NationStates Jolt Archive

Rights Of The Unborn
The issue that is abortion has haunted all of our nations over the last century. It is time to realize that no side will ever have a clear majority. It is also important to understand that both sides have good points to make in their defense. I therefore propose a resolution which will attempt to satisfy everyone.
All abortions are allowed within the first three months of a pregnancy. If a female has been married for less than five years, she need's her husband's approval. After five years of marriage, her husband's approval is no longer required. If the female is under 18 and not married, she needs at least one of her parent's approval.
In the second trimester, abortions will be allowed only in cases of rape, incest, severe health concerns for the child, or the health of the mother would be in jeopardy if her child was to be born. A committee composed of three doctors, one must be from the government, will decide if these conditions exist. Only two votes are needed for an abortion to be preformed. If she is married or under 18, the same conditions that were in place for the first trimester still exist.
In the third trimester, abortions will be allowed only in cases of serve health concerns for the child or for the mother. A committee will decide if these conditions exist. A committee of five doctors, at least one will be government appointed, will decide, and a simple majority will do for the abortion to be preformed. If she is married or under 18, the same conditions that were in place for the first and second trimesters shall continue.
At no time will partial birth abortions be allowed to be preformed.
If the parents both agree, they may decide to give up their child so he/she can be put into state custody if they feel they cannot provide for the child. Once done however, they will have no rights over their child.
If enacted, this amendment will remain untouched for one year, and after the first year has expired, another vote shall be taken on the subject. This shall decide if the amendment’s authority shall be continued or ended.
"please support this, so we can get on with other issues."

The problem with passing a UN resolution on this is that it leaves no room for flexibility by the government. If there are some special circumstances or something like that.

The problem is if it becomes any stricter in any way, it will have no chance of being passed. If you feel it could be more flexible, please state where, so in the future it may be corrected upon.

I don't think it can get much more flexible.If I could I would ban abortion but I agree that there isn't going to be a real majority on either side. Therefore,I would probably agree with this and I wouldn't let it become more flexible.

I've never had a baby or an abortion so I do not know the reason why the parents even consider it.If you cannot care for the child,do adoption. Is it a matter that they fear they will loose their own lives or is it just they don't want to go through the pain?

I don't understand the motives for abortion,but I would rather have a resolution supporting adoption. I am extremely (sp?) thankful that my birthparents chose adoption rather than abortion of me.

Firstly, this is not a proposal that is "neither for or against" abortion -- it is quite blatantly in favor of it, even if it is an attempt to compromise. Secondly, as I currently understand that text, a married woman or a teenager could get an abortion in the third trimester. Why are the rights of the unborn altered when the mother is young or unwedded? Thirdly, I'm not sure if this will get much support from either side of the debate. Each side may end up thinking that it goes to far toward the other to really represent their interests.

A UN resolution should never be a combination of two factions' agendas. If you want to please two factions, it's better to let them stay in charge of their own affairs.

It will never cease to amaze me that both sides of the abortion argument are wrong when taken to either extreme. Compromise is necessary on this subject, but neither side will ever admit it. When the mother's health is at risk, or a rape has been committed, abortion should be allowed. If a man and woman choose to have sex and the woman gets pregnant, the baby should have to be carried full-term and delivered if no risk is present to the mother's life. Why is this so hard to agree upon? Allowing abortion under any circumstances basically says that we don't have to take responsibility for our own actions (e.g. having sex). Banning abortion entirely is stupid also because it says that the baby's health is always more important than the mother's. This is my view on the subject. If you have any questions for me, I will be more than happy to answer them.

When the mother's health is at risk, or a rape has been committed, abortion should be allowed.

Not neccessarily -- if you believe that a human life begins at conception, that could be equated with murder. Do we kill people because we don't like them? Generally not. The logic with the anti-abortionists is that all humans have a right to live. I suppose a proper response would be, "Just because someone got raped doesn't mean we have to kill a child."

I would say that the centerpiece of the debate is really, "When does life begin?" Define that, and most every piece of the debate falls into place. The trouble, of course, is that the definition has so far proven to be quite subjective.

Other than that, I believe the nature of abortion is such that it will always be controversial.

When the mother's health is at risk, or a rape has been committed, abortion should be allowed.

Not neccessarily -- if you believe that a human life begins at conception, that could be equated with murder. Do we kill people because we don't like them? Generally not. The logic with the anti-abortionists is that all humans have a right to live. I suppose a proper response would be, "Just because someone got raped doesn't mean we have to kill a child."

I would say that the centerpiece of the debate is really, "When does life begin?" Define that, and most every piece of the debate falls into place. The trouble, of course, is that the definition has so far proven to be quite subjective.

Other than that, I believe the nature of abortion is such that it will always be controversial.

This may have been mentioned before, but before the 20th century, life was thought to begin with "quickening," i.e. when the mother felt the baby kick for the first time. This occurs after the first trimester.

We would support this bill but are concerned about the partial-birth abortion clause. If the mother's life is endanger in the second trimester or later, partial-birth abortion may be the only way to save her life.

After five years of marriage, her husband's approval is no longer required.

Can't say I understand this clause. Why does the husband's role in the decision expire?