NationStates Jolt Archive

(I looked briefly over the forum and didn't notice any topics about this, sorry if I missed something and am merely repeating something said by someone else)

Abortion Rights

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Vistadin

Description: Henceforth all women shall have the right to choose whether to have an abortion or not, no member nation will interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion.

Approvals: 229

...

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

Whilst I am staunchly in favour of a woman's right to choose, I am a bit worried about this because it doesn't seem to allow governments to set limits on how far into the pregnancy abortion is to be allowed. To me, "all women" suggests including women who are 8 1/2 months through their pregnancy.

Agreed. While we're pro-choice, this is definitely not the right document for it. Unless there are safeguards in place, a broad legalisation is highly dangerous.

For instance, as I've mentioned elsewhere, a nation that wanted to discourage abortion could recognise the rights of women to have an abortion, but not of doctors to perform them - if you wanted an abortion, it'd have to be amateur.

This legislation restricts the ability to implement necessary measures to make abortion safe, and restricts the possibility of better proposals in future. I see no reason why anyone, pro-choice or pro-life, should support it.

We can pass further legislation not negating any of the terms in this proposal, but defining and claryfying them.

Oops I just realised that there is in fact another topic on this issue. Ah well.

Since this may well pass (simply because it's a civil rights category), can anyone see any loopholes that could be used to restrict abortions to, say, the first 2/3 of pregnancy, and to ensure that safe methods are used?

I agree with the proposal, but on the other hand don't the fathers get a say in the subject

a loophole? well that's simple: as Rehochipe rightly pointed out, we can legislate so that a woman can have an abortion any time she chooses...if she's performing it herself using her personal medical equipment. If she want an abortion under conditions more conducive to her actually getting rid of the foetus and surviving, she has to go to a doctor who can be made to comply to certain ruels for actually carrying out the abortion.

I voted as a delegate for this to becaome a resolution, and the more I look over the comments here the more harder I look at it.
When does a woman's right to chose hit the wall, which is what we're asking here?

a loophole? well that's simple: as Rehochipe rightly pointed out, we can legislate so that a woman can have an abortion any time she chooses...if she's performing it herself using her personal medical equipment. If she want an abortion under conditions more conducive to her actually getting rid of the foetus and surviving, she has to go to a doctor who can be made to comply to certain ruels for actually carrying out the abortion.

But the problem here is that any restrictions on the doctor could be construed as indirectly interfering with the woman's right to have an abortion.

But the problem here is that any restrictions on the doctor could be construed as indirectly interfering with the woman's right to have an abortion.

And there's the rub, isn't it?

The loophole is neither as deep as a well nor as wide as a church door. But 'tis enough. 'Twill serve, 'twill serve.

I suppose it will. We have to interpret "interfere" as "directly interfere".