NationStates Jolt Archive

In this resolution, I propose that third trimester abortions be banned throughout the United Nations. Heretofore abortions had not been addressed. This resolution will set the following limitations on abortions.

Choice
All women, not men, have the choice to abort their fetuses up to but not limited to the last third of the fetus pregnancy. Last third is defined as such, after one hundred and eighty five earth days is defined as the last trimester of fetal pregnancy in humankind.

Limitations
Local abortion clinics have the right to refuse any abortion; abortion is not a right. The leading physician has the final say in each case and does not have to perform the operation.

Restrictions
If after the third trimester of the abortion arrives, which places the fetus out of possible abortion status, there is evidence of a health threat to the mother, an abortion may be performed by a licensed physician.

Considerations
When an abortion clinic receives a patient, and the patient is being screened for the abortion, the clinic is mandated by law to take the following into account on the patients’ case.
What are the circumstances of the pregnancy?
How many abortions has the patient had?
What are the reasons the patient is requesting the abortion?
The physician must take in the gravity of the situation and is implored not to take this procedure lightly, ever.

Consequences
If a woman has an illegal abortion, (an abortion not performed by a licensed physician; abortion performed after the third trimester without due cause or approval) the woman and those in assistance shall be charged with premeditated murder, and medical practice without a license. Or, if in the case a licensed physician does perform the procedure, his license shall be revoked for not less than six years. The local jurisdiction shall assign sentence to all guilty persons.

In conclusion, while this resolution supports women’s choice to have an abortion, this resolution also limits the timeframe in which the decision has to be made and carried out. It also states the consequences of disregarding this proposal.

I'd vote for it if the questions bit were clarified. Take into account how? Are the questions only related to third trimester abortions?

I'd suggest that any elements of the proposal not directly concerning third trimester abortions be removed and placed in a separate proposal.

i dont want to leave anything open, if there is something specific you would like me to delete then write it. I believe that every article in this proposal is necessary in order to define the law of the resolution.

I have some specific objections to portions of this proposal that are unnecessary or cause restrictions on abortion other than in the third trimester, as that should be dealt with in a separate proposal. That said, here's my itemized list, with suggestions for change:

Choice

This section unnecessarily expands abortion rights. Some nations, such as Catholic Europe (if I remember correctly) have made abortions completely illegal. It would be inappropriate to unnecessarily force them to legalize abortions. I also see some problems with the wording of the definition of the third trimester. Here's how I would word it:

Choice
No person shall force another person to have an abortion. No person shall cause a fetus in the third trimester of development or later to be aborted unless justified by other portions of this resolution. The third trimester shall be defined as the 185th day after projected or actual date of conception and the days of fetal development following.

Limitations

Aside from the conflict with the current wording in "choice"- if they have the choice it's their right- this unnecessarily affects abortions in other trimester. I would suggest you formulate a different proposal if you wish to address this issue and eliminate this portion of the proposal; this portion of the proposal distracts from the real issue.

Restrictions

This fails to consider whether a fetus can be delivered without undue harm to the mother; if it can, and the mother chooses to abort, this proposal would ensure her safety from deserved prosecution. There's also some unclear wording here. I would reword as follows:

Restrictions

After the beginning of the third trimester, no person shall be authorized to abort a fetus, unless the mother's life is endangered by the pregnancy and the fetus cannot be delivered safely by means surgical or natural. If the mother's life is endangered by the pregnancy, and if the third trimester fetus can be saved without killing or permanently and severely injuring the mother, then the fetus must be delivered safely. If the third trimester fetus cannot be saved without killing or permanently and severely injuring the mother, then an abortion is permitted.

Considerations

I'd suggest putting this in another proposal, perhaps with the "limitations" portion. This distracts us from the issues at hand. Remember, proposals are supposed to solve specific problems. I'd recommend deleting this section.

Consequences

This needs clarifying: the mother should not be punished for having an abortion performed by an unlicensed physician, if the abortion took place before the third trimester. Remember: narrow focus as much as possible.

Also, when it says "in the case a licensed physician does perform the procedure," I'd recommend a change in wording to "does perform the prohibited procedure."

You also don't need the conclusion in the actual proposal.

thanks for the input changing now.

I believe you are however wrong when it comes to the choice section. such as, you have the choice to get a boob job done, but it really isnt a right. If it is a right, then it should be added to a bill of rights, but I am defining it as a case by case decision to the physician in the case. with the choice part, i am making it clear the decision to have the abortion legally is up to the woman, or should i put woman and doctor?? in order to clarify, ill post the revised proposal as soon as i get a response to this.

unless it is life threatening, an operation isnt really a right and i am making that clear

I believe you are however wrong when it comes to the choice section. such as, you have the choice to get a boob job done, but it really isnt a right. If it is a right, then it should be added to a bill of rights, but I am defining it as a case by case decision to the physician in the case. with the choice part, i am making it clear the decision to have the abortion legally is up to the woman, or should i put woman and doctor?? in order to clarify, ill post the revised proposal as soon as i get a response to this.

Actually, it's already in the bill of rights- any right not granted to the federal government is granted to the states or to the people. The only right the federal government has in this situation is to prevent murder (so as to safeguard the rights of Americans). In this case, we are defining abortion in the third trimester as murder, thus why, under the United States Constitution, we would have the right to deny abortion during this time period.

I'd also point out that if it's the doctor's discretion, one could see a host of abortions denied just because the doctor doesn't like the woman, or has the wrong color of skin, or has a bad reputation; he could find any number of reasons to deny her an abortion with the broad sweep of your questions. I'm very, very leery of that, and I think it poisons an otherwise well-thought-out proposal.

first off, as i have been told time and time again, we are not in the US. this is a game and the proposal is for the games UN you are right i have to clarify how the doctor can use their own discretion. give me more ideas. i do have to clarify, that it isnt a right. but i also want to put in that one of the reasons a doctor can use is whether or not the female is using abortion as a constant method of birth control, which is how it can be used

first off, as i have been told time and time again, we are not in the US. this is a game and the proposal is for the games UN you are right i have to clarify how the doctor can use their own discretion. give me more ideas. i do have to clarify, that it isnt a right. but i also want to put in that one of the reasons a doctor can use is whether or not the female is using abortion as a constant method of birth control, which is how it can be used

Well, do it in another proposal. You don't have to solve every abortion-related problem now, you know. We've already established under what conditions a third trimester abortion may be performed; you don't need to muddy the waters by mandating that doctors consider questions that are irrelevant due to a stronger prohibition.

I know we're not in the U.S., you just brought up the Bill of Rights, so I responded.

either you misunderstood or i miswrote. i meant in a bill of rights. several countries have them england iraq (now) france russia austrailia, etc.

also i think it would be better to define everything now so as not to leave anything to interpretation but if you think it would be better than maybe i will.

just reread, i think individual countries' laws would be signifigant in deciding equal treatment when it comes to medical practices. so i am going to post my revised proposal.

In this resolution, I propose that third trimester abortions be banned throughout the United Nations. Heretofore abortions had not been addressed. This resolution will set the following limitations on abortions. Further banning is up to the governing body of each individual nation within the UN and will not henceforth be restricted any further by this United Nations.


Article I General
No third trimester abortions shall be performed by anyone at anytime, except under circumstances listed in Article IV under penalty of local jurisdiction.


Article II Choice
The choice to abort a pregnancy within statute limits is ultimately up to the person or persons carrying the fetus and the abortion clinic. The choice to abort a fetus can be made up to but not limited to the last third of the fetus pregnancy. Last third is defined as such, after one hundred and eighty five earth days after fetal conception is defined as the last trimester of fetal pregnancy in humankind.


Article III Limitations
Local abortion clinics have the right to refuse any abortion; abortion is not a right. The leading physician has the final say in each case and does not have to perform the operation.

When an abortion clinic receives a patient, and the patient is being screened for the abortion, the clinic is mandated by law to take the following into account on the patients’ case.
What are the circumstances of the pregnancy?
How many abortions has the patient had?
What are the reasons the patient is requesting the abortion?
The physician must take in the gravity of the situation and is implored not to take this procedure lightly, ever.


Article IV Restrictions
After the beginning of the third trimester, no person shall be authorized to abort a fetus, unless the pregnancy and the fetus endanger the mother’s life cannot be delivered safely by means surgical or natural. If the mother's life is endangered by the pregnancy, and if the third trimester fetus can be saved without killing or permanently and severely injuring the mother, then the fetus must be delivered safely. If the third trimester fetus cannot be saved without killing or permanently and severely injuring the mother, then an abortion is permitted.


Article V Consequences
The woman should not be punished for having an abortion performed by an unlicensed physician, if the abortion took place before the third trimester.

If a woman has an illegal abortion, (an abortion not performed by a licensed physician, abortion performed after the third trimester without due cause or approval) the woman and those in assistance shall be charged by local jurisdiction, and medical practice without a license.

In the case a licensed physician does perform the prohibited procedure, his license shall be revoked according to laws governing in that jurisdiction. The local jurisdiction shall assign sentence to all guilty persons.

As I see it, this proposal does not address the issue it claims to. You say that this limits abortions in the third trimester, and yet there seem to be a goodly number of operative clauses which have nothing to do with that subject matter.

i was just thinking that, where should i identify the actual law of the resolution?? and what should i title it

i just re-edited the proposal up above.

bump

bump

quit the bumping! Or at least be subtle about it! :wink:
_________________________
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/hirota.jpgThe Democratic States of Hirota (DSH) (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)
http://www.nationstates.net/images/un_member.gif For the region of cm4rums (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/32808/page=display_region/region=cm4rums)

We are deeply unhappy with the idea that thid trimester abortions will be treated as pre-meditated murder. We will not support this proposal, I'm afraid.

Ursula Kohl
Speaker for Health & Medical Affairs

'I don't think third-trimester abortions should be allowed' and 'I think third-trimester abortions should be treated as premeditated murder' are very, very different statements. We're not going to support this, and will encourage our delegate not to.

The Republic of Sicrat would no doubt back this resolution if the consequence for third trimester abortions was not premeditated murder. We believe the penalty is too harsh, and a new count must be created as a penalty.

okay, how about the punishment for it be left up to individual nations? does that sound better?

I re-edited the proposal, it is the second one not the first on the first page. I assigned charge and sentence to local authorities

Perhaps, since it seems to be undecided whether or not third tri-mester abortion is infact murder. We would be wise to let the idividual nations decide the own laws on this subject until we have some substantial proof proving one side to be correct. And please do not attempt to convince me either way with current information available on this subject, I am a member of the World Health Organization and am well aware of the current data supporting both sides.

I am always a conservative unless it comes to actually writing a proposal, sometimes i get carried away and become overly liberal, if you read my original rough draft at the top of the first page you can see. but, im afraid that some countries wont enforce it if it passes. and third trimester abortions you are killing an organism that is alive, and since that organism is human personally i consider it murder.

The facts that you are assuming are still at debate throughout the scientific community, the fact in particular...
at what point does a fetus become a human?

i dont know scientifically, but in my opinion as soon as it becomes biologically alive. anyone who says different is just trying to make themselves feel less guilty. really think about it, if you absolutely had to classify it as an organism, thats sounds really cold, what would you classify it as. You dont put an insect pupae in a different classification as say a drone ant they are still the same species, and its a shame that a bug would care more about a fetus of their own species then we do with ours.

You know a mother hen will still sit on her eggs even if they arent fertilized, i personally believe its because the hen still hopes they will hatch.

There's a difference between being biologically human and being what we would recognise as a human moral entity. Individual status, for instance; in the early stages of development the foetus can divide in half - forming identical twins. Biologically, they're the same person, but we recognise them as two individuals. More significantly, until a certain point this divided foetus can rejoin to become one entity again, resulting in only one child. Identity is, to put it loosely, kind of false around this point.
What about a tissue culture taken from your cheek cells? Biologically, it's human. It won't ever develop into one, sure, but I'm just pointing out that defining things purely in terms of genetics is going to lead you into some contradictions.

What about teratomata? Do those have the same rights as embryos? They're biologically human. They're a distinct organism; they can contain any type of tissue, including nervous tissue, yet medical science generally defines them as a tumour.

Just a suggestion but if you are going for an all out abortion defining law, then you should include laws regarding minors and whether parental consent is required - personally I think it should be required because it is in the best interest in most cases for minors.

I think anything that was not stated, such as parental consent should remain to be controlled by the nation. After all, individual nations state that legal adulthood is reached at different ages, and what most would consider to be a minor (usually 0 - 18 ) some countries have no age restriction on legally binding contracts.

And in reference to afore menotioned argument. A cheek cell is not its own organism. the same way a kangaroo fetus is still a kangaroo. But scientifically the fetus is not considered biologically alive until brain activity develops. So that is where we should put the limit to abortion. I am not debating the abortion issue. I would rather have feedback on the proposal so it is something everyone can still agree on.

I am now officially posting my proposal, but I am doing in two parts, the one you see here, and the simplified version. vote for the one you like the best.

Delagates vote

Choice
If men aren't given some part in the decision making process then they should be able to choose whether or not they'll stay with the woman without consequences. Whether the woman keeps the child or not. By saying men have no place in the decision making process of abortion, seems to imply that they have no rights with the child before or after birth. What if the father isn't ready for a child, should he be forced into providing care for the child...yet the mother can decide on her own to abort the child as long as it's younger than 3 trimesters. If the mother has the right to make this choice on her own then the father should be able to leave the woman because he doesn't want a child.

Consequences
If the mother decides to have an abortion by her witch doctor, what right do we have to say that's illegal. Since we are stating that the baby is not a human until the third trimester...what does it matter how she has it done.

Throughout time, it is always women's choice legally, I personally think it should be the couple's decision. But legally it is and always will be the woman's choice.

Frankly, I think your second answer is quite retarded. You dont go to witch doctor to for okay that is just stupid. If you are going to break your nations law a have medicine practiced by witch doctors that is up to you and you will have to face the consequences of your actions yourself.

Witch doctor, hey if your nation allows it why impose. That is why it says licensed physician, if it is common practice in your nation to have a witch doctor do everything than so be it.

Throughout time, it is always women's choice legally, I personally think it should be the couple's decision. But legally it is and always will be the woman's choice.

Frankly, I think your second answer is quite retarded. You dont go to witch doctor to for okay that is just stupid. If you are going to break your nations law a have medicine practiced by witch doctors that is up to you and you will have to face the consequences of your actions yourself.

Witch doctor, hey if your nation allows it why impose. That is why it says licensed physician, if it is common practice in your nation to have a witch doctor do everything than so be it.

Throughout time, it is always women's choice legally, I personally think it should be the couple's decision. But legally it is and always will be the woman's choice.

Frankly, I think your second answer is quite retarded. You dont go to witch doctor to for okay that is just stupid. If you are going to break your nations law a have medicine practiced by witch doctors that is up to you and you will have to face the consequences of your actions yourself.

Witch doctor, hey if your nation allows it why impose. That is why it says licensed physician, if it is common practice in your nation to have a witch doctor do everything than so be it.

The cute as a button yet possibly inhuman nation of Berkylvania, seeing both sides of the matter, must be opposed to this legislation as invasive and restrictive, both in principle as well as in particular. Whereas we may deeply disagree with a nation's decision to allow third trimester abortions, we are not convinced that it is the duty or mandate of the UN to police this or deny this practice.

Additionally, we cannot and will not endorse any resolutions that equate any type of abortion with murder. Regardless of our own religious and social convictions, we feel that this is an inappropriate implication. You have not shown (nor has anyone, really) sufficient scientific evidence to establish the willful and malicious termination of a human existance, even in the third trimester. While there may be brain activity, the chance of the foetus being viable outside of the mother's womb at this point, without extreme modern medical measures, is virtually nil. This, to our minds, is a very strong argument that the mother (as well as, ideally, the father) still retains some choice in the matter. You claim that a foetus becomes, scientifically, an individual human being with brain activity. Unfortunately, this is not always registered at the same time in every individual or to the same extent. Indeed, this is why science has such a hard time pinning down the exact moment when "life" starts.

While you dismiss another representative's comments as "retarded", I think your own resolution is far too Eurocentric in it's scope and morality to truly be worthy of worldwide implementation. You do not define 'licensed physician' in your wording, leaving it open to regional interpretation. Knowing for a fact that licensing procedures and practices differ widely from nation to nation, why include this position at all as you list not definitive list of what an acceptable licensing structure is?

We understand the dilemma posed by abortion, be it a couple of weeks after conception or in the third trimester. However, we feel that this is a national decision rather than a blanket policy. Should we implement it, citizens seeking third trimester abortions can simply go to other nations outside of the UN which allow them. Rather than spending funds and man hours on outlawing thrid trimester abortions, we feel the time would be better spent instituting and expanding sexual education and awareness programs, thereby hopefully eliminating the cause of the question in the first place.

Even though we find ourselves unable to support your resolution, we do appreciate and applaude your concern to public sentiment and suggestion. Crafting any such proposal can be tricky, to say the least, and your obvious willingness to compromise is to be commended. We do wish you hadn't called another speaker's comments 'retarded', but hey, no one's perfect.

licensed physician is open to interpretation for different nations, because different nations have different practices. I commend you with your reasons and I agree with them to a point. But I believe people should be made to suffer the consequences of their actions. To throw away someone elses life just because you werent ready to have a child to me is ludicrous. I tried to make it as general as possible, and if you read my second draft murder isnt mentioned at all and that is the draft I used and is up for vote. I didnt get as much feedback as I would have liked but I think it turned out pretty well. I may not be able to say in my proposal I think abortions are murder, but that is what I believe. Murder is internationally illegal so why is abortion any different. I can understand from a female's point of view. My fiancee is against abortion, but is for having the choice of getting it performed.

I did compromise, but putting the limit after six months. If you cant make the decision in that time then your irresponsibility should condemn you.

licensed physician is open to interpretation for different nations, because different nations have different practices. I commend you with your reasons and I agree with them to a point. But I believe people should be made to suffer the consequences of their actions. To throw away someone elses life just because you werent ready to have a child to me is ludicrous. I tried to make it as general as possible, and if you read my second draft murder isnt mentioned at all and that is the draft I used and is up for vote. I didnt get as much feedback as I would have liked but I think it turned out pretty well. I may not be able to say in my proposal I think abortions are murder, but that is what I believe. Murder is internationally illegal so why is abortion any different. I can understand from a female's point of view. My fiancee is against abortion, but is for having the choice of getting it performed.

I did compromise, but putting the limit after six months. If you cant make the decision in that time then your irresponsibility should condemn you.

The always attempting to understand yet frequently confused nation of Berkylvania feels that no human life should be viewed as a "condemnation," regardless of the time frame. This may have simply been a poor choice in wording or it may be a pointer at a deeper problem, the preference for vengence instead of responsibility.

You obviously feel that a human being's perceptual life starts shortly after the third trimester. While we can neither prove nor refute that fact, it raises an emotional response in you, the desire to punish those who, in your view, act wrongly and commit murder. Hence the harsh treatment of anyone involved in a third trimester abortion under your legislation. This is perfectly understandable. However, frequently, it precludes justice in favor of retribution.

There are consequences to third trimester abortions. Many times, even when performed by a skilled provider, they render the woman incapable of carry any additional pregnancies to term. Also, there is the ever pressing question of when does biology turn into a "life?" This haunts women for years afterwords.

While we agree with you in reference to consequences for actions, we must be sure that we do not unduly add to those consequences in a desire to punish rather than dissuade. We sympathize with your stance that abortion is murder, yet as we can not provide 100% proof of when human "life" begins, we also can not equate the two legally and will oppose any resolution that seeks to do so, be it out right stated or legalistically implied. Furthermore, we fear such legislation is a punative strike against individuals that is motivated by emotion rather than good legal policy.

To paraphrase Elizabeth Dole, this is a tough issue with good people on both sides. We of Berkylvania would be lying if we said some portion of us did not hope this resolution passes, yet we must take the stance that, until new evidence comes to light, the lattitude of choice in this argument is something that should be left to individual nations to determine and, ultimately, between the woman and her own conscience.

ukroatia- first of all, i love you. secondly, here goes...

premiditated means to plan BEFOREHAND. therefore under your proposal a woman can be convicted if she even THINKS about getting an abortion in the third trimester. thats harsh. if our laws begin convicting citizens just on their thoughts then i am gonna be in big trouble. i think that maybe you mean attempted murder instead.

I love you too Don. But if you look further down love I have a revised version that is the draft that is up for vote.


So look at the middle of page one or go to UN proposals page 8 I think right now and vote yes to support third trimester abortion ban

Come on and get your UN Delegates to vote on this proposal

In this resolution, I propose that third trimester abortions be banned throughout the United Nations. Heretofore abortions had not been addressed. .

Although we share your concerns, you should know that in fact the UN has addressed the issue of aborion, many many times in fact.

No resolution has yet passed. Feelings and divisions are too strong.

We recommend funding realistic and humane alternatives to abortion, providing unbiased education and counseling on all areas of reproduction, and letting people take care of their own bodies because like it or not that is what they will do in any event.

The issue is not dead, I will rewrite this proposal, but it must get passed

The issue is not dead, I will rewrite this proposal, but it must get passed

What for?

As long as the nations have a right to kill a fetus in the seventy fifth trimester, what the hell deifference does it make if they kill one in the 3rd trimester?

As for the whole "is a fetus alive" question: who cares? A cancer cell is alive, so is an ant. What difference does it make? Heck, an ant even feels pain, and I'm eating them alive right off my desk right now. All organisms, by their very existence, interfere in the lives of other organisms. To make one human live, other living things must die. When you mow a field of soybeans, mice and rabbits die. When you buy shoes made in Myanmar, the oppressive government gains power and people die.

If you can't understand that your actions - all of your actions - inevitably result in the deaths of real organisms - you have no basis even debating ethics. All organisms kill other organisms to survive and for comfort. That you are a sapient creature means that you can understand that fact, but does not change anything really.

Some people are going to live, some people are going to die. When you make decisions, not only are some people who would have lived going to die - but some people who would have died are going to live. Further, even the most minor changes will inevitably make billions of people in the future who would have been born not be - and billions of people who would not have been born come into being.

Get over yourself. Ending the chances a fetus might have had for life isn't a big deal - I'm doing that right now just by breathing. Adding extra Carbon Dioxide into the air lowers the chances of sperm being successful in the future and is doubtlessly causing literally hundred of acts of procreation in the future to instead be childless. Getting a bug up about that sort of thing is dumb - and so is freaking out about the ethics of tearing up some partially formed fetus that migt have turned into a human being some time in the future.

Every glass of water I drink could have gone into the Uterine Replicators and helped make another clone of Jennifer Anniston for my army. That doesn't make me drinking into murder. Or heck, maybe it does, but that water's awfully tasty.

Don't make me come over there.

The Fratanical Isles Of Welly will not support this proposal. To call the abortion of an unborn child as premeditated murder is crazy and careless.

I don't believe people should have the right to prejudge someone's life and end it, because that is what you basically do. This issue is not dead.

No, but alot of clumps of cells are. :wink:

Oh, look, stem-cells. I wonder if we could use such things to lead to research into curing many diseases and ailments, but no, best not, lest we save lives and then remember, oh, look these cells came from a tiny little clump of cells that may have resulted in a living being.

- The Rep of Komokom.

Well, if people waited to see, then they would know wouldnt they. Don't even tell me you are for stem cell research.