[CONTESTED] Repeal: Reduction of Abortion Act

[Knootoss]

I may support this, if only for the NatSov reasoning, but the last part is mad.

You can still mandate abstinence education in your own country, if you like. But you'll no longer have to pay for abstinence education in Knootoss - where I can assure you that it is profoundly unwelcome.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

I may support this, if only for the NatSov reasoning, but the last part is mad.

You can still mandate abstinence education in your own country, if you like. But you'll no longer have to pay for abstinence education in Knootoss - where I can assure you that it is profoundly unwelcome.

We understand, but 'dangerous social taboos'?

[Knootoss]

There's basically three arguments to be made against this extreme IntFed resolution:

-A NatSov argument that goes "what the fuck is the WA doing, running all the bits of my healthcare system tangentially related to pregnancy".
-A Christian doctrinal argument against condoms and sex education.
-A liberal-secular-pro-choice argument against abstinence education.

Knootoss is both liberal and NatSov and therefore focusses on the first and the last avenue of attack. Seeing how the repeal of 'On Abortion' is going down in flames, this strikes me as a good strategy as well.

As for the argument itself: the basic truths are that most teenagers have sex, and that 'abstinence education' tries to teach them that this is a bad thing, often including pledges, purity rings and all kinds of pushy crap to prevent teenagers from having sex. In my view, this promotes dishonesty (teenagers that lie) and hypocrisy (double standards), both of which actually hinder real, comprehensive sex education. The two cannot simply be taught 'side by side' like evolution and 'intelligent design'. Comprehensive sex education has to be value-free, has to teach kids the things they need to know to avoid getting in trouble.

[Arivali]

First of all, the Reduction of Abortion Act requires nations to eliminate economic conditions that lead to abortions.

DESIRING the removal of economic reasons for abortion and economic barriers to childbirth,

First of all, while I'm sure we all do the best we can for our economies, this is something that cannot be controlled reasonably. In times of a bad economy we have more to worry about than abortions.

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;

Again with the economy, and forcing us to fork over money to pregnant women. What if we can't afford it? Can we impose income limits for this, or do we have to provide free health care to pregnant women who could afford it? And if they can't afford care, isn't this already covered in the right to basic health care?

And finally, it assumes that we all want to reduce abortions. Some leaders find nothing wrong with it, and wouldn't care if every woman in their country had an abortion. This is a topic of morality. Not everyone shares the same morals.

[Hirota]

First of all, the Reduction of Abortion Act requires nations to eliminate economic conditions that lead to abortions.

DESIRING the removal of economic reasons for abortion and economic barriers to childbirth,

First of all, while I'm sure we all do the best we can for our economies, this is something that cannot be controlled reasonably. In times of a bad economy we have more to worry about than abortions.

No, it doesn't. That's called a preamble, and it's basically setting the stage for the enforcing clauses. In this case, this section recognises that fiscal difficulties are often a cause of abortions.

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;

Again with the economy, and forcing us to fork over money to pregnant women. What if we can't afford it? Can we impose income limits for this, or do we have to provide free health care to pregnant women who could afford it? And if they can't afford care, isn't this already covered in the right to basic health care?

There is a margin of discretion implicit in this text. It recognises that we should be seeking to improve the economic opportunities to pregnant individuals and parents, but it's not exactly as binding as you seem to be making out.

And finally, it assumes that we all want to reduce abortions. Some leaders find nothing wrong with it, and wouldn't care if every woman in their country had an abortion. This is a topic of morality. Not everyone shares the same morals.

As long as greater than 50% agree on a matter, then it's perfectly right and proper for the WA to enforce it regardless of what the less than 50% think.

[Parti Ouvrier]

There is a mountain of evidence against abstinence education. It does not promote the goal of getting teenagers to abstain from sex. Teenagers who pledge abstinence have similar rates of STD's. It sends confusing messages about sex to teenagers, while flying in the face of everything we know about teen sexual behaviour. Oh, and of course, it's your taxpayer money at work to push private and most often religious morality.

We couldn't agree with you more on this issue. Quite why we need such naked (excuse the pun), moralising is beyond me. An abstinence education program is likely to cause much angst about sex in latter life and all the problems that it could cause such as 'pornification of society', voyerism, unwanted pregnancy, and even rape for example. It's better to cultivate a healthy attitude toward sexual relations in relationships during their teenage years than latter in life through an angst driven authoritarian approach to sex. The only educational requirement should be responsible sex using protection.

CJ
WA Ambassador to the DRPO

[Glen-Rhodes]

Dr. Castro apparently has not read Reduction of Abortion thoroughly , the topic of Reduction of Abortion is not blocking abortion, but exactly what it says, reducing the need for abortion by providing contraceptives and promoting a comprehensive sex education. Osteric death was and is continued to be prevented when this Assembly put aside its petty differences momentarily to pass this landmark piece of legislation.

I have read the resolution more times than necessary. I do not know why you believe that I am mistaken in my understanding of Reduction of Abortion. I have not said that it blocks abortion. I said that it was part of a conscious towing-of-the-line by the World Assembly in a purposeful effort to prevent ensuring the bodily rights and equal protection of women. No, it does not block abortion, but it not a particularly useful or beneficial resolution about abortion either.

Furthermore, I believe that you are actually mistaken about the resolution. You assert that it only affirms the right of individuals to, quote, 'read literature on many things including ... abstinence.' However, the affirmation is much more than that. Just as Glen-Rhodes is required to build and operate public schools because all citizens, according to the World Assembly, have the right to a basic education, Glen-Rhodes has been required to teach abstinence education in its schools as well. That is what is entailed by a 'right to access information.' The right forces governments to provide that information, because otherwise it may not be provided and as such individuals would be having their right to access that information violated.

- Dr. B. Castro

[The Cat-Tribe]

I made the mistake of looking at these forums and the stupidity of this repeal overcame my desire to CTE.

If the WA wishes to repeal the Reduction of Abortion Act, that is up to it, but, before I leave NS, I will make a few final posts in its defense.

There is a mountain of evidence against abstinence education. It does not promote the goal of getting teenagers to abstain from sex. Teenagers who pledge abstinence have similar rates of STD's. It sends confusing messages about sex to teenagers, while flying in the face of everything we know about teen sexual behaviour. Oh, and of course, it's your taxpayer money at work to push private and most often religious morality.

There's basically three arguments to be made against this extreme IntFed resolution:

-A NatSov argument that goes "what the fuck is the WA doing, running all the bits of my healthcare system tangentially related to pregnancy".
-A Christian doctrinal argument against condoms and sex education.
-A liberal-secular-pro-choice argument against abstinence education.

Knootoss is both liberal and NatSov and therefore focusses on the first and the last avenue of attack. Seeing how the repeal of 'On Abortion' is going down in flames, this strikes me as a good strategy as well.

As for the argument itself: the basic truths are that most teenagers have sex, and that 'abstinence education' tries to teach them that this is a bad thing, often including pledges, purity rings and all kinds of pushy crap to prevent teenagers from having sex. In my view, this promotes dishonesty (teenagers that lie) and hypocrisy (double standards), both of which actually hinder real, comprehensive sex education. The two cannot simply be taught 'side by side' like evolution and 'intelligent design'. Comprehensive sex education has to be value-free, has to teach kids the things they need to know to avoid getting in trouble.

Has Ambassador Koopman even read the Reduction of Abortion Act -- let alone any of the debate that surrounded it? It specifies real, comprehensive sex education (which includes the mention of abstinence of an option) and does not promote abstinence-only education. (There is all the difference in the world between teaching about abstinence and teaching abstinence only.)

Here is a recreation of the original FAQ for the RAA (emphasis added):

1. Does this resolution address the legality or illegality of abortion, whether abortion is a right, or whether abortion is moral?
No. The resolution is completely neutral on these issues. In fact, Clause 6 of the resolution states:

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

2. Does this resolution harm the interests or rights of women?

No. This resolution does not make abortion illegal, declare abortion immoral, or restrict any rights that women may have. To the contrary, it empowers women by providing the right to information about and increased access to (1) abstinence education, (2) adoption services, (3) contraceptives, (4) family planning services, (5) pre-natal, obstetric, and post-natal medical care, counseling, and services, (6) comprehensive sex education, and (7) education, awareness, prevention, and counseling programs to prevent rape and incest. The result is that women have increased control over becoming pregnant in the first place.

3. Does this resolution harm the interests or rights of the unborn?

No. This resoution does not make abortion legal, declare abortion moral, or restrict any rights that the unborn may have. To the contrary, this resolution seeks to prevent destruction of the unborn by preventing unwanted pregnancies and other incentives for abortion. The resolution further seeks to remove barriers to childbirth, whether they be economic or medical.

4. Does this resolution significantly infringe national sovereignty?

Not IMHO. Although the resolution does create a right in Clause 2 to access to information regarding abortion reduction services, the next two active clauses do not require nations to do anything -- they strongly urge and encourage actions by nations. Further Clause 5 gives some increased responsibility to the World Health Authority (WHA), but limits its provision of abortion reduction services to comply with national and local laws.

5. If it doesn't infringe national sovereignty, does this resolution do anything?

Clause 2 of the resolution creates a right of all individuals to access information regarding abortion reduction services. This alone could significantly reduce unwanted pregnancies and remove incentives for abortion.

I may be naive, but it is my hope that most nations will take seriously this topic and follow what Clauses 3 and 4 urge.

Clause 5 empowers the WHA to help nations provide abortion reduction services, research relevant subjects, and facilitate the sharing of technology among member nations. Again, this should help reduce abortion rates.

6. I see the resolution refers to "abstinence education." What does this mean?

Effective, comprehensive sex education is called for by the resolution. One aspect of such education can be an emphasis on abstinence as a means of avoiding unwanted pregnancies and other consequences of sex. This is NOT a call for "abstinence-only" programs that do nothing other than try to teach abstinence. Abstinence education as part of a broader range of information can be an effective part of preventing unwanted pregnancies and reducing abortion rates.

7. Why is this an international issue within the purview of the World Assembly?

For those concerned with the plight of the unborn (even those that believe the unborn don't have rights), this resolution addresses an international problem of abortion without restricting any freedoms.

For those concerned with the rights of women, this resolution addresses an international problem of unintended pregnancies and unnecessary medical procedures. It empowers women to make reproductive choices without coercion. Further, women die every year from unnecessary and unsafe abortions.¹

The ability of the WHA to help nations share technology, conduct research, and provide universal access to abortion reduction services is unique and is a proper role for the World Assembly.

¹ OCC: In RL, some 70,000 women die and hundreds of thousands are permanently damaged each year from unsafe abortions. Although abortion can be a very safe procedure when legal but regulated, empowering women to avoid unnecessary medical procedures and make informed reproductive decisions is desirable.

8. The resolution refers to the World Health Authority. Isn't this a House of Cards violation of the rules? What happens if prior resolutions about the WHA are repealed?

The rules for WA Proposals expressly says that "you may assign duties to an existing committee," such as the WHA. The rules further state that "[s]hould the Resolution that creates the committee be Repealed, the committee will continue to exist, but in a reduced capacity." World Assembly Resolution #31 creates the World Health Agency and WHA offices in member states.

Ambassador Koopman's premises fall apart. The RAA does not promote abstinence-only education, but rather comprehensive sex education. We agree that abstence-only education is counter-productive and harmful. On the other hand, abstinence taught as part of comprehensive sex education is effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

Here is a large study specifically showing that abstinence education is effective as part of comprehensive sex education.

• A comprehensive review of 115 program evaluations published in November 2007 by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy found that two-thirds of sex education programs focusing on both abstinence and contraception had a positive effect on teen sexual behavior. The same study found no strong evidence that abstinence-only programs delayed the initiation of sex, hastened the return to abstinence, or reduced the number of sexual partners. link
  
• The American Medical Association "urges schools to implement comprehensive... sexuality education programs that... include an integrated strategy for making condoms available to students and for providing both factual information and skill-building related to reproductive biology, sexual abstinence, sexual responsibility, contraceptives including condoms, alternatives in birth control, and other issues aimed at prevention of pregnancy and sexual transmission of diseases... [and] opposes the sole use of abstinence-only education..." pdf
  
• The American Academy of Pediatrics states that "Abstinence-only programs have not demonstrated successful outcomes with regard to delayed initiation of sexual activity or use of safer sex practices... Programs that encourage abstinence as the best option for adolescents, but offer a discussion of HIV prevention and contraception as the best approach for adolescents who are sexually active, have been shown to delay the initiation of sexual activity and increase the proportion of sexually active adolescents who reported using birth control.” link

[The Cat-Tribe]

As Ambassador Koopman appears to be trying to repeal a fictional Reduction of Abortion Act, I repost it here before responding to his repeal proposal:

Reduction of Abortion Act
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: The Cat-Tribe

Description: The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING that legitimate and good-faith differences of opinion exist concerning the legality and morality of abortion, but that abortion is nonetheless a matter of concern and the reduction of abortion rates is desirable to all parties,

OBSERVING that abortion rates may be reduced by the prevention of unwanted pregnancies, improvements in relevant medical care, and increased access to information,

DEEPLY CONCERNED that member states may unintentionally increase abortion rates due to limitations on information and services that would decrease pregnancy complications and remove incentives for abortion,

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,

DESIRING the removal of economic reasons for abortion and economic barriers to childbirth,

HEREBY:

1. DEFINES "abortion reduction 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, counseling, and services, (6) comprehensive sex education, and (7) education, awareness, prevention, and counseling programs to prevent rape and incest;

2. AFFIRMS the right of individuals to access information regarding abortion reduction services;

3. STRONGLY URGES member states to research, invest in, and provide universal access to abortion reduction services;

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;

5. EXPANDS the mission of the World Health Authority and its offices in WA member states to include:

a. providing universal access to abortion reduction services in accordance with national and local laws,

b. actively researching the subjects of the epidemiology of abortion and abortion reduction services and making public the results of such research in a non-political manner,

c. facilitating the sharing of technology among member states concerning abortion reduction services;

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.

Votes For: 3,166
Votes Against: 1,516

Implemented Wed Apr 22 2009

[WAR44 on NS] [WAR44 on NSwiki] [Official Debate Topic]

OBSERVING that the "Reduction of Abortion Act" has removed critical national health policies from the purview of Member States, including:
-Sex education;
-The sale of contraceptives;
-Adoption services;
-Care for pregnant women;
-Scientific research related to these subjects;

The RAA does no such thing.

1. Individuals are given the right under the RAA to information concerning abortion reduction services. That does not remove such policies from the purview of Member States.

2. Member States are URGED to "research, invest in, and provide universal access to abortion reduction services." That clearly does not remove such policies from the purview of Member States.

3. The WHA is empowered to "provid[e] universal access to abortion reduction services in accordance with national and local laws." Because of the last clause, such policies remain within the purview of Member States.

4. The WHA may facilitate the sharing of technology regarding abortion reduction services among Member States. Again, this clearly means such policies remain within the purview of Member States.

5. That leaves your only complaint being that the WHA can conduct and publish research the subjects of the epidemiology of abortion and abortion reduction services "in a non-political manner." How exactly does this significantly infringe upon the sovereignty of any Member State?

BELIEVING that there is no compelling reason to make an international organisation such as the World Assembly responsible for all of these critical national health policies;

As explained above, the World Assembly does not take over these critical national health policies. However, pursuant to national and local laws in member states, the World Assembly can and should assist in (as the repeal itself says) ""better family planning, help for those who wish to adopt children, safer childbirth and pregnancy, prevention of rape and incest, and reduction of [burdens] on pregnant women and mothers." The ability of the WHA to help nations share technology, conduct research, and provide universal access to abortion reduction services is unique and is a proper role for the World Assembly.

DEEPLY CONCERNED that the 'World Health Authority' forces Member States to expose their children to so-called 'abstinence education' programmes, even though such programmes send confusing messages to teenagers, promote hypocrisy and dishonesty, and do nothing to reduce unplanned pregnancy;

As explained in my last post, the RAA does no such thing. Ambassador Koopman is confusing "abstinence education" and "abstinence-only education." I challenge him to provide any support that his statements are true of comprehensive sex education that merely mentions abstinence as an option.

RESOLVED that 'abstinence education' may therefore inhibit the normal development of children, and create dangerous social taboos;

Again, the RAA does not require this boogeyman of "abstinence education." Ambassador Koopman is confusing "abstinence education" and "abstinence-only education." I challenge him to provide any support that his statements are true of comprehensive sex education that merely mentions abstinence as an option.

REPEALS the "Reduction of Abortion Act".

If this body so chooses, so be it. I won't be here anymore.

But I implore you not to do so for the wrong reasons.

[Parti Ouvrier]

On the other hand,abstinence taught as part of comprehensive sex education is effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

Fixed.

We believe that including abstinence as part of a comprehensive sex education gives a moralising input to an otherwise commendable sex education, this more likely limits it success at best and confuses at worst.

CJ
WA Ambassador to the DRPO

OOC: Secrets of the Love huts by Fiona MacGregor.
http://feministnetwork.files.wordpress. ... vehuts.pdf
Ancient tribes are know to have love huts for teenagers to express their love and intimacy in a relaxed and judgement free environment.

[Knootoss]

Nice walls of text, TCT. And I see you've picked up on the 'Koopman lies' meme that has been going around Dharma too! Pretty sweet huh?

Unfortunately, your huge-ass "FAQ" is no substitute for what the resolution actually says. Which is: to define 'abstinence education' as an 'abortion reduction service' and then to authorise a WA bureaucracy to provide 'universal access to abortion reduction services".

In short, I would recommend that anyone interested in what the original resolution does consults that particular document, not these long-winded obfuscations.

[Moronist Decisions]

There is one piece of data I would like Dr. Koopman to respond to from TCT's post.

Specifically, what about the data regarding the fact that abstinence education, as part of a comprehensive package (which this contained, as pointed out), being a good addition?

-JC

[Arivali]

Well then, if it encourages sexual education within local laws, and does not require anything specific be taught, then what's the point of it anyway? If what you're saying is true, then basically this resolution only mandates that information on abortion reduction services be provided in countries where it's legal. Other than that, go on and do whatever you were doing. If that is indeed the case, this could be removed and replaced with something more simple and straightforward. And again, abortion is an issue of morality, and not a human right's issue. What would be considered human rights is already covered in "On Abortion" which I do support.

[Knootoss]

There is one piece of data I would like Dr. Koopman to respond to from TCT's post.

Specifically, what about the data regarding the fact that abstinence education, as part of a comprehensive package (which this contained, as pointed out), being a good addition?

-JC

I suppose that if you had an army of monkeys with typewriters, they would eventually come up with a study suggesting that abstinence education could be successfully paired with real sex ed. Especially if the monkeys were sponsored by a foundation that promotes the abstinence education industry. (And don't be mistaken, it is a massive quasi-religious, quasi-commercial industry). As has already been pointed out before, abstinence education just confuses and contradicts the message of sex ed. while creating unhealthy taboos.

[Moronist Decisions]

Especially if the monkeys were sponsored by a foundation that promotes the abstinence education industry. (And don't be mistaken, it is a massive quasi-religious, quasi-commercial industry)

The AMA? I think it depends on the definition of abstinence education. Last I checked, it was to refrain from it until you are ready for the consequences and that you know who you are doing it with. Am I mistaken?

-JC

[Knootoss]

What you refer to is normal sexual education. Abstinence education and sex education are mentioned separately, and deliberately so, as including it was a sop to the conservative-Christian pro life lobby. 'Abstinence education' promotes sexual abstinence until marriage, uses the manipulative tools I've mentioned before, and avoids discussion of use of contraceptives. Comprehensive sex education, by contrast, covers the use of contraceptives as well as abstinence in the way that you describe.

It is true that the resolution mentions comprehensive sex education as well. (Sixth, whereas abstinence is mentioned first.) However this is like saying that it's okay to teach "Intelligent Design" in class because the theory of evolution gets taught as well. It introduces a whole lot of crap in the classroom, contradicting comprehensive sex education - which children DO need.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Nice walls of text, TCT. And I see you've picked up on the 'Koopman lies' meme that has been going around Dharma too! Pretty sweet huh?

Unfortunately, your huge-ass "FAQ" is no substitute for what the resolution actually says. Which is: to define 'abstinence education' as an 'abortion reduction service' and then to authorise a WA bureaucracy to provide 'universal access to abortion reduction services".

In short, I would recommend that anyone interested in what the original resolution does consults that particular document, not these long-winded obfuscations.

Your inability to reply to what I posted is noted.

[The Cat-Tribe]

What you refer to is normal sexual education. Abstinence education and sex education are mentioned separately, and deliberately so, as including it was a sop to the conservative-Christian pro life lobby. 'Abstinence education' promotes sexual abstinence until marriage, uses the manipulative tools I've mentioned before, and avoids discussion of use of contraceptives. Comprehensive sex education, by contrast, covers the use of contraceptives as well as abstinence in the way that you describe.

It is true that the resolution mentions comprehensive sex education as well. (Sixth, whereas abstinence is mentioned first.) However this is like saying that it's okay to teach "Intelligent Design" in class because the theory of evolution gets taught as well. It introduces a whole lot of crap in the classroom, contradicting comprehensive sex education - which children DO need.

From where do you get this definition of "abstinence education"? I deliberately did not use the phrase "abstinence-only" in the RAA.

From the original drafting thread of the RAA:

I am at a loss of understanding as how "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" could possibly be interpretted as encouraging (or even permitting) the restriction of information to abstinence-only education.

Similarly, strongly urging member nations to research, invest in, and provide universal access to family-planning and abortion prevention services (which expressly includes abstinence education, adoption services, contraceptives, family planning services, pre-natal, obstetric, and post-natal medical care and services, comprehensive sex education, and education, awareness, prevention, and counseling programs to prevent rape and incest) cannot, IMHO, be reasonably interpreted to make any nation invest money in abstinence-only programs.

My mention of abstinence is based (1) partially on an appeal to those that value abstinence teaching but may not be aware that such teaching is usually part of comprehensive sex education and (2) on the fact that abstinence education -- when combined with other programs/information such as those addressed in this resolution -- can help prevent unwanted pregnancies. I was not, am not, and will not try to sneak abstinence-only education through a backdoor or attempt to decieve anyone into thinking I support abstinence-only education.

Further note that the RAA defines "abortion reduction 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, counseling, and services, (6) comprehensive sex education, and (7) education, awareness, prevention, and counseling programs to prevent rape and incest..." (emphasis added). Clearly the resolution cannot be read in the way you are trying to pervert it.

Finally, you contradict yourself. You say abstinence is part of comprehensive sex education and then you say it cannot possibly be taught as part of comprehensive sex education. Obviously, the first is -- as I have said, true -- and the second is lie you are trying to peddle to those not paying attention.

[Three Weasels]

The DoT Collective has reviewed the debate to date; the relevant legislation, the proposed repeal and have reached the following conclusion on the matter:

We agree with Koopman on abstinence education in that it doesn't achieve the 'noble goals' it seeks out. it does little to provide adequate information to allow for individuals to make informed decisions about their reproductive rights. Nevertheless, we find the majority of RoAA to be spot on in both spirit and intent. Its spirit is to reduce the need for abortion and its intent matches that spirit through the use of according language.

We mostly ignore the provisions on abstinence and instead use the rest of it in our national sexual reproductive and education programs given to all kits who are just shy of puberty.

We find that there is little reason to do away with RoAA. The objective is to reduce abortion. If it can be accomplished through the seeding of knowledge in kits, it's done its job. The main objections in the draft repeal don't appear to actively address the true flaws - if any. We don't see how a nation's policy toward a pro-choice policy is affected, nor how it alleges prevents nations from employing policies which affect:

-Sex education;
-The sale of contraceptives;
-Adoption services;
-Care for pregnant women;
-Scientific research related to these subjects;

If anything, its liberal enough in its language to permit comprehensible sexual education. It promotes the use of contraceptives. Nowhere in the text of RoAA is there any attempt to do away with these measures. If these measures didn't exist, we believe Koopman would have valid grounds for a repeal.

It is the judgment of this delegation that Koopman's repeal doesn't have the merit it pretends to have. If this was put to the test, we would not endorse it and our delegation if this was to achieve quorum would cast all our votes against.

[Christian Democrats]

<snip>

It's a zombie!!!

[Knootoss]

The DoT Collective has reviewed the debate to date; the relevant legislation, the proposed repeal and have reached the following conclusion on the matter:

We agree with Koopman on abstinence education in that it doesn't achieve the 'noble goals' it seeks out. it does little to provide adequate information to allow for individuals to make informed decisions about their reproductive rights. Nevertheless, we find the majority of RoAA to be spot on in both spirit and intent. Its spirit is to reduce the need for abortion and its intent matches that spirit through the use of according language.

We mostly ignore the provisions on abstinence and instead use the rest of it in our national sexual reproductive and education programs given to all kits who are just shy of puberty.

We find that there is little reason to do away with RoAA. The objective is to reduce abortion. If it can be accomplished through the seeding of knowledge in kits, it's done its job. The main objections in the draft repeal don't appear to actively address the true flaws - if any. We don't see how a nation's policy toward a pro-choice policy is affected, nor how it alleges prevents nations from employing policies which affect:

-Sex education;
-The sale of contraceptives;
-Adoption services;
-Care for pregnant women;
-Scientific research related to these subjects;

If anything, its liberal enough in its language to permit comprehensible sexual education. It promotes the use of contraceptives. Nowhere in the text of RoAA is there any attempt to do away with these measures. If these measures didn't exist, we believe Koopman would have valid grounds for a repeal.

It is the judgment of this delegation that Koopman's repeal doesn't have the merit it pretends to have. If this was put to the test, we would not endorse it and our delegation if this was to achieve quorum would cast all our votes against.

Well, the thing is, this resolution forces you to give abstinence education. Whereas you would be perfectly able to have all the same abortion-reducing policies in your nation without this resolution. Or do the three weasels only make laws when the WA tells them to?

[Three Weasels]

Well, the thing is, this resolution forces you to give abstinence education. Whereas you would be perfectly able to have all the same abortion-reducing policies in your nation without this resolution. Or do the three weasels only make laws when the WA tells them to?

We make laws when it suits us. As for the abstinence education, we cover that with two sentences, "Every individual has the right to say "no" to sex or wait until they're ready, or married. And that is the end of your abstinence education." See, very compliant. We teach this to kits before they learn how to talk. *chitter*

[Knootoss]

Well, the thing is, this resolution forces you to give abstinence education. Whereas you would be perfectly able to have all the same abortion-reducing policies in your nation without this resolution. Or do the three weasels only make laws when the WA tells them to?

We make laws when it suits us. As for the abstinence education, we cover that with two sentences, "Every individual has the right to say "no" to sex or wait until they're ready, or married. And that is the end of your abstinence education." See, very compliant. We teach this to kits before they learn how to talk. *chitter*

Actually, a World Assembly agency will be responsible for having abstinence education in your nation, and you'll be expected to pay for it. And the point remains that nothing in this resolution actually helps you! You can have the exact same policies without this resolution, only there wouldn't be a WA agency doing it for you.

[Darenjo]

*snip*

*snip*

While I still support this repeal (mainly because I think that everything in RoAA can easily be handled on a sub-national level), I would like to point out to Mr. Koopman two things:
1. Not everyone in Dharma thinks you're a liar. I may not like everything you propose (much how you don't often agree with my ideas), but I don't simply assume you're lying.
2. We have issues with RoAA requiring abstinence education. Therefore, we have intelligence agents track all WA gnomes in Darenjo. If any try to enter a school, they are swiftly arrested, deported, and banned from Darenjo.

[Three Weasels]

Actually, a World Assembly agency will be responsible for having abstinence education in your nation, and you'll be expected to pay for it. And the point remains that nothing in this resolution actually helps you! You can have the exact same policies without this resolution, only there wouldn't be a WA agency doing it for you.

Oh, we have a program. It's covered as part of a one-time special check up. Large groups of kits are brought to a pre-school centre for a day of activities. Two minutes are afforded in that day to cover our lesson. Most of those two minutes are spent giving out cheese to placate the kits while the adults talk. The gnomes have objected to our practices, but relented after being bitten one too many times. Nyarf.