NationStates

Posted: **Thu Jul 14, 2011 7:30 am**

We shall abstain.

Posted: **Thu Jul 14, 2011 8:04 am**

Forgive me if I'm repeating what someone else has already said, because I haven't read through all the responses here.

GAR44 doesn't actually require that anyone (whether children or not) be exposed to abstinence education. It simply requires that all individuals have the right to access information about various topics (including abstinence).

National governments are not required to compel anyone, children or not, to view any information about any of the topics listed, including abstinence. National governments are not even required to provide the information at all, if there are non-governmental entities in the nation that provide said information. All that's required is that individuals have access to information.

I also would have prefered that abstinence not be mentioned in that resolution, but in my view it's not grounds for a repeal. All it means is that if someone asks about abstinence, someone has to tell them what abstinence is.

Posted: **Thu Jul 14, 2011 8:18 am**

If the resolution limited itself to point two that would be true. And that would've been okay. Unfortunately, the resolution also: "EXPANDS the mission of the World Health Authority and its offices in WA member states to include providing universal access to abortion reduction services" -- so it is not just a right of information that is being mandated.

Posted: **Thu Jul 14, 2011 8:35 am**

Okay, so the WHA provides access to information. That doesn't mean they're teaching "abstinence education" or giving young people a speech about how they should wait until marriage. The WHA office could have a flier that discusses all of the topics mandated by the resolution, of which one or two lines is devoted to abstinence. It could literally just say "Abstinence is not having sex. People who don't have sex generally don't get pregnant, and therefore don't need abortions." The WHA office could hand out this pamphlet to anyone who asks for it, and this would be in compliance with the resolution.

The resolution also says in the same clause "in accordance with national and local laws." If a government doesn't want its citizens to be under any pressure to be abstinent, then the government can prohibit the WHA office from applying such pressure, and require that any information the WHA office provides about abstinence be neutral and medically correct and not religious or judgmental in nature. If a government does want to pressure its young people to be abstinent, then it's surely doing so anyway (mandatory abstinence education in schools, etc.) regardless of the status of this resolution.

National and local governments get to dictate or limit what their WHA office says about these topics (because the provision by the WHA office of the information has to be "in accordance with national and local laws"), so long as it complies with the resolution (everyone has access to the information if they want it).

Posted: **Thu Jul 14, 2011 8:49 am**

I'm sorry, but the word access does not imply flyer, but a clear mandate for WA-run services. If you are drowning and I have to provide you with access to my lifeguard services, would you understand that to be as me tossing a flyer at you?

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

Posted: **Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:58 pm**

"We support this repeal. Not that abortions are necessary in Monkiah, but the fact of the matter is that issues related to reproduction are best handled on the national level. Also, the word repeal is in the title."

Posted: **Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:18 am**

I was going to post something.. but Unibot II, The Cat-Tribe [2] [3] [4] and others, have already done such a great job of saying all that need be said about this repeal.

Posted: **Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:03 am**

This repeal is now in queue!

Posted: **Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:37 pm**

After reading the original resolution I'm voting FOR.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2011 3:00 am**

This repeal has been removed on a technicality, no doubt courtesy of a GHR from an un-named party. However since the reason for deleting a proposal in queue is so especially flimsy, I've filed an appeal.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2011 7:54 am**

What's the reason?

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2011 8:09 am**

The only real /rule/ cited is that abstinence education as mentioned is a "Real life reference" somehow. This is so patently silly that I'm just going to sit out my appeal and wait for the mods to twist their justification for pulling this resolution into something that actually cites the rules. The good part is, the way that the mod who pulled this interprets the TCT resolution makes it completely and utterly optional, since one can just define abstinence education as "cheese".

Congratulations to the person who managed to kill one of my projects yet again through GHR-legalese rather than actual argument, though. I have a feeling who you are, and the favour will hopefully be returned some time soon. =)

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2011 8:23 am**

Knootoss wrote:I'm sorry, but the word access does not imply flyer, but a clear mandate for WA-run services. If you are drowning and I have to provide you with access to my lifeguard services, would you understand that to be as me tossing a flyer at you?

No, but if you had to provide me with access to information about your lifeguarding services, then a flier would suffice. It'd be a bit of a dick move, but you'd fulfill your legal obligation. I think you need to get a new prescription for your reading glasses, Koopman:

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

Your nation could fulfil its duties by making this information available in the basement of the national health office, where both the lights and the stairs had been removed, in an old filing cabinet locked in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying “Beware of the Leopard.” That is the only legal obligation in this resolution. (And since I know you're going to cite 5a, note that it says "in accordance with local and national laws", meaning you could have a local or national law saying that, while access to the information is legal, all of the services are illegal.) If you want to repeal it, you should repeal it for being a piece of lovey-dovey optional crap that does absolutely nothing.

-E. Rory Hywel
WA Ambassador for Embolalia

OOC: I'll absolutely agree that removing it for a "real-life reference" is just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Removing it for being completely misleading and claiming the proposal does things that it just flat out doesn't? That, I could understand.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2011 8:31 am**

I am baffled by the continued referral to clause 2 as some kind of strawman that I'm supposedly misreading, when I've pointed out time and again that the trouble is with clause 5a. The WA is mandated to provide ACCESS to SERVICES. Not information. Services. Maybe a larger font will help your reading skills:

5. EXPANDS the mission of the World Health Authority and its offices in WA memberstates to include: a. providing universal access to abortion reduction services in accordance with national and local laws,

While it is true that national governments can try to sabotage this WA mandate by passing strict national laws by, say, defining abstinence education as cheese, this is not the point. My repeal clearly states that the WA has no business running these services. And that we oppose abstinence education as a mandated WA service entirely.

The second delusion is that "in accordance with national laws" somehow means that WA Member States will continue to provide these services themselves. The resolution says the opposite. The World Assembly bureaucracy will be responsible for providing access to abstinence education, the condoms, and everything else -- but it has to abide by local laws while doing so. As bolded and underlined text will hopefully show you. I am getting pretty sick of the campaign of disinformation that is being waged her, in favour of what the resolution actually says, in plain English.

And no, it would not be run from the basement of our health ministries, but by independent WA offices established in all our nations.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2011 8:46 am**

So pass zoning laws saying that international governmental agencies can only be placed in the middle of rural, mountainous regions! (Or even pass a law saying that international agencies can't provide information about abortion services. As long as someone is providing the information, and the WHA is allowed to provide the services themselves, you're within your duties.) There's nothing that says the WHA has to be the only provider of abortion services, or information about them. (Nor is there anything that says the WHA has to provide the information, only the services themselves.) Look, the resolution is poorly written and worthless, I'll give you that, but your repeal is straight up wrong.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2011 8:57 am**

Embolalia wrote:So pass zoning laws saying that international governmental agencies can only be placed in the middle of rural, mountainous regions! (Or even pass a law saying that international agencies can't provide information about abortion services.

Knootoss has no rural, mountainous regions. And this is besides the point. I want to repeal the resolution, not sabotage it.

Embolalia wrote: As long as someone is providing the information, and the WHA is allowed to provide the services themselves, you're within your duties.)

I do not want the WHA to provide the services such as abstinence education. (Not information. Services. Are you deliberately using the word from clause 2 again where it does not apply?)

Embolalia wrote: There's nothing that says the WHA has to be the only provider of abortion services, or information about them.

So? I see no reason for the WA to provide them. Whether I or anyone else would chose to provide them in addition to what the WA must do as part of this resolution is completely besides the point. Or is it now illegal to question the fact that the benevolent world assembly is sticking its nose in an affair where it has no business whatsoever?

Embolalia wrote: (Nor is there anything that says the WHA has to provide the information, only the services themselves.)

Err... wrong. clause two makes it provide the information. Clause 5a makes it provide services. Sure, my own government could spend additional money on counterpropaganda, after having already paid through the general fund for WA-sponsored abstinence education, but this is just doubly a waste of money.

Embolalia wrote: Look, the resolution is poorly written and worthless, I'll give you that, but your repeal is straight up wrong.

We agree that the repeal is poorly written and worthless, but I do ask that you (and the moderators) read clause 5a and draw the obvious conclusion about what it says.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:46 am**

Knootoss wrote:The only real /rule/ cited is that abstinence education as mentioned is a "Real life reference" somehow. This is so patently silly that I'm just going to sit out my appeal and wait for the mods to twist their justification for pulling this resolution into something that actually cites the rules. The good part is, the way that the mod who pulled this interprets the TCT resolution makes it completely and utterly optional, since one can just define abstinence education as "cheese".

Congratulations to the person who managed to kill one of my projects yet again through GHR-legalese rather than actual argument, though. I have a feeling who you are, and the favour will hopefully be returned some time soon. =)

Just somebody being asinine and only did it because they don't like you. If abstinence is real life reference then the original, should have never went through. Shit, every single resolution and proposal should be removed for having real life words since shit they're all from the real world.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2011 11:41 am**

Yeah, I have to disagree with the assertion that "abstinence education" is a real life reference, especially when the target of the repeal contains the exact same phrase.

Taking another look at GAR44, I see that Knootoss is right about one thing. The resolution does require the WHA to provide the services themselves, and not just information about them.

Clause 5a (reformatted for simplicity) says:

EXPANDS the mission of the World Health Authority and its offices in WA member states to include providing universal access to abortion reduction services in accordance with national and local laws

It's the services universal access to which is being provided by the WHA, not information about the services.

"Abortion reduction services" are defined earlier in the resolution as:

(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

so basically clause 5a says:

EXPANDS the mission of the World Health Authority and its offices in WA member states to include providing universal 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, in accordance with national and local laws

This is what Knoot is objecting to. The WHA is, in accordance with national and local laws, itself providing adoption services, condoms, medical care for pregnant women, sex education, counseling and "abstinence education."

Even graning this, though, I still oppose this repeal, for three reasons:

1. The "in accordance with national and local laws" bit still provides an adequate loophole that allows nations to restrict which services the WHA can provide.

2. I don't object to the WHA providing any of those services except for "abstinence education," as I believe that all of these services, save for "abstinence education," are good and necessary things in themselves. (I'm disregarding the "prevention of incest" goal of one of them, which is odd seeing how GAR16 requires that consensual incest be legal.)

3. Even to the extent that the resolution allows the WHA to provide "abstinence education," it only has to provide it to those who want to receive it. No one has to be indoctrinated against their will. No one has to be exposed to "abstinence education" at all. The WHA can just tell anyone who explicitly asks about abstinence what it is.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2011 12:02 pm**

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.

This statement is seconded.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2011 12:11 pm**

Random nations posting with literal quotes of Unibot/GR and completely ignoring the rebuttals seems to be the trend in this thread. After all, why formulate your own argument when you can just quote someone? Repetition makes an argument stronger. Right?

Wrong.

The argument that nations can set up their own sex education system and hand out free condoms, in parallel to the same things that the WA is doing and that you are paying for through the General Fund, is just obscenely ludicrous.

While I can understand that Quelesh, as an International Federalist from Dharma, does want the WA to provide these services, it is especially grating that a campaign of disinformation is being waged about what the resolution actually does. Since quoting rather than making your own arguments is the trend here, let me do the same:

so basically clause 5a says:

EXPANDS the mission of the World Health Authority and its offices in WA member states to include providing universal 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, in accordance with national and local laws

This is what Knoot is objecting to. The WHA is, in accordance with national and local laws, itself providing adoption services, condoms, medical care for pregnant women, sex education, counseling and "abstinence education."

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2011 12:33 pm**

Knootoss wrote:Random nations posting with literal quotes of Unibot/GR and completely ignoring the rebuttals seems to be the trend in this thread. After all, why formulate your own argument when you can just quote someone? Repetition makes an argument stronger. Right?

For the record, Unibot and I disagree with each other about this repeal... I still plan on voting for this repeal, as I said when it was first proposed.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2011 12:44 pm**

Knootoss wrote:This repeal has been removed on a technicality, no doubt courtesy of a GHR from an un-named party.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2011 1:12 pm**

Glen-Rhodes wrote:
Knootoss wrote:Random nations posting with literal quotes of Unibot/GR and completely ignoring the rebuttals seems to be the trend in this thread. After all, why formulate your own argument when you can just quote someone? Repetition makes an argument stronger. Right?

For the record, Unibot and I disagree with each other about this repeal... I still plan on voting for this repeal, as I said when it was first proposed.

I know, G-R. And I am grateful for your support.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2011 1:21 pm**

Knootoss wrote:The only real /rule/ cited is that abstinence education as mentioned is a "Real life reference" somehow.

I didn't see this before. The admin who removed the proposal for 'abstinence education' being a real-world reference should apologize for such a ridiculous action. That's the equivalent of saying that 'free trade' or 'international law' are real-world references. There is something wrong with how the moderation system works if they seriously removed the proposal for that. I hope you'll update us with their justification, Knootoss.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2011 1:40 pm**

For the sake of full clarity, lest I be accused ot strawmanning, the TG informing me that the proposal was removed said I "Misunderstood" it and raises the same misinterpretation that I already cleared up with Quelesh. The Real World point is the only Hackian rule cited. In its full extent, it is:

2. RoAA includes a range of action to be taken in regards to reducing abortion. These actions include and are not limited to comprehensive education, which can include brief instruction on abstinence. Your clause on the subject states in no uncertain terms that this resolution [...]forces Member States to expose their children to so-called 'abstinence education' programmes[...]. This is, first, a reading based on the meaning of the term in a specific real-world situation, a RW program introduced during the term of a RW President in the RW United States. Your reading is not the generic meaning of the term.

Second, even if this restrictive, real-world meaning were admitted, this would be a valid point only if it were the sole requirement for sexual education.

The first paragraph is ... well, false. Because my concerns are based on paragraph 5a, which the mod that removed the proposal misunderstands. Even so, removing a resolution based on the assumed motive of the author is an interesting precedent to say the least. Calling it a Real World Reference is just.. insane.

The second line is just a value judgement. It should be up to the voters to decide if they're okay with the WA running abstinence education in addition to sex ed. If we needed anonymous mods to decide what's good for us, why have votes at all?

NationStates

[CONTESTED] Repeal: Reduction of Abortion Act