NationStates Jolt Archive

<the representative for The Supremely Democratic States of Hirota stands, allows time for the audience to complete their discussions, and then speaks>

Having noted the inflamed debate raging on about the repeal of abortion rights, it had occured to me that we can improve upon this proposal without repealling it.

I hope this topic can remain fairly clean and not sink to the level of previous discussions. I appreciate that the resolution is unlikely to get repealled and replaced by another, but equally I appreciate that it is an awfully written resolution which needs to be improved upon!

Clearly I have to tip-toe round the original to ensure I am not rewriting the original, but I think it's worked thus far. I've also had to try and tip toe the line between the two opposing schools of thought. Hopefully I've managed to strike a suitable balance which tidies up the original resolution, without making it entirely impotent.

My personal thought on the matter is that the patient has the right for a termination, but only when it does not conflict on their medical interests, or when a foetus has acomplished viability. I've deliberately left the door open for the second scenario, but noted my thoughts on the matter in the draft.

So, I present to you my first draft on definition of abortion and rights of medical practitioners. The Draft document is available from my office on request....

NOTING the resolution Abortion Rights, and observing many flaws in the resolution, such as the lack of a definition of what is an actual abortion.
AWARE of the rights of medical practitioners to refuse to perform treatments.
DEFINES Abortion as the termination of a pregnancy by artificial means before the foetus has developed enough to survive outside the uterus, or a termination on extraordinary medical grounds.
NOTES that the foetus after this time could be considered a cognitive human being, and could be treated as such.
Supports the rights of individual medical practitioners to refuse to perform abortions if it is not in the medical interest of the patient.

Comments and input is welcome, but please do post in the spirit of co-operation and respond positively. We don't need this to decend into petty wrangling and suffer the same fate as other posts on this matter. After all, the UN is supposed to be civilised, and quite frankly we have not seen too much of that in recent debates.

Thank you for your time.

It is a good start i must agree, i am not sure if you will be able to put this up and it be legal. I hope so but i am not sure.

It is a good start i must agree, i am not sure if you will be able to put this up and it be legal. I hope so but i am not sure.

I have consulted Fris regarding making a proposal define what abortion actually is, and he tentatively agreed it would be workable. Clearly it is a fine line which I'm working on.

DEFINES Abortion as the termination of a pregnancy by artificial means before the foetus has developed enough to survive outside the uteruswhen exactly he developed enough to survive outside?

I will support your proposal, Hirota.

when exactly he developed enough to survive outside?

I'd imagine this would very to some extent by nation and species; given that periods would vary between differing species, and would also vary by the technilogical capacity of the member-state.... The Constitutional Republic can transplant fetus' from Tekanious as early as the 6th week of the first trimester; and in Homo Sapiens as early as the 10th week of first... For either development in the new host, or in special containment units at medical firms. Generally, if a female wants to undergo removal procedures (which are not classified as "abortion", since it is only the pregnancy which is terminated, and not the developing child as well) they are hired on by medical firms, which pay them up to the point of safe removal.... In some cases (where rape was the result), the woman is also capable of trading in the fetus for one already in care by the firm.

Would 50% in to the gestation period be a suitable time to say the foetus can survive outside the womb? thats 18 weeks in humans.

Would 50% in to the gestation period be a suitable time to say the foetus can survive outside the womb? thats 18 weeks in humans.

Once again, it would vary by technology. Some state may not have the ability to care for that premature of a child... Some, on the other hand, could. I would say that if your state can, declare anything after that as not being an "abortion" since the fetus is still viable outside of the womb past that point.

From where I'm sitting, the line looks too fine to walk. This appears to be an ammendment / House of Cards.

Once again, it would vary by technology. Some state may not have the ability to care for that premature of a child... Some, on the other hand, could. I would say that if your state can, declare anything after that as not being an "abortion" since the fetus is still viable outside of the womb past that point.

Exactly, which is why I decided not to try and specify a magic number, mainly because of the difference in technology rather than any specific variation between species.

OOC: I tend to treat NS as similar to that described in Max's book, thus no "little green men" per se or alternative universes and other roleplays......that's just a personal decision rather than a condemnation of any one who chooses to do so.

OOC: I tend to treat NS as similar to that described in Max's book, thus no "little green men" per se or alternative universes and other roleplays......that's just a personal decision rather than a condemnation of any one who chooses to do so.

Same here, i find this other universe and alien lifeforms and robot stuff a bit silly when applied to the UN.

From where I'm sitting, the line looks too fine to walk. This appears to be an ammendment / House of Cards.

If I have to repeal to get a decent resolution on the books, then (provided I can establish a broad consensus on here) I'll have to persue that route. It's not what I'm desiring, but I think I can actually get a resolution written which will bring a degree of sanity to this matter.

Clearly this may involve consultation with several mods to establish a consensus on this matter, although I imagine I might need to take out certain elements to ensure it's legitimacy. I suspect section 2 and 5 in particular will have to go, and perhaps be rehashed in a different proposal. 3 is probably doomed as well.

Coming from the technical side of things, abortion means any pregnancy that does not go to term, can be many reasons for it, and professional assistance in the abortion of a pregnancy is small compared to miscarrages - even those that happen so early on the mother never even knew she was pregnant or that her delayed period is a miscarrage.

I have consulted Fris regarding making a proposal define what abortion actually is, and he tentatively agreed it would be workable.
To clarify, and for the record, I stated that Hirota was welcome to try. I didn't see the text of the proposal until just now (and haven't time to review it in detail). Please treat Game Moderator The Most Glorious Hack's opinion on this matter as definitive.

Would I be right in saying that in its current form if deemed legal, passed and taken in combination with the original, this proposal would protect the right to have an abortion up to the time when the foetus is viable independently or on extreme medical grounds, but would also allow nations to choose for themselves after this point?

Would I be right in saying that in its current form if deemed legal, passed and taken in combination with the original, this proposal would protect the right to have an abortion up to the time when the foetus is viable independently or on extreme medical grounds, but would also allow nations to choose for themselves after this point?

I'd say so. But it takes more serious conotations as to the after-point. This Republic already taken into account Abortion definition (since "Abortion" has not been directly defined at the international level to this point)... Before the viability is set, abortion is legal.... After viability period begins, "abortion" itself is not (but on the flip side, women may still "terminate" the pregnancy, via having the fetus surgically removed, and placed in care till full-development to stand for adoption) legal... in the sense that it is not the termination of a non-viable fetus or embryo (which is how the Republic defines abortion, since the inception of the Abortion Rights Res)... It's likely the Constitutional Republic is not the only state which made a legal definition of "abortion" after said resolutions passage, so as to protect viable children, which could be put up for adoption or, as in our case, sometimes, reimplanted into another host mother.

I feel that the concept is good, but would be better served with the repeal of the original resolution and replacement with something far better.
My only fear is that, while a repeal would be popular in both liberal/libertarian nations and conservative/authoritarian nations, but a replacement would not be popular, and might be voted out by, the conservative/authoritarian nations.

I like the idea, and support it, but I must suggest just a few things...

DEFINES Abortion as the termination of a pregnancy by artificial means before the foetus has developed enough to survive outside the uterus, or a termination on extraordinary medical grounds.

I would suggest rewording this slightly. "Or a termination on extraordinary medical grounds" is a vague phrasing, as what is medically out of the ordinary in some nations may not be so in others. I would rephrase this to say, "or the termination of a pregnancy in a manner that is medically extraordinary for the nation in which said pregnancy occurs."

NOTES that the foetus after this time could be considered a cognitive human being, and could be treated as such.
I would say "is considered... being, biologically speaking," instead of "could be... being." I would also put this before your definition of the word, but that's just my being pointlessly anal.

Supports the rights of individual medical practitioners to refuse to perform abortions if it is not in the medical interest of the patient.
I think they already have this right, as it's not expressly banned by the bill.

Oh
My
God
Not
AGAIN!!!!

And yes, please do put this in:


Supports the rights of individual medical practitioners to refuse to perform abortions if it is not in the medical interest of the patient.

That one line, and it's immediately illegal.

Heck, you're ammending a prior resolution. That makes it immediately illegal anyway.

Can't we find something else to pass resolutions on? Anything? Anybody?

Exactly, which is why I decided not to try and specify a magic number, mainly because of the difference in technology rather than any specific variation between species.

OOC: I tend to treat NS as similar to that described in Max's book, thus no "little green men" per se or alternative universes and other roleplays......that's just a personal decision rather than a condemnation of any one who chooses to do so.

Okay, I'm going to go ahead and say this: If you were to treat the UN like Max's book, you would be banned from the UN. Why? Max's book was a comedic parody. With the UN, attempting that is against the rules and a kickable offense. The fact we can't treat the UN in the style of Max's book is why using that as an excuse will not fly. If you have a problem with this, take it up with the mods, not me, as I'm only pointing out the obvious.

Now, about your draft: I like it, as it reminds me of the Definition of Marriage resolution (which is why I find it unusual that this is being called illegal), and I appreciate you bothering to allow for the possibility of other technology levels and species in your wording. However, I won't support. It is unneccessary to do and, really, I still have a bad taste in my mouth from the last time someone tried a repeal-and-replace.

Supports the rights of individual medical practitioners to refuse to perform abortions if it is not in the medical interest of the patient.
That one line, and it's immediately illegal.

Why would allowing the doctors to choose whether or not to perform abortions make the resolution illegal? Even the current resolution allows for this, although not explictly.

Why would allowing the doctors to choose whether or not to perform abortions make the resolution illegal? Even the current resolution allows for this, although not explictly.

No, it doesn't.


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.

Acknowledging the right of a doctor to not perform would be interfering.

No, it doesn't.



Acknowledging the right of a doctor to not perform would be interfering.
It's the doctor's choice as to whether or not to perform an abortion, the nation has absolutly nothing to do with an individual's choice.

It's all in the translation, dear. ;)

I thought it was illegal before the mods said so...but, Hirota, I appreciate the effort. As far as the repeal-and-replace goes, maybe we need a poll...hmmnnn...

I have to agree with Flibbleites on the wording. The resolution in place only guarantees a womans right to an abortion. It doesn't give her the right to demand who does or doesn't do it. As long as she gets the operation, by whoever agrees to do it, her rights are covered. Just my opinion and two cents :).

That said, as with all the other repeal attempts, rewrites, additions etc on this subject, I don't support it. The doctors of my nation already have the right to refuse to perform abortions if they wish.

Don't like it, based on simple fact that this takes power away from gov't to decide who can have a child and who can't and who will or will not perform the surgery.

Provided it can be established that this proposal is legal, Enn will support. It is well written, concise, to the point, and should be supported by people of many different political beliefs.

Note: I said "should". That assumes that people will actually read the text, rather than simply reading the title and voting against.

Against. Tired of this topic - let all the proposals die quietly.

Against. Tired of this topic - let all the proposals die quietly.

I aiming to actually resolve the ongoing arguements on this topic. Sadly it appears you have failed to appreciate that motives.

Before you post in here again Vastivia, can I kindly ask you to read my original post, in particular:We don't need this to decend into petty wrangling and suffer the same fate as other posts on this matter. After all, the UN is supposed to be civilised, and quite frankly we have not seen too much of that in recent debates. If you can't say anything nice on the matter then don't say anything at all! :p

Anyway, I'm curious why this proposal is deemed illegal, when the definition of marriage resolution was passed.

All I'm doing is defining what is meant by abortion - taken partially from google (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+abortion&meta=) and edited to focus on medical abortions (in line with the perceived spirit of the original). Now beforehand, where there would probably be several different understandings of what abortion actually meant, this proposal clarifies those definitions and variations and allows nations to make appropiate legislation themselves.

The rights of medical practitioners are not covered under any legislation at all, and this proposal seeks to ensure that the rights of the female do not override the medical concerns of medical practitioners who would not consent to performing the abortion. The government has no role in forcing or preventing practitioners from performing the procedure - it has to be on medical grounds.

There is no ammendment as far as I can understand as the original resolution makes no effort to address these points. Does it define abortion? Does it even attempt to define if it is referring to medical or non-medical abortion? Does it protect the rights of medical practitioners to refuse to perform an abortion if there are medical grounds? No, all it does is enshrine in law the rights of the woman to have an abortion and remove any influence from the government. This continues that tradition, tidies up the document so everyone knows what it is talking about, and provides medical practitioners with a degree of protection when they have genuine medical concerns. There is no reason why another doctor can take the abortion on if they wish.Don't like it, based on simple fact that this takes power away from gov't to decide who can have a child and who can't and who will or will not perform the surgery. The original resolution took away the rights for the government to control the first scenario you mentioned. I suppose this proposal does take away the second.To clarify, and for the record, I stated that Hirota was welcome to try. I didn't see the text of the proposal until just now (and haven't time to review it in detail). Please treat Game Moderator The Most Glorious Hack's opinion on this matter as definitive. Quite right, I had not written a proposal at that time and I do apologise if I gave the impression Fris had given a green light on this matter and the proposal text.

Okay, I'm going to go ahead and say this: If you were to treat the UN like Max's book, you would be banned from the UN. Why? Max's book was a comedic parody. With the UN, attempting that is against the rules and a kickable offense. The fact we can't treat the UN in the style of Max's book is why using that as an excuse will not fly. If you have a problem with this, take it up with the mods, not me, as I'm only pointing out the obvious.

Sorry, I was not clear enough on this (partially because I did not want to get into an extended discussion on roleplaying, partially because my time was at a premium when I posted my thoughts on this).

I was mainly referring to the technology levels outlined in the book, do we see starships the size of cities in the "book" for example? I'd have thought the fact I didn't actually mention roleplaying when I first made that assertion would have implied I was not actually referring to roleplaying itself, just using the background and the technology demonstrated to try and build up an understanding of the average technology being thrown around.

So when I see little green men being mentioned - I think of small humans covered in green paint. It must be some tribal thing, I imagine. :) When I see anti-matter bombs being mentioned, they are just different version of "conventional" weaponry to me.

I don't really want to go much further with this on this particular topic, as it'll wonder off the original topic (heck, I was reluctant to mention my views on little green men earlier).

No, it doesn't.



Acknowledging the right of a doctor to not perform would be interfering.

Actually, it wouldn't.... Abortion and interference were left obscured in the original resolution, therefore member states still possess all necessary power to define those terms as they see fit. You may see "the right of doctors to not perform abortions procedures as interference"; however no UN member-state is obligated under international law (UN Resolutions) to mandate that a doctor perform such a procedure... Nor does it specifically define what "abortion" is, also left in the realm of particular state rights... If a government wishes to define abortion as "the termination of a non-viable fetus"; what is to make that definition illegal? It merely says we may not interfere with the right to an abortion; it does not explicitly state what an "abortion" is; or what constitutes "interference"... And no international law defines interference or abortion (which means, under the Rights & Duties; member-states have the power to define those terms in law, as they see fit; till international law is made which defines them for us).... Where international law is silent; member-state sovereignty is supreme...

Actually, it wouldn't.... Abortion and interference were left obscured in the original resolution, therefore member states still possess all necessary power to define those terms as they see fit. You may see "the right of doctors to not perform abortions procedures as interference"; however no UN member-state is obligated under international law (UN Resolutions) to mandate that a doctor perform such a procedure... Nor does it specifically define what "abortion" is, also left in the realm of particular state rights... If a government wishes to define abortion as "the termination of a non-viable fetus"; what is to make that definition illegal? It merely says we may not interfere with the right to an abortion; it does not explicitly state what an "abortion" is; or what constitutes "interference"... And no international law defines interference or abortion (which means, under the Rights & Duties; member-states have the power to define those terms in law, as they see fit; till international law is made which defines them for us).... Where international law is silent; member-state sovereignty is supreme...

Exactly! Clearly I'm not the only one working on this train of thought! It's a bit of a relief to see many other nations can appreciate the intentions and motivations behind the proposal.

I'm delighted that the main point of contention is not the actual content of the draft, but rather the technical legality of the draft. That suggests to me that there is not a significant, substancial objection to the draft itself and what it seeks to accomplish, but rather if it is legal to be submitted. For the most part there is a general consensus that it is legal, although not everyone feels the same, but I think it would be good if we could have a mod just explain what is illegal about the proposal.

I appreciate it is borderline, but a bit of clarification would be well received!

Thanks!

This is more in line with "Definition of Fair Trial"... not an "amendment" but rather an addendum (addition to existing law) and not a replacement of existing law... The proposal is itself unique.

I believe most of the argument here is on what constitutes an "amendment".... I do not see it as an amendment, because it is not replacing any existing law (anymore than the "Definition of 'Fair Trial'" replaced 'Right to Fair Trial'). But merely clarifying word usage standards in relation to existing laws, to make definitions applicable more tangible for governance....

As international law stands, a woman's rights to an abortion end where the rights of another (in this case, a Doctor's begins)... A particular practitioner is not forced under any law in this United Nations, to perform such a procedure... (Though they can be forced by local laws of member-states)... This proposal would "protect" the right of a doctor, as not being adverse to internation view of "interference" (anymore than someone refusing to go to a religious organization, is denying that organization's rights to free practice).

In addition the existing laws do not define "abortion" and therefore the Abortion Rights res. is left subject to particular definition of such in member-states (sic. Rights & Duties),since principled definition is lacking in international law...

This would define and clarify the "abortion procedure", standardizing the definition accross member-state laws, as well as that of particulars involving "interference"... And thus is new law, clarifying cases of old law (reliance upon the Abortion Rights Res, but not an amendment of it)... to be particularly honest, I have no bone of contention, one way or another... If this passes, the Constitutional Republic would be as free to protect the rights of medical practitioners then (under international law), as it is now (under our own state laws)... But still support it, as it reaches for an international ethical standard in this realm.

If clarifying new definitions in international law, based off of previous laws constitutes "amendments"... Then the [i]mods[/b] should be deleting several on-the-book resolutions, including (but not limited to):

1. Gay Rights (since it is an 'amendment' of Sexual Freedom)
2. Global Aids Initiative (Since it is an 'amendment' of Keep the World Disease Free)
3. Stop Dumping Start Cleaning (since it is an 'amendment' of Oceanic Waste Dumping)
4. Definition of 'Fair Trial' (since it is an 'amendment' of Fair Trial)
5. Ban Trafficking in Persons (since it is an 'amendment' of End Slavery)
6. Epidemic Prevention Protocol (since it is an 'amendment' of Keep the World Disease Free)

Since all of those are just as applicably "amendments" under the definition of such attempting to be "applied" as this.

Clarification of standards, based of vaguity of previous law, constituted "new" law... and not amendment to law. And amendment seeks to change the text of previous law.... This in no way changes anything in previous international law (though it may upon individual member-state law.... but that is non-applicable to the definition of an amendment)...

If someone wishes to argue that defining what constituted "abortion" and "interefernce of rights" thereunto, under international law, is somehow "changing" existing laws (and thus amending or altering their course); I would be glad to hear it... To date, I've heard the term "amendment" thrown around by persons, with no actual clarification of why they have reached that determination... As if it were some "Holy Grail" of jurisprudence.... If you're going to tell me its an amendment..... proove it... (obviously not towards you Hirota)... Don't just make an unfounded statement and opinion, baseless with no facts, as ultimate truth...

If this indeed is made applicable to "amendment" as defined by procedure; why then are other proposals allowed to reach quorum, and passage, which also defy that same standard? (That is more indicative of a bias, intentional or unintentional, by the governing authority).

Sorry, I was not clear enough on this (partially because I did not want to get into an extended discussion on roleplaying, partially because my time was at a premium when I posted my thoughts on this).

Meh. That's part of what happens when you have to deal with multiple meanings to language. That's part of why I like D'ni.

I was mainly referring to the technology levels outlined in the book, do we see starships the size of cities in the "book" for example? I'd have thought the fact I didn't actually mention roleplaying when I first made that assertion would have implied I was not actually referring to roleplaying itself, just using the background and the technology demonstrated to try and build up an understanding of the average technology being thrown around.

Which really hasn't changed much. NS is still dominated by MT, though FT is increasing in both size and power in the recent months. My main campaign on here has been to get people to consider certain differences between species in their proposals. You pretty much did that with this proposal. Some may point out egg-laying species, but considering the differences in their physiology I would argue that the procedure for egg-layers is too different to count as abortion.

So when I see little green men being mentioned - I think of small humans covered in green paint. It must be some tribal thing, I imagine. :) When I see anti-matter bombs being mentioned, they are just different version of "conventional" weaponry to me.

Little known fact: If we had concentrated in different areas of technology than we did, right now every government on Earth could be stockpiling antimatter weapons. And right now, it's not that much of a step to creating true AIs or engineering humans to have green skin. Nor is it that far to nanotech, disrupters, or quite a few other popular items of scifi. Hell, within the next ten years railguns will probably move from the prototype stage to being part of conventional weaponry. Quite a bit of the technology mentioned as scifi staples are not actually that far ahead of what we can currently achieve, which is why they have to go into types so exotic and physics so strange in this era. The idea of flying cars by this area is not a pipe dream, but a rea possibility of how humanity could have developed.

To be honest, as long as you make allowances for other technological levels (even in the real world, nations are sometimes close to a century apart from each other in technology), it should be fine. And you have.

I don't really want to go much further with this on this particular topic, as it'll wonder off the original topic (heck, I was reluctant to mention my views on little green men earlier).

That's part of why, throughout this post, I've made it a point to try to reference the original topic from time to time.

Although my opinion is not definitive (as I am not a moderator), from what I'm gauging is that this Resolution is illegal because if you strike out the "Abortion Rights" Resolution you strike out the power of this resolution. I know that there are previous resolutions that actually *did* build upon prior resolutions- such as "Definition of Fair Trial"- but they were passed before the new "House of Cards" rule was instituted, and, from what I'm reading, this *is* "House of Cards". However, if you went along with a "Medical Practioners' Rights Act"- which is what I think you want to do- then it'd probably be legal, since it *can* stand on its own if the "Abortion Rights" Resolution was struck from existence.