Abortion Neutrality Act [Given Up]

[Mahaj WA Seat]

It is not repeal proof though. It merely states a stance of neutrality. The WA could still regulate abortions to ensure that the environment it is performed in is safe. That the medicine used for it is tested properly. It isn't preventing future issues, other than anything which will change the immediate stance of neutrality. Neutrality doesn't prevent legislation to ensure safety.

My other question still stands - is this not illegal because it fails to introduce legislation in WA member states?

it introduces legislation preventing the introduction of certain other legislation.

[Mahaj WA Seat]

Hhmm.. category. Human Rights/Mild. I think. But perhaps political stability/mild, because the issue of abortion is being reduced as a viable topic for the WA.

and as for Moral Decency?

[Umbra Ac Silentium]

Hhmm.. category. Human Rights/Mild. I think. But perhaps political stability/mild, because the issue of abortion is being reduced as a viable topic for the WA.

If you don't mind me asking, the reason behind human rights?

[Sionis Prioratus]

"The Furtherment of Democracy" / "Mild"

That should be the category.

[Umbra Ac Silentium]

"The Furtherment of Democracy" / "Mild"

That should be the category.

Mm, possibly.

[Celestial Sphere]

My other question still stands - is this not illegal because it fails to introduce legislation in WA member states?

it introduces legislation preventing the introduction of certain other legislation.

Read again, and note the underlining I've added. General Assembly resolutions are supposed to introduce legislation in member states - the legislation in this one only affects the World Assembly.

[Mahaj WA Seat]

it introduces legislation preventing the introduction of certain other legislation.

Read again, and note the underlining I've added. General Assembly resolutions are supposed to introduce legislation in member states - the legislation in this one only affects the World Assembly.

i don't have an answer for that off the top of my head.
so i'll mull it over and get back to you.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

it introduces legislation preventing the introduction of certain other legislation.

Read again, and note the underlining I've added. General Assembly resolutions are supposed to introduce legislation in member states - the legislation in this one only affects the World Assembly.

I'll second Furtherment of Democracy. Ms. Harper has observed that the only mandates clause implies that member states must not pester the WA to ban or legalise abortion. Now that's a functioning clause.

[Umbra Ac Silentium]

Oops, submitted with the quotes attached.

[Unibot]

Hhmm.. category. Human Rights/Mild. I think. But perhaps political stability/mild, because the issue of abortion is being reduced as a viable topic for the WA.

If you don't mind me asking, the reason behind human rights?

Scratch that, Furtherment of Democracy/Mild. Sionis is right, in a mild form, this increases national sovereignty and thus increases domestic democratic control over abortion's legality.

[Unibot]

Oops, submitted with the quotes attached.

Fix it, submit it again, and ask the mods for first one to be deleted.

[Umbra Ac Silentium]

Oops, submitted with the quotes attached.

Fix it, submit it again, and ask the first one to be deleted.

Ya, I sent a request to moderation. x.x

[Great Nepal]

it introduces legislation preventing the introduction of certain other legislation.

Read again, and note the underlining I've added. General Assembly resolutions are supposed to introduce legislation in member states - the legislation in this one only affects the World Assembly.

World assembly secretary has already issued his judgement that this proposal is indeed legal..

[Glen-Rhodes]

It is the best suggestion I've heard yet.

I don't think so. Where are the protections for women whose lives are put in danger? Why do we need to be neutral on every divisive subject, anyways?

[Celestial Sphere]

Read again, and note the underlining I've added. General Assembly resolutions are supposed to introduce legislation in member states - the legislation in this one only affects the World Assembly.

World assembly secretary has already issued his judgement that this proposal is indeed legal..

For a start, it's her judgement. Also, only the question of it being a blocker was addressed, and I'm not yet convinced by that call - plus, there's the issue of the lack of legislation introduced in member states.

[Unibot]

It is the best suggestion I've heard yet.

I don't think so. Where are the protections for women whose lives are put in danger? Why do we need to be neutral on every divisive subject, anyways?

Hhhm.. GR has a point. Why ought we be so rash to end a debate for the sake of ending a debate?

[Quintessence of Dust]

While I was at church this morning, I got the idea for this due to contemplation over all the stuff here. Now, I do want advice on how to make this better, so, any help to flesh this out is welcome. (and if everybody thinks it sucks I'll just cancel the idea) :)

NOTING that abortion is a highly personal issue,

DECLARES that abortion's legality is an issue best left to be determined each and every nation through its own political processes, further,

MANDATES that the World Assembly's stance on abortion's legality be neutral

Also, not sure of the category it should be.

I don't think the logical construction of your proposal really flows. If abortion is indeed a highly personal issue, why should it be left to a nation - often a multi-billion strong conglomeration of disparate individuals - rather than the individual themselves to decide on the matter?

I would think a better introduction would be along the lines of:

NOTING that abortion is not at all a personal issue, but rather exclusively a concern of the state,

It is the best suggestion I've heard yet.

Even though it's obviously completely illegal?

Well, in that case I have a proposal to establish a WA Army you're just gonna love...

A proposal introduced with the primary aim of preventing further legislation on an issue. I think it's illegal if your proposal is just a blocker - ie it doesn't do anything more.

It is not repeal proof though. It merely states a stance of neutrality. The WA could still regulate abortions to ensure that the environment it is performed in is safe. That the medicine used for it is tested properly. It isn't preventing future issues, other than anything which will change the immediate stance of neutrality. Neutrality doesn't prevent legislation to ensure safety.

None of this in any way addresses the substance of Celestial Sphere's perfectly valid observation. To quote "Bob Flibble": "that would be a pure blocker and would be illegal, duh.".

Could you or someone else please help this ignorant fool find the rule or ruling against "blocking" proposals in the first place? And define a "blocking" proposal? I've had trouble locating this information -- despite looking for it in the Rules, Q&A, Reference Guide, and by searches.

Yes: it's the Category rules.

Unless Kryozerkia's statements quoted above indicate contrary, the rule until very recently was that "blockers" are not illegal, "pure blockers" are. I do not know whether this has changed now, but the justification used to be:
- writing a proposal to the category is a basic requirement for proposal authors;
- all proposal categories have effects on member nations (the only category that does not, "Bookkeeping", is an invalid choice for player proposals);
- therefore any proposal must have an effect - even if only a Mild effect - on member nations;
- a resolution stating nations can do whatever they want has no such effect.

In the old UN (before it became the WA), the first recognised blocking proposal was National Systems of Tax: while nominally having some mild Social Justice implications in urging socially progressive tax policies, in fact it was meant to prohibit future legislation on the subject of domestic tax policies by the UN.

A notable example of a WA blocker is NAPA, which while giving nations a right and blocking the WA from banning nuclear weapons, in its third active clause also places some (mild) conditions on nuclear states, thus justifying its categorisation as International Security.

Of course, I am not a moderator, and perhaps I am missing how the OP's proposal - as written - fits any of the categories. As it stands, however, it would not do so in my opinion. Thus it would be illegal.

Also not an official opinion, but so far as I can see from moderator decisions in the past, a blocker style of proposal that does fit a category, and does not contain any other rules violations, is likely to be ruled perfectly legal. So what is the prohibition on blockers? There isn't (or at least hasn't previously been) a legal one. But there is a technical issue that proposal writers need to address.

(For the record, the UN's version of this type of compromise blocker was a "Moral Decency" resolution, justified by its urging the prohibition of certain types of abortion.)

EDIT: I would also like to suggest to the OP that is not totally unknown for the drafting process of proposals to take longer than, um, 90 minutes.

[Umbra Ac Silentium]

While I was at church this morning, I got the idea for this due to contemplation over all the stuff here. Now, I do want advice on how to make this better, so, any help to flesh this out is welcome. (and if everybody thinks it sucks I'll just cancel the idea)

Also, not sure of the category it should be.

I don't think the logical construction of your proposal really flows. If abortion is indeed a highly personal issue, why should it be left to a nation - often a multi-billion strong conglomeration of disparate individuals - rather than the individual themselves to decide on the matter?

I would think a better introduction would be along the lines of:

NOTING that abortion is not at all a personal issue, but rather exclusively a concern of the state,

It is the best suggestion I've heard yet.

Even though it's obviously completely illegal?

Well, in that case I have a proposal to establish a WA Army you're just gonna love...

It is not repeal proof though. It merely states a stance of neutrality. The WA could still regulate abortions to ensure that the environment it is performed in is safe. That the medicine used for it is tested properly. It isn't preventing future issues, other than anything which will change the immediate stance of neutrality. Neutrality doesn't prevent legislation to ensure safety.

None of this in any way addresses the substance of Celestial Sphere's perfectly valid observation. To quote "Bob Flibble": "that would be a pure blocker and would be illegal, duh.".

Could you or someone else please help this ignorant fool find the rule or ruling against "blocking" proposals in the first place? And define a "blocking" proposal? I've had trouble locating this information -- despite looking for it in the Rules, Q&A, Reference Guide, and by searches.

Yes: it's the Category rules.

Unless Kryozerkia's statements quoted above indicate contrary, the rule until very recently was that "blockers" are not illegal, "pure blockers" are. I do not know whether this has changed now, but the justification used to be:
- writing a proposal to the category is a basic requirement for proposal authors;
- all proposal categories have effects on member nations (the only category that does not, "Bookkeeping", is an invalid choice for player proposals);
- therefore any proposal must have an effect - even if only a Mild effect - on member nations;
- a resolution stating nations can do whatever they want has no such effect.

In the old UN (before it became the WA), the first recognised blocking proposal was National Systems of Tax: while nominally having some mild Social Justice implications in urging socially progressive tax policies, in fact it was meant to prohibit future legislation on the subject of domestic tax policies by the UN.

A notable example of a WA blocker is NAPA, which while giving nations a right and blocking the WA from banning nuclear weapons, in its third active clause also places some (mild) conditions on nuclear states, thus justifying its categorisation as International Security.

Of course, I am not a moderator, and perhaps I am missing how the OP's proposal - as written - fits any of the categories. As it stands, however, it would not do so in my opinion. Thus it would be illegal.

Also not an official opinion, but so far as I can see from moderator decisions in the past, a blocker style of proposal that does fit a category, and does not contain any other rules violations, is likely to be ruled perfectly legal. So what is the prohibition on blockers? There isn't (or at least hasn't previously been) a legal one. But there is a technical issue that proposal writers need to address.

(For the record, the UN's version of this type of compromise blocker was a "Moral Decency" resolution, justified by its urging the prohibition of certain types of abortion.)

EDIT: I would also like to suggest to the OP that is not totally unknown for the drafting process of proposals to take longer than, um, 90 minutes.

Well, I'll wait until a mod comments on this before I submit again, this does have some good points.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

It is the best suggestion I've heard yet.

I don't think so. Where are the protections for women whose lives are put in danger? Why do we need to be neutral on every divisive subject, anyways?

Actually, Dr. Castro, I think you've triggered another idea for me to work on.

[Jesoland]

I don't think the logical construction of your proposal really flows. If abortion is indeed a highly personal issue, why should it be left to a nation - often a multi-billion strong conglomeration of disparate individuals - rather than the individual themselves to decide on the matter?

I would think a better introduction would be along the lines of:

NOTING that abortion is not at all a personal issue, but rather exclusively a concern of the state,

Even though it's obviously completely illegal?

Well, in that case I have a proposal to establish a WA Army you're just gonna love...
None of this in any way addresses the substance of Celestial Sphere's perfectly valid observation. To quote "Bob Flibble": "that would be a pure blocker and would be illegal, duh.".
Yes: it's the Category rules.

Unless Kryozerkia's statements quoted above indicate contrary, the rule until very recently was that "blockers" are not illegal, "pure blockers" are. I do not know whether this has changed now, but the justification used to be:
- writing a proposal to the category is a basic requirement for proposal authors;
- all proposal categories have effects on member nations (the only category that does not, "Bookkeeping", is an invalid choice for player proposals);
- therefore any proposal must have an effect - even if only a Mild effect - on member nations;
- a resolution stating nations can do whatever they want has no such effect.

In the old UN (before it became the WA), the first recognised blocking proposal was National Systems of Tax: while nominally having some mild Social Justice implications in urging socially progressive tax policies, in fact it was meant to prohibit future legislation on the subject of domestic tax policies by the UN.

A notable example of a WA blocker is NAPA, which while giving nations a right and blocking the WA from banning nuclear weapons, in its third active clause also places some (mild) conditions on nuclear states, thus justifying its categorisation as International Security.

Of course, I am not a moderator, and perhaps I am missing how the OP's proposal - as written - fits any of the categories. As it stands, however, it would not do so in my opinion. Thus it would be illegal.

Also not an official opinion, but so far as I can see from moderator decisions in the past, a blocker style of proposal that does fit a category, and does not contain any other rules violations, is likely to be ruled perfectly legal. So what is the prohibition on blockers? There isn't (or at least hasn't previously been) a legal one. But there is a technical issue that proposal writers need to address.

(For the record, the UN's version of this type of compromise blocker was a "Moral Decency" resolution, justified by its urging the prohibition of certain types of abortion.)

EDIT: I would also like to suggest to the OP that is not totally unknown for the drafting process of proposals to take longer than, um, 90 minutes.

Well, I'll wait until a mod comments on this before I submit again, this does have some good points.

What if the proposal requires national states to legislate about abortion? (pro, contra, ad personam or whatever they want)

[Darenjo]

I agree with Dr. Castro. This is just ending debate for the sake of ending debate, and does nothing to solve any of the moral issues behind abortion.

- Dr. Park Ji-Sung

[Kryozerkia]

It is not repeal proof though. It merely states a stance of neutrality. The WA could still regulate abortions to ensure that the environment it is performed in is safe. That the medicine used for it is tested properly. It isn't preventing future issues, other than anything which will change the immediate stance of neutrality. Neutrality doesn't prevent legislation to ensure safety.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Could you or someone else please help this ignorant fool find the rule or ruling against "blocking" proposals in the first place? And define a "blocking" proposal? I've had trouble locating this information -- despite looking for it in the Rules, Q&A, Reference Guide, and by searches.

I believe the problem is this type of proposal violation is treated as a minor one, so the rule isn't given a proper name. It's bundled in with the Game Mechanics violation.

For your convenience:

Types Of Violations

Game Mechanics

Game Mechanics violations are attempts to change how the WA works. Generally, these are Proposals that should be threads in Technical. Anything that requires and adjustment to how the game does things, or requires a change of code falls into this category. Requiring "proper" spelling, adjusting the number of votes needed for queue, creating a universal WA currency, and forming a "secondary WA" are all examples of this. Another example of this is forbidding WA action at a future point in time -- you can't make your Resolution "Repeal-proof" or prohibit types of legislation.

So, if we take the example of this neutrality proposal, and apply this requirement, it becomes obvious that it isn't repeal proof (there is nothing in the text explicitly or explicitly) prohibiting this from being repealed. The proposal doesn't prohibit the WA from introducing future abortion proposals. It just can't take a stance without the proposal (if it becomes a resolution) first being repealed. If a player wanted to make a contrary proposal, they would have to first repeal the existing resolution.

The easiest way to determine if the proposal is a "blocker" is this - 1. does the text of the proposal in any way prohibit future repeals? 2. does it prevent other legislation on the topic from being introduced?

1. It isn't preventing future repeal of the proposal itself. The proposal is making a statement and that's it.

2. It limits the WA in terms of what it can introduce on abortion, but it doesn't prevent all possible legislation from being introduced in the future.

An important point with #2 is this: with each resolution on the book, it becomes increasingly difficult for authors to introduce new proposals. With each piece of legislation, the WA becomes limited on what it can further introduce on the topic. The human rights area has very limited if only because of resolution #35: Charter of Civil Rights. It's become the centre piece of all human rights legislation in the WA. It's not a blocker, but because of the broad application of it, the WA becomes limited in what it is able to introduce. (Though, I suppose the rules on duplication and contradiction play a role in that as well).

[Seperate Vermont]

It is the best suggestion I've heard yet.

I don't think so. Where are the protections for women whose lives are put in danger? Why do we need to be neutral on every divisive subject, anyways?

I would respectfully contend that it is not necessarily enforcing neutrality, it is simply devising a system in which to note the division and implement a structure of compromise within the WA towards the actual legality of Abortion, and this sole idea alone.

[Quadrimmina]

Love it. Submit. Please. Go. Do.

This is exactly what we need to end the insanity about abortion currently dominating the Assembly. We tip our hats to the proposing delegation.

[Umbra Ac Silentium]

Thanks for clearing that up.

Could you or someone else please help this ignorant fool find the rule or ruling against "blocking" proposals in the first place? And define a "blocking" proposal? I've had trouble locating this information -- despite looking for it in the Rules, Q&A, Reference Guide, and by searches.

I believe the problem is this type of proposal violation is treated as a minor one, so the rule isn't given a proper name. It's bundled in with the Game Mechanics violation.

For your convenience:

Types Of Violations

Game Mechanics

Game Mechanics violations are attempts to change how the WA works. Generally, these are Proposals that should be threads in Technical. Anything that requires and adjustment to how the game does things, or requires a change of code falls into this category. Requiring "proper" spelling, adjusting the number of votes needed for queue, creating a universal WA currency, and forming a "secondary WA" are all examples of this. Another example of this is forbidding WA action at a future point in time -- you can't make your Resolution "Repeal-proof" or prohibit types of legislation.

So, if we take the example of this neutrality proposal, and apply this requirement, it becomes obvious that it isn't repeal proof (there is nothing in the text explicitly or explicitly) prohibiting this from being repealed. The proposal doesn't prohibit the WA from introducing future abortion proposals. It just can't take a stance without the proposal (if it becomes a resolution) first being repealed. If a player wanted to make a contrary proposal, they would have to first repeal the existing resolution.

The easiest way to determine if the proposal is a "blocker" is this - 1. does the text of the proposal in any way prohibit future repeals? 2. does it prevent other legislation on the topic from being introduced?

1. It isn't preventing future repeal of the proposal itself. The proposal is making a statement and that's it.

2. It limits the WA in terms of what it can introduce on abortion, but it doesn't prevent all possible legislation from being introduced in the future.

An important point with #2 is this: with each resolution on the book, it becomes increasingly difficult for authors to introduce new proposals. With each piece of legislation, the WA becomes limited on what it can further introduce on the topic. The human rights area has very limited if only because of resolution #35: Charter of Civil Rights. It's become the centre piece of all human rights legislation in the WA. It's not a blocker, but because of the broad application of it, the WA becomes limited in what it is able to introduce. (Though, I suppose the rules on duplication and contradiction play a role in that as well).

In which case, I'll submit if there's no further objections?