NationStates Jolt Archive

since the first Repeal Abortion Rights thread has descended into petty ideological back and forth, i present the following:

We believe that the vote of Jun 5 2004 demonstrates that a UN majority favours abortion rights in some form. However, we do not believe that there is a similar level of support for the effectively unlimited access to abortion that the resolution currently guarantees.

Governments are forbidden to 'interfere' with a woman's right to abortion. This makes it impossible to prevent a great many abuses of the system, some of which are outlined below.

The document effectively makes abortion legal up until birth, in spite of it being widely accepted by abortion-rights advocates that abortion in the final third of pregnancy constitutes infanticide.

The document allows no restrictions upon who can perform abortions, what techniques may be used and whether an abortion may be refused on medical grounds. This places a great many women at considerable risk, particularly the most vulnerable who may be unable to afford professional healthcare.

Further, it allows no protection against irresponsible selective abortion, particularly of females. In many Third-World nations female infanticide and abortion are so widespread as to have dramatically skewed the gender demographic.

We do not consider that the document sufficiently emphasizes the seriousness of the procedure. No abortion should be carried out without careful ethical consideration by all parties involved. This resolution fails to sufficiently emphasize this.

Finally, against governments vehemently opposed to abortion, the legislation has proven ineffective. Nations have granted women the right to abortion but forbidden any doctor to perform them, for instance; governments have recognised the right to abortions but not to their confidentiality, encouraging social stigma and victimisation of women and doctors.

We therefore submit that the original Abortion Rights resolution be repealed, so that it can be replaced with a more considered, responsible document.

let us note that, myself and the author of the text you see above are pro-choice, but we both beleive that having the UN tell member nations that they are not allowed to regulate, in any way, the ability of a woman to have an abortion is just stupid. let's be honest here: the resolution was terrible, and had it been on a less emotive issue people would never have supported it. it would be like saying 'stop killing people' as a proposed solution to wars.

what we want to see is this atrocious resolution repealed so we can produce an actual resolution, one that actually addresses the issue in an intelligent, balanced fashion. the text above is a first draft, so if you have any suggestions, please post them here. if you do not agree, post why. if you want to yell at me, please don't. or TG me. you can yell at me there, but don't let this thread get carried away. the point here is to drum up support for a resolution that really never deserved to be endorsed in the first place. really, we can do so much better.

I'll paste the resolution in question here:
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.

Votes For: 9368
Votes Against: 6549
Implemented: Sat Jun 5 2004

The repeal, in it's present form is acceptable to us.

We would like to see legislation encouraging nations to provide councelling to any expectant mothers considering abortion, and also legislation on how far into the pregnancy a termination can be performed (subject to medical conditions) included in a future resolution.

It seems obvious that the original res. was simply too extreme.

The proposal above seems a very well-considered compromise.

The improved res. should be able to contain many options for the implementation. By this I mean that it should be possible for certain groups to practice more or less strict interpretations of the legislation. Ie. Catholics should be allowed NOT to USE their rights.

--Tej--

By this I mean that it should be possible for certain groups to practice more or less strict interpretations of the legislation. Ie. Catholics should be allowed NOT to USE their rights.

By legalising abortion, you are not forcing someone to exercise that decision. If someone chooses not to have an abortion on religous grounds, that's up to them. Nobody is forcing them to abort.

In response to the representative from Tarphos, even the original proposal isn't that bad.

A right, as the concept is normally accepted, generally (there are exceptions) grants the meaningful ability not to act upon, or to give up that right. A right to life is also a right to suicide, for instance. Emphasis mine:

all women shall have the right to choose whether to have an abortion or not

So in terms of this repeal this is really a non-issue, but yes, any possible replacement would certainly include that.

Retswe Agono, Acting Special Liason to the UN
Ministry of Wu-Wei, Gabran, Rehochipe

If the idea is to modify this resolution so that abortion would still be legal across all nations, then I would support a new resolution to do that.

However if the resolution has to be repealed before this can be done then it opens the way to a new resolution not being voted in, which is not something I could support.

Given there is a proposal in the list to modify "The Law Of The Sea" resolution that was passed, would it not be possible to modify the original resolution to specificy what types of abortions are permitted, and what doctors can perform them under what conditions?

Or even to say that "the definition of abortion remains in the control of the government" ?

The NS system doesn't support amendments; you can repeal something and replace it, or leave it as it is. Given the time and resistance it took for repeals to be implemented, I don't think we can expect amendments any time soon, or indeed ever.

Clearly, as-is the document is a dangerous, ineffective crock, and I'm willing to take the risk of replacing it.

The NS system doesn't support amendments; you can repeal something and replace it, or leave it as it is. Given the time and resistance it took for repeals to be implemented, I don't think we can expect amendments any time soon, or indeed ever.

Clearly, as-is the document is a dangerous, ineffective crock, and I'm willing to take the risk of replacing it.

As would I if I were sure something WOULD replace it. But unless we can be sure it will be replaced I think we are going to oppose any repeal. Better the devils you know.

As would I if I were sure something WOULD replace it. But unless we can be sure it will be replaced I think we are going to oppose any repeal. Better the devils you know.

But have you considered just how bad this devil is? As the law stands, this resolution guarantees the right of women in your country to have an abortion simply because the baby they are expecting is the wrong sex, or has a slight risk of disability or congenital illness.

It also allows unscrupulous UN members to offer financial incentives to parents from certain racial or class backgrounds in order to terminate their pregnancies. Though I imagine it was well-intentioned, the loose wording of this law has allowed eugenics in through the back-door and it needs to be repealed.

Remember, repealing this resolution doesn't prevent women from having abortions, if it's permitted under your national law.

But have you considered just how bad this devil is? As the law stands, this resolution guarantees the right of women in your country to have an abortion simply because the baby they are expecting is the wrong sex, or has a slight risk of disability or congenital illness.

It also allows unscrupulous UN members to offer financial incentives to parents from certain racial or class backgrounds in order to terminate their pregnancies. Though I imagine it was well-intentioned, the loose wording of this law has allowed eugenics in through the back-door and it needs to be repealed.

Remember, repealing this resolution doesn't prevent women from having abortions, if it's permitted under your national law.

I have considered it. And as much as I may disapprove of some of what you say - the wrong sex thing for example - I would rather have it this way than have it banned across the world.

Banned across the world? Nonono. Repealing doesn't make abortion illegal anywhere - it just returns the matter (temporarily, we hope) to individual states.
In the interim, it'd be banned in a minority of countries - probably the same countries who are exploiting every loophole in the current ruling in order to make the right to abortion only a manifesto right, that cannot in practise be acquired safely without social ostracism.

Really, I'm sick of the UN producing warm fuzzy principles without saying how it'll ensure they're kept. It's all very well having the right to food and shelter, but that doesn't help famine victims much unless someone provides said food and shelter. It's all very well saying 'save the trees!' but unless you actually lay out how this could be done people might just decide that putting a few logs in a museum would count. A right to abortion is worthless unless there's a viable framework for you to actually get one.

Banned across the world? Nonono. Repealing doesn't make abortion illegal anywhere - it just returns the matter (temporarily, we hope) to individual states.
In the interim, it'd be banned in a minority of countries - probably the same countries who are exploiting every loophole in the current ruling in order to make the right to abortion only a manifesto right, that cannot in practise be acquired safely without social ostracism.

Really, I'm sick of the UN producing warm fuzzy principles without saying how it'll ensure they're kept. It's all very well having the right to food and shelter, but that doesn't help famine victims much unless someone provides said food and shelter. It's all very well saying 'save the trees!' but unless you actually lay out how this could be done people might just decide that putting a few logs in a museum would count. A right to abortion is worthless unless there's a viable framework for you to actually get one.


I didn't think that the whole world would ban it, but this prevents anyone from banning it in any nation.

And as much as I respect (most) of my fellow national leaders, if this were to be repealed, I have a suspicion that any new proposal to allow all women everywhere abortions would be voted down.

So leaving this one as it is is about the only option.

By legalising abortion, you are not forcing someone to exercise that decision. If someone chooses not to have an abortion on religous grounds, that's up to them. Nobody is forcing them to abort.

But you are forcing a government to adopt a position on what many societies consider a domestic issue.

In the case of the current resolution, the context for UN attention is that people are moving from country to country and represent a possible diease vector.

At best case, abortion laws might be considered a human right, like the capital punishment, but my government does agree that the resolution in question could stand a rewrite. If you take away the assumption that the "Right to Choose to have an Abortion" is a universal human right, then without a doubt, the issue is entirely domestic.

I think both sides have valid points ... enough that my government would join a telegram campaign for the repeal if it were presented in a form similar to that which SEOCC and Rehochipe have presented.


I didn't think that the whole world would ban it, but this prevents anyone from banning it in any nation.

And as much as I respect (most) of my fellow national leaders, if this were to be repealed, I have a suspicion that any new proposal to allow all women everywhere abortions would be voted down.

So leaving this one as it is is about the only option.

I agree that a proposal to re-address this issue would likely be voted down, but I'm optimistic a well written proposal could overcome this handicap.

I agree that a proposal to re-address this issue would likely be voted down, but I'm optimistic a well written proposal could overcome this handicap.

I am less so :}

Anyone - would it be possible to enact another proposal to redefine abortion laws, then repeal the first one?

There are two free education resolutions - one that modifies the other. Why not two resolutions on this topic?

I am less so :}

Anyone - would it be possible to enact another proposal to redefine abortion laws, then repeal the first one?

There are two free education resolutions - one that modifies the other. Why not two resolutions on this topic?

Actually that is a good point!

Technically I think the issue is that we can't grant nations the right to make domestic abortion laws as long as the current resolution is in place, because it really was much more a "one-size-fits-all" resolution. In order to make a milder version, we'd have to repeal the first one.

But I do agree that having multiple resolutions on the books is fine.



In general, I've found that many nations (i.e. players) are quick to critizise and pick apart other nations' ideas, but slow to really create their own. Most nations are certainly guilty of this, as I can think of very few exceptions. :(

With that in mind, I am starting to think you are right. That if the abortion rights resolution were repealed, that nobody would go to the effort to put another resolution in its place.

That said, my suggestion is as follows. For anybody suggesting that the repeal take place and that a new resolution be passed, have their version of a draft proposal in hand and ready to submit should the repeal occur.

My own government is actually more interested in some of the original proposals that still haven't made it to the UN floor.

The document allows no restrictions upon who can perform abortions, what techniques may be used and whether an abortion may be refused on medical grounds. This places a great many women at considerable risk, particularly the most vulnerable who may be unable to afford professional healthcare.

That's not true, the human rights act/s and various issues that have been passed prevent somebody from taking advantage of this, and anybody who did wouldn't be allowed in the UN or would most lightly be expelled.
Going to the point about the cost, well because this issue is very sensitive the government really needs to step in and allow free abortions to be performed or it could just have a free health service like I imagine my nation does.

These are just some small points and are very minor compared to the others, incidentally could somebody send me a message if they'd like to challenge this so I can come back to this board, perhaps send the link?
Also I'm new to the forums so please, be gentle!

-Yours Sincerely Ross

The text of the Abortion Rights resolution:


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.


Clearly this is not specific enough and gives no latitude, or guide, in interpreting what nature these rights should take. One major concern that I have is that it seems to imply that the boundary between abortion and infanticide is the moment of birth. A more considered resolution is needed here, and those who suggest that the alternative proposal be formulated before the original is repealed are probably right.

What is the current thinking on the 'RBH' Replacement resolution though? Was it just something that slipped past the mods or is it deemed legit to submit replacement resolutions (I thought it wasn't). If it is legit then that may be an easier way to approach this. I still suspect a replacement would be ruled out of order though.

What is the current thinking on the 'RBH' Replacement resolution though? Was it just something that slipped past the mods or is it deemed legit to submit replacement resolutions (I thought it wasn't). If it is legit then that may be an easier way to approach this. I still suspect a replacement would be ruled out of order though.

Good to see you here! :)

The 'RBH' Replacement resolution was before the no amendments rule existed *or* one that slipped by. I'm honestly not sure since my nation began (participating) in Jan. 2004.

Now a few of us have launched uncoordinated efforts to repeal the original Required Basic Healthcare resolution on the basis that it was "replaced" by an extisting resolution.

Frankly, we don't know what the UN Secretariat (game mods) will do when a resolution is finally repealed. I think for historical purposes all resolutions should be documented (speaking of which I need to add mine to the UNA page ... and I'd like to ask that it be added to the sticky archive). But I do agree that resolutions that we feel are problematic should be formally repealled.

I don't mind the 'RBH' Replacement nearly as much as the fact that the original still reads as though it is around. I would advocate that a footnote should be made illustrating that it was "replaced", and I have a gut feeling that should we focus on repealing that resolution, that a few of us will get what we are wanting.

i don't follow the logic that says if we repeal this resolution, a new abortion rights resolution wouldn't pass. i mean, the last one passed, and comfortably, so why wouldn't a new one? and imagine, an intelligent resolution, that was written such that moderates on this issue would support it as well?

the argument that 'this is better than nothing' is crap, and is based in a fearmongering sentiment of 'don't change it, we don't know what will happen next.' well i'm not sitting around, living under a patently absurd resolution; if we can pass a repeal we can form enough clout to pass another resolution.

i don't follow the logic that says if we repeal this resolution, a new abortion rights resolution wouldn't pass. i mean, the last one passed, and comfortably, so why wouldn't a new one? and imagine, an intelligent resolution, that was written such that moderates on this issue would support it as well?

the argument that 'this is better than nothing' is crap, and is based in a fearmongering sentiment of 'don't change it, we don't know what will happen next.' well i'm not sitting around, living under a patently absurd resolution; if we can pass a repeal we can form enough clout to pass another resolution.

Anything is possible, and I agree. The potential for a better resolution to be created certainly exists.

But "better" in my eyes is gonna end up with both ends of the extremes disliking the compromise. *shrug*

I agree with you, but I suspect the reason some people are wary is that many very good proposals fail to reach quorum even though they would easily pass if they had a bit more publicity. I suspect that most of the resolutions that reach quorum do so because someone's put a lot of work into publicizing it.

If there's a repeal campaign that dove-tails with a replacement campaign then I think those fears can be overcome.

For the record, I don't think the current resolution is better than nothing - it's bad resolution, and a potentially dangerous one to boot.



Good to see you here! :)


Thanks :D

so wait you can repeal stuff now?? ohh yes and i am back

I concur with SeOCC; if the previous piece of rubbish can pass, then something with actual thought behind it should be able to do so.

I'm trying to hammer out a replacement resolution as we speak.