NationStates Jolt Archive

Due to unfortunate timing, I may have limited access to the internet while my resolution, the Reduction of Abortion Act (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=abortion), is at vote, so I thought I'd start an early discussion of it and lobby for votes.

The text of the resolution is below. This is NOT a resolution about the legality or illegality of abortion, whether abortion is a right, or whether abortion is moral.

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 of abortion, the rights of the unborn, or the rights of women. The resolution provides for information, services, research, and technology-sharing regarding abstinence, adoption, contraception, family-planning, comprehensive sex education, pre-natal services, obstetric services, post-natal services, prevention of rape, and prevention of incest. This is intended as a compromise or "middle way" that protects the unborn for those concerned about them and prevents women from undergoing avoidable medical procedures, while not infringing on what some consider fundamental rights or upon national sovereignty.

The text of the Resolution (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=abortion) is:

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.


I received considerable help and feedback regarding this proposal. The thread discussing the drafting of this proposal may be found here:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=588443

Your vote in favor of my Resolution would be greatly appreciated and I will be happy to answer any questions or concerns you might have. I hope to post some FAQ-type arguments in the next couple of days in support of the Resolution.

1. Does this resolution address the legality or illegality of abortion, whether abortion is a right, or whether abortion is moral?

No. The resolution is completely neutral on these issues. In fact, Clause 6 of the resolution states:
6. DECLARES that nothing in this resolution shall affect the power of member states to declare abortion legal or illegal or to pass legislation extending or restricting access to abortion

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

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

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

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

4. Does this resolution significantly infringe national sovereignty?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**OCC: In RL, some 700,000 women die each year from unsafe abortions. Although abortion can be a very safe procedure when legal but regulated, empowering women to avoid unnecessary medical procedures and make informed reproductive decisions is desirable.

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

The rules for WA Proposals (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) expressly says that "you may assign duties to an existing committee," such as the WHA. The rules further state that "[s]hould the Resolution that creates the committee be Repealed, the committee will continue to exist, but in a reduced capacity." World Assembly Resolution #31 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14370325&postcount=33) creates the World Health Agency and WHA offices in member states.

cat tribe. You already have my vote as promised before.
Keep up the good work, buddy.

From:
Archon Robert Ryan Fortier~ Hexx
Domination of Tanaara
Fatal Terrain
Sol System

To whom it may concern,

I am considering joining the WA, an organization that I -and my nation as a whole- despise, just to vote for this proposal. This is one of the few pieces of legislation to come before the WA that I approve of whole heartedly. Not only does it have my support but as of 18:45 CTT (Central Tanaaran Time )

Citizens ( by vote)

90.5% +
7.1% -
2.4% abstaining

Residents (by poll).

90.8% +
7.1% -
2.1% chose not to respond to this specific question

I must commend the author, and any who collaborated. It is an amazingly well written piece, and is very careful not trample on National Sovereignty. That is an issue which a matter of profound importance to the Domination of Tanaara.

Congratulations & Best Wishes on this issue passing muster,

Sincerely,

Robert Ryan Fortier~Hexx
Archon

OOC: I'll respond to this ICly when it comes up to vote. It'll be fun ^^

Gnoria is pleased to promise its vote in favor of this resolution when it comes up for vote. We congratulate the nation of The Cat-Tribe on its well-crafted and appropriate proposal.

Douglas Moore
Secy. to the WA

Thanks to those who have pledged support and/or praised the resolution. As I mentioned in my OP, I had a great deal of help from other Ambassadors in drafting the proposal.

OOC: I'll respond to this ICly when it comes up to vote. It'll be fun ^^

OCC: Unfortunately, as I said in the OP, my participation when this comes to vote will likely be very limited due to unforseen RL complications.

The Republic of YinAbsol also gives their support to this bill.

We will support this without doubt. We are pleased that an FAQ has been included.

Good luck and have cast our lot for this bill!!! This was alot of fun working on this one with you Cat-Tribe.

We're for it. Now if you don't mind me, I have to, erm, abort this stupid file download.

-Raymond Gardner, Plutonian delegate

Im opposed this should be for individual states to decide.

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.States would still have the power of declaring abortion legal or illegal within their own countries if this proposal were to pass.

Yes but all aspects of abortion policy should be decided by states. This is a moral issue and it is for each individual state to decide for themselves.

Yes but all aspects of abortion policy should be decided by states. This is a moral issue and it is for each individual state to decide for themselves.
With respect, you haven't identified what aspect of abortion policy this resolution denudes you of the right of legislating on.

Put it another way: you claim states should decide this issue. How, if this passes, would they be less able to do so?

-- Dr Lois Merrywether
WA Ambassador

Greetings, fellow leaders, senators, representatives, and Ambassadors. If I'm leaving anybody out, please excuse me. I look around and I see a lot of new faces-- because, for you, I'm sure my face is new. Allow me to introduce myself. I am a representative from the region of Yet To Be Decided, hailing from The Rogue Nation of Absolvability. I am newly joining you all in this World Assembly, and can see by the past two resolutions that this organization operates under sound ideals and good faith.

But is faith enough? One must also recognize human nature. For years, in my own nation, we have been struggling to educate our youth in the intricacies of sex and the reprecussions. To little avail. Children simply, regardless of compassion, may not be the audience for such discussions. If I may use a comparison-- prejudices in many countries are perpetuated by the overt conversations of political correctness, all be it correct indeed. We do not need to place the means and knowledge of these things in our children's hands.

The effort is admirable, but we may only make the problem worse. Not to mention, for nations like my own, who fund education highly, we'd rather invest in science than sex. Not to mention the sancitity of family. When did fathers lose the right to raise their own children? Especially in this regard?

It seems to me that this bill has many good qualities. Most of which have nothing to do with abortion. Medical advances to prevent miscarriages and premature births. Extensive care for mothers fresh from labor. Perhaps this increases basic welfare. Does it reduce income inequality? It seems to me that most people who have abortions may be of lesser income. Hence their decision; hence, I think, where our esteemed speaker "The Cat-Tribe" got the idea.

With freedom comes responsibility. Freedom must be, for the sake of justice, synonymous with Independence. It is not the job of hard working and well planned families to support those struggling. Perhaps that is our job. Perhaps it is their job. Perhaps people will begin getting pregnant for the sole purpose of recieving government Abortion Reduction grants. Perhaps orphanages will soon be flooded.

I would be glad to vote for this bill if it seemed to better address the issue. Often times, when things go wrong, you must find a new way to deal with it. You can't simply throw more money on the pile.

I'm against, because to me it seems like pressuring into not getting an abortion.It's not making it illegal, but it's still trying to make people not have an abortion.It can also make them ashamed to do it.And I also agree with the guy above me.Maybe people would only get pregnant for receiving the stuff this resolution offers.And + in my country they're doing something like this and it's not really doing anything.

This resolution has one major flaw, the teaching of abstinence as opposed to safe sex. Teenagers are going to be having sex whether we like it or not, the best thing we can do is teach them what precautions to take, offer free condoms and other methods of birth control. Opening free clinics where anyone can get tested for STI's, without any questions asked and completely anonymously. Honestly lets think about this, the more you repress your youth, the more they will want to rebel. The best thing we can do is arm them with all the knowledge we can and let them learn from their mistakes.

Tommy SS4L
Del Ombra

This resolution has one major flaw, the teaching of abstinence as opposed to safe sex. Teenagers are going to be having sex whether we like it or not, the best thing we can do is teach them what precautions to take, offer free condoms and other methods of birth control. Opening free clinics where anyone can get tested for STI's, without any questions asked and completely anonymously. Honestly lets think about this, the more you repress your youth, the more they will want to rebel. The best thing we can do is arm them with all the knowledge we can and let them learn from their mistakes.

Tommy SS4L
Del Ombra

Take a second look at clause 1 and this time pay attention to the parts I'm going to bold.

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;

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Yes but clause 1 is abstinence, I would like to see that completely removed from all education.

c. facilitating the sharing of technology among member states concerning abortion reduction services;
Though our nation does not oppose this clause, what technologies does it mean in practice, honoured ambassador?

The Workers' Republic of Balawaristan rejects this resolution in the strongest possible terms, while supporting the imposition of comprehensive sex-education, distribution of contraceptives, etc. throughout the world. The individual measures contained within the bill will have no impact on our nation; we are already fully compliant with all provisions, and in fact, our policies exceed them.

We are forced to vote against this resolution on account of its moral marginalization of Choice. Abortion is not an issue on which we may disagree in good faith: it is the cornerstone of reproductive freedom and a fundamental right extending from a woman's bodily autonomy. In all instances, the act of Choice is entirely legitimate, provided it is not coerced. If every single woman were to choose abortion, it would simply not be our place to intervene and "reduce" abortion.

This resolution speaks of abortion as though it were some wretched and disastrous thing, and policies may be justified insofar as they reduce abortion. In rushing towards an apparently "moderate" but intellectually dishonest position, it challenges abortion's status as a fundamental right, and deems other policies good insofar as they work against abortion. This is an atrocious assault against feminist ethics!

Who, in Choosing contraception, does so to avoid abortion? Contraception is chosen to avert birth, not to avert abortion. And governments have a responsibility to distribute contraceptives to solidify bodily autonomy and reduce births, not to reduce abortion. The same moral principles that make contraception legitimate also make abortion a legitimate choice and a blessing upon humanity.

This resolution is confused. It supports good things, but does so in rhetoric we must, as feminists, reject. It provides fodder to the anti-Choice cause and sets a dangerous precedent for future measures aiming to reduce abortions.

Dr. Marx al-Ghazal
Ambassador, the Workers' Republic of Balawaristan

I completely agree with the former statement. Abortion is not something to be afraid of or reduced, it should be something that is embraced as an available option to any woman. Not something to be shunned and reduced into nonexistence. This resolution is only the first step in outlawing abortion entirely.

What's wrong with abstinence? It is certainly part of comprehensive sex education, and almost all people who abstain from sex don't get pregnant.

We find the argument from the good representative Balawaristan to be misguided. True, choice is something that needs to be preserved, but helping people prevent the need for something is not at all removing their choice. This would be akin to saying that people have the right to be poor, and welfare programs are an infringement on this right because poverty should be considered a right, not something to be prevented.

While we agree that abortion is a right, we also believe that, when possible, it ought to be avoided. We emphasize the difference between something being forbidden and something being undesireable. It is legal to distribute racist propaganda, call your neighbors nasty names, and not work at all, but those things are not, in general, desireable. The argument that abortion is completely morality-neutral, that it should be encouraged and supported, or at least not discouraged, is perhaps valid, but we don't believe many people believe it. If nothing else, there are risks and expenses involved in getting an abortion, as there are with any medical procedure. And, although I am not a woman myself, I believe that most women would eschew the choice of getting pregnant and then getting an abortion in favor of just not getting pregnant in the first place.

This resolution does not restrict the rights of women; it does not even contribute towards shunning abortion. In fact, it empowers women by removing obstacles to preventing unwanted pregnancies. We in Gnoria believe that this resolution would be better titled the "Unwanted Pregnancy Reduction Act," as that is the real effect of the resolution. Of course, fewer unwanted pregnancies would almost certainly lead to fewer abortions, so the current title is probably appropriate as well.

Douglas Moore
Secy. to the WA

I believe the Gnorians have the title correct. For my own causes, as stated, and also for the arguements of The Workers' Republic of Balawaristan, I oppose this bill for its vague nature. And its inability to satisfy any problems beyond the means already widely underway. I agree whole-heartedly that this is a dangerous precedent to be taking on a global nature. And, if I may be candid, I suspect throwing the word abortion around is a good strategy for getting votes.

Dr. Terell Chamberlain of the chief Advisory of Health and Human Services to his Grace Lord Raymond-Roger Montberil, Federation of protectorate Fiefdoms.

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,.
Is it indeed? I believe that a more accurate statement would be, "The reduction of undesirable pregnancies leading to the necessary abortion thereof is desirable to both parties." This bill disriminates against the choice [I] of abortion in that it classifies this choice as undesirable as concerns the below aspects of it.

reduction of the emotional, economic, and physical cost on pregnant women and mothers,,.

Many would argue that the emotional, economic, and physical cost of pregnancy, giving birth, and in some situations of raising a child is much greater on women and[I]mothers[I], regardless of the services provided in section 1., WHICH details aid to women while pregnant but does not go into detail about the fate of struggling women after the birth of their child. this is the hinden ineptness of the services portion of the bill. Medical services are all very good but honestly that is the least of a mothers problems when she has a child. The desire to break economic barriers to childbirth is honorable but biased. it should aslo include an equal treatment of the choice to abort pregnancy. In the end it comes back to the fact that it is not in fact desirable to "both parties"to reduce abortions but to reduce the need there for. We must treat the options of pregnancy and abortion as equaly feasable [I]after conception.
the part of this bill that focuses on the prevention of unwanted pregnancy is noble and perfectly agreeable to my council it is the part that follows that is not. If the bill includes,,. (2) adoption services,,,. it should also include (3) abortion services,,,.
Dr. Chamberlain, Court de le Fluer, Federation of Protectorate Fiefdoms.

The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Okinawakenshi has opted to be against the proposed act.

The parliament is deeply concerned with the fact that the expressed act is not coherent with the topic of the legislation and has therefore called for a change in the title of the legislation.

The arguments are as follow:
The fact that reduction in the so-called 'abortion services' has indeed nothing to do with abortion, it is more to do with preventing contraception rather than averting from abortion.

This is more to do with Birth Control rather than abortion and clearly it is made clear to us that abortion is not a method of Birth Control, it is considered an act of cruelty at which a life would be ended in the womb of a mother.

The Parliament therefore sincerely asks for AMENDMENTS made to the legislation prior to opting for an ABSOLUTE decision on such matter.

Yours Sincerely,
Parliament of the Commonwealth
Okinawakenshi

The People's Republic of Sunlumo rejects the Reduction of Abortion Act for these reasons:
We first and foremost believe that this is a step towards rejecting abortion altogether and is therefore dangerous.
Reducing abortion is a good thing, and we advocate reducing rape and sex crimes as well as strong welfare programs to make sure every woman has the economic means to look after her child. We support the use of contraception. We do not believe in abstinence education or anti-abortion counselling services as we believe these services are religiously motivated.

We believe in the prevention of unwanted pregnancies, but not in coercion.

The Parliament therefore sincerely asks for AMENDMENTS made to the legislation prior to opting for an ABSOLUTE decision on such matter.

Yours Sincerely,
Parliament of the Commonwealth
Okinawakenshi

OOC: Just letting you know some Gameplay details that will affect how you roleplay your nation:
Proposals (including titles) can't be changed once they're submitted;

Proposals can't be deleted when they're At Vote;

WA proposals can't ever be amended. The only way to get rid of one you think is a dud is to repeal it.

Here's why: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12817207&postcount=7

If this is passed i will work to get a resolution to repaeal this measure.

The fact is the WA has no business dictating abortion policy. YOU may think abortion should be reduced but my people do not and ill be damned if i have a bunch of outsiders telling my people that they are wrong.

Now i am pro choice and if a resolution came about stating that abortion should be Legal in all countries i would vote against it because it is for each state to decide for themselves to determine all aspects of this policy.

We have abstained from voting on this statute. The notion that individuals need to be told by an international organisation what is or is not a desirable outcome to situations which only effect themselves is one we cannot sympathise with. The world assembly health authority should not be used to admonish or manipulate the personal choices of w.a. member state's citizens, where those choices are not truly a matter for public policy.


Yours,

Who: Thundra Whispermoon, Kaldorei representative
Silara Windsong, Sin'dorei representative
Gorim Steelfist, Orc representative
Terrim Silenthoof, Tauren represenative
Engle Silvershock, Draenai represenative
Subject: Abortion Reduction

Of course, the Fab Five had to enter the room in their own way. Rather than walk in and sit down like normal people, they came in dancing. Each was doing a traditional dwarven step-dance, which involved a lot of kicking, while carrying a basket of flowers and dressed in pastel pinks. The flowers were also quite fragrant, and obviously filled with pollen. Hopefully no one's got allergies...

Every delegate the pair passed got a flower draped before them. The flowers had five purplish-blue leaves, surrounding a yellowish pollen center. The flowers themselves had a smell that distinctly seemed to remind someone of a moment of passion, while at the same time also calling upon the combined scents of a Spring day after a hard rain.

Then, as the five reached their table, which had apparently been taped back together after the dancing during the last proposal had almost destroyed it, they each looked down at once. And then, each shook their head, with Thundra sighing.

"Why would it have to be this topic so soon?" Thundra asked, looking up. "You will find we are all in agreement on this one. Eluneyasa votes against this as a whole. Not for any religious reasons, even though we have some from a couple of members; but for practical reasons. Our world emerged from a massive war not that long ago. Our populations have not yet recovered from it. despite the years that have passed. We currently have outlawed non-emergency abortions and all forms of birth control, in order to promote population growth and get our numbers back up to what they once were. This is a world-wide agreement and even nations not part of Eluneyasa are participating in it. This proposal, while it does not mandate we take certain actions, still has items that go directly against our current efforts at rebuilding our populace."

"Thundra is right," Engle said, his hooves clicking on the floor as he stepped forward in support. "We cannot support this because it would hinder our efforts at rebuilding. We wish that the proposers of this had taken such items into consideration. But, they haven't, and this is what we're left with."

"Wait, weren't you a woman yesterday?" Silara asked.

"Er, no?" Engle replied.

"Yes, you were," Terrim stated.

"Oh dear spirits, he changes sexes!" Gorim added.

"Elune, please grant me the strength to not murder these people in their sleep," Thundra said, rubbing her forhead.

The Commonwealth of Okinawakenshi has decided that the act would make little difference or possibly no difference at all given that the practice of sex and contraception is due to human negligence from time to time.

Regardless of the vast amount of investment placed into education or programmes to educate people in relations to birth control methods or preferably in this case, refraining from abortion, people would still neglect and make love in whatever way which may please them.

As a result, the Parliament of the Commonwealth has voted against such resolution.

Yours Sincerely,
Foreign Ambassador
Commonwealth of Okinawakenshi

We are voting against. The fact that this bill approaches abortion as something to be reduced implies that aboriton is a negative choice and I disagree. This IS ans ANTI abortion bill, do not be fooled, its intent is to establish abortion as a problem to be resolved rather than an acceptable viable option. It is ANTI abortionist propoganda attempting to be solidified into law. If thisis supposed to be purely a sex education initiative than leave abortion out of it. If this passes, Beloveless will leave the WA as we are already greatly dissapointed by the passsage of the Greatly Intrusive enviromental act.

"Why would it have to be this topic so soon?" Thundra asked, looking up. "You will find we are all in agreement on this one. Eluneyasa votes against this as a whole. Not for any religious reasons, even though we have some from a couple of members; but for practical reasons. Our world emerged from a massive war not that long ago. Our populations have not yet recovered from it. despite the years that have passed. We currently have outlawed non-emergency abortions and all forms of birth control, in order to promote population growth and get our numbers back up to what they once were. This is a world-wide agreement and even nations not part of Eluneyasa are participating in it. This proposal, while it does not mandate we take certain actions, still has items that go directly against our current efforts at rebuilding our populace."

"Thundra is right," Engle said, his hooves clicking on the floor as he stepped forward in support. "We cannot support this because it would hinder our efforts at rebuilding. We wish that the proposers of this had taken such items into consideration. But, they haven't, and this is what we're left with."




So honoured Ambassador, your government has reproductively enslaved its entire female population, essentially forcing them to procreate whether they wish to or not, and you expect any civilised Law maker to respect this appalling decision ?

Yours,

Whatever good points the "Abortion Reduction" resolution may have, it is spoiled for the people of Mathematania by its emphasis on "abortion prevention" and its leading commitment to "abstinence education." While Mathematania can agree that reducing abortion is not an undesirable goal, and that abstinence education is a component of quality, realistic family planing, the urgent, critical need to control global population requires a more fundamental paradigm shift. For example, since it does reduce population growth, abortion should be encouraged as much as possible - perhaps not as much as its alternatives, but in particular, putting babies that could have been aborted up for adoption is not a reasonable alternative. Likewise, implying that abstinence is an effective means of birth control under any but the most ideal circumstances is unrealistic in the extreme.

Abstinence is a very effective means of birth control. What the ambassador from Mathematania probably means is that education that presents abstinence as the only option is not effective. This is probably why the resolution also encourages comprehensive sex education.

Douglas Moore
Secy. to the WA

Yes but clause 1 is abstinence, I would like to see that completely removed from all education.Congratulations, you've just failed at reading comprehension. Let's try this again.

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; This clause defines seven things as being an abortion reduction service, including the two you were erroneously complaining weren't included. Furthermore, this resolution doesn't require you to offer all seven, heck it doesn't require you to offer any of them.

If this is passed i will work to get a resolution to repaeal this measure.

The fact is the WA has no business dictating abortion policy. YOU may think abortion should be reduced but my people do not and ill be damned if i have a bunch of outsiders telling my people that they are wrong.

Now i am pro choice and if a resolution came about stating that abortion should be Legal in all countries i would vote against it because it is for each state to decide for themselves to determine all aspects of this policy.Great, another person who can't read.
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. Now, where exactly is this resolution taking away your nation's right to make it's own decision on abortion?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

So honoured Ambassador, your government has reproductively enslaved its entire female population, essentially forcing them to procreate whether they wish to or not, and you expect any civilised Law maker to respect this appalling decision ?

Yours,

Who: Thundra Whispermoon, Kaldorei representative
Silara Windsong, Sin'dorei representative
Gorim Steelfist, Orc representative
Terrim Silenthoof, Tauren represenative
Engle Silvershock, Draenai represenative
Subject: Abortion Reduction

Silara couldn't help but laugh. "Reproductively enslaved? Do you see the two of us here with bulging bellies?"

"While Silara could use some education in diplomacy, she is essentially correct; at current, no one is forcing us to get pregnant," Thundra said. "And let's not forget that I represent the Temple of the Moon, which is traditionally led by the High Priestess of Elune. Even with men allowed in, most of those who devote themselves to Elune's path are women and our primary concern is women's rights. High Priestess Tyrande has sparred with the Circle of Cenarius many times over her support of the right to abortion.

"But, the High Priestess is not just a religious figure, but a military one as well. You will find that three of the races that make up Eluneyasa have leaders with military responsibility as one of their primary concerns. Our world has been torn apart by war and our population reduced more times than I care to count. The most recent of which involved a massive war that raged across our entire planet. And the time before that involved the Burning Legion trying to destroy every living thing on Azeroth. That our population was reduced so drastically is why our current stance exists.

"We are not proud of it. We do not wish it was considered necessary. But our species was brought to the brink of extinction three times already. The Tauren, Draenei, and Orcs are in the same situation. And the Blood Elves have faced extinction twice. In all cases save the last one, these have involved threats from beyond our world. As such, we cannot afford the military liability that comes with keeping our population as low as it is for any length of time.

"You do not have to like our position. Most of our leaders don't. But we do ask that you respect it and accept that there is a necessity behind it. Until you've gone through what we have, I doubt you could truly understand that necessity."

"And we hope you never will," Terrim added.

Who: Thundra Whispermoon, Kaldorei representative
Silara Windsong, Sin'dorei representative
Gorim Steelfist, Orc representative
Terrim Silenthoof, Tauren represenative
Engle Silvershock, Draenai represenative
Subject: Abortion Reduction

Silara couldn't help but laugh. "Reproductively enslaved? Do you see the two of us here with bulging bellies?"

"While Silara could use some education in diplomacy, she is essentially correct; at current, no one is forcing us to get pregnant," Thundra said. "And let's not forget that I represent the Temple of the Moon, which is traditionally led by the High Priestess of Elune. Even with men allowed in, most of those who devote themselves to Elune's path are women and our primary concern is women's rights. High Priestess Tyrande has sparred with the Circle of Cenarius many times over her support of the right to abortion.

"But, the High Priestess is not just a religious figure, but a military one as well. You will find that three of the races that make up Eluneyasa have leaders with military responsibility as one of their primary concerns. Our world has been torn apart by war and our population reduced more times than I care to count. The most recent of which involved a massive war that raged across our entire planet. And the time before that involved the Burning Legion trying to destroy every living thing on Azeroth. That our population was reduced so drastically is why our current stance exists.

"We are not proud of it. We do not wish it was considered necessary. But our species was brought to the brink of extinction three times already. The Tauren, Draenei, and Orcs are in the same situation. And the Blood Elves have faced extinction twice. In all cases save the last one, these have involved threats from beyond our world. As such, we cannot afford the military liability that comes with keeping our population as low as it is for any length of time.

"You do not have to like our position. Most of our leaders don't. But we do ask that you respect it and accept that there is a necessity behind it. Until you've gone through what we have, I doubt you could truly understand that necessity."

"And we hope you never will," Terrim added.


The elderly Mongkha, Khan of Kashgar, leans over to his assistant Tarmashirin of Herat and whispers,

"Which of these individuals is supposed to be the Ambassador and why am I required to respond to several individuals at one time ?"

"I have no idea honoured Khan, our note* need not be specific though" Tarmashirin nervously responds.

*O.O.C. Urgenchis believe it good manners only ever to speak no louder than a whisper, hence they address the w.a. in written submissions.

***

Honoured Ambassador, we are not required to respect every unsavoury policy which member states may choose to parade before this organisation with accompanying apologies and excuses.

If your Excellency's people believe it moral, not to say legal in light of the introduction of the Charter of Civil Rights, to deny half their population's rights over their own bodies then we are perfectly entitled to point out how obnoxious such a policy is.

Your Excellency's government has made the morally questionable decision to sacrifice its citizen's rights to further some racial survival imperative which it considers supreme over the right of the members of that race to live without the oppression of government denial of their consent to reproduction. We are appalled by such a drastic sacrifice or personal liberty.

What ever misfortunes may have befallen your people, honoured Ambassador, surely when their own government decides to institute large scale manipulation of their private lives and their individual liberties those misfortunes are only compounded.


Yours,

You all know this is just giving important money to people who otherwise could be off their butts working and actually caring for their children, right? By all means, DO NOT VOTE YES!!!

Honoured Ambassador, we are not required to respect every unsavoury policy which member states may choose to parade before this organisation with accompanying apologies and excuses.

If your Excellency's people believe it moral to, not to say legal in light of the introduction of the Charter of Civil Rights, to deny half their population's rights over their own bodies then we are perfectly entitled to point out how obnoxious such a policy is.

Your Excellency's government has made the morally questionable decision to sacrifice its citizen's rights to further some racial survival imperative which it considers supreme over the rights of the members of that race's right to live without the oppression of government control of their reproductive rights. We are appalled by such a significant sacrifice or personal liberty.

What ever misfortunes may have befallen your people, honoured Ambassador, surely when their own government decides to institute large scale manipulation of their private lives and their individual liberties those misfortunes are only compounded.


Yours,

Terrim frowned, whispering, "How do we make them understand without bringing up the last plague?"

"We don't," Thundra answered. "They need not know the actions we had to take to survive it."

"I think we're all in agreement," Gorim replied, with the other two nodding.

"I think you entirely misunderstand," Thundra said, speaking loud enough to be heard. "Our world population was reduced to less than ten million by that last war. We lost nearly the entirety of every race on the planet. In addition, the Burning Legion was not destroyed, but merely scattered when we took out their leader. They know where we are, they are more advanced than us, and they are still out there. We even suspect they are behind our fleet getting attacked when we sent it out.

"In any case, our governments agreed that the threat of the Burning Legion returning is sufficient enough to warrant this. They tried to destroy our world three times and were gearing up for another attempt when we finally took out what was left of their leadership. It won't take much for another leader to rise, reunite them, and come after our world. And we do not have the technology to hunt them across the entire universe.

"In any case, get angry about it all you want to. You're not in our situation, and you haven't fought our battles. You do not know what we're up against or why it is so imperative to be prepared for even the tiniest of fractions to show up. But don't think this decision was made lightly."

Terrim frowned, whispering, "How do we make them understand without bringing up the last plague?"

"We don't," Thundra answered. "They need not know the actions we had to take to survive it."

"I think we're all in agreement," Gorim replied, with the other two nodding.

"I think you entirely misunderstand," Thundra said, speaking loud enough to be heard. "Our world population was reduced to less than ten million by that last war. We lost nearly the entirety of every race on the planet. In addition, the Burning Legion was not destroyed, but merely scattered when we took out their leader. They know where we are, they are more advanced than us, and they are still out there. We even suspect they are behind our fleet getting attacked when we sent it out.

"In any case, our governments agreed that the threat of the Burning Legion returning is sufficient enough to warrant this. They tried to destroy our world three times and were gearing up for another attempt when we finally took out what was left of their leadership. It won't take much for another leader to rise, reunite them, and come after our world. And we do not have the technology to hunt them across the entire universe.

"In any case, get angry about it all you want to. You're not in our situation, and you haven't fought our battles. You do not know what we're up against or why it is so imperative to be prepared for even the tiniest of fractions to show up. But don't think this decision was made lightly."




Did we suggest we were angry honoured Ambassador ?


We accept that your government earnestly believes its policies will benefit your people, we do not accept that the abrogation of personal liberty is a moral response to the kind of tribulation you have described.

We imagine the gulf of cultural disparity between us on this issue might be too great to bridge.

But be rest assured we have faced grave and massive threats to our national survival in the past and concurrent massive loss of civilian lives also, but suffice it to say we held our personal liberty to be so vital part of our national character that to do away with it even in part would have been to contribute to the national catastrophe which had been visited upon us by our enemies.

We would rather perish as proud Urgenchis with our freedom inviolate and our honour intact than survive as some debased and diminished spectre of ourselves, forcing our own people to submit their bodies and their lives to the dictate of a government which would thereby make itself an immoral dictatorship.

Yours,

While we presently oppose this resolution, we ask other nations sympathetic to our position (that is, supportive of the individual measures but who oppose the vilification of abortion) not to immediately press a repeal of the act if it passes. If passed, the act will contain many valuable measures that we should secure independently (such as sex education and the distribution of contraceptives) before pressing a repeal, lest these valuable services be suspended for women during the interim in regressive nations.

Circumstances are delicate, as lives and reproductive freedom are at stake.

The Workers' Republic of Balawaristan rejects this resolution in the strongest possible terms, while supporting the imposition of comprehensive sex-education, distribution of contraceptives, etc. throughout the world. The individual measures contained within the bill will have no impact on our nation; we are already fully compliant with all provisions, and in fact, our policies exceed them.

We are forced to vote against this resolution on account of its moral marginalization of Choice. Abortion is not an issue on which we may disagree in good faith: it is the cornerstone of reproductive freedom and a fundamental right extending from a woman's bodily autonomy. In all instances, the act of Choice is entirely legitimate, provided it is not coerced. If every single woman were to choose abortion, it would simply not be our place to intervene and "reduce" abortion.

This resolution speaks of abortion as though it were some wretched and disastrous thing, and policies may be justified insofar as they reduce abortion. In rushing towards an apparently "moderate" but intellectually dishonest position, it challenges abortion's status as a fundamental right, and deems other policies good insofar as they work against abortion. This is an atrocious assault against feminist ethics!

Who, in Choosing contraception, does so to avoid abortion? Contraception is chosen to avert birth, not to avert abortion. And governments have a responsibility to distribute contraceptives to solidify bodily autonomy and reduce births, not to reduce abortion. The same moral principles that make contraception legitimate also make abortion a legitimate choice and a blessing upon humanity.

This resolution is confused. It supports good things, but does so in rhetoric we must, as feminists, reject. It provides fodder to the anti-Choice cause and sets a dangerous precedent for future measures aiming to reduce abortions.

Dr. Marx al-Ghazal
Ambassador, the Workers' Republic of Balawaristan

OCC: I am uncertain whether you are serious or this is roleplay.

ICC: I am most curious as to hear where in the resolution abortion is villified. Where is the language invading bodily autonomy or limiting choice? Where is infringement of reproductive freedom or the precedent for an anti-choice measure?

Are comprehensive sex education and family planning against feminist ethics? Are contraceptives? Is improved pre-natal, obstetric, and post-natal care? Is the prevention of rape and incest?

Are unwanted pregnancies desirable to feminists? Are pregnancy complications? Are economic pressures influencing what should be a free choice?

I am disappointed but not surprised that to some any acknowledgement that an opposing viewpoint is not completely invalid is equal to endorsing that viewpoint. But recognizing that a reduction in abortion rates is desirable is not villifying abortion or enslaving women. Think for a moment about nations that may have banned abortions but not taken the measures suggested in this resolution. They will not only continue to have abortions in that country, but they will also see women die from unsafe procedures. Wanting abortion to be legal, safe, and rare IS a feminist position. Taking action to empower women to avoid situations which may lead unnecessarily to abortion is embracing responsible reproductive freedom.

While we presently oppose this resolution, we ask other nations sympathetic to our position (that is, supportive of the individual measures but who oppose the vilification of abortion) not to immediately press a repeal of the act if it passes. If passed, the act will contain many valuable measures that we should secure independently (such as sex education and the distribution of contraceptives) before pressing a repeal, lest these valuable services be suspended for women during the interim in regressive nations.

Circumstances are delicate, as lives and reproductive freedom are at stake.

Thank you at least for your call for caution. As you seem to recognize, the individual parts of the resolution are worthwhile and it seems to be merely the packaging that has offended you. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Moreover, consider that there are those out there with differring opinions and the do vote in the WA. Is recognizing that lower abortion rates are desirable really ceed too much to the anti-choice crowd, if they are willing in turn to embrace comprehensive sex education, financial aid for pregnant mothers and parents, contraceptives, etc.?

We are voting against. The fact that this bill approaches abortion as something to be reduced implies that aboriton is a negative choice and I disagree. This IS ans ANTI abortion bill, do not be fooled, its intent is to establish abortion as a problem to be resolved rather than an acceptable viable option. It is ANTI abortionist propoganda attempting to be solidified into law. If thisis supposed to be purely a sex education initiative than leave abortion out of it. If this passes, Beloveless will leave the WA as we are already greatly dissapointed by the passsage of the Greatly Intrusive enviromental act.

I don't know whether to laugh or to cry.

As a pro-choice feminist that received help crafting this resolution from several sources, I find the charge that this is an anti-abortion bill or is filled with anti-abortion propoganda simply baffling.

Did we suggest we were angry honoured Ambassador ?


We accept that your government earnestly believes its policies will benefit your people, we do not accept that the abrogation of personal liberty is a moral response to the kind of tribulation you have described.

We imagine the gulf of cultural disparity between us on this issue might be too great to bridge.

But be rest assured we have faced grave and massive threats to our national survival in the past and concurrent massive loss of civilian lives also, but suffice it to say we held our personal liberty to be so vital part of our national character that to do away with it even in part would have been to contribute to the national catastrophe which had been visited upon us by our enemies.

We would rather perish as proud Urgenchis with our freedom inviolate and our honour intact than survive as some debased and diminished spectre of ourselves, forcing our own people to submit their bodies and their lives to the dictate of a government which would thereby make itself an immoral dictatorship.

Yours,

"And that is the misunderstanding. This isn't a decision based on morality. It's based upon necessity," Thundra said. "Which is why I hope you never come to understand it."

I don't know whether to laugh or to cry.

As a pro-choice feminist that received help crafting this resolution from several sources, I find the charge that this is an anti-abortion bill or is filled with anti-abortion propoganda simply baffling.

"Since they can't be bothered to read it, why don't we answer with interpretative dance?" Silara asked, grinning maliciously.

All about trying to fix it and not accepting it as a valid path for distressed mothers. This bill smells strongly of anti-abortion in disguise.

/Against until further notice

I vote AGAINST for the following reasons:

1) Abstinence is only feasible when there’s no interest, no love or no physical attraction. If there is curiosity , love or attraction , sooner or later abstinence is not an option. Therefore the dissemination of information regarding pregnancy prevention is imperative. Sex education at an early age is much more important and must include instruction on the consequences of teen pregnancy for the individual as well as society.

2) “DESIRING the removal of economic barriers to childbirth”. This Bill may also encourage teens and women to having children for the sole purpose of receiving financial aid from the government regardless of how many children they have. Having children as a means of reducing abortion rates is not as justifiable as promoting pregnancy prevention through better education and distribution of free birth control supplies to those in need. How many OCTO-MOMS do we want? (How about chastity belts instead of abstinencehaha)

This resolution needs some serious revamping before I will vote for it. Such as the removal and banning of abstinence education, it is useless and a waste of time. Second, completely free, government paid for contraceptives, put all the women on the pill and supply all men with condoms. Third, education from an early age on the use of said contraceptives and the conciquences of not using them (teen pregnancy, STD/STI's ect.) and the knowledge that if a pregnancy happens, that abortion is a perfectly acceptable method of dealing with the situation.

"And that is the misunderstanding. This isn't a decision based on morality. It's based upon necessity," Thundra said. "Which is why I hope you never come to understand it."

So you admit then that your government's policy toward its female citizens is immoral the honoured Ambassador ?

So the female citizens of your nation must suffer a greater burden of your people's cataclysm than your male citizens ?

By denying your female citizens their rights in this way your nation is directly in contravention of the Charter of Civil Rights, we would recommend that your government familiarise itself with its legal obligations, commensurate with its membership of this organisation.

Unless the male citizens of your nation are able to bear offspring, then you will find that your government has instituted and grievous and massive form of discrimination. Thankfully this organisation had the foresight to outlaw such actions.

Yours,

We find it very funny that there are nations in this assembly who are willing to vote against a woman's right initiative and yet seek to limit a woman's right to be educated to all options facing them.

We rise to cast our vote for this logical compromise on a difficult and important topic. Might I also request that the threats/promises to leave and or stay depending on the outcome of this vote stop. You're all not convincing anyone.

Nigel S Youlkin
USoP WA Ambassador

This is not a compromise! And if this seems logical it is only because it has all been tried before, to no avail. Do not confuse logic with familiarity. And since we still find ourselves here-- what's the point? It seems to me, as to many others, a clever poll of who may in the future vote for more extreme bills.

It's startling to me that the overwhelming voice of this forum is against, yet the overwhelming voice of the votes is for. I think that might be because everybody threatens to leave the Assembly if they don't get their way. Please, do not. But instead, join me more privately for diplomatic talks about how we might raise awareness and establish a following.

Frankly, this bill does not turn my stomach the way it probably should. My biggest problem with it, other than it being an apparent stepping stone, is that it doesn't deal with anything. Most of the severe clauses have been offered up for National Governments to embrace or neglect. This is why it has recieved so many votes. They are ignorant of the precedent they are going to set-- mystified by words like 'abortion,' and following the same steps THEIR nations have probably already undertaken while NOT forcing any other nations to do much of anything.

Is this a bill, or a waste of parchment? I will not endeavor to repeal, considering Balawaristan's remarks. Simply put, I think the many thoughtful minds we have gathered here around this piece of legislation could be of better use considering matters of greater effectual importance.

It's startling to me that the overwhelming voice of this forum is against, yet the overwhelming voice of the votes is for.

That's because you're new here, I've lost count of how many times the debates leaned AGAINST and yet the votes went FOR.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

That's because you're new here, I've lost count of how many times the debates leaned AGAINST and yet the votes went FOR.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

and vice versa.

By denying your female citizens their rights in this way your nation is directly in contravention of the Charter of Civil RightsReally? How so?

Really? How so?


Is it entirely necessary to point out the policy in question is discriminatory in nature, and that even if it is an emergency measure the CoCR requires such measures to be non-discriminatory in nature, honoured Ambassador ?


Yours,

Honestly, let’s look at how this bill is written. I interpret that this bill is here to limit in what ways we can lead our sexual education in schools. If it emphasized contraceptive education and abolished abstinence education this bill would be fine, and would more than likely draw down the numbers of abortions. I do like how there is no limiting factor to how many abortions can be done, or under what circumstances, therefore, any woman, for any reason may have an abortion. This will aid with the over population of orphanages, and later possibly jails. If there were some of the above noted changes made and the title changed, I assess that there would be a far stronger support for this resolution, as opposed to this mass of opposition.

Honestly, let’s look at how this bill is written. I interpret that this bill is here to limit in what ways we can lead our sexual education in schools. If it emphasized contraceptive education and abolished abstinence education this bill would be fine, and would more than likely draw down the numbers of abortions. I do like how there is no limiting factor to how many abortions can be done, or under what circumstances, therefore, any woman, for any reason may have an abortion. This will aid with the over population of orphanages, and later possibly jails. If there were some of the above noted changes made and the title changed, I assess that there would be a far stronger support for this resolution, as opposed to this mass of opposition.

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;


Now I'm confused. Where in there does it say that you must provide any abstinence education?

Sure, it defines it as part of 'abortion reduction services', but no where in there does it say that you must provide any services. It strongly urges each nation to provide services.

Let's take it a step further. It doesn't even say that you have to provide all of the defined services. Pick and choose if you want. That's how I read it.

Let's take it a little further then.

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

...

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.

Hmm. Don't like abstinence education? Make it illegal to be taught then. Want free birth control and condoms to be handed out? Make it a law.

All this says is that you should provide abortion reduction services. Not that you have to. You can make abortion legal and provide no reduction services if you want to. You can even require that women have no less than one abortion in their lifetime and this resolution won't stop you from doing that.

Oh, and the Republic is quite pleased with this resolution.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

Is it entirely necessary to point out the policy in question is discriminatory in nature, and that even if it is an emergency measure the CoCR requires such measures to be non-discriminatory in nature, honoured Ambassador ?I didn't know men could have babies.

Would banning circumcision be similarly "discriminatory," or do women also enjoy the right to mutilate their penises?

Would banning circumcision

Please do, biggest pain in the ass.

I didn't know men could have babies.

Would banning circumcision be similarly "discriminatory," or do women also enjoy the right to mutilate their penises?


What an absurdly contrary line of reasoning. Both men and women are capable of copulation without the possibility of procreation, if prophylaxis or other birth control methods are used, to deny one of the sexes this facility thereby making it impossible for one of the the sexes to copulate without the possibility of becoming pregnant, and further denying them the possibility of ending that pregnancy is manifestly a form of discrimination.

Whether or not men may bear children is immaterial.

Yours,

Honestly, let’s look at how this bill is written. I interpret that this bill is here to limit in what ways we can lead our sexual education in schools. If it emphasized contraceptive education and abolished abstinence education this bill would be fine, and would more than likely draw down the numbers of abortions. I do like how there is no limiting factor to how many abortions can be done, or under what circumstances, therefore, any woman, for any reason may have an abortion. This will aid with the over population of orphanages, and later possibly jails. If there were some of the above noted changes made and the title changed, I assess that there would be a far stronger support for this resolution, as opposed to this mass of opposition.

There is nothing in the proposal that mandates any line of thinking... in fact it goes out of it's way to make sure that's exactly what it doesn't do.

Plus because abstinence eduction may not work for your people, and that is fine, but it does work in other nations in this world. Whereas there are nations in this body who have had more success with a two pronged attack of combining abstinence education with contraceptive education

As for 'mass of opposition'... the current vote begs to differ.


Votes For: 1,728
Votes Against: 845

Mrs. Jenner,

Fair enough, but what does this resolution do? Make suggestions? What is this resolution supposed to do?

When I made the statement regaurding the opposition, I ment in the forum, not by votes.

Mrs. Jenner,

Fair enough, but what does this resolution do? Make suggestions? What is this resolution supposed to do?

When I made the statement regaurding the opposition, I ment in the forum, not by votes.

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;

I think it speaks for itself. The rest is just suggestions.

What an absurd line of reasoning.Funny, those were my exact thoughts when I first read your contention that an anti-discrimination resolution somehow equated to a de facto legalization of abortion.

Mrs. Jenner,

Fair enough, but what does this resolution do? Make suggestions? What is this resolution supposed to do?

When I made the statement regaurding the opposition, I ment in the forum, not by votes.

Nigel looked around wondering when he had become and woman and changed his last name.

I believe the resolution: 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;

If my esteemed colleague would read the resolution with a impartial eye instead of picking out certain buzz words and squabbling over the title, things might go more smoothly.

I vote AGAINST for the following reasons:

1) Abstinence is only feasible when there’s no interest, no love or no physical attraction. If there is curiosity , love or attraction , sooner or later abstinence is not an option. Therefore the dissemination of information regarding pregnancy prevention is imperative. Sex education at an early age is much more important and must include instruction on the consequences of teen pregnancy for the individual as well as society.

Terrim could only raise an eyebrow. "I don't know. Not running around having sex with every cow willing to spread her legs certainly prevented me from getting a bunch of them pregnant. And using a condom helped a lot for the few I did bed."

2) “DESIRING the removal of economic barriers to childbirth”. This Bill may also encourage teens and women to having children for the sole purpose of receiving financial aid from the government regardless of how many children they have. Having children as a means of reducing abortion rates is not as justifiable as promoting pregnancy prevention through better education and distribution of free birth control supplies to those in need. How many OCTO-MOMS do we want? (How about chastity belts instead of abstinencehaha)

"That's not what it says," Gorim said, shaking his head. "Did you see anything stating it must provide some overwhelming economic benefit to people who have children? Durotar has a policy that does this. Children, once they reach a certain age, are sent to the Valley of Trials or a similar facility for education. This is not to remove the rights of parents; my father belted my rear more when I was in the Valley than he did when I wasn't. It is to teach the youth that they are part of Durotar from a very young age and teach them to consider the nation as a whole. And the parents don't suffer economic barriers because of it."

This resolution needs some serious revamping before I will vote for it. Such as the removal and banning of abstinence education, it is useless and a waste of time. Second, completely free, government paid for contraceptives, put all the women on the pill and supply all men with condoms. Third, education from an early age on the use of said contraceptives and the conciquences of not using them (teen pregnancy, STD/STI's ect.) and the knowledge that if a pregnancy happens, that abortion is a perfectly acceptable method of dealing with the situation.

"He does know everything except the abstinance is in the bill, right?" Silara whispered.

"I don't know. Um... Try the interpretative dance if he comments again?" Terrim replied.

So you admit then that your government's policy toward its female citizens is immoral the honoured Ambassador ?

So the female citizens of your nation must suffer a greater burden of your people's cataclysm than your male citizens ?

By denying your female citizens their rights in this way your nation is directly in contravention of the Charter of Civil Rights, we would recommend that your government familiarise itself with its legal obligations, commensurate with its membership of this organisation.

Unless the male citizens of your nation are able to bear offspring, then you will find that your government has instituted and grievous and massive form of discrimination. Thankfully this organisation had the foresight to outlaw such actions.

Yours,

"The ban on contraceptives applies regardless of sex, sexual orientation, or capacity to give birth. To give one sex a way out of this when the other doesn't have it simply because of a biological difference between the two would be discriminatory, just as it would be discriminatory to give someone a way out just because they don't have to carry the child for twelve months," Thundra answered.

"Wait, your pregnancies last a whole year?" Engle asked.

"In any case," Thundra continued, ignoring the draenei. "we still do not require people to go out and actively get pregnant. If we were requiring people to get pregnant, then maybe you would have a point."

Is it entirely necessary to point out the policy in question is discriminatory in nature, and that even if it is an emergency measure the CoCR requires such measures to be non-discriminatory in nature, honoured Ambassador ?


Yours,

"Point out where the policy requires only one sex or race to obey it," Engle replied.

Honestly, let’s look at how this bill is written. I interpret that this bill is here to limit in what ways we can lead our sexual education in schools. If it emphasized contraceptive education and abolished abstinence education this bill would be fine, and would more than likely draw down the numbers of abortions. I do like how there is no limiting factor to how many abortions can be done, or under what circumstances, therefore, any woman, for any reason may have an abortion. This will aid with the over population of orphanages, and later possibly jails. If there were some of the above noted changes made and the title changed, I assess that there would be a far stronger support for this resolution, as opposed to this mass of opposition.

And Silara, shaking her head, sighed and moved out to in front of the delegate of Del Ombra. "Since you won't read the bill or listen to others, here is the answer to your statement."

And then, she started to dance, her arms sweeping and legs thrusting out to the side. The entire dance was obviously an artistic dance, intended to express in movements what normally was expressed in words. The dance ended with her front bent forward, hands down in what was obviously a negative way.

I didn't know men could have babies.

Would banning circumcision be similarly "discriminatory," or do women also enjoy the right to mutilate their penises?

Thundra busted out laughing. "Point!"

Admittedly, I am new. I am a delegate of a small region. But again, lets not confuse familiarity with logic. More eyes and ears should be amoungst these enlightening debates.

Funny, those were my exact thoughts when I first read your contention that an anti-discrimination resolution somehow equated to a de facto legalization of abortion.

OOC: I am making a separate post for this just to address the issue.

Urgench isn't arguing against the resolution; he's arguing against my nation's stance against the resolution. My nation, at current, only has one problem with it: They've banned all forms of contraceptives due to a war they were recently in, which reduced their population by an extreme amount. They're currently trying to breed their way back up in numbers until the population is at a safer level.

What my delegates have been saying is that the policy is necessary. That their leaders are against it on moral grounds, but that the necessity of it became greater than the morality. Urgench is trying to argue it is discriminatory, due entirely to nature separating men from women and assigning one sex the role of having children. As is obvious, the delegates see this as completely illogical.

Here's what they're not saying, but which can be found in my factbook when I complete the history portion: They've already had four sentient species go extinct, and that was within the past few hundred years. For most of the people on the planet, this is within their lifetime. Their survival imperative isn't based just on some outside threat, but on the fact that many people personally witnessed the extinction of four entire species.

OOC: OK then, perhaps I was misreading the Urgenchi ambassador. Ah, well. Carry on.

I thank its a goob idea

Funny, those were my exact thoughts when I first read your contention that an anti-discrimination resolution somehow equated to a de facto legalization of abortion.

That was not our contention, there is little point in us addressing an argument against a position we did not take.

We regret that the honoured Ambassador ( O.O.C. your were speaking IC right ? ) for Omigodtheykilledkenny did not apprehend our actual contention, and the possible impression of our opinion of the topic at hand they may have formed as a result.


Yours,

We accept that your government earnestly believes its policies will benefit your people, we do not accept that the abrogation of personal liberty is a moral response to the kind of tribulation you have described.
The Eluneyasan policy seems perfectly reasonable to me and I wish you would stop berating them about it.

That said, Aundotutunagir is no longer a WA member so I have voted for this resolution.

The Eluneyasan policy seems perfectly reasonable to me and I wish you would stop berating them about it.

That said, Aundotutunagir is no longer a WA member so I have voted for this resolution.


Gross immorality must be pointed out when and where ever it arises, in the case of the Noble General's nation a true and unabashed form of female sexual slavery exists, and we could not expect the Noble General to do anything else but applaud any policy which smacked of the same atrocious view of human life and the rights of women as that which his own government crapulantly indulges itself in.

The policies of the government of Eluneyasa are immoral, but they do not rise to the same level of infamy as those of Aundotutunagir, and they most certainly do not provide some kind of moral camouflage for the crimes of the Noble General's government. One suspects that the congratulation of Golthaindroror would not sit well on any even remotely civilised people, and doubtless Eluneyasa will find such companionship as unsavoury as would most other states.

We hope it will be a salutary experience for the honoured delegation of Eluneyasa to see what moral company they may be keeping.


Yours,

Gross immorality must be pointed out when and where ever it arises, in the case of the Noble General's nation a true and unabashed form of female sexual slavery exists, and we could not expect the Noble General to do anything else but applaud any policy which smacked of the same atrocious view of human life and the rights of women as that which his own government crapulantly indulges itself in.

The policies of the government of Eluneyasa are immoral, but they do not rise to the same level of infamy as those of Aundotutunagir, and they most certainly do not provide some kind of moral camouflage for the crimes of the Noble General's government. One suspects that the congratulation of Golthaindroror would not sit well on any even remotely civilised people, and doubtless Eluneyasa will find such companionship as unsavoury as would most other states.

We hope it will be a salutary experience for the honoured delegation of Eluneyasa to see what moral company they may be keeping.


Yours,

Terrim frowned. "You still have not provided that this is truly discriminatory against one sex. The ban applies to everyone, male or female and with no consideration of actual ability to bear children or sexual preference. We do not care if you're a man that likes men; condoms are still banned for you to use.

"Our reasoning exists because of how often we've come to extinction. This last time was too close. Far too close.

"In any case," Terrim huffed. "we do not argue that our actions are moral. We do not argue that we agree with them. But we do find them necessary. We didn't say you had to like it or that it is something which allows our leaders to sleep well at night. But we do ask you to respect our policy and accept that we're doing it because it is necessary. And we are still decades away from having recovered. You can dislike it all you want to, but you are not in our shoes. You were not one of the ones on our world who had to sit back and make this decision, even knowing that what you may have to do would go against the moral beliefs you hold so dear."

"Don't forget that most of our leaders are also military people. They understand what it's like to make decisions that will haunt you," Thundra added.

Terrim frowned. "You still have not provided that this is truly discriminatory against one sex. The ban applies to everyone, male or female and with no consideration of actual ability to bear children or sexual preference. We do not care if you're a man that likes men; condoms are still banned for you to use.

Two aspects of this statement astonish us, firstly that the honoured Ambassador does not seem to understand that though the policy of their government is supposed to apply to all of their citizens its effect is radically disproportionate among them, women are discriminated against because they bear a far greater burden of the responsibility apportioned by this policy. This is discrimination, effect is in fact more diagnostic than intent in this regard.

Secondly the reckless and frankly lunatical disregard for the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, unless Eluneyasa has somehow completely eradicated these then the total ban on condoms is dangerous, and will likely be completely counterproductive to the intention of the ban.

"Our reasoning exists because of how often we've come to extinction. This last time was too close. Far too close.

Simply repeating the excuse over and over again does not provide any further justification for your governments actions.

"In any case," Terrim huffed. "we do not argue that our actions are moral. We do not argue that we agree with them. But we do find them necessary. We didn't say you had to like it or that it is something which allows our leaders to sleep well at night. But we do ask you to respect our policy and accept that we're doing it because it is necessary. And we are still decades away from having recovered. You can dislike it all you want to, but you are not in our shoes. You were not one of the ones on our world who had to sit back and make this decision, even knowing that what you may have to do would go against the moral beliefs you hold so dear."

You wish us to pity you for your crimes ? Why would you imagine such a thing could be possible honoured Ambassador ? Your government's response to crisis is to totally divest itself of reason and decency and to impose new outrages upon its own people ?

"Don't forget that most of our leaders are also military people. They understand what it's like to make decisions that will haunt you," Thundra added.


What on earth makes you think that the decisions you refer to so portentously are so novel and so dire that no other government might have been faced with them ?

Does Eluneyasa have a monopoly on extremis ? Please do not lecture us on the responsibilities of leadership or of the exigencies of warfare, especially since your governments response to them is so utterly below the expectations of rational or responsible governance.



Yours,

Two aspects of this statement astonish us, firstly that the honoured Ambassador does not seem to understand that though the policy of their government is supposed to apply to all of their citizens its effect is radically disproportionate among them, women are discriminated against because they bear a far greater burden of the responsibility apportioned by this policy. This is discrimination, effect is in fact more diagnostic than intent in this regard.

Secondly the reckless and frankly lunatical disregard for the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, unless Eluneyasa has somehow completely eradicated these then the total ban on condoms is dangerous, and will likely be completely counterproductive to the intention of the ban.

"Our medical programs have a few... advantages that others do not," Terrim said, coughing.

"What he means is that he's intimately familiar with the cure disease spell," Silara muttered, snickering.

"Let's not forget the boosts our immune systems received thanks to the Scourge and that last plague. The old generation is capable of fighting off rabies in mere seconds; I had to put up with the sickness for fifteen minutes before it went away," Thundra said.

"If we didn't have such strong immune systems, we wouldn't be here today." Engle added, as a way of ending the conversation about diseases.

"In any case, isn't it sexist to assume that women automatically have more of the responsibility in taking care of a child? They have the responsibility of pregnancy, but I can name only one civilization on our planet where men don't end up providing and proportional share of the raising, if they are even involved at all and not just there to give lesbian couples children. And that society is made up entirely of undead, so they don't even have children," Thundra finished. "So, in what way does this discriminate against women beyond the discrimination already put in place by nature?"

Simply repeating the excuse over and over again does not provide any further justification for your governments actions.

"Who said we were justifying it?" Terrim asked. "You forget, I'm married; my wife and I have no plans for further children, and yet cannot get intimate without risking a pregnancy. Each of us here stands to have our lives disrupted and our ourselves burdened by this. The High Priestess of Darnassus would have to set aside her position if she got pregnant, and she's one of the people who helped make this decision. Do not think any level of our societies share no risk from this."

You wish us to pity you for your crimes ? Why would you imagine such a thing could be possible honoured Ambassador ? Your government's response to crisis is to totally divest itself of reason and decency and to impose new outrages upon its own people ?

"Pity would earn you a quick death," Thundra snarled.

"We wish you to understand part of how this decision came to be. No pity, no agreeing with us, but just understanding," Terrim added.

What on earth makes you think that the decisions you refer to so portentously are so novel and so dire that no other government might have been faced with them ?

Does Eluneyasa have a monopoly on extremis ? Please do not lecture us on the responsibilities of leadership or of the exigencies of warfare, especially since your governments response to them is so utterly below the expectations of rational or responsible governance.



Yours,

"Our government's response to them," Thundra began, her voice now a low growl. "came about after the war had already ended. We had already fought it and made the mistakes of it. You would be wise not to lecture us on our response to emergencies left afterwards based on your flawed understanding."

"Isn't she a veteran of that war?" Silara whispered.

"Yes. She's also a trained killer. I'd scoot back," Engle replied, edging his chair away from the night elf.

"What my fellow ambassador is that there was a recent extinction of four other sentient species on our world. These species were themselves major powers, with one of them being the leader of one of the most powerful military alliances in our world's history. All that is left of them now is bone, ash, and undead. And this happened recently enough that most of our longer-lived races are made up of people who were alive to see it," Terrim added. "That provides the rest of our reasoning for this choice."

Honestly, let’s look at how this bill is written. I interpret that this bill is here to limit in what ways we can lead our sexual education in schools. If it emphasized contraceptive education and abolished abstinence education this bill would be fine,Wait wait, hang on a second. You're complaining that this resolution supposedly limits your options when it comes to sex education, which it doesn't, and yet you'd prefer that it be written in such a way that it actually would limit sex education options. Anyone else see the hypocrisy here?

Admittedly, I am new. I am a delegate of a small region. But again, lets not confuse familiarity with logic. More eyes and ears should be amoungst these enlightening debates.

You're quite correct, more people participating in these debates, and more importantly the drafting of proposals would be a good thing. Unfortunately, there's really nothing we can do to increase the participation in these things.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Please do, biggest pain in the ass.You know, if you've got people complaining about ass pain after being circumcised, it's probably being done wrong.

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

"In any case, isn't it sexist to assume that women automatically have more of the responsibility in taking care of a child? They have the responsibility of pregnancy, but I can name only one civilization on our planet where men don't end up providing and proportional share of the raising, if they are even involved at all and not just there to give lesbian couples children. And that society is made up entirely of undead, so they don't even have children," Thundra finished. "So, in what way does this discriminate against women beyond the discrimination already put in place by nature?"

And pregnancy and its accompanying risks are considered of such little account by your government are they ? The fact that nature has been circumvented by science allows for an equality between the sexes which your government denies its female citizens, that is discrimination.



"Who said we were justifying it?" Terrim asked. "You forget, I'm married; my wife and I have no plans for further children, and yet cannot get intimate without risking a pregnancy. Each of us here stands to have our lives disrupted and our ourselves burdened by this. The High Priestess of Darnassus would have to set aside her position if she got pregnant, and she's one of the people who helped make this decision. Do not think any level of our societies share no risk from this."

Quite what this is supposed to prove is mystifying.



"Pity would earn you a quick death," Thundra snarled.

"We wish you to understand part of how this decision came to be. No pity, no agreeing with us, but just understanding," Terrim added.

Understanding is not achieved through mindless and frankly impotent threats honoured Ambassador. Perhaps this lack of restraint goes some way to explaining your government's inability to make rational and moral decisions.



"Our government's response to them," Thundra began, her voice now a low growl. "came about after the war had already ended. We had already fought it and made the mistakes of it. You would be wise not to lecture us on our response to emergencies left afterwards based on your flawed understanding."

"Isn't she a veteran of that war?" Silara whispered.

"Yes. She's also a trained killer. I'd scoot back," Engle replied, edging his chair away from the night elf.

"What my fellow ambassador is that there was a recent extinction of four other sentient species on our world. These species were themselves major powers, with one of them being the leader of one of the most powerful military alliances in our world's history. All that is left of them now is bone, ash, and undead. And this happened recently enough that most of our longer-lived races are made up of people who were alive to see it," Terrim added. "That provides the rest of our reasoning for this choice."


Your descent in to ill tempered and aggressive petulance only deepens the level of opprobrium with which we regard the policy your Excellency is attempting to offer excuses for.



Yours,

We have come to the reluctant conclusion that we must oppose this well-meant resolution, for exactly the opposite reasons to those presented by the more vigorous opponents in this debate. To be specific, we contend that contrary to the devout hope expressed in the briefing document (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14700608&postcount=2) for this proposal, we do not believe that it will achieve anything beyond some interesting sociological research and a technological exchange between those nations already minded to promote abortion reduction services, neither of which need international law to make them happen. We may urge as strongly as we like, but those who do not wish to hear will carry right on not listening.

The resolution will, unfortunately, prevent any more effective legislation on the subject by virtue of its existence. Even more unfortunately, it will not block the swathes of badly written pro- or anti-abortion legislation which regularly pile up in our collective in-trays; that at least would have been a useful service the WA!

"Wait wait, hang on a second. You're complaining that this resolution supposedly limits your options when it comes to sex education, which it doesn't, and yet you'd prefer that it be written in such a way that it actually would limit sex education options. Anyone else see the hypocrisy here?"
- Flibbleites (How exactly does the quote thing work? Ha.)

I hesitate to speak for my colleague, but it seems to me that this proposal limits education options in general. In The Rogue Nation, we try to educate our children in a well rounded manner. Of things, we certainly don't want sex to be prevalent. Afterall, hasn't this been an issue for a very long time? And aren't all of these proposals a bit flimsy and reminiscent of old methods? I say don't take away the rights of a parent. And don't sacrifice Literature or Math.

And pregnancy and its accompanying risks are considered of such little account by your government are they ? The fact that nature has been circumvented by science allows for an equality between the sexes which your government denies its female citizens, that is discrimination.

Gorim laughed, "Dangers during pregnancy? Have you seen the mood swings orc women have? And they're all armed! There's more danger to our men than our women where pregnancy is involved."

"Health risks from pregnancy count as emergencies," Terrim replied, giving an eye to the fuming night elf. "So the concern there was already covered in our policy."

Quite what this is supposed to prove is mystifying.

Terrim merely shook his head. "Like trying to share the wisdom of the spirits with a kodo; one speaks and speaks, yet all the animal does is continue eating."

Understanding is not achieved through mindless and frankly impotent threats honoured Ambassador. Perhaps this lack of restraint goes some way to explaining your government's inability to make rational and moral decisions.

Terrim raised a hand to set it on Thundra's arm, seeing her muscles tense. "They're not worth it."

"It would be a good idea not to provoke her, ambassador," Terrim said, turning his attention back. "The Kaldorei are a proud people who hold much honor in their military. They have, over the centuries, managed to do things most nations of our world could not even begin to accomplish. They were the ones who stopped the first invasion of the Burning Legion, it was their actions that stopped the Legion's use of the undead from succeeding, and it was their plan that ultimately brought an end to the leadership of the Legion. In the wars since then, they have always been the ones who have been leading the combined military forces, and even now their military expertise is unrivaled enough that their nation leads Eluneyasa. Without them, our world would have been lost a very long time ago. They typically do not respond well to those who deride their military accomplishments or thinks them weak, and they respond less so when they were personally involved in the military action being derided or when their government is verbally assaulted.

"Do not try to apologize, either; her temper will cool, with time. But I have no doubt that she would try to kill you if you pressed your luck too much. Kaldorei don't make idle threats."

Terrim gave a stern glance to Thundra, who only returned it with a furious glare.

"Our leaders made the decision they thought was best. The universe is a big place, and even now we are finding other threats out there besides the ones we've already faced," Terrim said, pausing. "Try to imagine the feeling that your world is always under assault, always about to be attacked. We spent ten thousand years with that feeling, only with it being a very real threat. And as soon as that threat was gone, we had two more in a short span of time afterwards. Three of our races are long-lived enough that they have people who still remember the original threat. Those three, combined, make up the majority of the leadership."

Your descent in to ill tempered and aggressive petulance only deepens the level of opprobrium with which we regard the policy your Excellency is attempting to offer excuses for.

"And your continued attempts to provoke a woman who's already threatened to kill you and who's military career is full of her killing people makes me question whether or not your leaders have any wisdom at all," Terrim replied, eyebrow raised again. "And I am just here to represent the views of my people; which is my job. Unless your job involves trying to change the views of other diplomats and try your best to provoke someone into murdering you, I honestly doubt that you are doing your's."

OOC Urgench, this is totally not what I had planned for this thread, but I am utterly loving it! Thank you!

The United Socialist States of Roschstein fully supports this legislation.

We see no reason for the world assembly to , be even inferring, advising , or implying anything when it comes to this subject matter.

Against

Terrim merely shook his head. "Like trying to share the wisdom of the spirits with a kodo; one speaks and speaks, yet all the animal does is continue eating."

Insults are not arguments honoured Ambassador.




"It would be a good idea not to provoke her, ambassador," Terrim said, turning his attention back. "The Kaldorei are a proud people who hold much honor in their military. They have, over the centuries, managed to do things most nations of our world could not even begin to accomplish. They were the ones who stopped the first invasion of the Burning Legion, it was their actions that stopped the Legion's use of the undead from succeeding, and it was their plan that ultimately brought an end to the leadership of the Legion. In the wars since then, they have always been the ones who have been leading the combined military forces, and even now their military expertise is unrivaled enough that their nation leads Eluneyasa. Without them, our world would have been lost a very long time ago. They typically do not respond well to those who deride their military accomplishments or thinks them weak, and they respond less so when they were personally involved in the military action being derided or when their government is verbally assaulted.

Honestly this is becoming farcical, our Ambassador, Mongkha, Khan of Kashgar, is not minded to be cowed by the threats and imprecations. Perhaps a little research regarding our own culture and history might offer the honoured delegation of Eluneyasa some insight in to whom it is they make so bold as to try to intimidate.

Here is a link to our entry in the NSwiki http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Urgench

In any event this organisation's buildings are fully equipped with devices which prevent lethal violence. Perhaps the honoured delegation of Eluneyasa is unfamiliar with this fact.



"Do not try to apologize, either; her temper will cool, with time. But I have no doubt that she would try to kill you if you pressed your luck too much. Kaldorei don't make idle threats."

Now this really is an imposture, apologise for what ? It is your delegation which is making vain and dishonourable threats of violence aimed at our Ambassador, we have nothing to apologise for whatsoever. The honoured Ambassador should indeed cool her temper and then offer her apologies to us.



"Our leaders made the decision they thought was best. The universe is a big place, and even now we are finding other threats out there besides the ones we've already faced," Terrim said, pausing. "Try to imagine the feeling that your world is always under assault, always about to be attacked. We spent ten thousand years with that feeling, only with it being a very real threat. And as soon as that threat was gone, we had two more in a short span of time afterwards. Three of our races are long-lived enough that they have people who still remember the original threat. Those three, combined, make up the majority of the leadership."

The point we are trying to make is that by denying your women their rights and forcing your people in to lives they might never have chosen your government has made the decision that it prefers any kind of life, no matter how mean or impaired, to freedom and liberty.

We are simply unable to understand why any people would prefer to live in slavery, rather than perish in freedom. No matter what the threat, no matter how grave or persistent, Urgenchis would prefer to be free to live as they please and with honour, if that meant our extinction then so be it, to deprive Urgenchis of their liberty would in any case amount to an extinction of their soul, they would no longer exist, in their place would be barbarous and diminished people, with no relationship to the race which had gone before them.



"And your continued attempts to provoke a woman who's already threatened to kill you and who's military career is full of her killing people makes me question whether or not your leaders have any wisdom at all," Terrim replied, eyebrow raised again. "And I am just here to represent the views of my people; which is my job. Unless your job involves trying to change the views of other diplomats and try your best to provoke someone into murdering you, I honestly doubt that you are doing your's."

We need no leasons in how to do our job from a delegation which thinks that threats of violence consitute reasoned debate.


Yours,

OOC Urgench, this is totally not what I had planned for this thread, but I am utterly loving it! Thank you!

O.O.C. Oh this is just a normal day at the office for Mongkha, he's not known for being the most charming of the w.a.'s denizens, glad I could have been of service though :p

Insults are not arguments honoured Ambassador.

"Ironic, given how many you've slung in this 'discussion,'" Gorim said.

Honestly this is becoming farcical, our Ambassador, Mongkha, Khan of Kashgar, is not minded to be cowed by the threats and imprecations. Perhaps a little research regarding our own culture and history might offer the honoured delegation of Eluneyasa some insight in to whom it is they make so bold as to try to intimidate.

Here is a link to our entry in the NSwiki http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Urgench

In any event this organisation's buildings are fully equipped with devices which prevent lethal violence. Perhaps the honoured delegation of Eluneyasa is unfamiliar with this fact.

"A person can do quite a bit of damage without it being lethal," Silara said, leaning back. "First rule of magic using."

"So that means I can just make him wish he was dead," Thundra said, smiling coldly. "And I don't see any devices preventing the lethal damage from continuing beyond the building. No one said I had to finish the job here."

"That's enough, Thundra," Terrim warned.

"Or what? You'll stand up and bull rush me?" Thundra challenged.

"Now see here..." Terrim began.

Now this really is an imposture, apologise for what ? It is your delegation which is making vain and dishonourable threats of violence aimed at our Ambassador, we have nothing to apologise for whatsoever. The honoured Ambassador should indeed cool her temper and then offer her apologies to us.

"Why you little..." Thundra began, standing suddely and grabbing a chair to break into pieces of wood.

"Enough!" Silara yelled, raising her hands and unleashing magic without hesitation, ending Thundra's violent reaction by turning the woman into a sheep. "If you're going to act like an animal, then spend some time as one!"

The point we are trying to make is that by denying your women their rights and forcing your people in to lives they might never have chosen your government has made the decision that it prefers any kind of life, no matter how mean or impaired, to freedom and liberty.

We are simply unable to understand why any people would prefer to live in slavery, rather than perish in freedom. No matter what the threat, no matter how grave or persistent, Urgenchis would prefer to be free to live as they please and with honour, if that meant our extinction then so be it, to deprive Urgenchis of their liberty would in any case amount to an extinction of their soul.

"You can't have any freedom at all if you're not alive to enjoy it," Terrim responded. "That is the decision we had to make. Sacrifice a bit of freedom now to survive, or sacrifice our races just to continue a bit of freedom. We chose the option that allows us to exist so that we can enjoy freedom when it is restored. And most of us will still be alive when our freedom returns. It's little more than a temporary inconvenience."

We need no leasons in how to do our job from a delegation which thinks that threats of violence consitute reasoned debate.


Yours,

"And we need no replies from a delegate who is too stupid to realize when he should shut up," Silara replied, waving her hand as she unleashed a second spell, projecting an image of the Urgench ambassador turning into a sheep. "I swear, you're worse than Thundra. She may be temperamental and may have been about to kill you, but at least she knows when she's crossed the line. Maybe when you're ready to act like a civilized being and realize that Eluneyasa is a commonwealth of five nations, each with a delegate here, then you'll be able to realize how much of an idiot you were by lumping us all together with her. You acted at least as much of an animal as her with your attempts to escalate it."

"Did you just sheep an angry trained killer?" Engle asked, slowly turning white.

"Oh, come off it. If she tries to attack me, I'll just sheep her again and have her sheered," Silara replied, waving dismissively.

"Little girl, I think I am gaining a newfound respect for you," Terrim said, bowing his head to her.

"So, is everyone done bickering like children now?" Silara asked.

The Thundra-sheep just glared in reply.

O.O.C. Oh this is just a normal day at the office for Mongkha, he's not known for being the most charming of the w.a.'s denizens, glad I could have been of service though :p

OOC: Yes, Silara just did threaten to sheep your ambassador :D I swear, this is the most fun I've had with an argument on this forum, especially since the Eluneyasa ambassadors know the policy is morally in the wrong and they can't do anything about it.

"Ironic, given how many you've slung in this 'discussion,'" Gorim said.

Where exactly did we in fact insult anyone honoured Ambassador ? Frank criticism is not insults, and we have not resorted to name calling at any point.


"And we need no replies from a delegate who is too stupid to realize when he should shut up," Silara replied, waving her hand as she unleashed a second spell, projecting an image of the Urgench ambassador turning into a sheep. "I swear, you're worse than Thundra. She may be temperamental and may have been about to kill you, but at least she knows when she's crossed the line. Maybe when you're ready to act like a civilized being and realize that Eluneyasa is a commonwealth of five nations, each with a delegate here, then you'll be able to realize how much of an idiot you were by lumping us all together with her. You acted at least as much of an animal as her with your attempts to escalate it."


Calling us stupid, telling us to shut up, and continuing to threaten us, this is becoming tedious. And where have we escalated anything ? Read our submissions carefully and the honoured Ambassador will see that at no point have we engaged in any the calumnies they heap upon us.


Yours,



OOC: Yes, Silara just did threaten to sheep your ambassador :D I swear, this is the most fun I've had with an argument on this forum, especially since the Eluneyasa ambassadors know the policy is morally in the wrong and they can't do anything about it.


O.O.C. OK, just so you know though, Mongkha is an extremely ( and I mean extremely) elderly Lawyer, diplomat and a Mongol aristocrat to boot, famed for his irascible and demanding temperament. He doesn't suffer fools gladly, but he does observe the strictest letter of the codes of diplomacy. He may not be nice, but he is just within the bounds of acceptable conduct. Telling other Ambassador's to shut up and that they are stupid is not really acceptable.

This has been fun, but I think we're probably light years away from the subject at hand so I'm going to give this a rest now, is that cool ? ;)

O.O.C. OK, just so you know though, Mongkha is an extremely ( and I mean extremely) elderly Lawyer, diplomat and a Mongol aristocrat to boot, famed for his irascible and demanding temperament. He doesn't suffer fools gladly, but he does observe the strictest letter of the codes of diplomacy. He may not be nice, but he is just within the bounds of acceptable conduct. Telling other Ambassador's to shut up and that they are stupid is not really acceptable.

This has been fun, but I think we're probably light years away from the subject at hand so I'm going to give this a rest now, is that cool ? ;)

OOC: Silara is immature. Honestly, I noted on the ambassador topic that she only got the job because of her uncle. I try to reflect that with her. The rest? Well, as you can tell, this isn't the cream of the crop :D

But, yeah, laying it to rest is good. Was fun, though.

By denying your female citizens their rights in this way your nation is directly in contravention of the Charter of Civil Rights, we would recommend that your government familiarise itself with its legal obligations, commensurate with its membership of this organisation.

Unless the male citizens of your nation are able to bear offspring, then you will find that your government has instituted and grievous and massive form of discrimination. Thankfully this organisation had the foresight to outlaw such actions.No.
Your resolution allows nations to institute exceptions to its general rules "for compelling practical purposes"; the ambassadors from Elunesaya have already explained why their government considers an appropriate "compelling practical purpose" to apply to their policies on this matter; and as you did not include any right of appeal to any outside authorities within your resolution's terms it is solely their own nation's law-courts, and not any 'international' ones (and certainly not those of your nation...), that possess a right to determine whether those policies are considered compatible with compliance.

It's a shame that my first vote on behalf of the Democratic States of Syzygium clearly puts me in the minority, but our government is no more comfortable legislating prevention of abortion than promotion of abortion.

No.
Your resolution allows nations to institute exceptions to its general rules "for compelling practical purposes"; the ambassadors from Elunesaya have already explained why their government considers an appropriate "compelling practical purpose" to apply to their policies on this matter; and as you did not include any right of appeal to any outside authorities within your resolution's terms it is solely their own nation's law-courts, and not any 'international' ones (and certainly not those of your nation...), that possess a right to determine whether those policies are considered compatible with compliance.

An example of the kind of purpose was included in the statute, this policy does not bear are similarity to that example. The term "compelling practical purposes" was expressly not a catch all term which might be used to justify any kind of monstrosity. We are surprised that the honoured Ambassador continues to read resolutions in this way, forgetting that they must be read and understood in their entirety and not as though they were composed of discrete individual phrases which were separable from one another.

The CoCR is quite clear on the matter of emergency measures.

It would have been pointless to allow referral of appeals to a court which did not exist, therefore no mention of appeals was made, in order that future legislation could deal with this issue. What our own courts have to do with what the honoured Ambassador is talking about is not clear.


Yours,

An example of the kind of purpose was included in the statute, this policy does not bear are similarity to that example.One single example is not enough to pin-down the definition. The term "compelling practical purposes" was expressly not a catch all term which might be used to justify any kind of monstrosity.That may not have been how you intended it, but please remember that it's only the actual wording of resolutions -- and not their authors' hopes -- that are legally binding.
We are surprised that the honoured Ambassador continues to read resolutions in this way, forgetting that they must be read and understood in their entirety and not as though they were composed of discrete individual phrases which were separable from one another.And I am surprised that you are apparently still expecting everybody to accept your own interpretation as to how this should be understood, when you've been here for long enough to see how various nations have exploited loopholes in the wording of other resolutions.

The COCR is quite clear on the matter of emergency measures.Firstly, I didn't call this an "emergency measure" I called it a "compelling practical purpose"; secondly, the COCR says that exceptions in emergencies must be ended when the emergency is over... but from the Elunesayan ambassadors' account, the emergency from which their people have been suffering isn't over.

It would have been pointless to allow referral of appeals to a court which did not exist, therefore no mention of appeals was made,I seem to recall suggesting that you include the creation of such a court, during the drafting stage for this proposal: That you decided against the idea isn't my fault... in order that future legislation could deal with this issue.Without violating the rule against amendment of resolutions?
What our own courts have to do with what the honoured Ambassador is talking about is not clear.You appeared to be assuming (as you have appeared to assume in several previous debates here, too) that your own nation's judgements about the legality of policies relative to the CoCR were binding on every nation, despite the established rule that it is only the actual wording of resolutions that is binding and that the WA's member nations are actually free to intepret the fine details of -- and to exploit any loopholes in -- these themselves without consulting the authors about the latter's intended meanings.

One single example is not enough to pin-down the definition. That may not have been how you intended it, but please remember that it's only the actual wording of resolutions -- and not their authors' hopes -- that are legally binding.
And I am surprised that you are apparently still expecting everybody to accept your own interpretation as to how this should be understood, when you've been here for long enough to see how various nations have exploited loopholes in the wording of other resolutions.

That is not what we are doing. The example gives sufficient guidance to national courts regarding what compelling practical purposes are, the policy of the government of Eluneyasa does not bear any similarities with that example.

Firstly, I didn't call this an "emergency measure" I called it a "compelling practical purpose"; secondly, the COCR says that exceptions in emergencies must be ended when the emergency is over... but from the Elunesayan ambassadors' account, the emergency from which their people have been suffering isn't over.

It is an emergency measure though, and the CoCR says nothing about exceptions in emergency measures, in fact it says the opposite, that emergency measures must respect the provisions of the statute.

I seem to recall suggesting that you include the creation of such a court, during the drafting stage for this proposal: That you decided against the idea isn't my fault... Without violating the rule against amendment of resolutions?

The creation of an international court could not be properly achieved within the body of another statute with a specific and separate aim, the creation of a Court of Human rights ( or some such thing ) would not be an amendment to the CoCR, because the CoCR does not make mention of its possible future interactions with such a body.



You appeared to be assuming (as you have appeared to assume in several previous debates here, too) that your own nation's judgements about the legality of policies relative to the CoCR were binding on every nation, despite the established rule that it is only the actual wording of resolutions that is binding and that the WA's member nations are actually free to intepret the fine details of -- and to exploit any loopholes in -- these themselves without consulting the authors about the latter's intended meanings.


We do not presume that our own judgements are binding on anyone but ourselves. We do take the opportunity to point out instances of what we see as infraction of the CoCR, especially since it has become clear that the actual effect of that statute was not fully understood in some quarters. Other member governments are perfectly within their rights to ignore every word we say, just as we are perfectly within our rights to say whatever is being ignored.


The respected delegation of Bears Armed is well known for pointing out the interactions between national and international laws, and between international laws themselves. Do we take the opportunity to characterise this as a unilateral interpretation which is therefore irrelevant or illegitimate in some way ?

Indeed we have no way of collectively coming to decisions about such matters, unless individual delegations offer their own interpretations of the law then no interpretations would exist at all.


Yours,

"Wait wait, hang on a second. You're complaining that this resolution supposedly limits your options when it comes to sex education, which it doesn't, and yet you'd prefer that it be written in such a way that it actually would limit sex education options. Anyone else see the hypocrisy here?"
- Flibbleites (How exactly does the quote thing work? Ha.)

I hesitate to speak for my colleague, but it seems to me that this proposal limits education options in general.And yet, this resolution allows for both abstinence and comprehensive education. So how exactly is this limiting anything?

In The Rogue Nation, we try to educate our children in a well rounded manner. Of things, we certainly don't want sex to be prevalent. Afterall, hasn't this been an issue for a very long time? And aren't all of these proposals a bit flimsy and reminiscent of old methods? I say don't take away the rights of a parent. And don't sacrifice Literature or Math.

OK, where exactly does this resolution say that these sex ed classes are mandatory, or when being taught in schools, would be replacing other classes?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

If my esteemed colleague will admit briefly that there are only so many hours in a day... I mean to say that other avenues of education must be limited in order to accomodate a prevalence in sexual education.

We of the Rogue Nation are aware that very little is mandated by this resolution, which has been expressed in previous sentiments. Of right or wrong I have little to say, as abortion is an issue that wise men must sit on both sides of. What I do not like is the flimsy nature of this. I can only agree with my colleagues in that this seems to accomplish nothing other than a precedent for more aggressive measures to stand upon.

Of the matter of abstinence, contraceptives, and comprehensive education; I do not think they should be put in the curriculum of schools. Children develop at highly differing rates, and it is a parents' responsibility (to be cherished or neglected,) to educate according to their own values. Or at the very least not to have questionable information broached internationally in this global community.

If I may re-use a comparison of my own, I liken the issue of abstinance to the issue of racism. It is perpetuated by best intentions and never allowed to leave ones mind. Do we expect to fill a child's mind with sex and then have them ignore physical desires?

Votes For: 2,432

Votes Against: 980

Nigel smiled widely... With all the nations threatening to leave if this passes... I might finally get a bigger office! he thought.

If my esteemed colleague will admit briefly that there are only so many hours in a day... I mean to say that other avenues of education must be limited in order to accomodate a prevalence in sexual education.

We of the Rogue Nation are aware that very little is mandated by this resolution, which has been expressed in previous sentiments. Of right or wrong I have little to say, as abortion is an issue that wise men must sit on both sides of. What I do not like is the flimsy nature of this. I can only agree with my colleagues in that this seems to accomplish nothing other than a precedent for more aggressive measures to stand upon.

Of the matter of abstinence, contraceptives, and comprehensive education; I do not think they should be put in the curriculum of schools. Children develop at highly differing rates, and it is a parents' responsibility (to be cherished or neglected,) to educate according to their own values. Or at the very least not to have questionable information broached internationally in this global community.

If I may re-use a comparison of my own, I liken the issue of abstinance to the issue of racism. It is perpetuated by best intentions and never allowed to leave ones mind. Do we expect to fill a child's mind with sex and then have them ignore physical desires?

Thundra, having turned back to normal, opened her mouth.

"If you say another word during this or drag us into another fight, I will see to it that you spend the rest of your life with four legs and wool," Terrim whispered to the night elf. "We backed you out of respect for Tyrande, and you left all of us embarassed. Do not make me regret not taking you down like I should have."

Thundra closed her mouth.

"I believe that you misunderstand the issue of abstinence. Part of the issue is teaching self-control. Teaching that you don't have to have sex with everything that moves, just like you don't have to steal everything that it not nailed down," Terrim began, glancing toward Silara and trying to hide his annoyance at how quickly she hid a couple pieces of jewelry he was sure she didn't have when they entered the room. "If a person cannot control their desires, then what stops them from breaking a piece of furniture and attacking another diplomat after dragging their fellows into an argument that shouldn't have happened? What prevents them from acting in a manner that leaves someone who is little more than a child no choice but to use a spell to turn them into a sheep? Or stop someone with military training from acting like a rebellious teenager who should be slapped silly until they learn better? That is the purpose of abstinence education; to teach youth how to control themselves in one area. Perhaps some adults could benefit from it as well."

-It was with dry eyes that the slender, swarthy man of thin black hair swiveled within his post to pay tribute, if only visually, to the unascertained goings on just to his left. A veritable scene having emerged, in his opinion-- and he'd been doing so well to ignore it. No doubt it was an err to have gained their attentions.

While outwardly he smiled with humble teeth, his insides clenched as he began to absord... and then to respond in calculated breaths,-

"Terrim, is it? With what title shall I honor you correctly? You have just put so well exactly what I mean to say. It is precisely the issue of self-control that sex education will not address. To be frank, children may not be mature enough. The information alone may provide incentive. And in truth, your own Nation for example, is a wondrous supply of life something to be avoided?

Self control is better addressed with Law and Order. Crime is of no real concern in the Rogue Nation, as we've a well funded and well educated Police Force. Children do not 'steal everything that is not nailed down.' And if I might joke; does your metaphor include nailing females down?

I'm sadly unable to relate to your surely amusing allegory of the military... lad?? All of the Rogue Nation's citizens serve. Another strenghtening of our society's discipline and abstinence.

Let me say again that it is not the idea itself that turns me from this legislation but the means. They are unsound. They are not direct, and the final decision still ends up in the hands of premature children."

-It was with dry eyes that the slender, swarthy man of thin black hair swiveled within his post to pay tribute, if only visually, to the unascertained goings on just to his left. A veritable scene having emerged, in his opinion-- and he'd been doing so well to ignore it. No doubt it was an err to have gained their attentions.

While outwardly he smiled with humble teeth, his insides clenched as he began to absord... and then to respond in calculated breaths,-

"Terrim, is it? With what title shall I honor you correctly? You have just put so well exactly what I mean to say. It is precisely the issue of self-control that sex education will not address. To be frank, children may not be mature enough. The information alone may provide incentive. And in truth, your own Nation for example, is a wondrous supply of life something to be avoided?

Self control is better addressed with Law and Order. Crime is of no real concern in the Rogue Nation, as we've a well funded and well educated Police Force. Children do not 'steal everything that is not nailed down.' And if I might joke; does your metaphor include nailing females down?

I'm sadly unable to relate to your surely amusing allegory of the military... lad?? All of the Rogue Nation's citizens serve. Another strenghtening of our society's discipline and abstinence.

Let me say again that it is not the idea itself that turns me from this legislation but the means. They are unsound. They are not direct, and the final decision still ends up in the hands of premature children."

"My honorific is Elder; I am of the age to join the ruling council among my people and am only here because it was believed my wisdom in dealing with the other races of Eluneyasa would be of more help in this place," Terrim said. Translation: I'm here to try to keep the others from getting too far out of line. "And on that I must disagree. Abstinence education, when combined with education on other forms of sex education, helped quite a bit with us to control our populations before the last war.

"I do not see where it will fail to teach children at least some form of self-control. If children know there are consequences and have seen some of the information, they can make more informed decisions. And, in our experience, most of those learning are already thinking about it... This is just dealing with a potential future problem before it arrives. Maturity does not change whether or not they still have the thoughts.

"And, trust me..." At this point, Terrim pointedly looked to Thundra. "The military 'anecdote' isn't amusing."

-Relaxing somewhat as he assesses the way in which he was recieved, a smile found cause to spread as his weight lay more comfortably atop forearms which formally maintained a position on either side of the reddishly varnished oak podium.-

"Elder Terrim, I am quickly realizing the value you bring to these proceedings and am impressed your Nation can afford such talent in this distant place. I find it remarkable that while we agree in principal you could support this Act.

Self-control is tantamount to sexual education. The first precipitates the second. I have provided evidence of more direct approaches. The fact is that this piece of legislation does not support or provide for the ideal you and I are discussing. It seeks a simple answer to more convoluted problems."

I would like to state that the legislation is a misnomer. It should be the "Improvement of Pregnancy Protection Programs Act" or something without "Abortion" in the name, as the resolution does not attempt to regulate abortion.

I'll approve it since it doesn't restrict my nation's right to legalize abortion, if it did I'd vote against it.

-Relaxing somewhat as he assesses the way in which he was recieved, a smile found cause to spread as his weight lay more comfortably atop forearms which formally maintained a position on either side of the reddishly varnished oak podium.-

"Elder Terrim, I am quickly realizing the value you bring to these proceedings and am impressed your Nation can afford such talent in this distant place. I find it remarkable that while we agree in principal you could support this Act.

Self-control is tantamount to sexual education. The first precipitates the second. I have provided evidence of more direct approaches. The fact is that this piece of legislation does not support or provide for the ideal you and I are discussing. It seeks a simple answer to more convoluted problems."

"I must admit that I look around at my fellow delegates from home and wonder if it is that I volunteered for the wrong line of work," Terrim replied, earning him glares from the rest of the Eluneyasan delegates. "And, it has been noted that Eluneyasa does not support this act, but our reasoning is different on why we don't. I would rather not discuss our reasoning, given the problems a couple of my fellows have had in properly dealing with discussions of it.

"In any case, I must agree that it does not go far enough. However, I find the spirit to be good and, given the opposition, this may be the best we could hope for from this assembly. Unfortunately, they have to deal with people weirder than just us."

The example gives sufficient guidance to national courts regarding what compelling practical purposes are,Had you worded the clause in question to say explicitly that such purposes "should not be significantly greater in the scope than" that example then I would agree with you about this; but you did not do so, and any implicit meaning that you intended it to have is therefore -- under the well-established principle that only the exact wording of resolutions matters for the purpose of compliance -- not binding on the member nations.

The creation of an international court could not be properly achieved within the body of another statute with a specific and separate aim, the creation of a Court of Human rights ( or some such thing ) would not be an amendment to the CoCR, because the CoCR does not make mention of its possible future interactions with such a body.Hr'rmm, well I would have thought that some kind of court -- or maybe a 'World Assembly Arbitration Agency' -- could have been defined adequately enough within a single clause. (OOC: as I've managed to fit clauses defining such creations within two or three of my own so-far-unsuccessful proposals...), and of course any proposal that only creates such a court would be illegal due to the rule that a valid resolution must do more than just "create a committee". As to applying the authority of any such court retrospectively to the rules created under previous resolutions, I would argue that the very fact that those resolutions didn't specifically mention the possibility themselves means that this would effectively be amending them (and would suggest that anybody attempting such a proposal should get a ruling from the Mods on this point before going on with the work...).

We do not presume that our own judgements are binding on anyone but ourselves. We do take the opportunity to point out instances of what we see as infraction of the CoCR, especially since it has become clear that the actual effect of that statute was not fully understood in some quarters....and to point them out with terms such as "That's illegal", in ways that sound more like giving a judgement than voicing a mere opinion.
Oh, I think that the actual "effect" of the CoCR's wording was understood by those nations, it's your government's intentions about how it should be interpreted -- the details that you didn'texplain explicilty enough -- that they may not have grasped in some cases and that as they're only implied rather than actually stated are (as I've already pointed out) not legally binding anyway...

The respected delegation of Bears Armed is well known for pointing out the interactions between national and international laws, and between international laws themselves. Do we take the opportunity to characterise this as a unilateral interpretation which is therefore irrelevant or illegitimate in some way ?And do I give those opinions in terms that imply I am judging the legality (or otherwise) of such matters on the basis of implicit content rather than of explicit wording?

Although the topic of this legislation poses more of a moral dilemma than a practical dilemma, we have decided to support this bill for its practicality. In truth, I do not support abortion; however, I feel that this bill assists in the prevention of future medical complications for those that choose abortion, giving this bill its strength. Not allowing my morals to interfere with this decision, I feel that the said education advocated by this bill eclipses a larger scope of problems in a very loosely binding manner, while still leaving the decision to the mother. Many others have refused the support of this bill because it takes a largely pro-life stance, providing the basis for more extreme forms of future legislation regarding abortion. However, the education established by the bill simply helps future parents to understand the risks of abortion to help them formulate a decision.

By "understanding the risks" I am referring to the psychological and biological effects of abortion. Many forget that abortion is not just a question of whether the fetus should be considered "viable," but a question of future effects on the mother. Abortion often results in psychological problems such as regret, or even depression, which some can never overcome. In addition, abortions increase the rate of miscarraige and birth defects during future conception.

Education services and access to financial aid/ abortion reduction services should help to reduce the aforementioned problems, leading me to support this legislation.

I rise to say that I liked "the street protesters" better....

"I apologize for my failure to keep up on Regional Opinion... as some astute Representative took note, I am new here, and a bit bewildered. In truth I was trying to avoid commenting on the particular situation of your Nation, given its unusual and vehement nature."

-A meak, almost apologetic smile twisted his mouth lop-sidedly, no doubt more comfortable now as things seemed to be settling down. The votes were piling up; the opposition was losing its fervor, and the supporters saw innevitable victory. No sense in getting riled, he figured solemnly, and made effort to push himself up from that tired lean.

His elbows seemed to stretch the incorrect way, back arching momentarily to coax fourth a few audible pops. Hands managed through a small stack of papers and he retreated from his speaking position, eyes cast out over the expanse of that mighty World forum and as though for the first time taking in its noisy ambience. He made in an almost sneaky manner towards the Eluneyasan Delegates, approaching specifically from Terrim's side.-

"On a personal note, if I may? I'd wish to speak further with you on politics of a broader scale. In hopes of finding common ground on a variety of issues perhaps resulting in combined efforts for a single piece of legislation. I fear my ambition exceeds my own means."

Had you worded the clause in question to say explicitly that such purposes "should not be significantly greater in the scope than" that example then I would agree with you about this; but you did not do so, and any implicit meaning that you intended it to have is therefore -- under the well-established principle that only the exact wording of resolutions matters for the purpose of compliance -- not binding on the member nations.

The scope is explicit in the nature of the example given. But have it your way if you wish honoured Ambassador, we shall simply agree to disagree with your Excellency on this matter.

Hr'rmm, well I would have thought that some kind of court -- or maybe a 'World Assembly Arbitration Agency' -- could have been defined adequately enough within a single clause. (OOC: as I've managed to fit clauses defining such creations within two or three of my own so-far-unsuccessful proposals...), and of course any proposal that only creates such a court would be illegal due to the rule that a valid resolution must do more than just "create a committee". As to applying the authority of any such court retrospectively to the rules created under previous resolutions, I would argue that the very fact that those resolutions didn't specifically mention the possibility themselves means that this would effectively be amending them (and would suggest that anybody attempting such a proposal should get a ruling from the Mods on this point before going on with the work...).

We hesitate to suggest that the mere inclusion of one or two lines creating a court within a resolution would likely be at least one of the reasons it might not meet with much approval. The honoured Ambassador's contention about the issue of amendment is interesting, perhaps it would be best dealt with elsewhere.

...and to point them out with terms such as "That's illegal", in ways that sound more like giving a judgement than voicing a mere opinion.
Oh, I think that the actual "effect" of the CoCR's wording was understood by those nations, it's your government's intentions about how it should be interpreted -- the details that you didn'texplain explicilty enough -- that they may not have grasped in some cases and that as they're only implied rather than actually stated are (as I've already pointed out) not legally binding anyway...


We can hardly be held to account for the bias of other delegations in what they consider to be an opinion or a judgement, the difference is in any case so finite as to be minuscule, especially since we have already pointed out that we would be idiots to believe that our own judgements had any effect beyond our own borders.

The honoured Ambassador makes all sorts of sweeping judgements about what is or is not explicit within the CoCR, are we to accept these judgements as definitive ? In any event we are talking of the actual ramifications of the passing of the CoCR not implicit meanings.

And do I give those opinions in terms that imply I am judging the legality (or otherwise) of such matters on the basis of implicit content rather than of explicit wording?


Is the honoured Ambassador seriously going to contend their delegation's complete infallibility ? They have never, ever been guilty of offering opinions on the implicit content of a law, not once ?

What ever the answer, that was not what we were doing, and we have no reason to defend ourselves against such spurious charges, does the honoured Ambassador see any point in continuing to accuse us of things we have not done, and then provoke dispute on such fictions ?

We do not.


Yours,

Why is this a world assembly vote? Why should the WA tell me what to say to my citizens about their own lives? Why can't my citizens make their own choices? Barring personal freedom, why can't MY NATION make its own choices? Why do people who know nothing about my nation or its people insist on telling them what to think and how to act?

If my citizens want or do not want an abortion is up to them, and if it becomes a moral issue its up to MY GOVERNMENT and its morality.

I've been supporting the W.A. as a council for the discussion of _WORLD RELEVANT_ ideas and concerns. Issues which fall under this category are things like WAR, FAMINE, the ENVIRONMENT, and INTERNATIONAL commerce.

Things which do not include (and are certainly not limited to) MORALITY, JUSTICE, NATIONAL economies, corporate affairs of any NON-GLOBAL type, and ANYTHING concerning MY CITIZENS and THEIR LIVES.

I refuse to support any bill under the World Assembly which tells my how to run my nation or what ethics my people should adopt.

Anyone who votes for needs to remember what sovereignty is.

By the way, I understand this does not tell me the legality of abortions, that's not the point.

The point is that overpopulation, unwanted pregnancies, adoption, blah blah blah are all INTERNAL problems. The number of MY citizens who live or die, and how they do this is a concern of MY NATION ALONE. This could be contested in cases such as genocide, mass famine, mass deaths, etc etc. This CANNOT be contested in the area of pregnancy. Such an argument PRESUPPOSES a premise in which abortions are morally or ethically negative. This is not freedom to govern.

I am against this resolution because of one clause. "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" I realize this is non-binding and really does absolutely nothing but this is far outside of the role of my government. My government is not concerned with the personal lives and choices of the citizens and does not stand for providing financial aid to those who made that choice.

Although the topic of this legislation poses more of a moral dilemma than a practical dilemma, we have decided to support this bill for its practicality. In truth, I do not support abortion; however, I feel that this bill assists in the prevention of future medical complications for those that choose abortion, giving this bill its strength. Not allowing my morals to interfere with this decision, I feel that the said education advocated by this bill eclipses a larger scope of problems in a very loosely binding manner, while still leaving the decision to the mother. Many others have refused the support of this bill because it takes a largely pro-life stance, providing the basis for more extreme forms of future legislation regarding abortion. However, the education established by the bill simply helps future parents to understand the risks of abortion to help them formulate a decision.

By "understanding the risks" I am referring to the psychological and biological effects of abortion. Many forget that abortion is not just a question of whether the fetus should be considered "viable," but a question of future effects on the mother. Abortion often results in psychological problems such as regret, or even depression, which some can never overcome. In addition, abortions increase the rate of miscarraige and birth defects during future conception.

Education services and access to financial aid/ abortion reduction services should help to reduce the aforementioned problems, leading me to support this legislation.

Um.

Although I probably shouldn't argue with someone that supports my proposal, there are two things you have said with which I must strongly disagree.

First, I object most strenuously to the suggestion that abortion "often" results in psychological problems or any other health complications. It is a simple fact that abortion is a safer medical procedure with less side effects than childbirth. It is actually among the safest of medical procedures. As for psychological effects, they are rarely negative and usually positive -- especially compared to the rather common phenomenon of post-partum depression.

Second, I may be overlooking something, but nothing in the resolution as I read it provides education about "the risks of abortion." It calls for comprehenisve sex education and other measures, but not anti-abortion brainwashing or "advice."

"It is actually among the safest of medical procedures. As for psychological effects, they are rarely negative and usually positive -- especially compared to the rather common phenomenon of post-partum depression."

I am assuming you are talking about the mother, not the child. In the childs case, isn't the mortality rate fairly high? ----Just saying.

"I apologize for my failure to keep up on Regional Opinion... as some astute Representative took note, I am new here, and a bit bewildered. In truth I was trying to avoid commenting on the particular situation of your Nation, given its unusual and vehement nature."

-A meak, almost apologetic smile twisted his mouth lop-sidedly, no doubt more comfortable now as things seemed to be settling down. The votes were piling up; the opposition was losing its fervor, and the supporters saw innevitable victory. No sense in getting riled, he figured solemnly, and made effort to push himself up from that tired lean.

His elbows seemed to stretch the incorrect way, back arching momentarily to coax fourth a few audible pops. Hands managed through a small stack of papers and he retreated from his speaking position, eyes cast out over the expanse of that mighty World forum and as though for the first time taking in its noisy ambience. He made in an almost sneaky manner towards the Eluneyasan Delegates, approaching specifically from Terrim's side.-

"On a personal note, if I may? I'd wish to speak further with you on politics of a broader scale. In hopes of finding common ground on a variety of issues perhaps resulting in combined efforts for a single piece of legislation. I fear my ambition exceeds my own means."

Terrim smiled. "Don't worry about it. It's quite easy to lose track in this debate. I had to consult written notes myself several times. And don't worry on the rather strong opinions... the main source of the venom from our side has been quieted."

Then, stretching, the tauren nodded. "That would be possible. It would be more interesting to see what the final result would be on that and if it would pass. Wait, hold on..."

Why is this a world assembly vote? Why should the WA tell me what to say to my citizens about their own lives? Why can't my citizens make their own choices? Barring personal freedom, why can't MY NATION make its own choices? Why do people who know nothing about my nation or its people insist on telling them what to think and how to act?

If my citizens want or do not want an abortion is up to them, and if it becomes a moral issue its up to MY GOVERNMENT and its morality.

I've been supporting the W.A. as a council for the discussion of _WORLD RELEVANT_ ideas and concerns. Issues which fall under this category are things like WAR, FAMINE, the ENVIRONMENT, and INTERNATIONAL commerce.

Things which do not include (and are certainly not limited to) MORALITY, JUSTICE, NATIONAL economies, corporate affairs of any NON-GLOBAL type, and ANYTHING concerning MY CITIZENS and THEIR LIVES.

I refuse to support any bill under the World Assembly which tells my how to run my nation or what ethics my people should adopt.

Anyone who votes for needs to remember what sovereignty is.

By the way, I understand this does not tell me the legality of abortions, that's not the point.

The point is that overpopulation, unwanted pregnancies, adoption, blah blah blah are all INTERNAL problems. The number of MY citizens who live or die, and how they do this is a concern of MY NATION ALONE. This could be contested in cases such as genocide, mass famine, mass deaths, etc etc. This CANNOT be contested in the area of pregnancy. Such an argument PRESUPPOSES a premise in which abortions are morally or ethically negative. This is not freedom to govern.

"So whether or not your soldiers are beating pregnant women in your nation is no concern of the World Assembly?" Silara asked. "When I joined, I was told that the concern of the World Assembly is any problem which could potentially involve multiple nations. If you are treating your citizens so badly that they form raiding groups, done helmets with horns and outfits made out of bear pelts, arm themselves with crudely-made axes, and then start raiding your neighbors to steal their valuables and women, then it's the concern of the WA."

"Honestly, if you didn't like the idea that this body might intervene in your nation, why did you join?" Terrim asked.

I am against this resolution because of one clause. "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" I realize this is non-binding and really does absolutely nothing but this is far outside of the role of my government. My government is not concerned with the personal lives and choices of the citizens and does not stand for providing financial aid to those who made that choice.

"Then ignore the clause and judge based on the rest of it," Silara replied.

"It is actually among the safest of medical procedures. As for psychological effects, they are rarely negative and usually positive -- especially compared to the rather common phenomenon of post-partum depression."

I am assuming you are talking about the mother, not the child. In the childs case, isn't the mortality rate fairly high? ----Just saying.

"That depends on when you classify them as a separate life," Gorim said. "Which is an argument it is best for us to avoid."

The Reduction of Abortion Act was passed 3,166 votes to 1,516. Congratulations!

Dear W.A

I find this act a major insult to leadership and current in placed polices regarding the subject at hand. And to have some moralistic outsiders say to what my people and more importantly my nation can do with their own INDIVIDUAL bodies is inexcusable. I personally believe the W.A time could be better spent dealing with matters of actual importance. As the subject abortion is a STATE matter. Not a world matter as the benefactor of this act seems to think.

With regards

The Baron of Bron Von Guatis.

((OOC: My first post in here))

The nation of Vaytria will most likely be leaving the WA because of the passing of this proposal. Several parts of the "abortion reduction services" are not things that our nation wants. To avoid being affected by this bill, we shall hereby resign from the World Assembly.

From, the Head Councilman of Vaytria.

WA is a joke if it is the WA is to decide how Member States should be guided in terms of issues like this, it is rather the Member States themselves to decide if they want to strengthen against abortion or not.

Aurora Islands will never let anyone control our nation concerning such a matter, for it is up to our people to determine themselves, and therefore leaves Aurora Island the WA in protest until the WA deals resolutions who not violate against any Member State's sovereignty.

Dear W.A

I find this act a major insult to leadership and current in placed polices regarding the subject at hand. And to have some moralistic outsiders say to what my people and more importantly my nation can do with their own INDIVIDUAL bodies is inexcusable. I personally believe the W.A time could be better spent dealing with matters of actual importance. As the subject abortion is a STATE matter. Not a world matter as the benefactor of this act seems to think.

With regards

The Baron of Bron Von Guatis.

"We have yet to say what you can and cannot do with your bodies," Silara said. "In fact, this does not say anything either way about abortion; what it does is try to get you to educate on safe sex and abstinence."

WA is a joke if it is the WA is to decide how Member States should be guided in terms of issues like this, it is rather the Member States themselves to decide if they want to strengthen against abortion or not.

Aurora Islands will never let anyone control our nation concerning such a matter, for it is up to our people to determine themselves, and therefore leaves Aurora Island the WA in protest until the WA deals resolutions who not violate against any Member State's sovereignty.

Silara sighed. "Look, point out where it actually says anything about how you are to act in relation to abortion... no, better yet, go ahead and leave. If you'll excuse me, I'll be busy flamestriking everything in your office before you leave."

And with that, Silara stood and headed out to do just as she threatened.

"Should we stop her?" Gorim asked.

"I... don't think so," Terrim said.

((OOC: My first post in here))

The nation of Vaytria will most likely be leaving the WA because of the passing of this proposal. Several parts of the "abortion reduction services" are not things that our nation wants. To avoid being affected by this bill, we shall hereby resign from the World Assembly.

From, the Head Councilman of Vaytria.

WA is a joke if it is the WA is to decide how Member States should be guided in terms of issues like this, it is rather the Member States themselves to decide if they want to strengthen against abortion or not.

Aurora Islands will never let anyone control our nation concerning such a matter, for it is up to our people to determine themselves, and therefore leaves Aurora Island the WA in protest until the WA deals resolutions who not violate against any Member State's sovereignty.


Nigel listens respectfully then turns to his assistant... "Apparently they missed the clause that said they could... Check their offices, if they are bigger than ours stand there and call me! Fight to the death if you have to!" She turns to leave and Nigel calls after her "If they have nice stuff grab it!"

The Kingdom of ANG3L5 is without a doubt behind the passing of this subject.

Well done WA Members.

OOC: Congrats Cat-Tribe.