NationStates Jolt Archive

The argument:

This resolution states that no member nation has the right to interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion. The use of those words prohibits nations from stopping women having abortions after any time period. A woman could feasibly have an abortion right up until birth.

Realising that this is unacceptable to many nations, pro-life nations and pro-choice nations, to allow the abortion of a healthy fetus at a very late stage in the pregnancy we feel that this resolution needs to be repealed so that a better resolution can be passed that clearly defines when abortions are allowed and/or under what circumstances.

The nation of Vanhalenburgh, while supporting the woman’s right to chose, is also inclined to the notion that the current resolution is lacking in its support to the fetus’ right to exist.

Reasonable limits must be placed on the allowable time frame for willable abortions to be allowed. Baring of course when the mothers life is in danger no partial birth abortions should be allowed for humane reasons or any abortion allowed if the fetus is capable of surviving outside of the mother.

We feel strongly that this is not an unreasonable proposal and could meet a virtual halfway mark between a woman’s right to choose and a fetus’ right to exist.

The nation of Vanhalenburgh would support this if the proposal was drafted correctly.

Minister to the UN
Henry Peabody

Drafted correctly?? By that i mean when Vanhalenburgh says "if the proposal was drafted correctly"

Again? Ok.

~makes another check on the board~

Unfortunately I think you make a very good point. I'm very pro-choice so don't want to see a pro-abortion resolution get repealed. But I don't approve of aborting a healthy baby in the last few weeks of pregnancy and I think it's quite clear that the proposal leaves no room for a nation to ban late term abortions. You'll probably get support from the pro-life and the pro-choice parties... assuming, that is, that they go to the trouble of reading the original resolution and your reason for the repeal. A lot of nations tend to vote on the idea rather than what's actually written.

Unfortunately I think you make a very good point. I'm very pro-choice so don't want to see a pro-abortion resolution get repealed. But I don't approve of aborting a healthy baby in the last few weeks of pregnancy and I think it's quite clear that the proposal leaves no room for a nation to ban late term abortions. You'll probably get support from the pro-life and the pro-choice parties.
... provided you leave in a disclaimer that the ban may be overturned if a serious life-threatening problem is discovered very late in the pregnancy, and inducing birth or having a caesarean aren't options.

It should also be pointed out that the term 'partial-birth abortion' does not actually exist in medical terminology. You will need to explain it fully and completely so that you don't end up banning something that technically doesn't exist.

... provided you leave in a disclaimer that the ban may be overturned if a serious life-threatening problem is discovered very late in the pregnancy, and inducing birth or having a caesarean aren't options.

It should also be pointed out that the term 'partial-birth abortion' does not actually exist in medical terminology. You will need to explain it fully and completely so that you don't end up banning something that technically doesn't exist.

I think this is can be decided upon if the resolution is repealed, if it is then we can work out what to include in a new resolution.

But that's the thing - most "pro-choice" nations won't even consider supporting a repeal of this unless there is a replacement proposal available. This is regardless of the fact that the resolution itself is very badly written - after all, the Legalise Euthanasia one would have gone a long time ago if it was just down to resolutions being badly written.

I would suggest drafting a replacement proposal on the forum, but not submitting it until and unless the resolution is repealed.

I like that idea of creating a replacement proposal, i will try to do that soon.

Completely agree with the last few posts. If this repeal even looks like reaching quorum, I'm sure I'll be one of many trying to get a replacement ready for submission as soon as the repeal passes. And I'm all for late term abortions in life threatening scenarios, so that would be included.

It should also be pointed out that the term 'partial-birth abortion' does not actually exist in medical terminology. You will need to explain it fully and completely so that you don't end up banning something that technically doesn't exist.

I can't say 'partial-birth abortions' is a topic that gets much coverage in RL where I'm from... I'd never even heard the term before reading this thread...

I have posted my potential replacement for the resolution if successfully repealed.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=419089

Hi-

New here. :) But can't you create a resolution with all the changes you want, plus a repeal of the last resolution? I thought I'd seen that before.
If you try to repeal abortion rights without having something already in place, I don't think it'll pass.

It is illegal to propose a replacement to a resolution while that resolution is still in effect. It is also illegal to propose new legislation in a repeal resolution. The only way to replace or amend an existing resolution is to first repeal the old resolution and THEN propose a replacement.

This doesn't preclude conversation about potential amendments or replacements on this forum, but if one attempts to enact them in any way that is illegal, the proposals will be deleted, and the proposing nation risks ejection from the UN. When in doubt, ask, for your sake.

Hi-

New here. :) But can't you create a resolution with all the changes you want, plus a repeal of the last resolution? I thought I'd seen that before.
If you try to repeal abortion rights without having something already in place, I don't think it'll pass.
The problem dates from the RBH and its replacement. Both were put in place before Enodia put in place his protocols which expressly forbade proposals which altered previous resolutions. This has now been corrected by the repeal function.

It is illegal to propose a replacement to a resolution while that resolution is still in effect. It is also illegal to propose new legislation in a repeal resolution. The only way to replace or amend an existing resolution is to first repeal the old resolution and THEN propose a replacement.

This doesn't preclude conversation about potential amendments or replacements on this forum, but if one attempts to enact them in any way that is illegal, the proposals will be deleted, and the proposing nation risks ejection from the UN. When in doubt, ask, for your sake.

Ooh.. good to know. Thanks.

My UN proposal is now on page 5 of the proposal list. Please approve it.

Some of you say you do not think this will get approval/pass without one ready to go in its place. There is a thread started on that, see my previous reply in this thread.

Approvals: 33 (Wegason, Chongjin, Iznogoud, Puppetters, Cav, Zhukhistan, NeoAsiaEuropa, Fart Blossom, Trexia, Flibbleites, Nutema, Silicia, Modern Conservatism, The Hunter Isles, The Anti Commi Clan, Donchatryit, Stompland, Grays Harbor, Serriani, Mistauve, Black Reading, The Republic of Orack, Ishlaha, Edwarnia, Friedrich XI, Vermette, Female Leadership, Jimoria, JavaX, Dorksonia, Siaka, Blue Floyd, Hegartydom)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 117 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Tue May 17 2005

Thanks to everyone who is supporting this, i hope we can get it before the UN as it needs to be repealed and a new one put forward.

OOC: Just FYI, you're about fifteen approvals lower then the last attempt at the same time frame, and you need three more approvals then last attempt - which also failed.

My option on abortion is regardless of what the mother wants to do I think she should have the baby. It is not right to not let a human have a chance. By ending the life so soon we don’t give it life. Some people believe that life doesn’t begin until the child is out side of the whom but I am complete opposite. A baby is able to think and have dream by I think the 3rd month of its life. Which means that the brain is functional. Its like saying if you are hooked up to a feeding tube your not alive. Even though you are able to think for yourself and hear for your self you’re not alive. That is why i think that abortion should be outlawed. But if the mother is in a life or death situation than i think it is ok for you to have an abortion. Even if the child is born with a mental disease or a physical disease does not mean they cant have a chance at life im sure there is some one who could give the child love. That is my testimony Thanks

My option on abortion is regardless of what the mother wants to do I think she should have the baby. It is not right to not let a human have a chance. By ending the life so soon we don’t give it life. Some people believe that life doesn’t begin until the child is out side of the whom but I am complete opposite. A baby is able to think and have dream by I think the 3rd month of its life. Which means that the brain is functional. Its like saying if you are hooked up to a feeding tube your not alive. Even though you are able to think for yourself and hear for your self you’re not alive. That is why i think that abortion should be outlawed. But if the mother is in a life or death situation than i think it is ok for you to have an abortion. Even if the child is born with a mental disease or a physical disease does not mean they cant have a chance at life im sure there is some one who could give the child love. That is my testimony Thanks

So, women aren't people. Gotcha. :rolleyes:

Acole didn't say that, or even imply it, as you know.

I'm undecided on the abortion debate, in case you're wondering.

Great. Then consider this:

Babies do not "dream" during the third month of their life. There is brain activity, but there is brain activity in people in vegitative states of the same type, which only proves the brain is in the "on" position. It doesn't prove anyone is "home", it proves an organ is functioning.

Telling a woman she cannot do x, y, or z because a parasite is growing in her is ridiculous, and is an attempt to subvert her rights as a person - to make her something like a walking uterus which we must tell to do or not do this that or the other thing.

Ridiculous.

Vastiva remains in the position - it is their choice to do as they wish, up to the passage of the three way test, at which time the parasite becomes a "human being person with rights (classified as a minor)" and a different series of laws takes effect because, at that point, it's a person. Before that point, it's tissue, a useless organ, a large parasite, and nothing more.

it is their choice to do as they wish, up to the passage of the three way test...

Can you clarify the test here? Perhaps a low-tech version enforcable in a modern-tech country could find it's way into the proposal.

1. Physical separation from the host/mother;
2. External to the host/mother's body;
3. Has taken a breath on it's own;

No, 1 and 2 are not alike - a severed umbilical gives separation, but does not mean externality. Oh, the legal battles we had over that one...

Does anyone know how many approvals this got before being taken off the floor? I am not sure, although i am pretty sure it was not enough