Drafting thread for "Reduction of Abortion Act"

[Ardchoille]

Studly Penguins02-04-2009, 11:25
As such other arguments have already stated, some nations only do Abstinence-Only programs. In my nation, We have a very comprehensive program that touches on all the things that Cat-Tribe has in this fine piece of legislation, without or with very limited mentioning or teaching Abstinence at all. The reasoning is simple, People are going to have sex whenever they feel like it regardless of background, so education on how to have sex safely and responsibly takes precedence in our sex-ed classes.

Only when prompted by a student if theres any 100% method to avoid pregnancies, STDs, etc then we do mention Abstinence.

How would this list of "abortion prevention services" look? It all should be tied in one big education program, preferrably without abstinence, but if its a neccessary evil then it all gets taught.

To make parts of what gets taught optional is a gross waste of our time debating this or even the Authors time to write this, because it would be counter-productive and defeat the Authors purpose.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Ardchoille]

Omigodtheykilledkenny02-04-2009, 17:20
First thing's first, your preamble needs to be condensed:

RECOGNIZING that legitimate and good-faith differences of opinion exist concerning the legality and morality of abortion,

ACKNOWLEDGING that abortion is nonetheless a matter of concern and its prevention is desirable,

OBSERVING that abortion rates may be reduced by the prevention of unwanted pregnancies, improvements in relevant medical care, and reduction of ignorance,

DEEPLY CONCERNED that member states unintentionally or deliberately increase abortion rates by restricting information and services that would prevent unwanted pregnancies, decrease pregnancy complications, and remove incentives for abortion, [moved up]

BELIEVING that individuals have a right to access these resources,

DESIRING the removal of economic reasons for abortion and economic barriers to childbirth,Note that the reminder about the WHA has been nixed, as it was unnecessary. The WA doesn't care what it's already passed. "Deeply concerned" has been moved up, so as to resolve a repetition problem in the "Believing" clause (bold text).

Repetition is also an issue with clauses 1 and 2:

1. AFFIRMS the right of individuals to access information regarding abstinence, adoption, contraception, family-planning, comprehensive sex education, pre-natal services, obstetric services, post-natal services, prevention of rape, and prevention of incest;

2. DEFINES "family-planning and abortion prevention services" as including all of the following: (1) abstinence education, (2) adoption services, (3) contraceptives, (4) family planning services, (5) pre-natal, obstetric, and post-natal medical care and services, (6)comprehensive sex education, and (7) education, awareness, prevention, and counseling programs to prevent rape and incest;Maybe combine into one clause?:

1. AFFIRMS the right of individuals to access information regarding family planning services, including: (1) abstinence education, (2) adoption services, (3) contraceptives, (4) family planning services, (5) pre-natal, obstetric, and post-natal medical care and services, (6) comprehensive sex education, and (7) education, awareness, prevention, and counseling programs to prevent rape and incest;(4) still says "family planning services"; I left it there because I didn't know what to do with it. It's a very vague term and has little substantive meaning; if you can hone it into a more specific or meaningful phrase, you can substitute it for (4); if not, does it really need to be there?

I would avoid "family planning and abortion reduction services," since it's overly wordy, and besides, you've already made quite clear from your preamble that your intent is the reduction of abortion through family planning.

Finally, I repeat my serious concerns about clause 5. If your intent is for nations to change their laws regarding access to family planning services, then avoid the polite urgings and encouragements and beatings-around-the-bush for them to do so, and just make it mandatory. Don't give us cheap, meaningless fluff about respecting local laws and merely "encouraging" their liberalization, while at the same time usurping these laws through local WHA offices. It's bad form, and exhibits extremely bad faith.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Ardchoille]

The Cat-Tribe02-04-2009, 17:23
*snip*

Thank you very, very much for your thoughtful input. :hail:

You've given me much to contemplate and I'll respond after careful thought.

[Ardchoille]

The Cat-Tribe02-04-2009, 17:52
UPDATED DRAFT: see the OP (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p ... ostcount=1)

First thing's first, your preamble needs to be condensed:

Note that the reminder about the WHA has been nixed, as it was unnecessary. The WA doesn't care what it's already passed. "Deeply concerned" has been moved up, so as to resolve a repetition problem in the "Believing" clause (bold text).

Done. Thanks.

Repetition is also an issue with clauses 1 and 2:

Maybe combine into one clause?:

Still in two clauses, but repetition removed.

(4) still says "family planning services"; I left it there because I didn't know what to do with it. It's a very vague term and has little substantive meaning; if you can hone it into a more specific or meaningful phrase, you can substitute it for (4); if not, does it really need to be there?

I guess I disagree with the vagueness of "family planning services" as I find the term "family planning" defined similarly in a wide variety of dictionaries. I don't think it hurts to leave nations some room in deciding what family planning services are.

I would avoid "family planning and abortion reduction services," since it's overly wordy, and besides, you've already made quite clear from your preamble that your intent is the reduction of abortion through family planning.

I went with "abortion reduction services." Perhaps that is the wrong choice, but I'll see what people think.

Finally, I repeat my serious concerns about clause 5. If your intent is for nations to change their laws regarding access to family planning services, then avoid the polite urgings and encouragements and beatings-around-the-bush for them to do so, and just make it mandatory. Don't give us cheap, meaningless fluff about respecting local laws and merely "encouraging" their liberalization, while at the same time usurping these laws through local WHA offices. It's bad form, and exhibits extremely bad faith.

You've convinced me and my new draft adopts this change. I have also changed the Effect rating of the proposal as I believe it is now mild.

Thanks again for your help. I hope you find my interpretations of your advice acceptable.

[Ardchoille]

Omigodtheykilledkenny02-04-2009, 18:13
Happy to be of service. Good luck.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Ardchoille]

Powerhungry Chipmunks02-04-2009, 19:55
My understanding of the proposal is similar to that expressed previously on this thread: this is going to suffer from the highly polarized nature of anything regarding abortion. Which, to be fair, is completely understandable: it's a matter of rights of life or rights of self determination or rights to reproduction or a combination of any of the previous (depending on the terministic screen utilized)...these are rights, more than almost any other grouping of rights, that people feel personally and passionately invested in. It's so easy to create an enemy (or to play the part of enemy) when expressing an opinion on the subject. So, I'll try to just comment on the rhetorical effectiveness of the proposal.

First of all, since this proposal's aim is neutral in the conflict (that is, it's desired effect is neither for nor against the legality of abortion), I think it's imperative to the proposal to slice as much from both pies of voters as possible. Specifically, there's need to cut as large of a chunk of the voting bloc that opposes abortion's legality. I identify two broad strategies to doing this: (1) staying well clear of blame, through as much conciliatory language as possible and (2) creating a common ground which identifies with the presuppositions of both sides of the legality debate.

By #1 I mean that, as much as possible, blaming situations outside of a member nation's control or blaming the extreme elements within the WA membership (those darn rouge nations) for the problems that prompt this proposal.

By #2 I mean that you have to create a communicable train of thought that flows both sides of the legality debate to the same conclusion: this proposal.

RECOGNIZING that legitimate and good-faith differences of opinion exist concerning the legality and morality of abortion,

ACKNOWLEDGING that abortion is nonetheless a matter of concern and its prevention is desirable,I think "its prevention is desirable by all parties," is needed to link that first, conciliatory, clause with the second. If you don't make it clear that you're saying "we disagree in some ways, nonetheless we all want x thing", it might read to some like "we disagree on some things, nonetheless x side is right." Don't overestimate the emotional endurance of the average WA nation--due to the polarized nature of the debate they're very likely not to follow these two clauses unless their relationship is spelled out.

OBSERVING that abortion rates may be reduced by the prevention of unwanted pregnancies, improvements in relevant medical care, and reduction of ignorance,I think "education" is preferable to "reduction of ignorance". People will read the word "ignorance" and immediately close themselves off to the proposal.

"education" might even be considered demeaning (it implies the need for education or, the very word I just rejected, ignorance). This is where I think you should play the blame game. A phrase like "increased access to information", or "increased access to information that nations have otherwise been unable to provide" will put the blame for ignorance on outside exigencies. That and it can create sympathy for those (implied) that are seeking the truth, but know not where to find it

Another option would be “increased collaborative information”. That would emphasize the fact that collaboration can increase information and access to information. It eliminates the question of blame because no nation can be internationally collaborative with itself…except maybe MultiplePersonalityStan.

DEEPLY CONCERNED that member states unintentionally or deliberately increase abortion rates by restricting information and services that would prevent unwanted pregnancies, decrease pregnancy complications, and remove incentives for abortion,"deliberately" has to go. Is it accurate? Of course. Is it persuasive? Absolutely not. Premeditation behind the act of "restricting information" indicts those who restrict it as 'increasers' of abortion. If any of those nations were thinking of changing their ways and not deliberately restricting information, you've made their "repentance" process harder by drudging up the crime and printing it into WA legislation.

Luckily for you, the preamble is not a double blind study where you must be disinterested in the results and completely open about what some nations are doing. You're very interested in the result of this preamble: persuasion. I would suggest making it"...that member states may unintentionally increase abortion rates..." and leaving it there.

Likewise the phrase "restricting information" would have to go (restriction implies deliberateness). I also think the term "unwanted" (which emphasizes the will and choice of the mother and/or father) might turn off some nations whose ideology is "choice of parents be damned it's human life we're talking about here!" I think 'reducing incentives for abortion' covers 'preventing unwanted pregnancies' well enough (if there were no unwanted pregnancies, it's plausible that no one would have an incentive to undergo an elective abortion...that's a definite reduction in abortion incentives).

So IMO I think you'd be more persuasive with something like "DEEPLY CONCERNED member states may unintentionally increase abortions when information and services are limited--information and services that would decrease pregnancy complications and remove incentives for abortion"

This obscures the agency through which information and services "are limited" and emphasizes the common and positive goals (or at least, what I see as common positive) of increased health and decreased incentives to abort.

BELIEVING that individuals have a right to access these resources,I'm not sure this clause is very conciliatory (it places those that would otherwise oppose freely available information as "violators of rights"). More importantly, if the WA believes it's an individual right, why aren't the resolved upon actions more sweeping?

DESIRING the removal of economic reasons for abortion and economic barriers to childbirth,
This'n plays the blame game (in the conciliatory way I've been advocating) very well.

A couple of emotional appeals you might add: the plight of adoptive parents (setting up clause 1.2). the emotional, economic and physical cost on mothers who (unintentionally, of course) don't have access to information (especially 1.5 and 1.7).
On first read I just have one more thought.5. EXPANDS the mission of the World Health Authority and its offices in WA member states to include:
[INDENT]a. providing universal access to abortion prevention services in accordance with national and local laws,

b. actively researching the subjects of abortion prevention services and making public the results of such research, The addition of "non-political" to 5b might assuage some nations. Some nations will want assurance that WHA offices aren't 'WA outreach indoctrination facilities' which will actively work against the nation's policies. Adding the stipulation that all information made public will be "non-political" should help with that.

I hope I’ve treated the proposal as neutrally as possible, and increased its rhetorical effectiveness. All my above suggestions are 'IMHO' and are free to be incorporated into the proposal, changed, or passed up on without any need for explanation or apology.

[Ardchoille]

Quintessence of Dust03-04-2009, 09:45
I will do my best to comment on this proposal, noting already some excellent contributions from noted members of this Assembly. Most of my suggestions are rather cosmetic, but any proposal invoking the a-word probably needs something of a sheen.RECOGNIZING that legitimate and good-faith differences of opinion exist concerning the legality and morality of abortion,

ACKNOWLEDGING that abortion is nonetheless a matter of concern and its prevention is desirable,I can only echo Ambassador Palleel's comments here. These two clauses segue awkwardly, and I think you would be advised to include something along the lines of 'but all agree that...'. Perhaps you could even merge the two clauses:

'Recoginising that while legitimate and good faith differences blah, it is a truth universally acknowledged, that the reduction of abortion rates is desirable'.

Or maybe without the middle bit.OBSERVING that abortion rates may be reduced by the prevention of unwanted pregnancies, improvements in relevant medical care, and reduction of ignorance,My main problem with the proposal is a slightly irrelevant one, of tone. The proposal is called the 'Reduction of Abortion Act', but it consistently refers - except in this clause - to 'prevention'. The two have different implications. In particular, at least from my perspective, to 'reduce' abortion rates does not necessarily imply reducing them to zero. Reducing them only to those that are medically essential is still a reduction. 'Preventing' abortion does seem to me to encompass the possibility of preventing all abortions - even those that are medically essential (such as where bringing the pregnancy to term would injure/kill the mother).

If only for that reason, then I suggest the terms in the proposal be normalised, such that the phrase 'abortion reduction' (or 'reduction of abortion rates') is used instead of 'abortion prevention'. This clause, in my view, is worded correctly; the later references to 'abortion prevention services' are not.4. FURTHER ENCOURAGES member states to provide financial aid to pregnant individuals and parents to reduce or remove economic reasons for abortion and economic barriers to childbirth;Though this is a non-mandatory clause, I do feel this is exceptionally vague, and the proposal has ample room to spell out some of these measures, such as:
- measures to prevent domestic violence and provide shelters (a woman who lives in fear of being beaten is presumably less likely to want to raise a child);
- health coverage for pregnant women and infants, including banning - in nations that have a health insurance industry - the listing of pregnancy as a pre-existing condition;
- non-discrimination laws in the workplace;
- encouraging provision of maternity leave and daycare facilities;
- repealing laws that have the social effect of discouraging child-raising, such as bans on public breast-feeding.
6. DECLARES that nothing in this resolution shall effect the power of member states to declare abortion legal or illegal or to pass legislation extending or restricting access to abortion.This should be 'affect' (again, not a minor pedantic quibble: it reverses the meaning of the clause).

My predecessor suggested a clause stating:3. Encourages nations to permit aid disbursements to be used for the development of such services;be added to this (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_pas ... /start=218) resolution in the old UN, which it was; is there a place for something along these lines here? Or, perhaps it could be, 'Encourages nations to permit aid disbursements to be used for the development of such services, and not to make receipt of aid dependent on the suppression of information about blah.' Obviously, it'd be unworkable to ban 'the gag rule', but you could at least encourage nations to enact such.

I would also suggest (5) in Clause 1 should explicitly include counselling.

In 5 (b), this may be covered, but perhaps the WHA could engage in research - or, better perhaps, coordinate national-level research - on the epidemiology of abortion, to find out why some women choose this option.

In conclusion, I do hope that this proposal gets a fair audience, as I think the discussion on it thus far illustrates the central premise that most can agree on the general principle of abortion reduction.

-- Dr Lois Merrywether
WA Ambassador
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

[Ardchoille]

The Cat-Tribe03-04-2009, 11:52
*snip*

I hope I’ve treated the proposal as neutrally as possible, and increased its rhetorical effectiveness. All my above suggestions are 'IMHO' and are free to be incorporated into the proposal, changed, or passed up on without any need for explanation or apology.

I have taken your suggestions to heart and tried to improve the proposal accordingly. Thank you so much for your time and thoughtful effort.

[Ardchoille]

The Cat-Tribe03-04-2009, 11:54
I will do my best to comment on this proposal, noting already some excellent contributions from noted members of this Assembly. *snip*

In conclusion, I do hope that this proposal gets a fair audience, as I think the discussion on it thus far illustrates the central premise that most can agree on the general principle of abortion reduction.

Thank you, Dr. Merrywether. I greatly appreciate your input and have tried to make changes along the lines you have suggested.

[Ardchoille]

The Cat-Tribe03-04-2009, 11:56
UPDATED DRAFT in OP (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p ... ostcount=1).

Although I have already received excellent advice, I'd love more feedback before submitting this proposal.

I would note I am particularly unsure as to the new "BELIEVING" clause I added.

Thank you all. :fluffle:

[Ardchoille]

Studly Penguins03-04-2009, 12:28
3. STRONGLY URGES member states to research, invest in, and provide universal access to abortion reduction services

Why use urges?? It should be a mandate since its counter-productive based on isnt that why you're writing this, and the statement in Article 6:
6. DECLARES that nothing in this resolution shall affect the power of member states to declare abortion legal or illegal or to pass legislation extending or restricting access to abortion.

[Ardchoille]

The Cat-Tribe03-04-2009, 12:41
Why use urges?? It should be a mandate since its counter-productive based on isnt that why you're writing this, and the statement in Article 6:

1. I am unclear on what you are saying regarding Article 6.

2. As to Article 3, I've tried to respect national sovereignty and thus have avoided a mandate, despite my personal feelings. Hopefully that doesn't cost me the support of nations such as yourself.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Ardchoille]

Studly Penguins04-04-2009, 09:14
Sorry, I misread article 6. Just now noticed that, apologies!!

Nope, Im still on board. I do commend you on how you've been trying to navigate that tricky aspect. I think its a Catch-22 though mostly since "Urges" makes the Nat-Sovs happy, and "Mandates" alienates them but gets the other group to sign on. If only there were a happy medium

[Ardchoille]

Nistraph04-04-2009, 10:02
The people of Nistraph would favor this. However, it is also clear that any real agreement on the abortion issue is unlikely in the near future.

[Ardchoille]

The Cat-Tribe04-04-2009, 18:14
I think I am near submitting this draft (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p ... ostcount=1), but would love more feedback--particularly on the BELIEVING clause:

BELIEVING that many resources that would reduce abortion rates are also inherently desirable such as better family planning, help for those who wish to adopt children, safer childbirth and pregnancy, prevention of rape and incest, and reduction of the emotional, economic, and physical cost on pregnant women and mothers,

Thanks again to all who have contributed to this thread. :wink:

[Ardchoille]

The Cat-Tribe04-04-2009, 18:14
I think I am near submitting this draft (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p ... ostcount=1), but would love more feedback--particularly on the BELIEVING clause:

BELIEVING that many resources that would reduce abortion rates are also inherently desirable such as better family planning, help for those who wish to adopt children, safer childbirth and pregnancy, prevention of rape and incest, and reduction of the emotional, economic, and physical cost on pregnant women and mothers,

Thanks again to all who have contributed to this thread. :wink:

[Ardchoille]

Studly Penguins04-04-2009, 21:06
We like it as is. It is very clear and concise in our own opinion, and stays very true to your aim and reads as neutral.

If you submit before I return later, Good Luck!!

[Ardchoille]

Powerhungry Chipmunks04-04-2009, 21:10
I think I am near submitting this draft, but would love more feedback--particularly on the BELIEVING clause:
BELIEVING that many resources that would reduce abortion rates are also inherently desirable such as better family planning, help for those who wish to adopt children, safer childbirth and pregnancy, prevention of rape and incest, and reduction of the emotional, economic, and physical cost on pregnant women and mothers,
Looks good to PC.

[Ardchoille]

Aundotutunagir05-04-2009, 07:44
6. DECLARES that nothing in this resolution shall affect the power of member states to declare abortion legal or illegal or to pass legislation extending or restricting access to abortion.
Obviously we would have preferred that this include something along the lines of 'member states shall have the right to declare voluntary abortion legal or illegal', nevertheless we find your proposal acceptable for the most part and the People of Aundotutunagir will support it.

[Ardchoille]

The Cat-Tribe05-04-2009, 16:57
SUBMITTED. Please approve here (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_pro ... =reduction).

Thanks again to everyone for your input. :hail:

[Ardchoille]

pain106-04-2009, 06:34
position of the republic Spain1, it is a right that every person can choose whether to abort DECEA

[Ardchoille]

Studly Penguins06-04-2009, 12:38
Good Luck!!