NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a draft proposal for a replacement resolution which will be proposed if my proposal to repeal Abortion Rights, Resolution 61 (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/98055/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=60) is successful. My proposal to repeal resolution 61 is in this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=419044) and is on page 8 of the UN proposal list.
The draft replacement proposal would be something like this;

EDIT:I have removed the draft replacement i proposed and replaced it with the following one, written by tonca with some input by me. I thank Tonca for this suggestion, it is an excellent one.

RECOGNISING the previous resolution "Abortion Rights" passed by a majority of UN members on June 5 2004,

FURTHER RECOGNISING that this resolution was repealed <insert details of repeal here>,

CONVINCED that the previous resolution was repealed, not because nations believe abortion should be banned, but rather because the previous resolution was too limiting, not allowing governments to interfere at any time throughout the gestation period, therefore allowing late term abortions in any circumstance,

BELIEVING that women should have the right to do with their bodies as they see fit, provided they are not harming others,

HAVING CONSIDERED that unborn children may also be viewed to have rights,

BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that:

I. UN member nations will not prevent abortion within the first 40% of the average gestation period of the mother's species (from here onwards referred to as "the gestation period").

II. UN member nations will not punish either the mother or the medical staff involved in an abortion within the first 40% of the gestation period.

III. Outside of the first 40% of the gestation period, UN member nations will not prevent or punish abortions occurring in the following circumstances:
i. Proceeding with the pregnancy would constitute a serious threat to the mother's life
ii. Severe abnormalities are detected in the unborn child and less than 80% of the gestation period has passed

IV. The UN, while enforcing that abortions be allowed under the conditions previously stated, leaves the decision on allowing abortions outside of them to member nations.


This resolution was co-authored with Tonca

Any suggestions for improvements? Anything illegal?

We think you have much time on their hands if you are defending the "rights" of parasites. We have a few heartworms and lungworms and liver flukes with your name on them.

We believe you would be better served looking at the Rights of the Mother, who is a human being.

Then again, you will make us bloody rich - well, richer - as we flood your nation with back-door abortionists performing what you have legislated against out of bloody foolishness.

Good Day to you.

12 weeks is an extremely short amount of time, and a lot of women won't even be able to realise that they are pregnant within that time frame (especially those with irregular periods, or who suppress their periods with birth control pills that may have failed, or who have some other condition that may cause a few periods to be skipped without thinking of it at something abnormal), let alone be able to make arrangements for an abortion to be performed.

You are also completely forgetting that there are non-human species (or even hybrids) with gestation periods completely different than that of humans, and for whom 12 weeks is not even applicable, or the least bit pragmatic.

While we do not support your repeal in the first place, this is also why we cannot support this replacement should it, the UN forbid, ever become a serious issue.

OOC: For instance, in Sweden abortions are "free" (i.e. the woman's decision) up until week 18. After that, you need a permit from the department of health up until week 24. After week 24, there need to be exceptionally compelling reasons for abortions to be permitted (this is an extremely rare occurrence, though, as most pregnancies are "caught" during the 18 week period, and is usually only relevant to women with cognitive or psychological problems, or severe health risks).

This is a draft proposal for a replacement resolution which will be proposed if my proposal to repeal Abortion Rights, Resolution 61 (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/98055/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=60) is successful. My proposal to repeal resolution 61 is in this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=419044) and is on page 8 of the UN proposal list.

The draft replacement proposal would be something like this;

This resolution noting the successful repeal of Resolution 61 and the proclamation of the repeal to propose a better resolution hereby states the following;

Women will be able to choose to have an abortion up until the end of the first trimester (12 weeks).
After 12 weeks, only under certain situations can an abortion take place.

These are;
If the mother was raped and the child/foetus is a product of that rape, then an abortion can be carried out up to 20 weeks in to the pregnancy.
If the mother’s life is threatened then at any stage an abortion can be carried out with the approval of the mother.
If the child is to be born with severe disabilities then an abortion can be carried out up to 24 weeks into the pregnancy, after which it is to be determined that the mother wishes to continue with the pregnancy.

What is considered a severe disability will be defined by a new UN appointed panel of leading doctors from across the globe.

For an abortion to be carried out it needs the approval and signature of two doctors. All abortions must be carried out on licensed premises, these premises will have to get these licenses from the newly set up UN Abortion Clinic Licensing Foundation (UNACLF).

If doctors have approved the abortion of a healthy baby after the 12 week limit that was not life threatening to the mother then they can be taken to court in that country and criminal proceedings can take place.
The same goes for abortion of babies with only minor disabilities, if one is aborted after the 12 week limit then criminal proceedings can be taken against the doctors involved.

Any suggestions for improvements? Anything illegal?

So you are planning to repeal a resolution that fails to take into account the needs of nations in certain developmental stages and violates national sovereignty...and replace it with a proposal that fails to take into account the needs of nations in certain developmental stages, establishes a needless and expensive bureaucracy, and violates national sovereignty to an even greater degree. Somehow, I'm not going for that.

The guidelines you have laid out are no doubt imminently reasonable for your nation and many others, but I can't support those guidelines for tens of thousands of nations, many of whom are not developed enough to require such guidelines and may need more restrictive guidelines and the others who are more developed and need less restrictive guidelines instead.

This draft looks very good but we are forced to concur with Fass on the time period of 12 weeks. It would be better to move it out to 18 weeks.

Vanhalenburgh would support this proposal.

Minister to the UN
Henry Peabody

How about forcing nations to allow abortions up to 12 weeks, and allowing nations to allow them up to 24 weeks, and after 24 weeks only allow it in case of the things you have written.

Plus, I wouldn't do it weeks, as there are many non-human life forms in the NSUN. Do it as percentages of the pregnancy...

OOC: And how many of you who are making such a fuss have any experience in these matters in real life? Or are you just futting up numbers that sound good? Show of hands, please.

Always love people with strong opinions and no knowledge to back it up... :headbang:

Always love people with strong opinions and no knowledge to back it up... :headbang:

OOC: You do?! Then visit the General Forum (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1227). You will find all of the strong opinions and lack of knowledge you could ever want. ;)

How about not putting time limits in at all and leaving the decision whether to abort or not up to the only person who counts..the woman :rolleyes:.

I don't support the repeal or this possible replacement.

No government or more especially the UN has the right to stick its nose into a citizens reproductive business. The current resolution only protects the womans the right to chose and that is enough. Abortion is a private decision between the woman and her Doctor.

I am glad you put that last paragraph in. If by some miracle this passes it will be business as usual in Waterana because no doctor will ever be prosocuted for performing an abortion, for any reason or at any stage of the pregnacy, within our borders ;).

OOC: You do?! Then visit the General Forum (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1227). You will find all of the strong opinions and lack of knowledge you could ever want. ;)

OOC: I said I love them, not that I wanted to be around them. It's one of those "long distance loves" you read about. The further they are from me, the more I love it. :D

So you would like a guarentee on the woman's right to choose up to 18 weeks and after that it would be up to the nation to decide if they want to allow abortions after that time period?

So you would like a guarentee on the woman's right to choose up to 18 weeks and after that it would be up to the nation to decide if they want to allow abortions after that time period?

In a nutshell!

In a nutshell!
Sounds good to me, i was only trying to appease both sides in my resolution, obviously didnt work, 18 weeks is a better time, and why oh why are people complaining about non humans? Last i checked the UN was populated by humans, as were nations.

and why oh why are people complaining about non humans? Last i checked the UN was populated by humans, as were nations.

I think you'll find that many of the UN member nations will have a non-human population. I therefore agree with previous posts. Using percentages of gestation periods would be a better way to word the proposal if you want to get it passed.

I just checked the repeal though - another 115 approvals before it reaches quorum. I think it will be a while before the replacement is needed - plenty more time for drafting!

Sounds good to me, i was only trying to appease both sides in my resolution, obviously didnt work, 18 weeks is a better time, and why oh why are people complaining about non humans? Last i checked the UN was populated by humans, as were nations.

My, but you are uninformed. One of my aides is a furry, another is a penguin. There is an entire nation of walruses we trade with. Another is of dragons and their pets - which we trade in, as nubile young women are easily... discovered. We will not even go into the truly bizaare races we regularly trade with.

How about something like this instead...

RECOGNISING the previous resolution "Abortion Rights" passed by a majority of UN members on June 5 2004,

FURTHER RECOGNISING that this resolutin was repealed <insert details of repeal here>,

CONVINCED that the previous resolution was repealed, not because nations believe abortion should be banned, but rather because the previous resolution was too limiting, not allowing governments to interfer iat any time throughout the gestation period, therefore allowing late term abortions in any circumstance,

BELIEVING that women should have the right to do with their bodies as they see fit, provided they are not harming others,

HAVING CONSIDERED that unborn children may also be viewed to have rights,

BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that:

I. UN member nations will not prevent abortion within the first 40% of the average gestation period of the mother's species (from here onwards referred to as "the gestation period").

II. UN member nations will not punish either the mother or the medical staff involved in an abortion within the first 40% of the gestation period.

III. Outside of the first 40% of the gestation period, UN member nations will not prevent or punish abortions occuring in the following circumstances:
i. Proceeding with the pregnancy would consist a serious threat to the mother's life
ii. Severe abnormalities are detected in the unborn child and less than 80% of the gestation period has passed

IV. UN member nations may choose to allow abortions outside of these conditions if they see fit.

Things that are different:

1. Use of gestation period percentages rather than fixed time periods which may not be relevant for different species.

2. Removal of the rape clause. I don't think rape is a valid reason for extending the time period. It doesn't influence the physical health of the mother or child. I also think that detection of the pregnancy is unlikely to be delayed in rape cases, especially if treatment is sort for any other harm inflicted. Therefore this wouldn't be one of those situations mentioned previously where the woman doesn't become aware of her pregnancy within the legal abortion period.

3. Removal of the clauses regarding definition of "severe", committees, requirement for signatures from two doctors, ability to instigate criminal proceedings if ignored, etc. I believe that most of that makes the proposal too bureaucratic, which may turn off some nations. I would be willing to re-instate some definitions if they are deemed essential, but I think the administration and penalties should be left up to individual nations. Giving some reign for nation sovereignty is likely to viewed as a good thing given the response to most recent proposals.

4. Drafted in recommended language, which should be irrelevant but is likely to make some nations more open to the proposal.

Sorry, Wegason, if this seems to be stealing some of your thunder. I'm just trying to suggest how I would be more likely to vote for the proposal. Please feel free to take the draft, rework and put your name on it, as I'm unlikely to be able to follow this through fully (damn RL).

Getting a repeal even to the point of quorum is going to be almost impossible so all of this could be purely academic anyway! Unless you are allowed to include the draft in the repeal with the comments "this will be submitted as soon as the repeal passes"...?

How about something like this instead...



Things that are different:

1. Use of gestation period percentages rather than fixed time periods which may not be relevant for different species.

2. Removal of the rape clause. I don't think rape is a valid reason for extending the time period. It doesn't influence the physical health of the mother or child. I also think that detection of the pregnancy is unlikely to be delayed in rape cases, especially if treatment is sort for any other harm inflicted. Therefore this wouldn't be one of those situations mentioned previously where the woman doesn't become aware of her pregnancy within the legal abortion period.

3. Removal of the clauses regarding definition of "severe", committees, requirement for signatures from two doctors, ability to instigate criminal proceedings if ignored, etc. I believe that most of that makes the proposal too bureaucratic, which may turn off some nations. I would be willing to re-instate some definitions if they are deemed essential, but I think the administration and penalties should be left up to individual nations. Giving some reign for nation sovereignty is likely to viewed as a good thing given the response to most recent proposals.

4. Drafted in recommended language, which should be irrelevant but is likely to make some nations more open to the proposal.

Sorry, Wegason, if this seems to be stealing some of your thunder. I'm just trying to suggest how I would be more likely to vote for the proposal. Please feel free to take the draft, rework and put your name on it, as I'm unlikely to be able to follow this through fully (damn RL).

Getting a repeal even to the point of quorum is going to be almost impossible so all of this could be purely academic anyway! Unless you are allowed to include the draft in the repeal with the comments "this will be submitted as soon as the repeal passes"...?


That is rather excellent, a mightily good resolution and i admire your effort and thank you for your input. I think article IV may be breaching rules as it allows members to opt out of that part of the resolution. Maybe the final articles could be that the UN RECOMMENDS that nations implement such and such

Thanks Tonca, i will do my damn best to get this through if my repeal succeeds, you will be credited in it for sure. I have made one slight change, which was to article IV

IV. The UN, while enforcing that abortions be allowed under the conditions previously stated, leaves the decision on allowing abortions outside of them to member nations.

This resolution was co-authored with Tonca

I have put this into my starter post so that people can see it when they look here.

Sounds good to me, i was only trying to appease both sides in my resolution, obviously didnt work, 18 weeks is a better time, and why oh why are people complaining about non humans? Last i checked the UN was populated by humans, as were nations.

My population is probably 70 percent Pojo.

I'm thinking you should spellcheck this again - not that I approve of it at all - due to the presence of words like "resolutin" and "foetus".

Done. When i read tonca's original draft i forgot that there were spelling errors

Thanks Tonca, i will do my damn best to get this through if my repeal succeeds, you will be credited in it for sure. I have made one slight change, which was to article IV

IV. The UN, while enforcing that abortions be allowed under the conditions previously stated, leaves the decision on allowing abortions outside of them to member nations.

This resolution was co-authored with Tonca

I have put this into my starter post so that people can see it when they look here.

Glad you liked it! I hope we get a few more comments though. It was a pretty quick draft.

Now to figure out how to get the repeal through...

Tonca's seems good to me...

Tonca's seems good to me...

Thanks, Cobdenia! That's quite a compliment consider you are anti-abortion (refering to http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418954&page=2).

OOC: I said I love them, not that I wanted to be around them. It's one of those "long distance loves" you read about. The further they are from me, the more I love it. :D
OOC: I know what you mean... but I just can't help myself!

IC: We will accept a repeal, but would then prefer the UN to make no further attempt to address the issue. We certainly will NOT endorse the proposed alternative detailed here.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Approvals: 44 (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, Sonic The Hedgehogs, Melmond, Vedinius I, Alberta Patriots, Tiksi, Zelandonnii, St Oswald, Othelma, Reak, Bernardi, TheSensitiveNewAge)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 105 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Tue May 17 2005

Well, no way the repeal is going to reach quorum this time (surprise, surprise) so the replacement resolution is useless at this point.

Can I suggest the following plan of action...
1. Redraft the repeal, mentioning that the resolution is being repealed to make way for a new resolution (and maybe using more formal language),
2. TG all the delegates who have approved the current repeal and ask them to try again,
3. Start a telegramming campaign of other delegates, possibly including text of the new resolution so that they know they aren't opening the door to the complete banning of abortion.

IC: We will accept a repeal, but would then prefer the UN to make no further attempt to address the issue. We certainly will NOT endorse the proposed alternative detailed here.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

In the interest of some constructive criticism, and at the risk of opening a massive can of worms, why?

Well, no way the repeal is going to reach quorum this time (surprise, surprise) so the replacement resolution is useless at this point.

Can I suggest the following plan of action...
1. Redraft the repeal, mentioning that the resolution is being repealed to make way for a new resolution (and maybe using more formal language),
2. TG all the delegates who have approved the current repeal and ask them to try again,
3. Start a telegramming campaign of other delegates, possibly including text of the new resolution so that they know they aren't opening the door to the complete banning of abortion.

*prepares for a counter-telegram campaign* :cool:

In the interest of some constructive criticism, and at the risk of opening a massive can of worms, why?
Firstly, we have no wish for any restriction to be placed on our own abortion laws, by the UN or anyone else. We leave this issue to be determined at a local level.

Secondly, we are reluctant to push our own views on the subject on nations that are strongly resistant to abortion. While many of us disagree with their stance, we acknowledge that the issue is very much 'grey', so advocate a hands-off approach for the UN.

Personally, I do not regard this as a satisfactory position, but I am mandated to speak for the people of my nation and must follow their desires.

M Vergniaud

Firstly, we have no wish for any restriction to be placed on our own abortion laws, by the UN or anyone else. We leave this issue to be determined at a local level.

Secondly, we are reluctant to push our own views on the subject on nations that are strongly resistant to abortion. While many of us disagree with their stance, we acknowledge that the issue is very much 'grey', so advocate a hands-off approach for the UN.

Personally, I do not regard this as a satisfactory position, but I am mandated to speak for the people of my nation and must follow their desires.

M Vergniaud

Thanks for your response - I was expecting a slightly more aggressive reply!

I'm a bit undecided on national sovereignty where abortion is concerned. I tend to think that one of the UN's roles is to uphold the rights of all people. One of those rights is for people to do with their bodies as they please so long as they aren't harming others (I'm not even going into the argument of whether abortion harms others - i.e. the baby/parasite - or not!). We've had resolutions that dictate how member nations may treat their own nations so not everything the UN does is of an international nature.

My problem is that the existing resolution doesn't allow any flexibility at the local level. And the only way it's ever going to be successfully repealed (if at all possible, maybe not) is to settle on some middle ground.

I certainly agree that the existing resolution is pretty shameful.

a piece of advice to Wegason: you should have posted this in the repeal thread you started, as it supports your repeal. that being said, if the repeal goes through, it is highly unlikely that a replacement would go through

I certainly agree that the existing resolution is pretty shameful.

Because it gives the woman the right to choose, or because you have need to legislate against the rights of the individual?

The existing one is simplistic, and sweeping. We prefer to give the choice of the matter to the person being affected, rather then in the hands of idealistic ghouls.

Your preference may vary.

Because it gives the woman the right to choose, or because you have need to legislate against the rights of the individual?

The existing one is simplistic, and sweeping. We prefer to give the choice of the matter to the person being affected, rather then in the hands of idealistic ghouls.

Your preference may vary.

The existing resolution makes no odds to us on a national level, but we have our sincere qualms about its international standing, not to mention the points made in my earlier reply to the delegate of Tonca.

Take a look at the UN's survey of Ecopoeia and you'll see that we legislate on very little; all but a handful of decisions are devolved to a local level and we have absolute freedom of movement between communities.