NationStates Jolt Archive

Contrary to what some may assume, this is NOT a resolution about the legality or illegality of abortion, whether abortion is a right, or whether abortion is moral.*

NOTE: SUBMITTED. Please approve here (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=reduction).

The following is my first attempt at drafting a WA Resolution. Please provide comments, especially constructive criticism.

I would note that I am particularly uncertain about the appropriate category and effect designation for this proposal.

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

Category: Social Justice
Effect: 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.

Comments, suggestions, outraged denunciations?

FWIW, I checked the rules for WA Proposals (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) and they expressly say 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 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14370325&postcount=33) creates the World Health Agency and WHA offices in member states.

*I'm not implying that anyone in this thread has misunderstood my proposal, but merely hope to encourage those who might turn away simply because of assumed subject matter.

EDIT: Re second draft -- dropped repetitive language by creating a definition clause.

EDIT2: Re third draft -- fixed numbering error, changed definition clause by adding numbers, changing "abstinence education" to "abstinence-plus education, and adding "all of the following" language.

EDIT3: Re fourth draft -- minor punctuation correction, dropped "-plus" from "abstinence education"

EDIT4: Re fifth draft -- minor grammatical change to "believing" clause

EDIT5: Changed strength (due to change in Clause 5a); made other changes (or changes similar to those) suggested here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14659936&postcount=27) by the Esteemed Ambassador from Omigodtheykilledkenny

EDIT6: Made multiple changes based on feedback from Esteemed Ambassadors, Sam Palleel (Powerhungry Chipmunks) and Dr. Lois Merrywether (Quintessence of Dust). Not sure about the new "BELIEVING" clause.

This would be Social Justice, not Human Rights. I would avoid using "Reproductive Freedom" in the title, since the resolution doesn't seem to establish reproductive freedoms, only the right to access information about family planning. We passed a resolution similar to this under the UN, called Accessible Family Planning - don't remember the res. number, but for assistance finding it on the list, it passed in August 2007. As the principle author of said resolution you have my permission to use whatever you like in the text, including the title. So long as this remains a resolution on accessing family-planning info, not legalizing abortion. ;)

Your use of the committee appears to be legal.

EDIT: I would suggest under Clause 4a that the qualifier "in accordance with national and local laws" (or something similar) be added.

Wonderful. It is a beacon in zen resolution-writing. The middle-way.

Unfortunately the title won't fit the space for submission. (Which I learned the hard way)

I'd just wanted to see included, for the benefit of high-technology nations as mine, or the ones who pursue such high-tech, a mention or promotion of ectogenesis (http://www.religioustolerance.org/abowomb.htm). It has had wonderful results in my nation, and has groundbreaking promise worldwide.

World Health Authority

And if the resolution containing the WHA gets repealed?

________________

Or is it just a general title not an organization?

From another topic:

This sort of situation has also occurred, and been discussed, in the past. The consensus reached (OOC: and approved by the Mods) then was that an organisation created by one resolution can legally be given further powers by later resolutions too, and in that case the repeal of the law in which it originated will still leave it in existence with those later powers -- having lost only its original ones -- without any "House of Cards" violation.

(EDIT: but only mention the actual organisation, not the resolution that created it...)

I would take out anything that points to a previous resolution, it's not illegal to do so, but we had a problem back in the old days where a resolution rellied heavily on another one that ended up getting replealed. It was a mess.

Unfortunately the title won't fit the space for submission. (Which I learned the hard way)For future reference: This limit would seem to be 30 characters, including spaces.

We must presume that the repeated references to "abstinence" within this statute are a an attempt to mollify the more self deluded member nations of this organisation. But since the teaching of abstinence has no where to our knowledge actually decreased the numbers of abortions performed, we cannot see the utility in providing information about this "method" ( though we hesitate to even call it that ) to our citizens, who in any case already know that if they do not have sex they will not get pregnant, and we would resent being forced to do so.

Indeed it would be at variance with thousands of years of our culture to allow instruction in misinformation to influence the personal choices of our citizens and would be deeply odious to us.

Surely providing the kind of comprehensive sex education which we hope it is the intention of this resolution to promote would obviate the need to tell people that if they do not have sex they will not become pregnant. It is after all axiomatic.

Oh and the requirement to invest in this ludicrous fallacy refered to as "Abstinece education" in this statute would meet with utter disgust by our government and our people.

Yours,

I would think the effect this would have would be strong, as most member nations are either really against abortion, and some have total freedom with it, but more are against. If I had the opportunity, I would vote "for" this. Good luck and I hope it gets through to be voted on by the rest of us.

We concur that this is a matter of Social Justice rather than Human Rights, and find ourselves in need of a little convincing regarding the strength of effect. The entire power of the resolution hangs on the duties assigned to the WHA -- with respect, it doesn't matter how strongly one urges, nothing will be done where it is most needed. As it stands, those duties just hover on the edge of Significance in our eyes. Were they to be weakened in line with the Kennyite Ambassador's suggestions, we would be much more inclined to call this Mild.

This would be Social Justice, not Human Rights.

Thanks for the advice. Fixed.

I would avoid using "Reproductive Freedom" in the title, since the resolution doesn't seem to establish reproductive freedoms, only the right to access information about family planning.

Again, thank you for the advice. Fixed.

We passed a resolution similar to this under the UN, called Accessible Family Planning - don't remember the res. number, but for assistance finding it on the list, it passed in August 2007. As the principle author of said resolution you have my permission to use whatever you like in the text, including the title.

I must admit that I had already reviewed past resolutions of this body and the UN, including Accessible Family Planning, and shamelessly stolen ideas and some wording. :$ Thank you for the express permission.

So long as this remains a resolution on accessing family-planning info, not legalizing abortion. ;)

Agreed. Although I might hope this resolution makes bans on abortion seem less necessary to some, I am expressly avoiding any position on the subject of abortion's legality or illegality in this resolution.

Your use of the committee appears to be legal.

Thank you. I agree.

EDIT: I would suggest under Clause 4a that the qualifier "in accordance with national and local laws" (or something similar) be added.

Mmmm. For now, I think I will not add this provision, as it would significantly weaken the resolution. I understand that may cause some opposition to the resolution on national sovereignty grounds. I may well be convinced to change my mind and settle on a mild strength.

Wonderful. It is a beacon in zen resolution-writing. The middle-way.

Thank you for your praise.

Unfortunately the title won't fit the space for submission. (Which I learned the hard way)

Thanks. Fixed.

I'd just wanted to see included, for the benefit of high-technology nations as mine, or the ones who pursue such high-tech, a mention or promotion of ectogenesis (http://www.religioustolerance.org/abowomb.htm). It has had wonderful results in my nation, and has groundbreaking promise worldwide.

Although ectogenesis has great potential for good, including making abortion a non-issue, it also has great potential for abuse and could be highly controversial. I'm not convinced I should include this technology within the scope of my proposal.

And if the resolution containing the WHA gets repealed?

Under the rules cited in the OP, the WHA would continue to exist for the purposes of this resolution.

I would take out anything that points to a previous resolution, it's not illegal to do so, but we had a problem back in the old days where a resolution rellied heavily on another one that ended up getting replealed. It was a mess.

My proposal complies with the rules concerning house of cards problems.

I could create a new agency to carry out the tasks my proposal assigns to the WHA, but that seems unnecessary and perhaps cumbersome. Rather than create more WA bureaucracy, it seemed best to use an existing body with related duties.

Again, I could be persuaded to change this if others are truly upset by the reference to the WHA.

I would think the effect this would have would be strong, as most member nations are either really against abortion, and some have total freedom with it, but more are against. If I had the opportunity, I would vote "for" this. Good luck and I hope it gets through to be voted on by the rest of us.

Thank you. I share your hopes.

We concur that this is a matter of Social Justice rather than Human Rights,

Thanks for the advice. Fixed.

and find ourselves in need of a little convincing regarding the strength of effect. The entire power of the resolution hangs on the duties assigned to the WHA -- with respect, it doesn't matter how strongly one urges, nothing will be done where it is most needed. As it stands, those duties just hover on the edge of Significance in our eyes. Were they to be weakened in line with the Kennyite Ambassador's suggestions, we would be much more inclined to call this Mild.

Thanks for your advice. As I mentioned, I was very unsure about the strength of effect. I agree with your analysis. Weakening the resolution as suggested would definitely make it mild.

We must presume that the repeated references to "abstinence" within this statute are a an attempt to mollify the more self deluded member nations of this organisation. But since the teaching of abstinence has no where to our knowledge actually decreased the numbers of abortions performed, we cannot see the utility in providing information about this "method" ( though we hesitate to even call it that ) to our citizens, who in any case already know that if they do not have sex they will not get pregnant, and we would resent being forced to do so.

Indeed it would be at variance with thousands of years of our culture to allow instruction in misinformation to influence the personal choices of our citizens and would be deeply odious to us.

Surely providing the kind of comprehensive sex education which we hope it is the intention of this resolution to promote would obviate the need to tell people that if they do not have sex they will not become pregnant. It is after all axiomatic.

Oh and the requirement to invest in this ludicrous fallacy refered to as "Abstinece education" in this statute would meet with utter disgust by our government and our people.

Yours,

To be clear, I am NOT referencing abstinence-only sex education, which I fully agree is ineffective, objectionable, and even counter-productive.

Instead, I am not promoting the teaching of misinformation or unscientific data. I am simply talking about teaching (particularly to young people) that abstinence is a good option for avoiding pregnancy (and sexually transmitted diseases). Although abstinence-only programs are notoriously ineffective, teaching about abstinence itself is not without positive effect.

Admittedly, the references to abstinence education are somewhat redundant because most good comprehensive sex education programs emphasize the benefits and safety of abstinence, but also provide information on contraception, safe sex, etc. You are therefore correct that the specific mention of abstinence education is, in part, designed to appeal to those that may have different perspectives. As the resolution is written, however, I simply don't see the harm in the reference.

Please, please enlighten me if there are further reasons why I should eliminate the reference to abstinence education.

To be clear, I am NOT referencing abstinence-only sex education, which I fully agree is ineffective, objectionable, and even counter-productive.

Instead, I am not promoting the teaching of misinformation or unscientific data. I am simply talking about teaching (particularly to young people) that abstinence is a good option for avoiding pregnancy (and sexually transmitted diseases). Although abstinence-only programs are notoriously ineffective, teaching about abstinence itself is not without positive effect.

Admittedly, the references to abstinence education are somewhat redundant because most good comprehensive sex education programs emphasize the benefits and safety of abstinence, but also provide information on contraception, safe sex, etc. You are therefore correct that the specific mention of abstinence education is, in part, designed to appeal to those that may have different perspectives. As the resolution is written, however, I simply don't see the harm in the reference.

Please, please enlighten me if there are further reasons why I should eliminate the reference to abstinence education.



The implication that what you are referring to in the statute is an abstinence only education is manifest in referring to it in isolation. As you admit that that was the impression you hoped to create, we would therefore have to read those references to mean Abstinence only method, from a legal perspective we would have to at least accept that this was one way of interpreting those references even if we were to also accept other readings.

Nowhere does the statute make it optional for states to waste there time with the nonsense of Abstinence only ideas and indeed it makes it mandatory for member states to invest funding in this from of miseducation.

We could perhaps accept that our government be forced to offer information about Abstinence only ideas, but we could not submit to being forced to lavish government funding on such programs.

If you make the teaching and funding of Abstinence only methods completely optional you will have our support for this statute.


Yours,

The implication that what you are referring to in the statute is an abstinence only education is manifest in referring to it in isolation. As you admit that that was the impression you hoped to create, we would therefore have to read those references to mean Abstinence only method, from a legal perspective we would have to at least accept that this was one way of interpreting those references even if we were to also accept other readings.

Nowhere does the statute make it optional for states to waste there time with the nonsense of Abstinence only ideas and indeed it makes it mandatory for member states to invest funding in this from of miseducation.

We could perhaps accept that our government be forced to offer information about Abstinence only ideas, but we could not submit to being forced to lavish government funding on such programs.

If you make the teaching and funding of Abstinence only methods completely optional you will have our support for this statute.


Yours,

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

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.

I'm not conviced it is necessary or prudent, but I wish to know if adding a clause expressly condemning (or banning or somesuch) abstinence-only programs would alleviate your concerns?

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.

That isn't what we said. But we presume that the misunderstanding is caused by our failure to communicate our concern properly.

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.

So these services and education are to be invested in as a package, and not in isolation to one another ? That package being "abortion prevention services" ?

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.

Please honoured Ambassador do not misunderstand us, we are not accusing the esteemed delegation of Cat-Tribe of conciously trying to inveigle abstinence only education in to this statute, and thence in to member state's law. We are merely concerned that loose language will make it possible for such teaching to gain a legal footing by claiming protection under this law.

I'm not conviced it is necessary or prudent, but I wish to know if adding a clause expressly condemning (or banning or somesuch) abstinence-only programs would alleviate your concerns?

Perhaps a condemnation is too strong ( though it would be gratifying ) but an expressed qualification of the word "abstinence" in the list of "abortion prevention services" would do.


Yours,

So these services and education are to be invested in as a package, and not in isolation to one another ? That package being "abortion prevention services" ?

Yes, they are intended as a package of services. I have added language to the definitions clause to make this more clear.



Please honoured Ambassador do not misunderstand us, we are not accusing the esteemed delegation of Cat-Tribe of conciously trying to inveigle abstinence only education in to this statute, and thence in to member state's law. We are merely concerned that loose language will make it possible for such teaching to gain a legal footing by claiming protection under this law.

Perhaps a condemnation is too strong ( though it would be gratifying ) but an expressed qualification of the word "abstinence" in the list of "abortion prevention services" would do.

Let me know if the new language of the definitions clause suffices.

Thanks for your intelligent input.

We imagine that the "plus" is probably surplus to requirement in this phrase,

including all of the following: (1) abstinence-plus education,

"Including all of the following" will suffice since it qualifies the succeeding phrases. Though it could read "including as a minimum..." in order to allow member states to fill out the package of services according to their ability and inclination to do so.


Yours,

Although abstinence-only programs are notoriously ineffective
OOC: in RL, maybe so... in your own NS nation, maybe so... but it's highly likely that there are some NS nations where such programmes are the main aproach to this problem and they work.

OOC: in RL, maybe so... in your own NS nation, maybe so... but it's highly likely that there are some NS nations where such programmes are the main aproach to this problem and they work.

I'm not sure if this amounts to an objection to my proposal or any language therein.

OCC: In RL, it isn't "maybe so." It IS SO. And it is no more likely that such programs work in some NS nations that it is likely that some NS nations defy the laws of gravity.

I'm not sure if this amounts to an objection to my proposal or any language therein.

OCC: In RL, it isn't "maybe so." It IS SO. And it is no more likely that such programs work in some NS nations that it is likely that some NS nations defy the laws of gravity.OOC: You're godmoding... Deciding how the people of a NS nation think is up to that nation's own player, and you can't just say that they must think in some specific way. Cultures in NS vary very widely after all (and, after all, not all of them are even Human... or not entirely so...), and one can get some quite surprising results by a careful choice of answers to the daily issues. Trying to rule out the possibility of strongly moral cultures is no more valid than trying to rule out the possibility of ones where Communism actually works, or ones where all people are genuinely religious, or -- for that matter -- ones whose people are so innately un-religious that the idea of worshipping anything has simply never occurred to any of them... and yes, before you ask, I have seen NS nations for which each of those possibilities was claimed to be the case by their players.
For example, take a look at Godwinnia (http://www.nationstates.net/nation=godwinnia) -- my own original nation -- where an extremely high rate of political rights is balanced by a very low level of 'civil' ones because that's what the people have freely voted for, and the crime rate is extremely low too despite there being almost no police (according to the 'Highest Police Ratio' stat, every time that I've seen that calculated during the last three years...). The population there clearly has a very strong 'conservative'/'moralistic' ethos, and so such programmes should be highly effective for them...

And as for the "defy the laws of gravity" bit, considering the variety of nations around, I wouldn't entirely rule that out either...
Flib, isn't your nation based in "flying islands" of some sort?

OOC: You're godmoding... Deciding how the people of a NS nation think is up to that nation's own player, and you can't just say that they must think in some specific way. Cultures in NS vary VERY widely after all (and, after all, not all of them are even Human... or not entirely so...), and one can get some quite surprising results by a careful choice of answers to the daily issues.
For example, take a look at Godwinnia (http://www.nationstates.net/nation=godwinnia) -- my own original nation -- where an extremely high rate of political rights is balanced by a very low level of 'civil' ones because that's what the people have freely voted for, and the crime rate is extremely low too despite there being almost no police (according to the 'Highest Police Ratio' stat, every time that I've seen that calculated during the last three years...). The population there clearly has a very strong 'conservative'/'moralistic' ethos, and so such programmes should be highly effective for them...

And as for the "defy the laws of gravity" bit, considering the variety of nations around, I wouldn't entirely rule that out either...
Flib, isn't your nation based in "flying islands" of some sort?

First, let me be clear that I welcome any commentary and am pleased you are posting in this thread.

Second, I am still not clear if any of this is an objection to or criticism of any of the language or the purpose behind my resolution.

Third, although my resolution may be objectionable to those nations that which to teach abstinence-only and not provide any other information or services to reduce unwanted pregnancies or abortions, I think I can live with that and I hope it doesn't cause too much political opposition. I do expressly preserve and even require the provision of information and services regarding abstinence.

OCC: As I was speaking OCC, I'm not sure how I can be guilty of godmodding. As a matter of empirical experience in RL, abstinence-only education does not work and is even counter-productive. Although anything is theoretically possible in the wide variety of WA nations, some things are less probable than others and, IMHO, simply declaring "abstience-only education works in my nation" is closer to godmodding than anything I said.

Second, I am still not clear if any of this is an objection to or criticism of any of the language or the purpose behind my resolution.OOC: It's an objection to your apparent assumption that what works in RL (and in your NS nation) must be the only thing that works in all NS nations.
My personal attitude, and that of the government of the nation whose forum identity I'm using here, is that as the subject of this proposal doesn't affect the interactions between nations -- and isn't a matter of the most fundamental rights, unless one regards abortion as 'murder of unborn children, either -- it should rightfully be left to the national governments (or even to sub-national ones, if that's what the nations concerned prefer) for legislation rather than tackled by the WA.

OCC: As I was speaking OCC, I'm not sure how I can be guilty of godmodding. As a matter of empirical experience in RL, abstinence-only education does not work and is even counter-productive. Although anything is theoretically possible in the wide variety of WA nations, some things are less probable than others and, IMHO, simply declaring "abstience-only education works in my nation" is closer to godmodding than anything I said.But then I didn't "simply declare" that to be the case for Godwinnia, did I? What I did do was point out the evidence that the nation in question has a highly conservative/moralistic population, and suggest that that factor should make such programmes effective there. You do realise that the members of a culture wherein such values are so extensively held would be significantly less promiscuous than those of nations with more 'liberal' views, yes? No?

OOC: It's an objection to your apparent assumption that what works in RL (and in your NS nation) must be the only thing that works in all NS nations.
My personal attitude, and that of the government of the nation whose forum identity I'm using here, is that as the subject of this proposal doesn't affect the interactions between nations -- and isn't a matter of the most fundamental rights, unless one regards abortion as 'murder of unborn children, either -- it should rightfully be left to the national governments (or even to sub-national ones, if that's what the nations concerned prefer) for legislation rather than tackled by the WA.

But then I didn't "simply declare" that to be the case for Godwinnia, did I? What I did do was point out the evidence that the nation in question has a highly conservative/moralistic population, and suggest that that factor should make such programmes effective there. You do realise that the members of a culture wherein such values are so extensively held would be significantly less promiscuous than those of nations with more 'liberal' views, yes? No?

I apologize if my attitude offends.

The purpose of this resolution is to address what at least some of us consider international problems -- unwanted pregnancies, pregnancy complications, and the rate of abortion throughout the World Assembly nations -- in a way that does not touch upon the legality or illegality of abortion, the rights of the unborn, or the rights of women. This was intended as a compromise or "middle way" that protects the unborn for those concerned about them, while not infringing on what some consider fundamental rights.

Although I have so far rejected one suggestion that would make this resolution more solicitous of national sovereignty, I could be persuaded to make that change and I otherwise don't see any major violation of national sovereignty in this resolution.

Other than objecting to any resolution on the subject of abortion, do you have any objections to my proposal's specific language or intent?

OOC: You're godmoding... Deciding how the people of a NS nation think is up to that nation's own player, and you can't just say that they must think in some specific way. Cultures in NS vary very widely after all (and, after all, not all of them are even Human... or not entirely so...), and one can get some quite surprising results by a careful choice of answers to the daily issues. Trying to rule out the possibility of strongly moral cultures is no more valid than trying to rule out the possibility of ones where Communism actually works, or ones where all people are genuinely religious, or -- for that matter -- ones whose people are so innately un-religious that the idea of worshipping anything has simply never occurred to any of them... and yes, before you ask, I have seen NS nations for which each of those possibilities was claimed to be the case by their players.
For example, take a look at Godwinnia (http://www.nationstates.net/nation=godwinnia) -- my own original nation -- where an extremely high rate of political rights is balanced by a very low level of 'civil' ones because that's what the people have freely voted for, and the crime rate is extremely low too despite there being almost no police (according to the 'Highest Police Ratio' stat, every time that I've seen that calculated during the last three years...). The population there clearly has a very strong 'conservative'/'moralistic' ethos, and so such programmes should be highly effective for them...

And as for the "defy the laws of gravity" bit, considering the variety of nations around, I wouldn't entirely rule that out either...
Flib, isn't your nation based in "flying islands" of some sort?




O.O.C.Hold on its not Godmoding for the res to take a particular stance regarding abstinence only, particularly if its not explicit in the text. Its not like the res actually says, "Abstinence only does not work.."

Flib, isn't your nation based in "flying islands" of some sort?

Yup, we're a midair archipelago.

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.

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.

*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.

UPDATED DRAFT: see the OP (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14650107&postcount=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.

Happy to be of service. Good luck.

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.

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_past_resolutions/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

*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.

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.

UPDATED DRAFT in OP (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14650107&postcount=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:

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.

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.

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 :(

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.

I think I am near submitting this draft (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14650107&postcount=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:

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!!

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.

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.

SUBMITTED. Please approve here (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=reduction).

Thanks again to everyone for your input. :hail:

position of the republic Spain1, it is a right that every person can choose whether to abort DECEA

Good Luck!!