NationStates

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2011 1:45 pm**

I think the problem is that abstinence is included at all. Many, myself included, would rather not go there. And in Christian nations where they insist on teaching such things, well, they aren't likely to allow elective abortions anyway, so what exactly are you preventing? Also, you are forcing nations who believe in abstinence only education to teach everything else. And again, chances are, they don't allow elective abortions, so really no point.

And prevention of incest? I see nothing wrong with incest as long as both parties are informed and consenting. I don't want to preach against it. Rape is a very serious crime in my country, so I already have that covered.

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2011 2:35 pm**

The gnomes just check that you have access; it doesn't actually do it if you actually made sure there was access.

We have to worship and maybe start making regular tributes to the DoT.

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2011 2:42 pm**

In Baptovia we have found, through experience, that many who receive subsidies while pregnant become pregnant again soon after delivery. We found that we were financing an overpopulation of teat-suckers which were driving our taxes up and our population of hard-working and responsible into the poor house. Therefore we have added qualifiers to our subsidies: 1) gaining reasonable employment asap upon recovery from child-bearing, and 2) Subsequent pregnancies are subsidized only if the individual or couple sign a contract agreeing to give the newborn up for adoption immediately upon delivery. Therefore we have cut back on the number of abortions as well as the numbers gaining subsidies simply for the sake of getting something for nothing.
Including THAT information in our comprehensive sex ed, more than any other aspect has dropped the number of accidental and unwanted pregnancies drastically as well.

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2011 2:48 pm**

Moronist Decisions wrote:The gnomes just check that you have access; it doesn't actually do it if you actually made sure there was access.

We have to worship and maybe start making regular tributes to the DoT.

We like this. *chitter* Nyarf. =^_^=

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2011 4:04 pm**

Glen-Rhodes wrote: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.

A right to access is not necessarily a state's obligation to educate you on it, you're implying something that the letter of law does not stipulate.

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2011 4:34 pm**

The Reduction of Abortion Act was not and is not a "feel good" proposal hastily put together without thought, as Ambassador Koopman suggests. In fact, it was a carefully crafted compromise -- something he seeks to exploit in attacking it. The proposal was something I kicked around for a couple years, had a drafting thread for a couple weeks in which numerous nations contributed, and then passed after thorough discussion.

Because abortion is often a result of unwanted pregnancies, fetal abnormalities, medical problems, rape, incest, or other avoidable and/or tragic circumstances, removing the cause of such situations is a far better alternative to (and empirically more effective than) laws against abortion. Thus, whether one is "pro-choice" or "pro-life," one should support the goals of the Reduction of Abortion Act. Contrary to Dr. Castro's opinion, there is nothing inconsistent about strongly supporting women's rights and reproductive rights and the RAA. They are, in fact, complementary. Also, as even this repeal recognizes, there are independent benefits of alleviating or preventing such situations.

This was a "Mild" proposal that primarily relied on urging nations to take action and allowing the WHA to take action in accordance with national and local laws. This was specifically a compromise to those who feel strongly about National Sovereignty. Several of the most prominent NatSov nations of the time contributed to the drafting of this proposal.

On the other hand, this proposal does not do nothing. At a minimum, it creates a concrete right to access to information that might otherwise be denied by a nation. And, to all but the most stubbornly non-compliant, it creates new resources and opportunities for access to abortion reduction services, research into abortion, and technology sharing. If the RRA did anything more, Ambassador Koopman would be complaining about that!

It is rather incongruous for Ambassador Koopman to, on the one hand, claim the RRA allows the WA to completely take over "critical national health policies from the purview of Member States" and, on the other hand, claim the RRA does nothing!

As for the "abstinence" nonsense, I will say only two things:

(1) Would Ambassador Koopman support a replacement of the RRA that was identical except for the "abstinence education" language? Or is that just a convenient hook?

(2) As stated here, how can the RRA be interpreted to support abstinence-only education?

With that, I am done with these shenanigans. Do as thou wilt.

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:45 pm**

The Cat-Tribe wrote:With that, I am done with these shenanigans. Do as thou wilt.

Can't miss you until you're gone, Ambassador. Seriously, your delegation is like one of those stores that has a "Going Out Of Business" sale for twenty years. Stay or go, already.

That being said, we support this repeal, as we don't see anything in the resolution in question that can't be done on the national level without micromanaging.

-Sophie Fournier, Delegate of Lavinium and Confederate WA Ambassador

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2011 11:43 pm**

The Cat-Tribe wrote:(1) Would Ambassador Koopman support a replacement of the RRA that was identical except for the "abstinence education" language? Or is that just a convenient hook?

I would not. The repeal gives multiple reasons why the resolution is, in fact, bad.

The Cat-Tribe wrote:(2) As stated here, how can the RRA be interpreted to support abstinence-only education?

As I already stated myself (so why restate huh!) the actual text of the resolution does it support abstinence education, and your long-winded 'reference material' doesn't change this fact.

The Cat-Tribe wrote:With that, I am done with these shenanigans. Do as thou wilt.

[/quote]

Bye The Cat Tribe.

So. That being done, any suggestions for improvements of text and grammar, possible illegalities etc?

Posted: **Tue Jun 21, 2011 5:46 am**

The Altani Confederacy wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:With that, I am done with these shenanigans. Do as thou wilt.

Can't miss you until you're gone, Ambassador. Seriously, your delegation is like one of those stores that has a "Going Out Of Business" sale for twenty years. Stay or go, already.

That being said, we support this repeal, as we don't see anything in the resolution in question that can't be done on the national level without micromanaging.

-Sophie Fournier, Delegate of Lavinium and Confederate WA Ambassador

Posted: **Tue Jun 21, 2011 6:19 am**

I'll be submitting this when the current abortion vote ends. Would anyone care to provide some more helpful comments or to read through it line by line?

Posted: **Tue Jun 21, 2011 6:25 am**

Do you have a planned replacement?

Posted: **Tue Jun 21, 2011 6:28 am**

No. The World Assembly has 18,328 member nations and any of them can write a replacement.

Posted: **Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:27 am**

Good to see this going through.

I essentially have three things on my "Abortion To-Do List":
1. Support this
2. Help refine and support EY's proposal
3. Strangle any other delegation who mentions abortion ever again.

Posted: **Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:38 am**

Darenjo wrote:Good to see this going through.

I essentially have three things on my "Abortion To-Do List":
1. Support this
2. Help refine and support EY's proposal
3. Strangle any other delegation who mentions abortion ever again.

While I may agree with 2 and 3, I am persuaded by Uni's arguement, which is so well thought out, I'll quote it again in its fullness for everyone to consider.

Unibot II wrote: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.

OOC: Kenny's ethics proposal is also not contradicting to the Reduction of Abortion and is fully compatible, I believe. That's the beauty of Reduction of Abortion.

Koopman's proposal is a lie. NOTHING in Reduction of Abortion says that member-nations do not maintain their own ability to write literature on sex education, 5.b states that the WA will coordinate its own research and publish, but nowhere in the bill does the letter of the law actually state that the WA and member-nations cannot conduct their own research and publish their own research independently. The burden of proof lies on Koopman to find this clause which simply does not exist.

"DEEPLY CONCERNED" of this repeal uses misleading language, Koopman's 'think-of-the-children' rhetoric neglects to inform readers that GA#44 does not require students to be actively taught about abortion reduction services. The resolution specifically writes : "AFFIRMS the right of individuals to access information regarding abortion reduction services". It affirms that as an individual you have the right to read literature on many things including, yes, abstinence. Should we ought to limit the right to information? No. Does GA#44 mandate this information be taught in classrooms? No. GA#44 simply says an individual has the right to access this information.

Why should we not limit the right to information? (1) If a belief is true but thought to false, whether or not Koopman believes it to be true, people can benefit from it and re-declare/declare it as true information, (2) If a belief is false but thought to be true, through reading, discourse and thought -- these myths can be exposed as false, (3) if a belief is true and known to be true, you're hiding beneficial information from the people, (4) If a belief is false and known to be false, its existence will allow it to be considered and ultimately rejected by those who argue it -- allowing the reasons for the information's rejection to be freshly circulated and not forgotten.

I am OPPOSED to this repeal and indefinitely roll my eyes at Koopman's inability to either, (1) read clearly and interpret without aimlessly including his own strawman clauses as c.4½, c.4¼ ...ect. into resolutions' text other than his own, or, (2) withdraw his agenda of hackery and political deception.

Posted: **Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:47 am**

@Berg - I read Uni's argument. Despite being slightly combative, it was well-planned and thought out.

However, the thing about repeals is that, when a repeal comes up, I usually just read the original. If I don't like the resolution, I tend to vote for the repeal even if there are inaccuracies or fallacies. This repeal is not perfect, by any means. But RoAA can easily be handled at a sub-national level, therefore I don't see the need for it to be a WA resolution.

Posted: **Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:16 am**

Darenjo wrote:But RoAA can easily be handled at a sub-national level, therefore I don't see the need for it to be a WA resolution.

OOC: "can" =/= "will"...

Posted: **Tue Jun 21, 2011 1:17 pm**

"Reduction of Abortion" is a mild, watery, feel-good piece of fluff that "AFFIRMS" and "URGES" all over the place, but when it comes to actually mandating something, it comes up with this gem:

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,

Giving a lovely list of things that are nice to do if we want to reduce abortion is a half-measure and falls far short of improving mandatory reproductive health education in World Assembly member-states, but turning right around and saying "you can do these things as long as it isn't against the law where you are" is the worst kind of legal self-emasculation. It's full of encouragement and hope and the helping hand of the World Assembly, but is ultimately mild and needs to be replaced with something more meaningful.

The States-Federation supports repeal.

Dr. Nëmô Kassäty Taranton
Minister of WA Affairs
States-Federation of Snefaldia

Posted: **Tue Jun 28, 2011 12:22 pm**

Okay, so ... I cocked it up. I intended to grab the list of delegates who had voted against the repeal of "On Abortion", but instead I spent more time drinking Pink Bunny Cola and playing a game of magical Twister in the offices of the Krioval delegation. If anyone happens to have a fairly current list of pro-choice or otherwise fluffy on human rights delegates (preferably a list of delegates who endorsed resolutions) I would be much obliged!

If not, this topic may be put in the freezer until something vaguely human-rights or preferably abortion related comes up again.

Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

Posted: **Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:31 am**

Since it looks like another vote on the subject of abortion is coming up, the pushing of this act will be revived when that particular resolution reaches the floor. This leaves everyone with.. hmm.. about a week to give more commentary on improving this repeal!

Posted: **Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:34 am**

Knootoss wrote:Since it looks like another vote on the subject of abortion is coming up, the pushing of this act will be revived when that particular resolution reaches the floor. This leaves everyone with.. hmm.. about a week to give more commentary on improving this repeal!

I'm not too optimistic about it achieving quorum.

Posted: **Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:37 am**

Perhaps a statement that the effectiveness of the methods of "abortion reduction" in the RRA, although appreciated, is questionable?

Posted: **Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:38 am**

EY Diplomatic Headquarters wrote:
Knootoss wrote:Since it looks like another vote on the subject of abortion is coming up, the pushing of this act will be revived when that particular resolution reaches the floor. This leaves everyone with.. hmm.. about a week to give more commentary on improving this repeal!

I'm not too optimistic about it achieving quorum.

OOC: You only need 10 more approvals in 18 hours? Get off your lazy ass and send out some telegrams! I haven't endorsed it myself because I don't actually agree with it but... here. Just this once. /endorses.

9 more approvals in 18 hours.

Posted: **Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:38 am**

EY Diplomatic Headquarters wrote:Perhaps a statement that the effectiveness of the methods of "abortion reduction" in the RRA, although appreciated, is questionable?

I don't know. Are they?

Posted: **Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:41 am**

Knootoss wrote:
EY Diplomatic Headquarters wrote:Perhaps a statement that the effectiveness of the methods of "abortion reduction" in the RRA, although appreciated, is questionable?

I don't know. Are they?

Effectiveness is uncountable, honoured ambassador. Well, like you have mentioned, abstinence, counseling, sex education etc. may fail at times.

OOC: Well, it happens to be Independence Day in the US, so many delegates are inactive.

Posted: **Thu Jul 14, 2011 7:23 am**

This resolution has been submitted! Please endorse it here!.

NationStates

[CONTESTED] Repeal: Reduction of Abortion Act

This should be my last post - ever.