abortion Rights is one of the most divisive and fractious concepts facing the worlds of NationStates. The opposing factions, commonly referred to as "pro-life" and "pro-choice", cannot by their very nature reach consensus or arrive at any middle ground, due to the nature of the issue.

I would agree with that: but the problem is rooted even deeper than what is suggested.


(b) In very simplified form, the supporters known as Pro-life believe that abortion is the pre-meditated murder of a living soul, and that the government has the obligation to prevent such murders, given the opportunity to do so. The supporters known as Pro-choice will not willingly relinquish the rights of the mother, believing that the government should not have the power to make such a choice for them.

And the sad part, is no matter what action is taken; it will not put a stop to the controversy. Even if removed from UN control, and left in the hands of the states; the nations will still contend, because the entire issue is a no-win scenario.... Which is where the deepness of this controvery reaches.


(c) Resolution 61, Abortion Rights, passed Sat Jun 5 2004, states, "Henceforth all women shall have the right to choose whether to have an abortion or not, no member nation will interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion"

Which I disagree with on vaguity; states should have some control over this issue, for varying reasons; especially for health and safety concerns.


(1) Having considered that the ongoing nature of this debate has made this organization one of Divided Nations rather than United Nations,

And the sad part, is with, or without the ARR, and with or without a repeal of the ARR... It will still be divided.


(2) Recognizing that the opposing sides cannot come to a compromise, due to fundamental and irreconcilable differences,

Yes, and even this repeal, as a compromise, willnot provide compromise to the issues of the two sides.


(3) Observing that the language of Resolution 61, Abortion Rights, in no way recognizes, acknowledges, or provides compromises towards the legitimate grievances of a significant proportion of the United Nations membership,

Of course legitimate can be viewed differently; though I will certainly agree that there is much legitimate arguement presented against its passage in the beginning: most notably that effectively regulating abortion clinics, and regulation for safety and public health in relation to abortion clinics, has been made illegal by the ARR.


(4) Reaffirming the values espoused by the supporters of the Pro-choice position, that such monumental decisions should not be taken from them by force of governmental edict,

Which still does not solve the problem of pro-choicers in nations that wish to criminalize abortion.


(5) Calls upon the membership to return this choice to the individual members and nations, and remove this language from the code of international law.


While I in part agree with this repeal. As a pseudo temporary measure: It is no way a solution to the problem: mostly because there is no way to solve this problem... As long as you have such a multi-faceted contention amongst various sides (and extends much further past pro-life/pro-choice arguments), there will never be a full resolution that will solve the issue.

As such, I will lend my support to the repeal, so that work can be done (should it pass) to draft a new form of ARR which is worded and functions much better for the people in general.

I like it. Winter break starts the 14, after which I more than willing to work on a repeal and replacement resolution.

I like it. Winter break starts the 14, after which I more than willing to work on a repeal and replacement resolution.

Already have one, which I had toned down since the original voting of the ARR.....


ARRA Text (Being withheld for now)

No, that is well worded, organized, concise, and fulfills its objective.
We need one that will pass Tekania, you know, like, reach the mainstream audience. :)

No, that is well worded, organized, concise, and fulfills its objective.
We need one that will pass Tekania, you know, like, reach the mainstream audience. :)

The title and the first A.1. will get enough, in conjuction with a good TG campaign...

But yeah, it would stand a much better chance if it was in disconnected random, sentences with lots of grammatical and spelling errors...

Try pig latin, then mirror it, and present it in that format. It will be adopted in a landslide.

okayray erehay eway ogay.


Pig-Latin Giberish

Tekania, your proposal is very well written, but there's one flaw:

C. Delineated Rights of Private Facilties and Personnel.
1. No private facility (that is any facility not owned and operated by any state) may be forced to provide abortion services.
2. No personnel, whether in the employment of the state, or a private institution, may be forced, against their own will, by the state, or private institution, to participate in any procedure related to abortion.

In principle, they are a good idea. However, in practice a nation can use the clauses to get out of providing abortions...it can simply declare "all of our hospitals are private" and then "encourage" (or just outright legislate that) these private hospitals to not perform abortion services. There needs to be a clause in the proposal that mandates the creation of state-run abortion facilities and/or the prohibition of states banning any and all private institutions from providing abortions, provided they are government-compliant.

Tekania, your proposal is very well written, but there's one flaw:



In principle, they are a good idea. However, in practice a nation can use the clauses to get out of providing abortions...it can simply declare "all of our hospitals are private" and then "encourage" (or just outright legislate that) these private hospitals to not perform abortion services. There needs to be a clause in the proposal that mandates the creation of state-run abortion facilities and/or the prohibition of states banning any and all private institutions from providing abortions, provided they are government-compliant.

Well, alot of this got ironed out awhile back ago... And while I sympathize with your suggestions, there is implimentative problems...

Firstly, mandating state-run abortion facilities would be a fundamental afront to nations against government corporatism.

Secondly, the second part is not rights of the governments, it's rights of individuals and private instutions... They don't let the government do anything... They place the will of the private morals of a particular institution or individual above that of the government or the institution... And it would be impossible to alter the Delineated rights in C without impacting a governments ability to handle sanitary and safty concerns, or B violating the individuals rights. The best I could offer would be to limit their [the state's] ability of regulation to issues of safety and santitation.

Can I have my topic back, please?

This is why we're never going to pass a repeal. Ten responses to the topic, and only one had a goddamn thing to do with the orignial request for feedback, with one more making general but not particularly useful comments on the concepts. Don't you think it's just a wee bit premature to be discussing a replacement when no abortion repeal proposal has ever broken 20 approvals?

I'll ask again: What can be done to THIS proposal to make it passable? (Mikitivity, I'll read and respond to your extensive comments later today.)

Can I have my topic back, please?

This is why we're never going to pass a repeal. Ten responses to the topic, and only one had a goddamn thing to do with the orignial request for feedback, with one more making general but not particularly useful comments on the concepts. Don't you think it's just a wee bit premature to be discussing a replacement when no abortion repeal proposal has ever broken 20 approvals?

I'll ask again: What can be done to THIS proposal to make it passable? (Mikitivity, I'll read and respond to your extensive comments later today.)

Well, as stated, I'll approve it (which gives you at least one approval to this point)... And I was about to suggest the same thing myself...

As for it being passable... I'll reffer to my previous responses regarding proposal passings....

(on a side note, I will be posting my proposal as a [DRAFT] once you feel comfortable with posting it for approvals... Maybe if we time these right... we can use it to garner support for the repeal.)

Let's stick to this for now, till we reach final, and then open a new topic:


Repeal Abortion Rights

(a) The issue of Abortion Rights is one of the most divisive and fractious concepts facing the worlds of NationStates. The opposing factions, commonly referred to as "pro-life" and "pro-choice", cannot by their very nature reach consensus or arrive at any middle ground, due to the nature of the issue.

(b) In very simplified form, the supporters known as Pro-life believe that abortion is the pre-meditated murder of a living soul, and that the government has the obligation to prevent such murders, given the opportunity to do so. The supporters known as Pro-choice will not willingly relinquish the rights of the mother, believing that the government should not have the power to make such a choice for them.

(c) Resolution 61, Abortion Rights, passed Sat Jun 5 2004, states, "Henceforth all women shall have the right to choose whether to have an abortion or not, no member nation will interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion"


(1) Having considered that the ongoing nature of this debate has made this organization one of Divided Nations rather than United Nations,

(2) Recognizing that the opposing sides cannot come to a compromise, due to fundamental and irreconcilable differences,

(3) Observing that the language of Resolution 61, Abortion Rights, in no way recognizes, acknowledges, or provides compromises towards the legitimate grievances of a significant proportion of the United Nations membership,

(4) Reaffirming the values espoused by the supporters of the Pro-choice position, that such monumental decisions should not be taken from them by force of governmental edict,

(5) Calls upon the membership to return this choice to the individual members and nations, and remove this language from the code of international law.

You have our support.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

On behalf of the Conservative Bloc,

This repeal also has our support.

The Armed Republic of Aliste,
Founder and U.N. Delegate
Of the Conservative Bloc

be it resolved that the Holy Republic of
Nathante, supports the full banning of all forms of abortion. and supports this messure to ban it worldwide.

be it resolved that the Holy Republic of
Nathante, supports the full banning of all forms of abortion. and supports this messure to ban it worldwide.

This isn't a ban, this is a repeal of a previous resolution legalizing it (abit too much), and returning the decisions back to the states (or to future legislation; hopefully more robust and fair).

I've made a tactical decision to submit this repeal this morning in 2nd draft form. There are a few factors in favor, a few opposed. Pro: The queue is currently empty, which generally means that more delegates give more approvals
Pro: It's 9:00 AM EST, which hopefully means the major update just finished. With luck, the proposal will hit page 1 on Monday morning.
Pro: I'm pretty much satisfied with the language, following minor alterations based on Mikitivity's and other suggestions.
Con: It's Friday, and approaching holidays / exams / other distractions. There is a good chance many supporters will not see this in time
Con: I don't have a telegram strategy worked up, nor any obvious time today to set that up.
Con: I haven't studied the update timing, so instead of page 1, we might be on Page 6 on Sunday night and disappear by Monday morning.
If anyone wants to start an independent telegram campaign or organize a formal process in an offsite forum, I would truly welcome the support. If no one offers to run one, I may just use this iteration as a trial balloon and do the full campaign a week from now.

In any case, here's the submitted text. Top of Page 19, for the moment.
Repeal "Abortion Rights"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #61
Proposed by: Frisbeeteria

Description: UN Resolution #61: Abortion Rights (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Resolution 61, Abortion Rights, adopted Sat Jun 5 2004, states, "Henceforth all women shall have the right to choose whether to have an abortion or not, no member nation will interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion".

The issue of Abortion Rights is one of the most divisive and fractious concepts facing NationStates, with opposing factions, commonly referred to as "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice", unable to reach consensus or arrive at any middle ground, due to the nature of the issue.

In very simplified form, the supporters known as Pro-Life believe that abortion is equivalent to pre-meditated murder, and that the government has the obligation to prevent such murders, given the opportunity to do so; while the supporters known as Pro-Choice will not willingly relinquish the rights of the mother, believing that the government should not have the power to make such a choice for them.

Therefore Let it Be Resolved,

1. Recognizing that the opposing sides cannot come to a compromise, due to fundamental and irreconcilable differences;

2. Observing that the language of Resolution 61 in no way recognizes, acknowledges, or permits compromises towards the legitimate grievances of a significant proportion of the United Nations membership;

3. Reaffirming the values espoused by the supporters of the Pro-Choice position, that such monumental decisions should not be taken from them by force of governmental edict;

4. Calls upon the membership to return this choice to the individual members and nations, and remove this language from the code of international law.

Approvals: 1 (Frisbeeteria)
Status: Lacking Support (requires 141 more approvals)
Voting Ends: Mon Dec 13 2004

Repeal "Abortion Rights"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #61
Proposed by: Frisbeeteria

Description: UN Resolution #61: Abortion Rights (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Pretty standard there.

Argument: Resolution 61, Abortion Rights, adopted Sat Jun 5 2004, states, "Henceforth all women shall have the right to choose whether to have an abortion or not, no member nation will interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion".

The issue of Abortion Rights is one of the most divisive and fractious concepts facing NationStates, with opposing factions, commonly referred to as "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice", unable to reach consensus or arrive at any middle ground, due to the nature of the issue.

That is because neither side is willing to. Nor will they ever be.

In very simplified form, the supporters known as Pro-Life believe that abortion is equivalent to pre-meditated murder, and that the government has the obligation to prevent such murders, given the opportunity to do so; while the supporters known as Pro-Choice will not willingly relinquish the rights of the mother, believing that the government should not have the power to make such a choice for them.

Therefore Let it Be Resolved,

1. Recognizing that the opposing sides cannot come to a compromise, due to fundamental and irreconcilable differences;

2. Observing that the language of Resolution 61 in no way recognizes, acknowledges, or permits compromises towards the legitimate grievances of a significant proportion of the United Nations membership;

3. Reaffirming the values espoused by the supporters of the Pro-Choice position, that such monumental decisions should not be taken from them by force of governmental edict;

4. Calls upon the membership to return this choice to the individual members and nations, and remove this language from the code of international law.

Illogical. To remove this because of a lack of compromise means we need to remove the majority of the UN resolutions for the same reason. Also, the moment this is gone, there will be a proposal to ban abortion. At least with it forcibly legal antiabortion nations can use a loophole in it to make abortion so inaccessible that it is effectively legal while not being so.

There is no room for compromise in this because neither side wants a compromise. Trying to force one will only have one side or the other take advantage of you and use it as an opportunity to try to get over on the other. I would advise against voting for this or even campaigning for it due to those reasons, as it does nothing to insure a compromise will ever exist and will only open the door for another round of fighting on this.

Tonight, Mikitivity time (PST) I'll start updating a list of Delegates contacted. I'll work of the IDU list first, and since this is a repeal ... hmmm, I'll be creative. Then I'll start cold calling, but keeping a list.

I'll update / point to the thread here.

The advantage of telegramming while a resolution is on the floor is you have a list that sometimes classifies Delegates. We don't have that now. If somebody has time, look through the current proposal queue and I'd suggest building a telegram list of Delegates currently supporting repeals and consider them a first point of contact.

My last point of advice is to watch the endorsement list on all of Sunday and make sure to copy the list, as we'll need to likely take Anti-Phar up on their offer of help after the 14th.

Illogical. To remove this because of a lack of compromise means we need to remove the majority of the UN resolutions for the same reason. Also, the moment this is gone, there will be a proposal to ban abortion. At least with it forcibly legal antiabortion nations can use a loophole in it to make abortion so inaccessible that it is effectively legal while not being so.


Actually it is extremely logical.

Consider the following: we can't write resolutions that say "position neutral", but we can repeal resolutions and as the formal justification state that we want to return the UN to position center / neutrality.

We call these resolutions because they are statements of the "resolve" of this body. A repeal is still treated as a resolution because it *is* in fact a resolution, i.e. official statement.

Legislative bodies for hundreds of years have treated "motions to repeal" similar to "motions to adopt", with only but a few minor technical differences.

The exact language of repeals matter because they go into the official record ... but I must run now and catch the official bus to the headquarters.

That is because neither side is willing to. Nor will they ever be.

There is no room for compromise in this because neither side wants a compromise.
I don't see it as willing / unwilling. I see it as able / unable. As we've proven in so many threads, there is no middle ground. Each side sees it as an affront to values they hold dear, and there is no room for compromise without abandoning those values.

As it happens, I'm firmly in the pro-choice camp myself, but I also beleive in fairness. The current resolution totally rejects the arguments on one side, forcing a Tyranny of Majority on UN membership. I see that as driving many otherwise valuable UN members away from UN membership. As there is no overwhelming international need for this legislation, I'd rather see it pushed back to the Member States so they can make their own determination.

the moment this is gone, there will be a proposal to ban abortion
So? Vote against. It won't pass under the current membership, and maybe someone can write a balanced proposal that will.

To remove this because of a lack of compromise means we need to remove the majority of the UN resolutions for the same reason.
And this is a problem because ... ?

it does nothing to insure a compromise will ever exist and will only open the door for another round of fighting on this
The existence of the current resolution hasn't prevented debate. Why not be fair and start again from a level playing field?

A way to further prove the justification would be to simply go back over the time between the passage of the resolution and to date and list by thread name, post count, and views, all the related abortion threads.

I think we'd be surprised. And since Frisbeeteria really should be occupied campaigning right now, it would be very helpful if some other nations that were interested helped.


As for thread hijacking, that is how most proposals go, especially when there are competiting proposals up for review (here I'm talking about Tekana's idea as well). But ultimately I agree with Anti-Phar's opinion that we don't want to make the repeal too complex and that this version is IMHO a good balance.

While I am an avid Pro-Life advocate, I see the need to find middle ground. Please take a moment to read THIS (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=380452). I think that what would be ideal is a repeal and then a resolution proposed by a Summit or Convention that passes the moral issues to the individual nation while upholding the right to abortion in Rape cases and Mother Endangerment cases. I believe that that may be the best compromise out there. Many pro-choic advocates will agree that it should be a decision of the individual nation, while many pro-life advocates will agree that abortion is ok in one or two circumstances. What do you think?


Brandon J Yad
President of Granbia

This isn't a ban, this is a repeal of a previous resolution legalizing it (abit too much), and returning the decisions back to the states (or to future legislation; hopefully more robust and fair).

But this is exactly the reason I am not going to support any moves to repeal.

OFFICIAL "Stem Cell Research Proposal" Thread. [Use This One: Don't Start Another]
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=375415&highlight=abortion
Replies: 440
Views: 2,977
Start Date: Nov. 15, 2004

National Sovreignty and Abortion Rights Repeal
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=377743&highlight=abortion
Replies: 317
Views: 2,146
Start Date: Nov. 30, 2004

Abortion Rights Must Be Repealed
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=376673&highlight=abortion
Replies: 196
Views: 1,073
Start Date: Nov. 26, 2004

SUBMITTED: Abortion Acts Amendment
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=372556&highlight=abortion
Replies: 121
Views: 635
Start Date: Nov. 10, 2004

Poll: Abortion: Human Rights or Moral Decency
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=379742&highlight=abortion
Replies: 90
Views: 558
Start Date: Dec. 7, 2004

Repeal Abortion Rights
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=363525&highlight=abortion
Replies: 67
Views: 479
Start Date: Oct. 7, 2004

should Abortion be legal?
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=371641&highlight=abortion
Replies: 29
Views: 200
Start Date: Nov 6, 2004

Repeal of UN Abortion Rights Law
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=359552&highlight=abortion
Replies: 24
Views: 245
Start Date: Sep. 22, 2004

Repeals by Sliponia
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=380117&highlight=abortion
Replies: 23
Views: 128
Start Date: Dec. 8, 2004

The Other Repeal Abortion Rights Thread
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=364582&highlight=abortion
Replies: 22
Views: 187
Start Date: Oct. 11, 2004

Giving Nations the Right to Legislate on Abortion
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=345181&highlight=abortion
Replies: 7
Views: 68
Start Date: Aug. 2, 2004

Regarding Proposal: Repeal Abortion Rights
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=372023&highlight=abortion
Replies: 2
Views: 30
Start Date: Nov. 7, 2004

[DRAFT] Abortion Rights and Regulations Act
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=380440&highlight=abortion
Replies: 1
Views: 5
Start Date: Dec. 10, 2004


I've filtered out smaller threads that don't actually address the UN's involvement with abortion, and may have removed some relevant posts. This list does not include the numerous submitted repeal abortion proposals, nor does it find any UN references to the subject prior to the Jolt move. I firmly believe there are plenty of older discussions that were lost during the move.

[lots and lots of meaningful stuff, but way to long to quote for a response]

Yeah, I seem to remember several hefty topics in relation to it during the voting on the ARR

But this is exactly the reason I am not going to support any moves to repeal.

For which reason? To move it back to the states, or to draft a better version of the ARR?

since Frisbeeteria really should be occupied campaigning right now, it would be very helpful if some other nations that were interested helped.
Frisbeeteria just got handed a six-week project that needs to be done by December 23. Don't count on me to be campaigning during the business day. If somebody else wants to grab this and run with it, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Bravo, I glad to finally see a quality Repeal "Abortion Rights" proposal. It has full support. That's only 7 down and 135 to go to see it reach quorum.

For which reason? To move it back to the states, or to draft a better version of the ARR?

Because it would make way for an international ban.

I know - you are preparing a resolution that would replace the current one if it should be repealed, but there are no odds it will pass.

And people are taking the repeal to mean it will be banned across the whole world, and there are various nations that will take this opportunity to do so.

It scares me :}

Bravo, I glad to finally see a quality Repeal "Abortion Rights" proposal. It has full support. That's only 7 down and 135 to go to see it reach quorum.
This is one delegate NOT endorsing it.

Because it would make way for an international ban.

I know - you are preparing a resolution that would replace the current one if it should be repealed, but there are no odds it will pass.

And people are taking the repeal to mean it will be banned across the whole world, and there are various nations that will take this opportunity to do so.

It scares me :}

I'd rather play the lottery than take bets that a ban would pass in the present makeup of these United Nations.

People take things alot of ways... Hell, 1/2 of them have barely recognized that they can't make abortion illegal in their nation at present.

Because it would make way for an international ban.

I know - you are preparing a resolution that would replace the current one if it should be repealed, but there are no odds it will pass.

And people are taking the repeal to mean it will be banned across the whole world, and there are various nations that will take this opportunity to do so.

It scares me :}

This is what my region has echoed in the past as well, but here is the difference. The justification for the ban is that the UN needs to take no position. The motion to repeal includes that in it.

While this can not restrict action in either direction, I think enough centrist governments like mine, do currently have enough influence that with a super majority in favour of a repeal that we'd be able to "influence" the outcome on any pro or con resolutions that come up.

I honestly do understand and appreciate your POV, but would ask that if it looks close to consider changing a position against the repeal to an abstaintion on the grounds that your nation finds the legalization a better alternative than a ban. Even a statement like that will help governments like mine and Frisbeeteria guide the UN to a central position on what really is a dividing issue.

[Plus my government is willing to send a bit of Yule Bock your government's way for a bit of cooperation.] ;)

This is one delegate NOT endorsing it.
Would you mind giving a reason why not? I respect that it's your decision, but I'm curious why you made the statement.

The representatives of the Armed Republic of Florida Oranges are proud to say that they are most certainly impressed with the proposal at hand, and the initiative Frisbeeteria has taken in putting forth such an idea despite their pro-choice leaning. I believe a successful repeal of the "Abortions Rights" resolution has been long overdue, and it is refreshing to see a nation as widely respected as Frisbeeteria attempting one. I urge the United Nations representatives to support this repeal; it is well-written and provides the exact reason why conservatives are currently up in arms over this. With that said, allow me to address some of the concerns expressed here today.

Because it would make way for an international ban.

I know - you are preparing a resolution that would replace the current one if it should be repealed, but there are no odds it will pass.

And people are taking the repeal to mean it will be banned across the whole world, and there are various nations that will take this opportunity to do so.

It scares me :}

What scares me, and scares a vast majority of citizens living in Florida Oranges, is that you have no problem disrupting Floridian law and forcing your morality on us. I'm sure if the shoe was on the other foot, and abortion was banned, you'd be upset. Let our government decide what is moral and what's not. You sir, have no right to thrust your views on us.

Will conservatives attempt to globally ban abortion? I'm sure they will. But rest assured, the sensible conservatives like myself will find this repeal a very fitting compromise, and the subject will be dropped. Have some frickin' faith in our intelligence for Christ's sake. We're not ALL bible-thumping hicks.

By the way, I will be campaigning like nuts to get this repeal to the floor, as I'm sure the members of the Conservative Bloc will.

What scares me, and scares a vast majority of citizens living in Florida Oranges, is that you have no problem disrupting Floridian law and forcing your morality on us. I'm sure if the shoe was on the other foot, and abortion was banned, you'd be upset. Let our government decide what is moral and what's not. You sir, have no right to thrust your views on us.

Will conservatives attempt to globally ban abortion? I'm sure they will. But rest assured, the sensible conservatives like myself will find this repeal a very fitting compromise, and the subject will be dropped. Have some frickin' faith in our intelligence for Christ's sake. We're not ALL bible-thumping hicks.

By the way, I will be campaigning like nuts to get this repeal to the floor, as I'm sure the members of the Conservative Bloc will.

I'm not so sure about that. Should this Repeal pass, then there will be a strong movement to get abortion banned, along with one to see it reinstated. All this Repeal does is open up a whole new can of worms and continue the debate for far longer than it should.

While I'll agree that one's values should not be imposed on another's, I think the Repeal may just open the divide even further. Frankly, I'm just not sure if the UN is ready to debate this topic.

While I'll agree that one's values should not be imposed on another's, I think the Repeal may just open the divide even further. Frankly, I'm just not sure if the UN is ready to debate this topic.
As opposed to gun regulation? Recreational drugs? The Death Penalty?

This place has passed so many major pieces of legislation that it's hard to find new and intereting transnational issues. I'd be fine with repealing half or more of the current resolutions and starting the debate anew on all of them.

We've got some majorly sucky resolutions in there. Let's get rid of some of them and try to do it better.

As opposed to gun regulation? Recreational drugs? The Death Penalty?

This place has passed so many major pieces of legislation that it's hard to find new and intereting transnational issues. I'd be fine with repealing half or more of the current resolutions and starting the debate anew on all of them.

We've got some majorly sucky resolutions in there. Let's get rid of some of them and try to do it better.

But if we get some of the sucky laws repealed, then we do run somewhat of a risk that we get more suckier laws in their place.

we do run somewhat of a risk ...
Yeah! Ain't it great?
http://www.taste.de/A/rubriken/sport_fun/Crazy_Sports/basejumping/images/basejump2.jpg

The CACE UN thinktank (http://invisionfree.com/forums/CACE/index.php?showtopic=1949) has been debating repealing #61 in order to replace it with something more balanced.

So we support a repeal, however I'm nervous that Frisbeeteria's point 4 seems to preclude any future UN legislation on abortion, by specifically ruling that the choice be returned to individual governments.

If that line were dropped, or if someone could convince me I'm being paranoid, then I'd feel able to back this proposal.

Great? Well - exciting might be a better word. In the same way that running through the dragons valley without any armour is exciting :}

My main problem with these issues - the death penalty, abortion rights, gay rights and so forth - is what I would call "good choices" and "bad choices". I realise these are moral terms, but it is the way it goes.

For abortion rights there are two things that can happen - women can have abortions or they can't. Discounting all the discussions about when life starts, whether abortion is moral or not and so forth (and I am really not trying to start these debates, so please don't use this as an excuse), it comes down to either the woman having a choice, or not having a choice.

If a woman has the choice, it only affects her. It does not affect anyone else in the world. And she is not forced to have one - no one puts a gun to her head when she is pregnant and says "you must have an abortion". Yes the will of the masses is imposed over the will of the few, but the few do not have to suffer any negative outcomes of the choice.

If a woman doesn't have a choice, then she is not free to make up her mind. The will of the masses have been imposed over the will of the few to make the lives of the few less good.

The same thing happens with gay rights. You allow it and the will of the masses is imposed on the will of the few, but the will of the few don't have to deal with any negative outcome. Having two men walking down the street hand in hand doesn't affect anyone else. But you ban it, and the will of the masses is imposed on the will of the few, but the few who do experience a negative outcome, since they can't express their feelings.


Anyway - that's just what I was thinking about all this. It is what makes a choice about repealing various resolutions a lot harder than you might think.

... specifically ruling that the choice be returned to individual governments.

If that line were dropped, or if someone could convince me I'm being paranoid, then I'd feel able to back this proposal.
You're being paranoid. Who would have expected that from a hippie? (grin)

A repeal can do only one thing - roll back the changes of a previous resolution. It can't be coded as Human Rights or Social Justice or anything new. The purpose for the text is to make your case for WHY it should be repealed, but apart from that it has no force of law. From the News page: "If a repeal is passed by the full UN, the original resolution is stricken from the record and no longer binding on UN member nations. In practical terms, this has an effect on UN member nations similar to the original resolution, but in reverse and milder."

Make no mistake - if the repeal passed, the fourth point will be true ... at least until someone passes new legislation that changes it. It does not, by nature, preclude the passage of the exact same law that it repealed ... or any better proposal that can make it into queue. Witness the continued presence of at least TWO proposals, suggesting the adoption of Fight the Axis of Evil, right down to identical punctuation.

If a woman has the choice, it only affects her. It does not affect anyone else in the world.
Here's where we disagree, and where I see the point of the pro-lifers on this issue. Put yourself in their shoes for a moment and consider this paraphrase:
If a woman is murdered, it only affects her. It does not affect anyone else in the world.
I don't think you would say that this is a true statement. Obviously, it will affect her family. It might have repercussions on her coworkers, her neighborhood, her city, even her region. Those of us who are outraged by lawlessness might take offense that a life was taken for no other reason than, say, the anger of a boyfriend or husband. Murder is an offense that is recognized as a 'sin' in virtually every religion in the world.

That's how pro-lifers see it. It's not hyperbole. It's not exaggeration. It's murder of a living being, and their moral values want it stopped. If you don't agree with that, I'm with you ... but if you can't see it at all, then you're deliberately closing your mind to their arguments.

I'm an American citizen, and I was offended by what the prison guards did at Abu Gharib, and what our government did at Guantanamo Bay. I don't care about the individual prisoners or their rights; what disturbs me is that someone who can call themselves an American thinks that this sort of behavior is right and proper. I am offended at the act. It goes against my moral values, and I want it stopped.

How can I in good conscience deny the same courtesy to those on the opposite side of the abortion issue?

First as Frisbeeteria pointed out, a repeal only opens the door. I think for that reason a repeal that is neutral will be more benefical to both sides than a repeal from a pro-Life camp.

While I don't see a realistic chance of a pro-Life camp resolution being dragged through, 6 months ago I would have told you that starting an international program to exchanging information on asteroids or having national governments promote needle exchange programs while limiting civil law suits on disaster volunteers would also have been unlikely.

The UN is a strange place ... but the language of the repeal will be recorded as part of the official record, and if that language says, "Hey, we are only considering this repeal on the understanding that both sides will leave this to be a domestic right.", my government feels that there are enough pro-choice nations and options that the medical skills involved in preforming safe abortions will not go away.

[OOC: My sister's roommate is a RN and pointed out that in the US today there are so many nurses and doctors that know this proceedure and how to do it safely, that no matter what position the US government eventually takes, society will function one way or another as a pro-Choice society.

I know there are protesters outside clinics, I seem them here in Sacramento. And I know there is violence ... which I'd call terrorism, that is supported by the pro-Life camp. But my point is the trend is moving in that direction, and even a minor baby-step backwards is not going to realistically change things in the real world or in NationStates, where we still borrow many real world ideas from.]

I don't think you would say that this is a true statement. Obviously, it will affect her family. It might have repercussions on her coworkers, her neighborhood, her city, even her region.

Okay - this entire passage is going to sound like I am a cold, heartless, unfeeling bastard. It is all what I feel, but I just thought I would warn you before you started reading it and wonder what kind of psycopath I am :}

Yes - someone being murdered does affect more than that one person. Because other people have had a chance to meet her, get to know her and (sometimes) fall in love with her. Or she is a part of their family - and since that is something I know something about I am not going to try to disagree with you.

But the act of abortion can including killing something that is two cells joined together. TWO CELLS. Not a fully grown person you have had time to get to know and love, but two cells inside another persons body.

A while back in TilEnca three boys were murdered. I didn't know them, and quite honestly I can say that their deaths did not have that much of an affect on me. Don't get me wrong - I wasn't dancing in the streets, but I did not sit down and weep my heart out for three boys I had never met. I am sure their familes did, their friends, loved ones and so forth, but since I hadn't met them I could not find it in myself to miss them, or to feel overly sad.

The whole idea of "collective grief of a nation" just drives me mental - you can't mourn someone you had no connection with. It's insulting to those who did actually have a connection, and mostly it's just a way for people to feel involved in the news so they can try to make parts of their lives have meaning.

But I really that is getting off topic, so I will get back to what I wanted to say.

Removing a group of cells from a body is in no way comparable to removing an entire person from the people around her. No one knows these cells - they haven't been down the pub with them and they haven't taken them out dancing or to the pictures, and they really haven't gotten to know them as a person. In fact the only person who has a connection to them is the mother and that is because they are inside her. And so the decision should be down to her as to what happens to them.

And I realise that in this great and wonderful world we call Nation States I should have respect for those on the other side of the debate, that their point is equally valid and worthy, but in this case I am sorry, but it's bollocks. I can't find any moral value, truth or worth in their arguement at all, other than the fact they think they have a divine right to preach to everyone else about what is good and what is not because they think they know better than everyone else. I don't think that - I don't know if The Powers That Be consider abortion a sin and a crime against their name, and I would not even contemplate that it is my place to speak for them - I am mortal, they are not. I don't even know if it is right in every single situation. If a mother would be better off having the kid and giving it up for adoption, or if she should have an abortion. All I know is that most people in the world know their own minds better than anyone else. I am certain that I know my mind better than everyone else (except maybe my husband) and I would not want anyone else making decisions that affect my body for me, without even having the common decency to consult me about them.

And so I am not going to presume to claim that I know the mind of every woman in every nation, and decide right now that she should never have an abortion cause it's a crime against The Powers. Instead I am going to accept that since I am not a goddes, not an all powerful, all knowing being, that maybe every woman in every nation should be able to make up her own mind about her own body, because outside of a few people who really need to stop thinking they are gods themselves, her body is the only one that is affected.

That's pretty much it. Have a nice night now y'all.

I realize, Frisbeeteria, that the issue is very divisive, and that no matter what way the UN goes there will always be debate. However, I think if the UN were to repeal the Abortion Rights Resolution, it may start us down the slippery slope of the loss of women's rights, which is not something I will stand for.

I realize, Frisbeeteria, that the issue is very divisive, and that no matter what way the UN goes there will always be debate. However, I think if the UN were to repeal the Abortion Rights Resolution, it may start us down the slippery slope of the loss of women's rights, which is not something I will stand for.
I don't see it that way at all, but maybe that's just me. I hate all-or-nothing solutions to 50/50 problems, and that's what I see here. The current resolution just isn't fair, and I'd have campaigned against it if I had been here at the time.

That said, I'm having trouble motivating myself to campaign for this proposal. I think it deserves consideration, but I'm not all that excited about begging national leaders to support it. It's good language. It says what needs to be said. It's a good thing for the concept of national sovereignty, and frankly for advocates of choice. I'm just having a lot of trouble crossing the aisle.

Actually it is extremely logical.

Considering the job of the UN is to force the members in a certain direction that the majority approves, it's not logical. The FAQ states that.

Consider the following: we can't write resolutions that say "position neutral", but we can repeal resolutions and as the formal justification state that we want to return the UN to position center / neutrality.

Which is not the job of the UN on many issues, this being one of them. The Job of the UN is to force people in certain directions if the majority agrees. At the time, the majority did.

We call these resolutions because they are statements of the "resolve" of this body. A repeal is still treated as a resolution because it *is* in fact a resolution, i.e. official statement.

A repeal is merely overturning something for certain reasons. The fact it is treated as a motion is so it can be on official records in the same category, due mainly to the general fact people do not want to have to search through multiple databases or files for things related to law.

Legislative bodies for hundreds of years have treated "motions to repeal" similar to "motions to adopt", with only but a few minor technical differences.

See above.

The exact language of repeals matter because they go into the official record ... but I must run now and catch the official bus to the headquarters.

Have a good time.

The exact language does matter, but so does the logic behind it. This one, due to the official job of the UN, is not supported by logic. It's basically an advanced form of the national sovereignity arguement.

I don't see it as willing / unwilling. I see it as able / unable. As we've proven in so many threads, there is no middle ground. Each side sees it as an affront to values they hold dear, and there is no room for compromise without abandoning those values.

You forget: I'm a Roman Catholic in real life. My religious beliefs and entire morality go against abortion. Yet, I can support allowing it.

It is not a question of ability, but willingness and want. Neither side wants a compromise and neither side is willing to accept one. Inability does not apply in this case because they are able to compromise on the issue while not compromising their morals.

As it happens, I'm firmly in the pro-choice camp myself, but I also beleive in fairness. The current resolution totally rejects the arguments on one side, forcing a Tyranny of Majority on UN membership. I see that as driving many otherwise valuable UN members away from UN membership. As there is no overwhelming international need for this legislation, I'd rather see it pushed back to the Member States so they can make their own determination.

Guess what? The UN is a democracy. Democracies are always tyrannies of the majority. That is how it always has been, how it always will be, and why true democracies are pipe dreams doomed to fail. As the game mechanics stand, it is the job of the UN to enforce the will of the majority. The only way to change that is to change game mechanics or change the majority, and the first is not likely to happen.

While it may be driving nations away, keep in mind the UN carries nothing that really benefits a nation. It offers no prestige, no honor, no protection, and too many enemies.

As for member states making their determination: That was voted against long ago on many issues. It is not a valid arguement due to UN history and stinks of a national sovereignity arguement hidden behind fancy words.

So? Vote against. It won't pass under the current membership, and maybe someone can write a balanced proposal that will.

The fact remains that you do not solve the problem with this, but actually open the door to make it larger. This resolution attempts one thing but can only accomplish the opposite. As it is, the balance of power that exists right now is the only thing keeping the abortion arguement as civil and cool as it is right now. Imagine how it will be once the topic gets openned up with a possibility of either side influencing the UN.

If you thought posts by a certain person psychoanalysing people and arguing about the heart were bad, keep in mind that's the tip of the iceburg.

And this is a problem because ... ?

The UN works by forcing the will of the majority on the minority. What you are doing is arguing something that is a fancy way of arguing national sovereignity and will require a change in game mechanics to actually be totally valid. As it stands, UN history invalidates it as being that good of an arguement.

The existence of the current resolution hasn't prevented debate. Why not be fair and start again from a level playing field?

It actually has prevented debate. You have only seen the unrallied attempts of people to oppose the topic. Wait until it gets repealed, they rally, and decide to post on here. You haven't even seen how far it can go.

I've already stated why not. It is a case that this repeal cannot accomplish its goals with the way the sides are. Plus, this is directly trying to go against the basics of how the UN operates by arguing national sovereignity in a more advanced form, which the UN has the job of overriding.

To be perfectly honest, when I see a nation say that they want the ARR or the Gay Rights Resolution repealed because it is "a national soverignty issue" and/or "that the UN should be legislating morality", nine times out of ten I don't believe it. I really think it's just a ploy for those nations to turn around and attempt to unilaterally impose their morals on everyone else- they just need to find some argument to kill those Resolutions first, as they stand in the way.

Do I think that there are no nations out there that genuinely believe that things like abortion are simply national soverignty/national morality issues and thus should not be legislated by the UN? No- those nations do exist. I just don't believe that the majority who spout those views spout them because they really believe it but rather because they just want those Resolutions killed so they can make another Resolution banning what was allowed in the first place.

I just don't believe that the majority who spout those views spout them because they really believe it but rather because they just want those Resolutions killed so they can make another Resolution banning what was allowed in the first place.
I'm the exception that proves the rule, then. I'd be perfectly happy repealing just about ALL the UN resolutions. Less law is my objective.

I'm the exception that proves the rule, then. I'd be perfectly happy repealing just about ALL the UN resolutions. Less law is my objective.

Just to make it clear, Frisbeeteria, you're one of those people who makes the national soverignty argument because you really believe in it and not just use it to further a "master plan" of yours; and that's acceptable. I just worry that if the ARR is killed that it's going to unleash a flurry of problems the UN has never seen before and should not have to put up with, because agendas- and rather strong ones- will clash.

I'll be honest: I've got a lot of experience with arguing abortion on other forums. The worst trolling we have seen in here is civilized compared to what we could see. And I am beginning to see many of the same arguements and bases for those arguements in attempts to repeal ARR (as it has been dubbed on here), so I have good reason to predict that repealing this at this time will only result in a firestorm that will leave all of the surviving regulars left wish the idea of repeals had never been invented and cursing the name of whoever submitted the successful repeal.

I'll be honest: I've got a lot of experience with arguing abortion on other forums. The worst trolling we have seen in here is civilized compared to what we could see. And I am beginning to see many of the same arguements and bases for those arguements in attempts to repeal ARR (as it has been dubbed on here), so I have good reason to predict that repealing this at this time will only result in a firestorm that will leave all of the surviving regulars left wish the idea of repeals had never been invented and cursing the name of whoever submitted the successful repeal.

Well said. Exactly my point.

We do not support, for we do not wish the firestorm this attempt would bring on anyone.

Fris, this is well intentioned - but ultimately only divisive.

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites supports the repeal attempt and would gladly give it our endorsement (if we hadn't lost our delegate status last month).

We feel that this is an issue that is best left up to the individual nations to decide upon because whether or not my nation allows abortion (and yes, I know that as a UN member the government of my nation can't stop doctors from performing abortions) has no effect on any other nation. We firmly believe that the UN should limit itself to issues that are truly international in nature and that this isn't one of them.

We do not support, for we do not wish the firestorm this attempt would bring on anyone.

Fris, this is well intentioned - but ultimately only divisive.

That's precisely what we could have said to the author of the ARR (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=60) months ago.

Had I a nation around at that point, I would have. But the damage is done and it's best to leave this potato where it sits.

A repeal is merely overturning something for certain reasons. The fact it is treated as a motion is so it can be on official records in the same category, due mainly to the general fact people do not want to have to search through multiple databases or files for things related to law.


Once again you're wrong here ... but I'm not going to waste my time with a point by point, instead I'm going to talk about just the above (this is more for the benefit of others).

Your statement has NEVER been stated as a justification for the way this game codes repeals by anybody with any knowledge of the game.

A repeal is a motion, just the same as a resolution, but instead of creating something new, it is to take back what was said before.

For the purpose of this game it has the opposite impact, but to a lesser degree. However, the justification of the repeal can be quoted as an opinion adopted by this body. There is no reason why this shouldn't be done, except of course via ignorance -- which is not something a respected nation like Frisbeeteria or my own is going to allow to prevent us from keeping the history of this body alive.

If this game were more flexible we'd be able to amend "motions" while on the floor like ALL other parliamentry forms of governance can do, but that is what I'd call a bit advanced. This is important, because when you can amend and perfect language in any motion, there is more incentive to look to the past as a blueprint to the future. The best and most common example will be how the US Constitutional Amendments are so often quoted in current political debates, in particular the Bill of Rights (i.e. first 10 amendments are most oft quoted). They have not been forgotten ... if anything they are treated like holy words instead of what they really are: amendments, suggesting that there should be a living and changing body of law.


Future resolutions can make references to arguments and actions raised in prior resolutions ... the better ones tend to do this. A recent example is the Eon Convention on Genocide specifically mentioned the Wolfish Convention. The reason this is done is simple: it is to establish a continunity of legislation and in the real world and NationStates to "couple" laws together.

In fact, you see this same thing in real laws, in particular UN resolutions, were previous resolutions are recalled and then built upon.

The design of repeals being in the same category is so far from the truth. Look at the motion "Repeal Fight the Axis of Evil". It is technically a repeal, but states what the category of the original resolution was, because in "reserving course" we need to know what was done before. The game's categories were never intented for archiving purposes (i.e. to make it easier for people), and again I'd love to see where you got the idea that repeals were made with this in mind, because I've seen nothing in the past 3 months to suggest this.

Once again you're wrong here ... but I'm not going to waste my time with a point by point, instead I'm going to talk about just the above (this is more for the benefit of others).

I really need to mark my real-world references more often...

Your statement has NEVER been stated as a justification for the way this game codes repeals by anybody with any knowledge of the game.

No, but it is how it works in the real world, which you referenced. It started out that way and, despite the later complications of the system, stayed that way for the same reason.

A repeal is a motion, just the same as a resolution, but instead of creating something new, it is to take back what was said before.

Or to undo if from affecting the modern era due to legal changes. A few laws are not repealed to take back what was said, but because what was said is either unneccessary or, in a few cases, contrary to the modern opinion.

For the purpose of this game it has the opposite impact, but to a lesser degree. However, the justification of the repeal can be quoted as an opinion adopted by this body. There is no reason why this shouldn't be done, except of course via ignorance -- which is not something a respected nation like Frisbeeteria or my own is going to allow to prevent us from keeping the history of this body alive.

Actually, it has pretty much the same effect as what I stated above, which is also a real-world basis.

It is the opinion of the body, but the body has spoken against the opinion expressed by this one, which is that of national sovereignity being most important, more times than I care to count. The opinion of this repeal does not match the opinion of the majority.

If this game were more flexible we'd be able to amend "motions" while on the floor like ALL other parliamentry forms of governance can do, but that is what I'd call a bit advanced. This is important, because when you can amend and perfect language in any motion, there is more incentive to look to the past as a blueprint to the future. The best and most common example will be how the US Constitutional Amendments are so often quoted in current political debates, in particular the Bill of Rights (i.e. first 10 amendments are most oft quoted). They have not been forgotten ... if anything they are treated like holy words instead of what they really are: amendments, suggesting that there should be a living and changing body of law.

Actually, you can. You just have to leave something vague and later propose something to define what was left vague. The Marriage Defintion resolution did just that.

Future resolutions can make references to arguments and actions raised in prior resolutions ... the better ones tend to do this. A recent example is the Eon Convention on Genocide specifically mentioned the Wolfish Convention. The reason this is done is simple: it is to establish a continunity of legislation and in the real world and NationStates to "couple" laws together.

In fact, you see this same thing in real laws, in particular UN resolutions, were previous resolutions are recalled and then built upon.

Then again, we're also talking about a body that sometimes passes a resolution just because of the title, as has been evidenced recently. The NSUN is not the most objective bunch by a long shot.

The design of repeals being in the same category is so far from the truth. Look at the motion "Repeal Fight the Axis of Evil". It is technically a repeal, but states what the category of the original resolution was, because in "reserving course" we need to know what was done before. The game's categories were never intented for archiving purposes (i.e. to make it easier for people), and again I'd love to see where you got the idea that repeals were made with this in mind, because I've seen nothing in the past 3 months to suggest this.

I was referencing real-world politics, which I had seen you do in the post I was replying to and again in this one. The fact I separated it like that was partially confusing, but the point still is gotten across.

The game was designed to mimic reality partially. The add-on of repeals was also designed with that in mind. That, and the fact that programming an entirely new section into the game is far more difficult than altering the existing one to include repeals as well.

I was referencing real-world politics, which I had seen you do in the post I was replying to and again in this one. The fact I separated it like that was partially confusing, but the point still is gotten across.

The game was designed to mimic reality partially. The add-on of repeals was also designed with that in mind. That, and the fact that programming an entirely new section into the game is far more difficult than altering the existing one to include repeals as well.

You aren't referencing real-world politics at all.

I've YET to see you describe anything in the real world.

Here is an example of how a REPEAL is treated as law in the real world.

Have you heard of the US Supreme Court? Good, at least you know SOMETHING about politics. The US Supreme Court hears court cases that have already been DECIDED and ruled upon by lower courts. They are in affect, repeals or reaffirmations of prior interpetations of RULES, based on ... you guessed it LAWS. That makes them reaffirmations or repeals of reaffirmations or repeals of original laws.

Once the Supreme Court makes a decision, its decision, even if it is overturning a prior law (reference Jim Crow laws) is not just a "repeal" but a new law.

So now, despite the fact that I've NEVER seen you demostrate good knowledge of this game, and despite the fact that I've yet to see you reference anything specific in the real world, here is your chance, show me a real world example why a repeal is not a motion.

You do realize that in the legal works of many Western nations that when even a city council decision is overturned or changed that a record of that decision is kept, along with the statements issued by the city manager or city council members. Democracy is based in part on either direct rule or representative rule, but keeping has been so crucial to 19th, 20th, and 21st century democracies that I dare say that part of the reason that in the middle ages that you didn't have "democracy" is that the population was largely illiterate, and counted about the churches and royality to keep the detailed records.

Look, I know you play this game for fun and such, but have you ever attented a city or county or state or national level political meeting? As a government worker I do spend a great deal of time representing the public with respect to real world water quality issues in public meetings and I promise you that if an environmental project (specific example California Water Rights Decision 1643) is overturned by a body (in this case the California State Water Resources Control Board -- part of the California Court System, with a legal jurisdiction over water related issues of course), that the debate behind that ruling is CRITICAL to future efforts.

I can assure you that this single example I mentioned will be picked apart by the proponents behind the original decision and brought to a state court of appeals *or* that an application for a new water rights decision will be made, that will *gasp* directly incorporate the points raised in the repeal.

Why would a firm or public group do this?

Simple, if they don't, they'll get beat by the same exact arguments again and again.

The same thing applies here. Do you know how many of the anti-Nuke resolutions have passed? Do you know how many of them have failed? The answer is none have passed, all two of them have failed. Was it because they were poorly worded? Not really, though they could have been cleaned up. It is because the ensemble of opinions isn't ready for them yet. The first one was testing the water ... the second one just totally failed to make use of prior arguments.

Do you know how I was able to get Tracking Near Earth Objects to pass? I will point out that the resolution is basically a creative rewrite of the Space Defense Initiative.

The 2,500+ no votes largely came from the, "Don't increase military budgets". That is a pretty damn good reason to vote against something too.

But I looked at the primary arguments against the SDI and rewrote it such that those questions were directly answered in the resolution.

I am pretty certain that I'll be able to sneak a true WMD resolution through the UN. There is easily enough support to get 150 endorsements in a 2 week period with modest telegramming. But I'd be a moron to ignore the arguments of the past, and often those arguments are in the text of MOTIONS that have passed or failed.

So like in the real world where repeals of decisions have legal importance and are in their own right "LAW", in NationStates, the written justifications (for better or worse) of a repeal should also be considered.

Okay guys, relax a little. There's no need to get angry over this.

You aren't referencing real-world politics at all.

I've YET to see you describe anything in the real world.

Thought you knew I was a generalist. It's easier to post the general stuff first and then get into specifics.

Here is an example of how a REPEAL is treated as law in the real world.

Have you heard of the US Supreme Court? Good, at least you know SOMETHING about politics. The US Supreme Court hears court cases that have already been DECIDED and ruled upon by lower courts. They are in affect, repeals or reaffirmations of prior interpetations of RULES, based on ... you guessed it LAWS. That makes them reaffirmations or repeals of reaffirmations or repeals of original laws.

Could be considered flamebait, but I'll ignore it as such.

Once the Supreme Court makes a decision, its decision, even if it is overturning a prior law (reference Jim Crow laws) is not just a "repeal" but a new law.

That is also not how a repeal works. That is a case of a higher court overruling a lower court or a previous court. There is a huge difference between the two.

So now, despite the fact that I've NEVER seen you demostrate good knowledge of this game, and despite the fact that I've yet to see you reference anything specific in the real world, here is your chance, show me a real world example why a repeal is not a motion.

I've caught you not paying attention to context or bothering to read my posts on several occasions. In fact, in several cases you have purposefully taken things out of context or outright ignored what you didn't like to hear. You have a bad habit of adding words to your opponents' mouths, which amounts to totally making up evidence to support your claim.

In other words, try being innocent before casting stones.

You do realize that in the legal works of many Western nations that when even a city council decision is overturned or changed that a record of that decision is kept, along with the statements issued by the city manager or city council members. Democracy is based in part on either direct rule or representative rule, but keeping has been so crucial to 19th, 20th, and 21st century democracies that I dare say that part of the reason that in the middle ages that you didn't have "democracy" is that the population was largely illiterate, and counted about the churches and royality to keep the detailed records.

Once again, not bothering to read my posts or ignoring part of them in an attempt to create a case. Let me quote myself:

A repeal is merely overturning something for certain reasons. The fact it is treated as a motion is so it can be on official records in the same category, due mainly to the general fact people do not want to have to search through multiple databases or files for things related to law.

Gee, I find it odd how I mentioned the words "official records" in my post.

Also, that part about democracy is not attending to the actual quote you are replying to.

Look, I know you play this game for fun and such, but have you ever attented a city or county or state or national level political meeting? As a government worker I do spend a great deal of time representing the public with respect to real world water quality issues in public meetings and I promise you that if an environmental project (specific example California Water Rights Decision 1643) is overturned by a body (in this case the California State Water Resources Control Board -- part of the California Court System, with a legal jurisdiction over water related issues of course), that the debate behind that ruling is CRITICAL to future efforts.

Once again, ignoring what I have said on purpose.

The exact language does matter, but so does the logic behind it. This one, due to the official job of the UN, is not supported by logic. It's basically an advanced form of the national sovereignity arguement.

It is the opinion of the body, but the body has spoken against the opinion expressed by this one, which is that of national sovereignity being most important, more times than I care to count. The opinion of this repeal does not match the opinion of the majority.

How many times have I replied to something similar? Twice? Rewording the same thing in an attempt to get me to acknowledge it a third time is a cheap tactic deserving of scorn. If all you can do is repeat arguements already dealt with in replies to you, then don't bother arguing.

I can assure you that this single example I mentioned will be picked apart by the proponents behind the original decision and brought to a state court of appeals *or* that an application for a new water rights decision will be made, that will *gasp* directly incorporate the points raised in the repeal.

Why would a firm or public group do this?

Simple, if they don't, they'll get beat by the same exact arguments again and again.

Which, I notice, you are attempting to use here while ignoring vast tracks of my posts, mostly on purpose (accidental ignorings are overruled by frequency), and throwing in a bunch of worthless information. Try reading several topics on here sometime. You'll find how much space you wasted with that typing then.

The same thing applies here. Do you know how many of the anti-Nuke resolutions have passed? Do you know how many of them have failed? The answer is none have passed, all two of them have failed. Was it because they were poorly worded? Not really, though they could have been cleaned up. It is because the ensemble of opinions isn't ready for them yet. The first one was testing the water ... the second one just totally failed to make use of prior arguments.

Two have failed in quorum, at least 36 have failed to reach quorum. And, once again, bothering to even read the topics on the first page would reveal that you are taking an arguement I have made and trying it against me. I'll even post a link to the arguement.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=380604&page=1

Anyone who reads through that and compares posting times of my posts to the one of yours I am replying to with this can see exactly what you are doing. You, Mik, are posting flamebait. Cut it out.

Do you know how I was able to get Tracking Near Earth Objects to pass? I will point out that the resolution is basically a creative rewrite of the Space Defense Initiative.

The 2,500+ no votes largely came from the, "Don't increase military budgets". That is a pretty damn good reason to vote against something too.

But I looked at the primary arguments against the SDI and rewrote it such that those questions were directly answered in the resolution.

Once again, worthless information. Anyone who pays attention to my posting history will know why and can name which proposals I helped revise.

I am pretty certain that I'll be able to sneak a true WMD resolution through the UN. There is easily enough support to get 150 endorsements in a 2 week period with modest telegramming. But I'd be a moron to ignore the arguments of the past, and often those arguments are in the text of MOTIONS that have passed or failed.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=380626

A proposal currently in draft to pay attention to the arguements of the past, including the nuclear armament.

So like in the real world where repeals of decisions have legal importance and are in their own right "LAW", in NationStates, the written justifications (for better or worse) of a repeal should also be considered.

Once again, since you ignored what I said, I'll repost it.

The exact language does matter, but so does the logic behind it.

Mik, try reading the entirety of my posts and paying attention to their entirety and not just what you want to.

RomeW- I'm not. I'm just pointing out something I've noticed about the pattern of his arguements and the fact a certain incident happens too often for it to not be intentional or flamebait.

RomeW- I'm not. I'm just pointing out something I've noticed about the pattern of his arguements and the fact a certain incident happens too often for it to not be intentional or flamebait.

My mistake then. My alarm bells went off when Mik got agitated.

My mistake then. My alarm bells went off when Mik got agitated.

Read the last two arguements we've been in.

Read the last two arguements we've been in.
Don't get me wrong: I wasn't trying to insinuate that you were trying to get Mikitivity angry. He just seemed to on his own accord.

(Then again, all I saw was the :mad: at the top of his post and some words in the second paragraph IN ALL CAPS, and, upon re-reading it he did seem to simmer down a little)

Don't get me wrong: I wasn't trying to insinuate that you were trying to get Mikitivity angry. He just seemed to on his own accord.

I know. I was just pointing you to some background to get an idea of why I am making some of my statements.

(Then again, all I saw was the :mad: at the top of his post and some words in the second paragraph IN ALL CAPS, and, upon re-reading it he did seem to simmer down a little)

Like I said, read our past two arguements. Also, read to about a week before that in posts on here. Suddenly, quite a bit makes sense.

Demon Lord,

This ain't flamebait, but if you honestly believe it is you can go to moderation.

My point is you have made up unsupportative claims about the purpose behind repeals in both nationstates and the real world. In fact, I believe them to be false, and feel you are trying to attack this proposal by pretending to know more than you really do.

Your claim "but I'm a generalist" is just another way of saying, "I can say whatever I like, but I can't defend my POV". This week you were passing off WRONG advice in the moderation forum and Cogitation corrected you. I've seen you do that several times here in this forum as well ... and frankly I'm a bit tired of it.


The reason I don't do a line by line rebuttal of your comments is most of them really aren't worth IN MY OPINION responding to. It doesn't matter what you might believe, but just because somebody ignores your posts does not mean they are not reading your words. So stop accusing me of twisting your words and not reading your posts ... simply because I don't find value in them. That is basically accusing me of being a liar, and I find that very INSULTING on your part.

The fact of the matter is that repeals, like my specific example of the California State Water Resources Control Board Water Rights Decision 1643 are legal decisions and have significant political and legal impacts ... this is a real world example.

The argument you are attempting to make is that repeals only erase a resolution, but that the justification behind a repeal does not have meaning.

It is key to our (Frisbeeterias and others) effort in this repeal that the justification matters. If it didn't, we wouldn't have gone to the trouble to write it in a clean format. Hell, if it didn't matter, Frisbeeteria wouldn't have written anything at all.

Okay, back to your corners. Take a breath and relax. No need to get hostile with each other.

Thanks Hack,

There are a few things I could have said more politely.

In particular, my remark asking DemonLordEngima if he heard about the Supreme Court before did not help matters and likely fueled a bad situation into an even worse one.

(I still think it is a classic example that most Americans should know.)

That's precisely what we could have said to the author of the ARR (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=60) months ago.

Yep, you could have. I'm rather amazed it passed, but it did.

Yeah, an American should know about the Supreme Court Miki, and your analysis is not correct. Supreme court and other appeals decisions are for the large part procedural in nature, not rule interpretive. And most go through the appeal process before the case is even decided because of procedural matters. Rule interpretation, yes, a review of the decision of the case, no.

Now back to the topic...

Note: The following was editted after reading Hack's post.

My point is you have made up unsupportative claims about the purpose behind repeals in both nationstates and the real world. In fact, I believe them to be false, and feel you are trying to attack this proposal by pretending to know more than you really do.

Neither of us has supported their evidence very well, except I have posted some repeatedly that is not paid attention to. It is repeated in this thread, only this time cleared up a bit. Don't take it as insulting, as it is not meant to be.

Your claim "but I'm a generalist" is just another way of saying, "I can say whatever I like, but I can't defend my POV". This week you were passing off WRONG advice in the moderation forum and Cogitation corrected you. I've seen you do that several times here in this forum as well ... and frankly I'm a bit tired of it.

You never see me claim to be perfect. You are not perfect. And, as I've pointed out, you're not exactly innocent either. This is not a time when either side can make a case for innocense (sp?).

The fact of the matter is that repeals, like my specific example of the California State Water Resources Control Board Water Rights Decision 1643 are legal decisions and have significant political and legal impacts ... this is a real world example.

The argument you are attempting to make is that repeals only erase a resolution, but that the justification behind a repeal does not have meaning.

Let's take a look at my post, at least a particular part of one.

The exact language does matter, but so does the logic behind it.

That was in reply to:

The exact language of repeals matter because they go into the official record

Now, I must ask for evidence of a post on here that, taken in context, disagrees with that. As it is, I see no evidence saying I said justification is not important, but that is my personal bias.

Also, you will find I did not ever argue that it only erases a resolution. In fact, I posted something that gave a broader definition which covers cases yours doesn't.

It is key to our (Frisbeeterias and others) effort in this repeal that the justification matters. If it didn't, we wouldn't have gone to the trouble to write it in a clean format. Hell, if it didn't matter, Frisbeeteria wouldn't have written anything at all.

If you go back to page two and follow my arguements, you'll find I was arguing about the justification and the results of it. The whole basis of my arguement was a combination of justification and results if it got passed based on my own experiences elsewhere.

If you ask anyone who has argued abortion elsewhere, you're likely to hear horror stories. You're also likely to find some people, such as myself, are not willing to post links or even watered-down copies. There are certain things I would not wish on people, and having to go through one of those arguements is one of them.

The previous post was typed up before I read Hack's warning. Afterwards, I have ediitted it heavily and at the time of this posting am still editting it.

I have not deleted it for a reason: It makes a point I think needs to get across. It should help clear up some of the confusion that resulted from this, if read, if read properly.

No harm; no foul; no warnings given or needed. I just don't want to see this devolve into General forum level "debating".

No harm; no foul; no warnings given or needed. I just don't want to see this devolve into General forum level "debating".

You mean like this?




I r0xx0r0rz!



U suxx0r0rz!


You are both below average in terms of your intellectual functioning, language competency, and breeding.

Except less insightful, yes.

Except less insightful, yes.

Hack, I think "less" in this case is an understatement. More like "dramatically less insightful".

Except less insightful, yes.

Sorry. :( I can only force my IQ so low. I have limitations.

It appears my repeal is the now the first one in queue which uses the word "abortion", so the proposal search function takes you directly there when you search on that term.

General letter I'll be sending out today:


Hello,

I’m contacting you on the behalf of what I consider a well written repeal. Though my government is pro-choice, we’ve noticed that abortion is one of the issues that has alienated some nations from the United Nations. With that in mind, Frisbeeteria has drafted up a motion to repeal the Abortion Rights resolution on the grounds that abortion should be left as a domestic decision.

Here is the current text of the proposal, look for: Repeal “Abortion Rights”.

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/70064/page=UN_proposal/start=55

Normally my government does not support repeals, but in this case the arguments provided in the resolution are some of the best my government has seen for any resolution. If this repeal passes, I can assure you that my nation will make references to this motion in an attempt to prevent either side from enforcing their will on us all.

If you have any questions, please feel free to telegram me.

Thank you,
10kMichael
Ambassador Confederated City States of Mikitivity


As I've finished telegramming nations, I'll start to put a list up in the IDU so those of you telegramming can check these Delegates off your contact lists. If anybody else is keeping track, if you point me to where your list of whom you've contacted is, I'll try to avoid spamming people. :)

Yeah, an American should know about the Supreme Court Miki, and your analysis is not correct. Supreme court and other appeals decisions are for the large part procedural in nature, not rule interpretive. And most go through the appeal process before the case is even decided because of procedural matters. Rule interpretation, yes, a review of the decision of the case, no.

Now back to the topic...

I disagree, but I appreciate you being civil about this instead of calling me a liar and whatnot. :)


Here is why I think this is important ...

Supreme Court rulings *become* law. Though they are based on appealing a prior courts decision, they have a political / legal impact.

Consider Roe v. Wade. In the United States the right to abortion is not described as being the Kerry Bill or the Foley Act, but Roe v. Wade.

Here is the Wiki one-liner:

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) was the landmark United States Supreme Court decision that recognized abortion as a constitutional right, overturning individual states' laws against abortion.

I think this is an accurate description of the Supreme Court case.

I'll copy more from Wiki:


The case originated in Texas in March 1970. It started when a pregnant woman named Norma McCorvey, using the pseudonym "Jane Roe," headed a class action lawsuit against the state of Texas's anti-abortion laws, claiming that the laws were unconstitutionally vague and abridged her rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

It gets better ... and is ultimately related to this game's current motion:


The Roe decision sparked nationwide protest, including a letter-writing campaign to the Supreme Court. Many Americans, including many Catholics and evangelical Protestants, believe that abortion is morally equivalent to infanticide, or rather that abortion is in itself infanticide. Widespread protest over the decision resulted in the creation of the Pro-Life Movement, which organized large protest rallies outside the Supreme Court.

There are two major reasons we have repeals in NationStates (I'm talking game and real-life here) IMHO.

First, we can't amend resolutions so sometimes we want to repeal something in order to improve it.

Second, sometimes we change our minds. Like the original resolution that was adopted the decision to change our minds is a justification for the repeal. That is why the mods actually read the repeals and if the justification is violates any of the normal proposal submission rules, the repeal can be deleted.

Resolutions and repeals are both legal motions made by this body. And the text of a repeal is just as important as a resolution when it comes to maintaining legal continutity.

AP, I appreciated that in the prior Eon debates that although we held different positions on the legal standing of the resolution itself (not its content) that you were civil towards me. In that debate I believe your point was that the Eon convention ignored the Due Process resolution.

What is the important part of the Due Process? The game stats or the resolution text? Is it safe to say that the text is what we were reading and adhering to?

They what real-world and NationStates reasons would there be to suggest that the text included in a motion to repeal is any different.

OOC: Anti-Phar, I'm glad you are in this now, because you know that in real life I am active with local county level politics in addition to being a government employee whom works with the State Water Resources Control Board. You also should be famaliar with the SWRCB, and I hope you can agree that a court decision (the SWRCB is a court -- that deals in water permits, much like the Air Resources Control Board regulates air quality in the state) to overturn a water rights decision has legal standing in future decisions. In my example, since D-1463 was overturned on the basis that the proposed Delta Wetlands project had no concrete beneficaries, that any future attempt of the Lafayette CA firm or on the part of the USBR's CVP or DWR's SWP to secure a new permit to operate will have to demostrate and actually NAME project beneficaries. My point is, in the real-world the text and wording of a REPEAL matter. They are just as significant as actual laws themselves, in fact, the reason I bring up the Supreme Court is most Americans and non-Americans largely ignore the importance that US courts play in making American law. There is a reason why the United States is described has having **3** branches of government, and over time all three branches have taken part of making law.

Here is the link to where I'm keeping a list of whom I've contacted:

http://s4.invisionfree.com/The_IDU/index.php?showtopic=150&st=0#entry8249046

I'm using lists of moral decency and human rights supporters, as these seem like to two subjects that abortion is related to (per previous discussions).

If anybody else would like to join in the campaign effort, just let me know and I can give you a list of 10 or more delegates to contact. Your help will be greatly appreciated! :)

I would say to contact Aliyka, but she hasn't updated her nation in a couple of weeks and will soon have it deleted anyway.

Try 1 Infinite Loop. He may have a better list of delegates to contact.

Miki,

I found fault with making the statement that all americans should know about the supreme court, and then iomplying that they serve to review court decisions, as not all cases they decide are relating to the case at bar, but universal applications of procedure to be followed:

Ackerman v. United States, Adickes V. S. H. Kress & CO. Amchen Products inc v Windsor, American lIfe Ins. v. Stewart, American Nurses Assoc. v. State of Illinois, Asahi Metal Industry Co. Ltd V. Superior Court of CA of Solano County, Bensusan Restuarant Corporation v. King, BMW of North America v. Gore, Burger King Corp v. Rud Rudzewicks, Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Eectric Co-Op, International Shoe Co. v. Washington, Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia, S.A. v. Hall, Erie Railroad Co. v. Tomplkins, etc...

Anything they decide does become law, or federal court procedure to be followed, provided they do not promulgate Congress intervention.

Intent is just as important as text. Roe v. Wade is a perfect illustration of that. Just as the court reads discussions of Congress when interpreting federal law, so to does it look at the intent of arguments being used, such as the in depth analysis of the origins and application of the hippocratic oath in Ancient Greece. Which the court did in Roe v. Wade.

Regrettably, absent discussion from old resolutions, the text is all that matters. That is why I liked but despised the Eon Convention.

SWRCB is an arbitrator, as such, its decisions are binding. However, it is not necessary that the SWRCB be used in water allocation decisions. The Friant Damn Fiasco for instance.

I gues you might say I like adhering to Civil Procedures in discussions :)

Miki,

I found fault with making the statement that all americans should know about the supreme court, and then iomplying that they serve to review court decisions, as not all cases they decide are relating to the case at bar, but universal applications of procedure to be followed:

SWRCB is an arbitrator, as such, its decisions are binding. However, it is not necessary that the SWRCB be used in water allocation decisions. The Friant Damn Fiasco for instance.

Well, I think that is part of the problem. I do think all or even most Americans should be familiar with the [b[role[/b] case law built around the US Supreme Court plays, but I do think that something often taught in US primary education, like Roe v. Wade or in more general terms laws like the Jim Crow laws (not the specific cases like Plessy v. Ferguson or later Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka), should at least cover the basics.

Or to put it another way, my point is that Americans should understand that case law is subject to not only review, but CHANGE. Both Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education represent things that if you are in high school you should know are very often cited and landmark decisions that did in fact change our lives as Americans.

The Supreme Court is often the invisible law maker. And while that is fine, we should at least keep in the back of our minds that it is there.

The reason I think that is important here is because in these cases not only were decisions repealed, but justifications that would in turn be looked on by future segregation / desegregation and abortion laws are in fact very useful.

Now I snipped your long list ... and I'd agree that there are tons of government (SC especially) decisions that are virtually transparent to us. That list had absolutely no cases I've read about before though Ackerman sounds familiar ... should I know it?

Onto the topic at hand:
Do you think that means that the text justification of a repeal shouldn't be important if a future abortion resolution were hit the floor?

I did appreciate you bringing the Due Process resolution up before, but even then I felt that *that* resolution wasn't intended to deal with something on the order of magnitude as a genocide decision. I say that based on that pesky proper noun usage of "Grand Jury" and the general tone of the resolution ... but I could have easily been wrong there.


And I completely agree, the context of a discussion is important. I'm hoping that we'll continue to use the UN forum discussions as a sort of record when looking at how to deal with the consequences of what may be conflicting actions or resolutions. :)


The reason I brought up the SWRCB is that its decisions can be repealed, not really the extent of its authority. I wanted to provide a very concrete example were the statement behind a repeal was important.

Do you think that means that the text justification of a repeal shouldn't be important if a future abortion resolution were hit the floor?

4. Calls upon the membership to return this choice to the individual members and nations, and remove this language from the code of international law.

Ok, I think I know where you are going.

If repeals are recorded, than this does present a problem. As it illustrates that the choice be remanded to individual NS.

However, the rules demonstrate that the power of a repeal is just to repeal. So, the language is not binding. Just the effect, a resolution is repealed. As opposed to a resolution, where the effect, and the language is equally important, as both must be adhered to. Example, Currently a woman has the right to choose is the effect of the ARR, the language stipulates that a NS can in no way interfere with or restrict that effect. If the language of the repeal were to be adhered to it would be a new resolution unto itself, and illegal.

The reasoning for the appeal should be addressed in the new proposal on abortion rights under an observing heading.

Ok, I think I know where you are going.

If repeals are recorded, than this does present a problem. As it illustrates that the choice be remanded to individual NS.

However, the rules demonstrate that the power of a repeal is just to repeal. So, the language is not binding. Just the effect, a resolution is repealed. As opposed to a resolution, where the effect, and the language is equally important, as both must be adhered to. Example, Currently a woman has the right to choose is the effect of the ARR, the language stipulates that a NS can in no way interfere with or restrict that effect. If the language of the repeal were to be adhered to it would be a new resolution unto itself, and illegal.

The reasoning for the appeal should be addressed in the new proposal on abortion rights under an observing heading.


Excellent, this is exactly what I've been talking about for a day. You sir have my respect! :)

This is where I'd like to use the SWRCB decision / repeal scenario again. D-1643 was adopted and pretty much assumed verbatum the language of an agreement between a junior water rights holder and a senior water rights holder. However, at some point the decision (ruling) was overturned on the basis that there were no specific project beneficaries. Essentially the ability of the proposed project to really operate was called into question.

The significance of the repeal isn't to say that nobody will be able try to get a permit to operate again, but that when the Board attempts to make a future water rights decision that specific project beneficaries should be named as well. The overturned decision would not stop somebody, say the land owners, from asking the Board to provide another ruling without demonstrating a need for the project, but it would be a suicidal thing to do.

Now in the case of this repeal, my opinion based on real-world governmental policies would be that the repeal wouldn't prohibit future pro-choice or pro-life proposals. We can't do that, but much like the SWRCB repeal of D-1643, a message would be sent that a future abortion resolution should at the very least attempt to get a supermajority.

The question shouldn't focus too much on the technical side though, I think we have a decent feel for how this works, but rather we should be asking will this repeal only open the door for one of the two camps to put a different resolution to the floor or would it truely be able to say, "Enough kids, stop arguing about this, because very few nations change their minds on this issue." (Though of course it should be pointed out that "Roe" from Roe v. Wade actually is Pro-Life now! Texans are kinda unpredictable that way.)

Basically Frisbeeteria's proposal is asking that we give this a try. And I'd like to reaffirm that should this particular repeal pass that should any future resolution come to the floor that my nation would be pro-active in having those sponsors explain why they feel their resolution does not violate the spirit of this repeal.

NOTE: in the real world, governments can and do pass laws that contradict prior laws. The idea that resolutions can squat on topics is a NationStates rule that I believe was made to prevent every resolution from being the same bloody thing. Most governments slowly work to clean up contradictory laws, but I remember not long ago some California laws refered to multiple court systems even after the consolidation of municipal and superior courts into a single system.

Hi, I'm new and I've got a question. Shouldn't abortion be one of those things that the UN doesn't mandate? I mean, the United Nations does not have to force every moral feeling it gets on its member nations. The UN can recommend its opinion, but with a case as touchy as this, I'd equate it to a "states' rights" issue, where the implementation of a mandate legalizing abortion would impede upon a country's sovereign right to rule the people. That is not to say that the issue should be ignored, but the requirement of legalized abortion seems to be a step towards the United Nations becoming a "Father Knows Best" State itself. If I am reading said resolutions incorrectly, I apologize, I'm just unsure why UN members would feel this a cause on which the United Nations should be so one-sided and definitive.

Hi, I'm new and I've got a question. Shouldn't abortion be one of those things that the UN doesn't mandate? I mean, the United Nations does not have to force every moral feeling it gets on its member nations. The UN can recommend its opinion, but with a case as touchy as this, I'd equate it to a "states' rights" issue, where the implementation of a mandate legalizing abortion would impede upon a country's sovereign right to rule the people. That is not to say that the issue should be ignored, but the requirement of legalized abortion seems to be a step towards the United Nations becoming a "Father Knows Best" State itself. If I am reading said resolutions incorrectly, I apologize, I'm just unsure why UN members would feel this a cause on which the United Nations should be so one-sided and definitive.

What it should and shouldn't be don't matter when it already is, unless you are writing a repeal (note that, out of the hundreds of repeal attempts made since repeals were allowed, only one has ever passed).

To understand the NSUN, you must realize it is as close to a true democracy as you can get. The majority rules, and in this case the majority has decided they want it to be legal. That is one of the major headaches of the system, but it is one that works.

If you wish to remove the resolution, you must get the majority to agree with you.

@Mikitivity-That is one of the most intelligable post I have ever read on this forum. Oustanding job, and my nation and delegate whole heartedly supports Frisbeeterias attempt at this repeal.

If anyone wants to campaign for this, now's the time. It's on Page One, third in line, with a measly 30 approvals. It'll be live for about another 12 hours.

If anyone wants to campaign for this, now's the time. It's on Page One, third in line, with a measly 30 approvals. It'll be live for about another 12 hours.

I was telegramming on Saturday, but wasn't sure if your nation and others wanted to continue or not, so I shifted my efforts to a bit of archiving (and X-mas shopping). :)

I've been copying a list of nations that seem to be in favour of repealing this resolution (Abortion) and a few other topics that may be related (moral decency issues and prostitution). The big question is do nations want ton resubmit this?

If the answer is yes, I can hand a few volunteers a list of prior endorsing nations to retelegram that will be friendly. It is a good way to learn how to telegram (by being sent to nations that will reply and whom you may come to think of as allies).

This would allow me to expand the net a bit.

But having looked at the proposal queue, the resolution that more nations seem to want to repeal at present is the prostitution one. There were actually two arguments that moved my government, but most of the repeals on this topic my government did not support.

Stop looking at the number of resolutions and start looking at the nations. You'll find most of them opposing abortion, prostitution, etc. are actually the same small group who each make a repeal attempt and then go around adding their endorsements to every other attempt submitted. When you come right down to it, it only appears to be a lot of nations but in fact it is the minority of the minority.

Stop looking at the number of resolutions and start looking at the nations. You'll find most of them opposing abortion, prostitution, etc. are actually the same small group who each make a repeal attempt and then go around adding their endorsements to every other attempt submitted. When you come right down to it, it only appears to be a lot of nations but in fact it is the minority of the minority.

You completely miss the point of looking at other proposals ...

::sigh::

Have you participated in a telegramming campaign before? Seriously?


Here is one approach:

By looking at proposal endorsements you can build "call lists".

To build a call list you find related or similar proposals. In this case we are looking at a repeal of abortion ... a "sex" issue. And there is sufficient reason to believe that there is overlap between interest in repealing abortion and repealing prostitution.

Though there is overlap in the endorsements, the following prostitution proposals got a max of 27 endorsements. (The full text of the proposals to repeal and the endorsements I'm listing is available on the IDU UN proposal forum.)

Approvals: 23 (Haven14, Stocklound, Aliste, Squirrelmania, WZ Forums, NewTexas, Kandarin, Faithful Servants, Rlyeh, Paczkis, Lamoni, Kagawa, Crossman, UltimateEnd, Jagonia, Brave irish men, Feathervania, Edwardsten, Feetahn, Planet Yakadoo, Miraflores, Roma Islamica, TheSamurai)

Approvals: 27 (WZ Forums, Nireva, Aliste, Squirrelmania, NewTexas, Kandarin, Slovitopia, Faithful Servants, Simeonia, Pure Thought, Paczkis, Caesar893, Lamoni, Kagawa, Crossman, UltimateEnd, Brave irish men, Feathervania, Napoleons Son, Green rockets, Edwardsten, Puck the CBA, Feetahn, Planet Yakadoo, Roma Islamica, TheSamurai, Phavar)

Approvals: 9 (Socially Inert People, NewTexas, Crossman, Aliste, WZ Forums, Squirrelmania, Brave irish men, Feathervania, Faithful Servants)

Approvals: 6 (DKGS, Crossman, Aliste, WZ Forums, Brave irish men, Faithful Servants)

Approvals: 2 (Faithful Servants, WZ Forums)

Approvals: 6 (WZ Forums, The Skyline, Kagawa, The Golden Simatar, Trickanya, TheSamurai)

Is there overlap?
You bet. Nobody has suggested otherwise.

But out of looking at a host of proposals, I've increased a possible pool of friendly to this measures delegates from 27 to 37. Remember each of these delegates has endorsed one or more proposals in the past 4 days, which means it there is a good chance that if somebody takes the leadership, that we could begin to build support for this.

This is what we did when organizing a campaign for the Fight the Axis of Evil repeal. Here is the list of 37 potential endorsements taken from a similar idea:

Aliste, Brave irish men, Caesar893, Crossman, DKGS, Edwardsten, Faithful Servants, Feathervania, Feetahn, Green rockets, Haven14, Jagonia, Kagawa, Kandarin, Lamoni, Miraflores, Napoleons Son, NewTexas, Nireva, Paczkis, Phavar, Planet Yakadoo, Puck the CBA, Pure Thought, Rlyeh, Roma Islamica, Simeonia, Slovitopia, Socially Inert People, Squirrelmania, Stocklound, The Golden Simatar, The Skyline, TheSamurai, Trickanya, UltimateEnd, WZ Forums


Now let's look at what Frisbeeteria had as of this morning for abortion rights.

Approvals: 38 (Frisbeeteria, Tekania, Jatinamy, Blender, WZ Forums, Kalamov, Fenure, Hippietania, Politania, Kandarin, The Empire of Jason, C17H19NO3, Groot Gouda, Faithful Servants, Rlyeh, Paczkis, Caesar893, Nerrethans, Novus Terra Reborn, Crossman, Aliste, Wade Wise Words Ink, Clintoned, UltimateEnd, New Jeffhodia, Gesing, Divine Emperor Francis, Feathervania, Planet Yakadoo, Mycia, Tzorsland, MitchUtopia, Crazy Duck, Gofrun, Brotopia, The Titanian Democracy, Amherstians, Calculators)

While again there is overlap, there are also a lot of nations that could easily bring this proposal up to the 50 endorsement mark.

The way these campaigns work is by slowly building support. Proposals rarely make it to the UN floor on their first try.

On their second try the team in favor takes the list of prior endorsements and basically says,

"Thank you for your support. This time we got 45 endorsements. I am telegramming each nation that endorsed my proposal X and think that with your continued support that this time we can easily get 80 endorsements.

If you have any suggestions on how I can change my proposal or find more endorsements your help would be appreciated. Again, my nation is in your debt."

Simple. And true.

But better than that ... it WORKS.

Now, do nations want to repeal these two topics? I'd say yes. While chatting on IRC I've noticed that a few resolutions are constantly talked about, and euthanasia, prostitution, and abortion are three of the most widely disliked resolutions.

I've already posted links to the number of abortion threads posted on the UN forum *AFTER* the adoption of the resolution. Some of those threads are pretty long for just bitching and moaning. While my government is pro-choice, we aren't so arrogant as to simply dismiss that many arguments against something.

In any event, the Fight the Axis of Evil repeal took how long to happen? A little under a month maybe? It was adopted (the repeal the week before Halloween or so) <--- I'm just going from memory here.

Frisbeeteria would not have gone to the trouble of actually submitting this repeal if he hadn't of noticed a large potential for support both in the UN forums and UN proposal queue ... both of which his nation is extremely active in reviewing.

This proposal does not have the support of The Free Lands of Los Deiagos. We find having a choice is part of living a free life.

This proposal does not have the support of The Free Lands of Los Deiagos. We find having a choice is part of living a free life.

That's not the case, or else you'd give the government of the Armed Republic of Florida Oranges a choice in how we run our country. Just because you think you're opinion is right doesn't mean you should be able to inflict it upon the entire United Nations organization. If the shoe was on the other foot, you'd understand.

If anyone wants to campaign for this, now's the time. It's on Page One, third in line, with a measly 30 approvals. It'll be live for about another 12 hours.
The region "Change" has been actively participating in the promotion of this resolution. The regional delegate is Florida Oranges. I'm not sure if we actually got any more signers than there were before, but it wasn't from lack of trying.
Kingsland

You completely miss the point of looking at other proposals ...

No, you missed the point of what I was saying. I have nothing against looking at other proposals. I just know the major type of people who are the majority of the support to repeal abortion.

::sigh::

Have you participated in a telegramming campaign before? Seriously?

Not even related to my point.

Here is one approach:

By looking at proposal endorsements you can build "call lists".

To build a call list you find related or similar proposals. In this case we are looking at a repeal of abortion ... a "sex" issue. And there is sufficient reason to believe that there is overlap between interest in repealing abortion and repealing prostitution.

Though there is overlap in the endorsements, the following prostitution proposals got a max of 27 endorsements. (The full text of the proposals to repeal and the endorsements I'm listing is available on the IDU UN proposal forum.)

Building call lists is fine, but you should also look up the posting history of them. If you can't find any, you might want to start asking their friends in their region what issues they support, why they support them, etc. You also, in turn, want to hit the regional delegates of the newbie regions, such as 1 Infinite Loop, to find out what they know about those people and who they know that would be willing to support it but doesn't spend time browsing the proposals area. If you're going to do a campaign the proper way, you need to start research up to three days before the proposal is even submitted so you can hit the maximum amount of people in the least amount of time and have the entire time the proposal is up to campaign hard and heavy and also have a lesser chance of having to resubmit it. A call list is fine, but it's only the basics.

Approvals: 23 (Haven14, Stocklound, Aliste, Squirrelmania, WZ Forums, NewTexas, Kandarin, Faithful Servants, Rlyeh, Paczkis, Lamoni, Kagawa, Crossman, UltimateEnd, Jagonia, Brave irish men, Feathervania, Edwardsten, Feetahn, Planet Yakadoo, Miraflores, Roma Islamica, TheSamurai)

Approvals: 27 (WZ Forums, Nireva, Aliste, Squirrelmania, NewTexas, Kandarin, Slovitopia, Faithful Servants, Simeonia, Pure Thought, Paczkis, Caesar893, Lamoni, Kagawa, Crossman, UltimateEnd, Brave irish men, Feathervania, Napoleons Son, Green rockets, Edwardsten, Puck the CBA, Feetahn, Planet Yakadoo, Roma Islamica, TheSamurai, Phavar)

Approvals: 9 (Socially Inert People, NewTexas, Crossman, Aliste, WZ Forums, Squirrelmania, Brave irish men, Feathervania, Faithful Servants)

Approvals: 6 (DKGS, Crossman, Aliste, WZ Forums, Brave irish men, Faithful Servants)

Approvals: 2 (Faithful Servants, WZ Forums)

Approvals: 6 (WZ Forums, The Skyline, Kagawa, The Golden Simatar, Trickanya, TheSamurai)

Is there overlap?
You bet. Nobody has suggested otherwise.

Which includes WZ Forums, who approves so much stuff some people are convinced he's actually a bot, and Aliste, who is the head of a group out to ban abortion and impose a conservative American viewpoint on everyone and has admitted it on here. At least two thirds of the people in that list are either the same as Aliste or WZForums, while only the occasional one was actually convinced by the arguement presented in the proposal.

But out of looking at a host of proposals, I've increased a possible pool of friendly to this measures delegates from 27 to 37. Remember each of these delegates has endorsed one or more proposals in the past 4 days, which means it there is a good chance that if somebody takes the leadership, that we could begin to build support for this.

Yes. Support among people who wish to ban it entirely.

This is what we did when organizing a campaign for the Fight the Axis of Evil repeal. Here is the list of 37 potential endorsements taken from a similar idea:

Aliste, Brave irish men, Caesar893, Crossman, DKGS, Edwardsten, Faithful Servants, Feathervania, Feetahn, Green rockets, Haven14, Jagonia, Kagawa, Kandarin, Lamoni, Miraflores, Napoleons Son, NewTexas, Nireva, Paczkis, Phavar, Planet Yakadoo, Puck the CBA, Pure Thought, Rlyeh, Roma Islamica, Simeonia, Slovitopia, Socially Inert People, Squirrelmania, Stocklound, The Golden Simatar, The Skyline, TheSamurai, Trickanya, UltimateEnd, WZ Forums

Meh. See above where I discuss that list. I hit it too early in my post and am too lazy to move it.

Now let's look at what Frisbeeteria had as of this morning for abortion rights.

Approvals: 38 (Frisbeeteria, Tekania, Jatinamy, Blender, WZ Forums, Kalamov, Fenure, Hippietania, Politania, Kandarin, The Empire of Jason, C17H19NO3, Groot Gouda, Faithful Servants, Rlyeh, Paczkis, Caesar893, Nerrethans, Novus Terra Reborn, Crossman, Aliste, Wade Wise Words Ink, Clintoned, UltimateEnd, New Jeffhodia, Gesing, Divine Emperor Francis, Feathervania, Planet Yakadoo, Mycia, Tzorsland, MitchUtopia, Crazy Duck, Gofrun, Brotopia, The Titanian Democracy, Amherstians, Calculators)

While again there is overlap, there are also a lot of nations that could easily bring this proposal up to the 50 endorsement mark.

50 is fine to have, but you need at least 70 by the last day in order to even have a chance.

The way these campaigns work is by slowly building support. Proposals rarely make it to the UN floor on their first try.

That's because people don't bother campaigning correctly.

On their second try the team in favor takes the list of prior endorsements and basically says,

"Thank you for your support. This time we got 45 endorsements. I am telegramming each nation that endorsed my proposal X and think that with your continued support that this time we can easily get 80 endorsements.

If you have any suggestions on how I can change my proposal or find more endorsements your help would be appreciated. Again, my nation is in your debt."

Simple. And true.

But better than that ... it WORKS.

A better method is to take the method I described above, organize those people into a team, and have each person spend two hours a day searching through assigned pages in the Regions section of the site and TGing the delegates they find. If you get a big enough number, you can get it done in an hour or two. Have everyone use the same, pretyped message for that.

Now, do nations want to repeal these two topics? I'd say yes. While chatting on IRC I've noticed that a few resolutions are constantly talked about, and euthanasia, prostitution, and abortion are three of the most widely disliked resolutions.

I've already posted links to the number of abortion threads posted on the UN forum *AFTER* the adoption of the resolution. Some of those threads are pretty long for just bitching and moaning. While my government is pro-choice, we aren't so arrogant as to simply dismiss that many arguments against something.

I dismiss them because I actually argued in those topics and have yet to see the side opposing it present a case worthy of consideration. Plus, take a good look at the people wanting to be rid of it. I bet you the majority fall at least partially under a stereotype.

[quite]In any event, the Fight the Axis of Evil repeal took how long to happen? A little under a month maybe? It was adopted (the repeal the week before Halloween or so) <--- I'm just going from memory here.[/quote]

It was also voted on by three peoplem, which was the main contention behind why it was repealed.

Frisbeeteria would not have gone to the trouble of actually submitting this repeal if he hadn't of noticed a large potential for support both in the UN forums and UN proposal queue ... both of which his nation is extremely active in reviewing.

The potential for support is not as great as anyone would like to believe. The reason why you see those repeals attempted in high number and not even given the chance to get very far is the majority of the regional delegates who bother to read the proposals section don't want them to. You have to get it passed them first, and then somehow convince the UN body, which has repeatedly proven itself to be of the stereotype to support abortion, to vote in its favor. Most people won't even read past the title before voting (with the majority of those voting no), while those who do are going to have the same questions and arguements presented here. And, in the end, you'll get a repeat of those topics happening all over again and, based on UN voting history, likely the same results.

The region "Change" has been actively participating in the promotion of this resolution. The regional delegate is Florida Oranges. I'm not sure if we actually got any more signers than there were before, but it wasn't from lack of trying.
Kingsland

Thank you! :)

And yes, your efforts appear to have been paying off.

The question is if you'd like Frisbeeteria to resubmit this and try again. Or if Frisbeeteria is no longer interested in this proposal to repeal this resolution, if another nation could then assume authorship of the motion.

I think as the motion to repeal gains support that it will gain momentum.


The point that I think really needs to be addressed however is TilEnca's ... and that is "Is abortion a domestic right or not?". Nieuwe Munchkinland, a close ally of my government, actually has advocated that choice is a basic human right. But other allies have said that in this particular case that the subject of choice is not an individual right, but rather a national one and have said that they agree with this particular repeal on the grounds that it allows nations to make rules appropriate for their unique societies.

Look, it is clear you neither listen nor respect me, so I'm going to cut your points short and work at them one freakin idea at a time.

I'll start by reasking you something you've refused to answer ... have you participated in a telegram campaign before?


Not even related to my point.

Sure it is.


The question: have you been involved in a telegram campaign at least helps to establish a bit of experience with the ability to get a proposal to the UN floor.

The reason it is important is those of us that have actually telegram campaigned can say things like, "the more support a proposal gets the easier additional support becomes" and point to a few REAL experiences, not fictional or second-hand ones.

This statement is important, because it suggests that with some work (and I don't mean just flaming newbies on the forums) that you really can get something to the UN floor.

I have my own theories why the ability to get support is something of a bell curve (easiest in the middle, but hard at first and the end), but they don't mater right now.


So I'll ask you again:
What is your personal experience with NS UN telegramming campaigns for proposals (including repeals, as they are proposals)?



Simply put I don't appreciate how you are attempting to attack and discredit my experience with telegram campaigning, because in addition to the three resolutions bearing my name, I've been involved in several other telegram campaigns and feel that my first-hand experience is valid.

Thank you! :)

And yes, your efforts appear to have been paying off.

The question is if you'd like Frisbeeteria to resubmit this and try again. Or if Frisbeeteria is no longer interested in this proposal to repeal this resolution, if another nation could then assume authorship of the motion.

I think as the motion to repeal gains support that it will gain momentum.
I would say keep it going Frisbeeteria! I think I speak not only for many conservatives, but for my region and other regions that favor national sovriegnty.

I would say keep it going Frisbeeteria! I think I speak not only for many conservatives, but for my region and other regions that favor national sovriegnty.
[OOC entirely]
I created this repeal as an intellectual exercise to see if it could be written to appeal to both pro-choice and pro-life supporters. I don't think I quote succeeded at that. All I've done is tossed myself into the middle of a quagmire that I consider hopeless, fruitless, and endless.

I am too personally torn by the complexities of this issue to campaign for my own repeal. I think it's good writing (there are a couple of lines that could use some work, but meh), but I'm not going to submit it again. If somebody wants to pick it up and run with it, I'm .... sorta ok with someone else using my text.

Frisbeeteria, the nation, believes in the national sovereignty aspect of it, but *I* don't want to remove language that supports the individual sovereignty that I stand for. In-character, I think it's a lousy resolution and deserves repeal. OOC .... nah. I really can't get enthusiastic about something that I personally oppose.

Simply put I don't appreciate how you are attempting to attack and discredit my experience with telegram campaigning, because in addition to the three resolutions bearing my name, I've been involved in several other telegram campaigns and feel that my first-hand experience is valid.

While I may not always agree with you, Mik, your technical knowings of the goings-on in the NS UN are an invaluable resource to all involved. Not just with telegramming campaigns but also with knowning the game mechanics of how the NS UN works. His advice on these matters is paramount in all aspects.

Look, it is clear you neither listen nor respect me, so I'm going to cut your points short and work at them one freakin idea at a time.

:Sigh:

Turning what I have said about you repeatedly to try to target me with it isn't helping.

I'll start by reasking you something you've refused to answer ... have you participated in a telegram campaign before?

Six, actually. Five of them were failures, as the people I was targetting where the ones of small regions and decided not to support the issues, which don't matter because they failed anyway. The sixth one, however, proved to be a minor success in that I got half of the people targetted to support the proposal in question. Ironically, I'm now opposed to the resolution I helped pass and voted in favor of (anyone who has read my posts on here dealing with the issue can tell you which one).

Apparently, I can write very convincingly when I'm nearly asleep. Either that or I somehow scared them into it.

Sure it is.

The question: have you been involved in a telegram campaign at least helps to establish a bit of experience with the ability to get a proposal to the UN floor.

Yes.

The reason it is important is those of us that have actually telegram campaigned can say things like, "the more support a proposal gets the easier additional support becomes" and point to a few REAL experiences, not fictional or second-hand ones.

This statement is important, because it suggests that with some work (and I don't mean just flaming newbies on the forums) that you really can get something to the UN floor.

Given an issue I care about, I bother actually going out and trying to get support. Only, I don't stop with just a few. I try to hit as many regions as possible, and most of the time I get little results from it when working alone.

I have my own theories why the ability to get support is something of a bell curve (easiest in the middle, but hard at first and the end), but they don't mater right now.


So I'll ask you again:
What is your personal experience with NS UN telegramming campaigns for proposals (including repeals, as they are proposals)?

I helped two failed proposals on marriage, one on limiting nukes, and two on chemical weapons. Those failed. Then came the bio one, which now sits in the passed section.

Good luck finding people who remember me, as I doubt 1 Infinite Loop remembers me and he was my regional delegate at the time.

Simply put I don't appreciate how you are attempting to attack and discredit my experience with telegram campaigning, because in addition to the three resolutions bearing my name, I've been involved in several other telegram campaigns and feel that my first-hand experience is valid.

If you'll look, I wasn't attacking your experience. I was simply suggesting a system I worked up after seeing that one fail repeatedly. Just because it is a tried-and-true method doesn't mean it is the best one out there. Using the people you have, a bit of research (I keep suggesting 1 Infinite Loop because he has sometimes added his approval to similar appeal attempts), a system of campaigning (mark down the names you have TGed, as it annoys people for you to hit them twice), and be prepared to spend hours pulling it. That's the system I used when I was campaigning for the one that passed and have yet to see one superior to it.

I need to contact 1 Infinite Loop and find out if there are more than just one person on here who actually remembers me. It gets annoying to be forgotten.

[OOC entirely]

Frisbeeteria, the nation, believes in the national sovereignty aspect of it, but *I* don't want to remove language that supports the individual sovereignty that I stand for. In-character, I think it's a lousy resolution and deserves repeal. OOC .... nah. I really can't get enthusiastic about something that I personally oppose.

I'm leaving our OOC reference up there.

Look, I too am pro-choice.

But your proposal is IMHO much better written than you give it credit. I'd even go as to call it a kick in everybody's face, but a most polite one.

Do I want the repeal to pass? Yes.

Would I be heartbroken if it failed? No. The point is the message and making it part of the record ... heck it could be the first repeal to fail. Or the first non-violent encouraged repeal to pass.

Will people ignore the text of the repeal? Do they current read previous resolutions? Are there presently proposals to legalize and/or ban abortion in the queue? (The answer yesterday was yes BTW ... the UN Gnomes may have cleaned that up.)

Eventually the debate will come up, and probably for a repeal that is not as well written. And I also happen to KNOW that there is a region with massive political clout and a region that I completely respet and trust that has a really well written compromise of sorts resolution. Our hippie friends. :)

(I've not paid much attention to Tekania's resolution idea on this subject, but I also appreciate their work and suspect it would be better than what we have no too ... but I'll worry about that later.)

Anyway, pass or fail the fact that text that says, none of you are listening to the others on this one issue reaches the floor would be a very interesting formal political statement. While votes could be cast for or against it not based on the text, but for any reason (we can't know unless nations tell us why they vote the way they do) ... we'd at least be able to say, "Enough nations felt that discussing the repeal was worthwhile ... and more nations felt that this text was more worthy of discussing than any of the other many repeal attempts."