NationStates Jolt Archive

Abortion Rights 2

Understanding the deep divisions and emotions surrounding the issue of clinical abortion.

Accepting that some members of society consider an embryo a person from conception and are convinced it has a right to life.

Determined however, that all women must have the right to ultimate control over their own reproduction and fertility.

Defining a woman of childbearing age as an existing person.

Defining a potential person as an embryo or foetus incapable of survival outside the womb of the woman carrying it.

Defining a child or baby as a foetus capable of survival outside the womb of the woman carrying it

Defines a clinical abortion as a medical procedure preformed on a pregnant woman at any stage of the pregnancy where the sole aim is to remove a developing foetus from the womb that results in the death of the foetus.

Convinced that the rights of an existing person to choose clinical abortion at any stage of pregnancy override any perceived rights to life of the potential person.

Stands firm in the belief that no state has the right to force women to bear any child they do not want, and that the right of control over their own reproduction and fertility is a basic human right.

Mandates the following….

1 – The state cannot remove the rights of any woman to ultimate control over her own reproduction and fertility unless she is suffering from a diagnosed internationally recognised mental disease or defect. Any woman refused access to clinical abortion on those grounds is exempt from the clauses below.

2 – All women must have access to clinical abortion services if they wish to access it. Premises used for the procedure must be set up and equipped properly with everything necessary for the procedure to be performed in a safe and sterile environment. All staff directly involved with the procedure must be trained and licensed medical professionals.

3 – The state may, at its own discretion, require women to undergo counselling and/or education sessions on alternatives to clinical abortion before they are permitted to access the procedure. These sessions cannot be forced on women after the 4th month of pregnancy is completed or at any stage of pregnancy if the procedure is medically necessary for her health and/or well-being or if the pregnancy is the result of rape.

4 – While the state may not refuse to allow a woman access to a clinical abortion at any stage of pregnancy, it may, at its own discretion, require the woman to allow doctors to take all necessary steps to deliver any viable foetus safely. The child will then receive all the medical care it requires as a premature infant, and may then be adopted out by the state if the woman who gave birth relinquishes, or the state removes the child from, her custody.

5 – The state may, at its own discretion, refuse to publicly fund a clinical abortion for any woman who has the means necessary to pay for the operation herself. This includes coverage by private health insurance. The state may not refuse to fund the procedure for any woman who does not have the means necessary to pay for the operation herself, and who does not have private health insurance.

6 – The state may, at its own discretion, impose a minimum age limit for a teenager/young woman to access a clinical abortion. This age limit must be no higher than the legal age of majority of the nation in which the woman is residing at the time she requests the procedure.

With serious repeal attacks increasing against the abortion rights resolution lately, I took a long look at it and reluctantly had to agree it needs to go, but only to be replaced with a better defined resolution.

This is the first very rough draft for the replacement. I haven't written a repeal out yet because A - the replacement is the harder thing to write so I decided to get it out of the way first, and B - Someone else's repeal may work and save me the bother :D.

Abortion is a discrace to society and should be outlawed.

Convinced that the rights of an existing person to choose clinical abortion at any stage of pregnancy override any perceived rights to life of the potential person.

This here is the point that IS the debate on abortion. The debate is polarised, conservative Vs Liberals, Religious Vs Nonreligious.

In My opinion never the twain shall meet as far as abortion is concerned and i wish you the very best of luck passing this one, never mind having it repealed.

As for me, I take the Pro choice stand as i am for the freedom to choose more than the right to life of the unborn child.

Repeal of Abortion Rights resolution

This resolution needs to be repealed and replaced on the basis it is excessively short, undefined, unclear and vague. While it does give a woman the right to clinical abortion, it fails to give the state the right to regulate the practice in any way. It also fails to require the woman to look at alternatives before seeking a clinical abortion.

There is also no mention of late term clinical abortions and under the original resolution, a woman has the right to demand the death of a viable foetus up until birth.

In the interest of passing a much better-defined and written resolution, this one must be struck down.

I just had a quick go at writing a repeal on the Abortion Rights resolution. I'm not sure its completly legal however. Are we allowed to mention replacements in repeals?

I won't be submitting anything for at least a week. Need to get over this cold first before worrying about a huge telegram campaign, so if anyone can give me any advice on the repeal or replacement in the meantime, I'd really appreciate it :).

Character count (replacement)?

The characters are over the limit at the moment but I'm not too worried about it. The replacement will be undergoing some changes before submission. I have already identified a couple of lines that can go without affecting the proposal one bit. This is in its very rough draft form at present.

Are we allowed to mention replacements in repeals?
Yes
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384750&postcount=109
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9385131&postcount=113

Yes
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384750&postcount=109
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9385131&postcount=113


Excellent.

Thanks :).

the gay right bill has been attacked continually too, but it doesnt seem to work.

The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel really appreciate the action of Waterana to post on the UN forum a new draft with the aim to replace a resolution, before having submitting the repeal.

Congratulations.

About:
"6 – The state may, at its own discretion, impose a minimum age limit for a teenager/young woman to access a clinical abortion. This age limit must be no higher than the legal age of majority of the nation in which the woman is residing at the time she requests the procedure"

we are not expert on this matter, and we don't understand it very well. Please, if someone can detail it, thanks a lot.


May we suggest 3 points, maybe you will be interested in:

- Emergency contraception (Morning-after pill)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning-after_pill

- Therapeutic abortion: An abortion perfomed because the pregnancy poses health risk to the pregnant woman

- (i don't find the name in english sorry) An abortion perfomed because the examination show a malformation of the foetus, or any serious uncurable desease

The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel really appreciate the action of Waterana to post on the UN forum a new draft with the aim to replace a resolution, before having submitting the repeal.

Congratulations.

Thanks :).

About:
"6 – The state may, at its own discretion, impose a minimum age limit for a teenager/young woman to access a clinical abortion. This age limit must be no higher than the legal age of majority of the nation in which the woman is residing at the time she requests the procedure"

we are not expert on this matter, and we don't understand it very well. Please, if someone can detail it, thanks a lot.

This is basically allowing the state to not allow teens, say from 13 to 17 years old to access clinical abortion. With the minimum age limit, the state can say only females 16 and over can access the service. I am not happy with this clause as written and will probably reword it to allow clinical abortion for teens if they have permission from a parent or guardian.

Not allowing the state to make the age limit higher than the age of majority (18 in most places) is to stop them effectivly banning clinical abortion by making the minimum age limit 65 or something like that.


May we suggest 3 points, maybe you will be interested in:

- Emergency contraception (Morning-after pill)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning-after_pill

- Therapeutic abortion: An abortion perfomed because the pregnancy poses health risk to the pregnant woman

- (i don't find the name in english sorry) An abortion perfomed because the examination show a malformation of the foetus, or any serious uncurable desease

The morning after pill really doesn't apply or belong in this proposal because this just covers clinical abortion, not contraception. By the time a woman is seeking clinical abortion, the time period she could use emergency contraception is well and truly past.

Clinical abortion for the health of the mother or deformaties of the foetus are already covered under her basic right to access the service. I will however add deformaties of the foetus to clause 3 so its treated the same as in cases of danger to her own health/well being or rape and the mother isn't forced to go through with the counselling/education.

I will be voting against this if it ever reaches quorum for the usual national sovereignty reasons. I will note that in Texan Hotrodders we make no attempt to establish regulation of any kind concerning abortion, and firmly believe in the value of individual liberty.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

This is basically allowing the state to not allow teens, say from 13 to 17 years old to access clinical abortion. With the minimum age limit, the state can say only females 16 and over can access the service. I am not happy with this clause as written and will probably reword it to allow clinical abortion for teens if they have permission from a parent or guardian.

Not allowing the state to make the age limit higher than the age of majority (18 in most places) is to stop them effectivly banning clinical abortion by making the minimum age limit 65 or something like that.




The morning after pill really doesn't apply or belong in this proposal because this just covers clinical abortion, not contraception. By the time a woman is seeking clinical abortion, the time period she could use emergency contraception is well and truly past.

Clinical abortion for the health of the mother or deformaties of the foetus are already covered under her basic right to access the service. I will however add deformaties of the foetus to clause 3 so its treated the same as in cases of danger to her own health/well being or rape and the mother isn't forced to go through with the counselling/education.


thanks for your anwsers

the gay right bill has been attacked continually too, but it doesnt seem to work.
Thats because it is attacked by religious nutbars doing the whole homophobic 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' thing :mp5: instead of saying there is something wrong with the actual bill.

the gay right bill has been attacked continually too, but it doesnt seem to work.

Well, now we have something to replace the old Abortion resolution should it ever actually be repealed. Basically, we have a weapon waiting in reserve in case the worst should happen. Or we could go after it ourselves - and with a replacement sitting in the wings that shows a more level approach (which both argues the procedure as well as legalizing it) plus addresses the original's fall point of late-term abortions, then it would have a much better shot that most of the religious style repeals. Personally, I wish to do the same thing with equal rights stuff - as a whole set rather than just each individual issue.

We see this alternative text as fundamentally no different than the original. Both deny the rights of religious societies to practice their faith; both are infringements upon national sovereignity. We demand nothing more nor less than the right to choose Our way of life, free from the moral prejudices of other NationStates.

We see this alternative text as fundamentally no different than the original. Both deny the rights of religious societies to practice their faith; both are infringements upon national sovereignity. We demand nothing more nor less than the right to choose Our way of life, free from the moral prejudices of other NationStates.

This replacement in no way stops anyone practicing their faith. It does stop anyone forcing their faith on those who don't share it and I will not apologise for that. If your peoples religious beliefs say no to the procedure, then they won't be using it.

While you can't make clinical abortion illegal in your nation under this, no-one will be forcing your women at gunpoint to have the procedure done either. It will be their choice, and if they say no, so be it.

As for national sovereignity, I will also not apologise for caring more about half the worlds population having the basic human right of control over their own reproduction and fertility, than I do about a governments right to oppress and control its people.

Unless the religion is the government, it does not infringe upon religions practicing their faith. If they are one and the same, I consent with Waterana and grant no sympathy to those nations.

With serious repeal attacks increasing against the abortion rights resolution lately, I took a long look at it and reluctantly had to agree it needs to go, but only to be replaced with a better defined resolution.

This is the first very rough draft for the replacement. I haven't written a repeal out yet because A - the replacement is the harder thing to write so I decided to get it out of the way first, and B - Someone else's repeal may work and save me the bother :D.

I've been thinking it needs to be replaced for a long long time. Glad I'm not the only one.

I like this draft, it certainly addresses late term abortions which is my biggest bugbear with the original, and it's more indepth in general as well, which is never a bad thing in my book.

Clinical Abortion Rights

Human rights

Strong

Understanding the deep divisions and emotions surrounding the issue of clinical abortion.

Convinced however, that all women must have the right to ultimate control over their own reproduction and fertility, and those rights exceed any perceived right to life of a potential person.

Defining a potential person as an embryo or foetus incapable of survival outside the womb of the woman carrying it.

Defining a child or baby as a foetus capable of survival outside the womb of the woman carrying it

Defines a clinical abortion as a medical procedure performed on a pregnant woman, at any stage of the pregnancy, where the sole aim is to remove a developing foetus from the womb that results in the termination of the pregnancy.

Stands firm in the belief that no state has the right to force any woman to bear a child she does not want, and that the right of all women to control their own reproduction and fertility is a basic human right.

Mandates the following….

1 – The state cannot remove the rights of any woman to control over her own reproduction and fertility unless she is suffering from a diagnosed internationally recognised mental disease or defect. Any woman refused access to clinical abortion on those grounds is exempt from the clauses below.

2 – All women must have access to clinical abortion services if they wish to use it. Premises allocated must be set up and equipped with everything necessary for the procedure to be performed in a safe and sterile environment. All staff directly involved with the procedure must be trained and licensed medical professionals.

3 – The state may, at its own discretion, require women to undergo counselling and/or education sessions on alternatives to clinical abortion before they are permitted to access the procedure. These sessions cannot be forced on women after the 4th month of pregnancy is completed or at any stage of pregnancy if the procedure is medically necessary for her health and/or well-being, in the case of abnormalities of the foetus, or if the pregnancy is the result of incest/rape.

4 – While the state may not refuse to allow a woman access to a clinical abortion at any stage of pregnancy, it may, at its own discretion, require the woman to allow doctors to take all necessary steps to deliver any viable foetus safely. The child will receive all the medical care it requires as a premature baby, and may then be adopted out by the state if the woman who gave birth relinquishes, or the state removes the child from, her custody.

5 – The state may, at its own discretion, refuse to publicly fund a clinical abortion for any woman who has the means necessary to pay for the operation herself. This includes coverage by private health insurance. The state may not refuse to fund the procedure for any woman who does not have the means necessary to pay for the operation herself, and who does not have private health insurance.

6 – The state may, at its own discretion, impose a minimum age limit for a minor to access a clinical abortion without parental consent. Said limit may be no higher than the legal age of majority of the nation in which the procedure is to be performed.



This is the next and possibly final draft of the replacement. Its under the character limit now and I've changed wording, added bits to clauses and taken bits and pieces out to make it clearer and read better. I kinda like it as is now, but if anyone sees something I've missed please let me know :).

I've been thinking it needs to be replaced for a long long time. Glad I'm not the only one.

I like this draft, it certainly addresses late term abortions which is my biggest bugbear with the original, and it's more indepth in general as well, which is never a bad thing in my book.

Thanks for the support. I do get the feeling I've jumped right in the deep end with this one, but I agree replacing the original is needed badly. Just hope I haven't bitten off more than I can chew :D.

I just had a quick go at writing a repeal on the Abortion Rights resolution. I'm not sure its completly legal however. Are we allowed to mention replacements in repeals?

I won't be submitting anything for at least a week. Need to get over this cold first before worrying about a huge telegram campaign, so if anyone can give me any advice on the repeal or replacement in the meantime, I'd really appreciate it :).



This resolution needs to be repealed and replaced on the basis it is excessively short, undefined, unclear and vague. While it does give a woman the right to clinical abortion, it fails to give the state the right to regulate the practice in any way. It also fails to require the woman to look at alternatives before seeking a clinical abortion. There is also no mention of late term clinical abortions and under the original resolution, a woman has the right to demand the death of a viable foetus up until birth.

In the interest of passing a much better-defined and written resolution, this one must be struck down.

Let us look again at the language of the current resolution:

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.

1. A nation may comply with the current resolution and still regulate abortion and/or prohibit certain types of procedures, so long as you do not interfere with woman’s right to abortion.

2. A nation could legitimately ban abortions performed beyond the point of viability -- i.e., ban abortions of viable fetuses. As documented in the links below, it is perfectly legitimate to define abortion as only performed prior to viability. Thus, the current UN resolution may be said to only protect a women's right to destruction of her unborn child prior to its ability to survive outside the womb and does not necessarily prohibit laws that ban procedures that would destroy a viable fetus.

http://www.bartleby.com/61/7/A0020700.html
(abortion: "Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fethttp://216.251.232.159/semdweb/internetsomd/ASP/1485612.asp (abortion: "Expulsion from the uterus of an embryo or fetus prior to the stage of viability.")
http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=2283&bold=||||
(abortion: "the termination of pregnancy by various means, including medical surgery, before the fetus is able to sustain independent life.")
http://www.mercksource.com/pp/us/cns/cns_hl_dorlands.jspzQzpgzEzzSzppdocszSzuszSzcommonzSzdorlandszSzdorlandzSzdmd_a_02zPzhtm#912015
(abortion: "the premature expulsion from the uterus of the products of conception—of the embryo, or of a nonviable fetus.")
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/a137.htm
http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?abortion

3. A nation could also require the removal and protection, rather than destruction, of viable fetuses. Nothing in the current resolution requires that fetuses die – merely that women be allowed to have fetuses removed. Again, as documented in the links below, it is perfectly legitimate to define abortion as the ending of pregnancy or removal of the fetus without causing the death of the fetus. Thus, the current UN resolution does not prohibit laws that do not interfere with a woman's right to end her pregnancy, but that require fetuses to be saved if possible.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/abortion?view=uk
(abortion: " the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy")
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002912.htm ("An abortion is a procedure, either surgical or medical, to end a pregnancy by removing the fetus and placenta from the uterus.")
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=195&dict=CALD
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861583045 (abortion: "operation to end pregnancy: an operation or other intervention to end a pregnancy by removing an embryo or fetus from the womb.")
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2091
("In medicine, an abortion is the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus. It is the loss of a pregnancy and does not refer to why that pregnancy was lost.")
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=abort*2+0&dict=A

OCC/RL info: (highlight to view) According to the Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm), about 90% of all abortions performed in the United States take place during the first trimester of pregnancy, before 12 weeks of gestational age. In fact, 59% of abortions were known to have been obtained at <8 weeks' gestation. Overall, 25% of abortions were known to have been performed at <6 weeks' gestation, 18% at 7 weeks, and 16% at 8 weeks. Few reported abortions occurred after 15 weeks' gestation: 4.2% at 16--20 weeks and 1.4% at >21 weeks. About 0.04 – 0.08% occur at > 24 weeks.

Clinical Abortion Rights

Human rights

Strong

Understanding the deep divisions and emotions surrounding the issue of clinical abortion. Agreed

Convinced however, that all women must have the right to ultimate control over their own reproduction and fertility, and those rights exceed any perceived right to life of a potential person. Agreed

Defining a potential person as an embryo or foetus incapable of survival outside the womb of the woman carrying it. Nations may already do this if they choose

Defining a child or baby as a foetus capable of survival outside the womb of the woman carrying it Nations may already do this if they choose

Defines a clinical abortion as a medical procedure performed on a pregnant woman, at any stage of the pregnancy, where the sole aim is to remove a developing foetus from the womb that results in the termination of the pregnancy. Nations may already do this if they choose. They also can choose alternative definitions more conducive to their nation's policies and/or some of your stated concerns.

Stands firm in the belief that no state has the right to force any woman to bear a child she does not want, and that the right of all women to control their own reproduction and fertility is a basic human right.Agreed

Mandates the following….

1 – The state cannot remove the rights of any woman to control over her own reproduction and fertility unless she is suffering from a diagnosed internationally recognised mental disease or defect. Any woman refused access to clinical abortion on those grounds is exempt from the clauses below. Nope. See below.

2 – All women must have access to clinical abortion services if they wish to use it. Premises allocated must be set up and equipped with everything necessary for the procedure to be performed in a safe and sterile environment. All staff directly involved with the procedure must be trained and licensed medical professionals. Nations may already do this if they choose.

3 – The state may, at its own discretion, require women to undergo counselling and/or education sessions on alternatives to clinical abortion before they are permitted to access the procedure. These sessions cannot be forced on women after the 4th month of pregnancy is completed or at any stage of pregnancy if the procedure is medically necessary for her health and/or well-being, in the case of abnormalities of the foetus, or if the pregnancy is the result of incest/rape. Hell, no. See below.

4 – While the state may not refuse to allow a woman access to a clinical abortion at any stage of pregnancy, it may, at its own discretion, require the woman to allow doctors to take all necessary steps to deliver any viable foetus safely. The child will receive all the medical care it requires as a premature baby, and may then be adopted out by the state if the woman who gave birth relinquishes, or the state removes the child from, her custody. Unnecessary, per my prior post

5 – The state may, at its own discretion, refuse to publicly fund a clinical abortion for any woman who has the means necessary to pay for the operation herself. This includes coverage by private health insurance. The state may not refuse to fund the procedure for any woman who does not have the means necessary to pay for the operation herself, and who does not have private health insurance. Agreed. (But what about women in the military -- especially stationed overseas?)

6 – The state may, at its own discretion, impose a minimum age limit for a minor to access a clinical abortion without parental consent. Said limit may be no higher than the legal age of majority of the nation in which the procedure is to be performed. Hell no. See below.

This is the next and possibly final draft of the replacement. Its under the character limit now and I've changed wording, added bits to clauses and taken bits and pieces out to make it clearer and read better. I kinda like it as is now, but if anyone sees something I've missed please let me know :).

1. This means well but it allows the state to deny abortion as an option to anyone with a diagnosed mental disorder. Mild depression, anxiety, ADD, OCD -- anything from the DSM IV would qualify. A large portion of the population of most nations have some disorder, but it does not significantly interfere with their lives and definitely doesn't effect the ability to make a rational and moral decision about abortion.

This might make some sense if you re-worded it to exclude the mentally incompetent. Even then I don't like the idea of forcing insane women to bear children against their will.

3. No. Mandatory anti-abortion brainwashing ("education sessions") of a pregnant woman would clearly be the result of this in many nations. Pure evil. Why should a women with a 5-week old zygote be forced to attend such sessions?

6. No. What if they pregnancy is due to incest? Why shouldn't a 17-year old be allowed to make this decision? Reproductive rights don't necessarily start at the age of majority and you have no exceptions for those for whom parental consent is impossible.

EDIT: We have a fundamental disagreement about the necessity of a repeal/replacement of the Abortion Rights Resolution. I do commend you, however, on your hard work and thoughtful attempt at an alternative. Please do not confuse my harsh dissent with a lack of respect. I firmly disagree with you, but I respect your thoughts.

I think this is a good attempt to improve the current resolution. I do have a couple of immediate comments, however (more maybe to follow):


>Clinical Abortion Rights
>
>Human rights
>
>Strong
>
>Understanding the deep divisions and emotions surrounding the issue of >clinical abortion.
>
>Convinced however, that all women must have the right to ultimate control >over their own reproduction and fertility, and those rights exceed any >perceived right to life of a potential person.

COMMENT: Overall written very well. However, in addition to reproduction and fertility, isn't one of the major points behind a pro-choice stance the choice to not have one's body used as a life support for another? In some respects, "reproduction and fertility" are farther reaching that control over one's "body" so it's probably fine as is.


>Defining a potential person as an embryo or foetus incapable of survival >outside the womb of the woman carrying it.
>
>Defining a child or baby as a foetus capable of survival outside the womb of >the woman carrying it
>

COMMENT: Okay, nitpicking... but what if somebody says "let's just switch it to another womb, then"?


>Defines a clinical abortion as a medical procedure performed on a pregnant >woman, at any stage of the pregnancy, where the sole aim is to remove a >developing foetus from the womb that results in the termination of the >pregnancy.
>
>Stands firm in the belief that no state has the right to force any woman to >bear a child she does not want, and that the right of all women to control >their own reproduction and fertility is a basic human right.
>
>Mandates the following….
>
>1 – The state cannot remove the rights of any woman to control over her >own reproduction and fertility unless she is suffering from a diagnosed >internationally recognised mental disease or defect. Any woman refused >access to clinical abortion on those grounds is exempt from the clauses >below.


COMMENT: "diagnosed internationally recognised mental disease or defect"
I think this is too far-reaching. Say a woman has mild obsessive compulsive disorder, or is mildly alcoholic. Does that mean that the state can remove her rights when it comes to abortion? I think that this needs to be written more carefully to actually say what I suspect the author intended: someone who has been medically declared unfit to make sound judgements is ALL areas of life.


>2 – All women must have access to clinical abortion services if they wish to >use it. Premises allocated must be set up and equipped with everything >necessary for the procedure to be performed in a safe and sterile >environment. All staff directly involved with the procedure must be trained >and licensed medical professionals.
>
>3 – The state may, at its own discretion, require women to undergo >counselling and/or education sessions on alternatives to clinical abortion >before they are permitted to access the procedure. These sessions cannot >be forced on women after the 4th month of pregnancy is completed or at >any stage of pregnancy if the procedure is medically necessary for her >health and/or well-being, in the case of abnormalities of the foetus, or if the >pregnancy is the result of incest/rape.

COMMENT: "although the state cannot deny an abortion if a reasonable attempt is made to attend such sessions that are provided in a timely manner" or something like that; basically to keep the state from using education sessions that prolong the pregnancy to the point where an abortion isn't feasible, or make a poor woman travel across the country to attend one, etc.

Also, such sessions should not be biased and should have their content regulated. They should give information on having an abortion, as well as other alternatives (including the pros AND cons of bringing a pregnancy to full term).

However, this does beg the question.... why is it required that a woman getting an abortion attend such sessions but a woman palnning to bring a pregnancy to term is not required to sit through sessions on alternatives to pregnancy, including abortion? Seems unfair.

Perhaps a fair solution would be that facilites offering abortions are required to provide access to such sessions to the woman, who may choose to attend them or not.



>4 – While the state may not refuse to allow a woman access to a clinical >abortion at any stage of pregnancy, it may, at its own discretion, require >the woman to allow doctors to take all necessary steps to deliver any viable >foetus safely. The child will receive all the medical care it requires as a >premature baby, and may then be adopted out by the state if the woman >who gave birth relinquishes, or the state removes the child from, her >custody.

COMMENT: I don't think that this should be "required"; either a woman's body and her fertility and reproduction belong to her or they don't. What if she then dies under such a procedure? At least if she dies during abortion (or during a wanted pregnancy) she will have made an informed choice. I have no problem with making it a requirement that the woman be made aware if this foetus COULD be delivered safely and the state request that she allow it. As written, there isn't anything that says they can't force a woman to allow this even if it further complicates the abortion (and thus give more risk to the woman).

Also, "viable foeuts" isn't defined anywhere (e.g., the beginning when other definitions are covered)

>
>5 – The state may, at its own discretion, refuse to publicly fund a clinical >abortion for any woman who has the means necessary to pay for the >operation herself. This includes coverage by private health insurance. The >state may not refuse to fund the procedure for any woman who does not >have the means necessary to pay for the operation herself, and who does >not have private health insurance.
>

COMMENT: small nitpick: "coverage of the _procedure_ by private health insurance"


>6 – The state may, at its own discretion, impose a minimum age limit for a >minor to access a clinical abortion without parental consent. Said limit may >be no higher than the legal age of majority of the nation in which the >procedure is to be performed.

COMMENT: some caveat stating that the state can decide to overturn this for the well-being of the minor, perhaos references another UN resoluation?



Cheers,
NM

The Cat-Tribe and Nieuwe Munchkinland, thanks to both of you for your comments. You have pointed out some glaring problems and I will rewrite up some sections later today. The education bit will be gone, and if I can't find a much better way to rewrite the mental disease or defect section, it will go too. The same with parental consent.

The part about viable foetus's must stay, but I will take a look at it and see if I can reword it with your comments in mind.

Its not my aim to restrict womens's rights with this, not in the slightest, but I am trying to make it as bullet proof as I can so unscrupulous states can't use loopholes in the proposal itself (unlike the existing version) to effectivly ban or restrict a womans right to clinical abortion within their own nation.

>Its not my aim to restrict womens's rights with this, not in the slightest, but >I am trying to make it as bullet proof as I can so unscrupulous states can't >use loopholes in the proposal itself (unlike the existing version) to effectivly >ban or restrict a womans right to clinical abortion within their own nation.

I can see that; in fact, it seems that you have put alot of thought into writing this.

Best Regards,
NM

all i can say about this issue is this....

if a man kills a woman with an unborn child, he is charged with 2 counts of murder....if a woman kills her own unborn child she isnt charged with any...why the double standard?

all i can say about this issue is this....

if a man kills a woman with an unborn child, he is charged with 2 counts of murder....if a woman kills her own unborn child she isnt charged with any...why the double standard?

I don't know. That doesn't happen in my nation. The real life one or the NationStates version.

Clinical Abortion Rights

Human rights

Strong

Understanding the deep divisions and emotions surrounding the issue of clinical abortion.

Convinced however, that all women must have the right to ultimate control over their own reproduction and fertility, and those rights exceed any perceived right to life of a potential person.

Defining a potential person as an embryo or foetus incapable of survival outside the womb of the woman carrying it.

Defining a viable foetus, child or baby as a foetus capable of survival outside the womb of the woman carrying it

Defines a clinical abortion as a medical procedure performed on a pregnant woman, at any stage of the pregnancy, where the sole aim is to remove a developing foetus from the womb that results in the termination of the pregnancy.

Stands firm in the belief that no state has the right to force any woman to bear a child she does not want, and that the right of all women to control their own reproduction and fertility is a basic human right.

Mandates the following….

1 – The state cannot remove the rights of any woman to control over her own reproduction and fertility unless she is suffering from a diagnosed internationally recognised mental disease or defect, and has been legally deemed incapable giving informed consent. In such cases, informed consent can be given by the woman’s legal guardian or advocate and such consent must be accepted by the state.

2 – All women must have access to clinical abortion services if they wish to use it. Premises allocated must be set up and equipped with everything necessary for the procedure to be performed in a safe and sterile environment. All staff directly involved with the procedure must be trained and licensed medical professionals.

3 – While the state may not refuse to allow a woman access to a clinical abortion at any stage of pregnancy, it may, at its own discretion, request the woman to allow doctors to take all necessary steps to deliver any viable foetus safely. The child will receive all the medical care it requires as a premature baby, and may then be adopted out by the state if the woman who gave birth relinquishes, or the state removes the child from, her custody. This clause does not apply to clinical abortions in cases where such an operation would endanger the woman or in circumstances of deformities to the foetus.

4 – The state may, at its own discretion, refuse to publicly fund a clinical abortion for any woman who has the means necessary to pay for the operation herself. This includes coverage of the procedure by private health insurance. The state may not refuse to fund the procedure for any woman who does not have the means necessary to pay for the operation herself, and who does not have private health insurance.

5 – The state may, at its own discretion, offer education sessions to all pregnant women. It may not at any stage of the pregnancy force women to attend such sessions. Information given must be factual, balanced, and presented without any preconceived judgements. If offered, the sessions must include, though are not solely limited to, all aspects of pregnancy, birth, adoption and clinical abortion



This is the latest version, taking some of the comments above into account. The education bit has been completly rewritten, ok I admit it I did a complete backflip, after it was pointed out that the way I had worded it before they would be little more than brain washing sessions in some states. I have also rewritten clause 1 and hope it expresses what I originally intended it to now. The clause on age limits is gone.

I am fully aware that I won't be able to satisfy every concern within this one proposal, but do want to include as much as I can to protect womens rights and keep as many loopholes closed as possible.

I am fully aware that I won't be able to satisfy every concern within this one proposal, but do want to include as much as I can to protect womens rights and keep as many loopholes closed as possible.

I hope you realize that you've opened just as many loopholes as you've closed.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

For reference, here is the draft replacement thrashed out by members of the ACA and allied organisations nearly a year ago:

Definition of 'Right to Abortion'

RECOGNIZING that all people must be secure in control over their own body;

AWARE OF the sensitive nature of the question of abortion;

SEEKING to balance the rights of women to control their body with the rights of the state to legislate law;

WORRIED that the previous Resolution #61 'Abortion Rights' fails to specify meaningfully what the 'right to abortion' consists of, or to protect said right in practice;

The NationStates United Nations:

1. DECLARES that abortions may only be carried out by qualified medical professionals certified by a nationally recognized regulatory body; and that such professionals may not be disaccredited, harassed or prosecuted for carrying out legal abortions;

2. STATES that nations may not disqualify from medical professions, from practice, or refuse to accredit such professionals on the basis of their offering or practising abortion if they meet all other criteria;

3. FORBIDS governments from banning medical schools from teaching the skills necessary for performing abortions;

4. ASSURES that medical practitioners may not be harassed by the government because they perform abortions;

5. RECOGNIZES the right of individual doctors to refuse to perform abortions;

6. MAINTAINS the right of nations to ban individual techniques of abortion, provided that some safe, medically approved techniques remain legal;

7. AFFIRMS the right of nations to forbid abortions in cases where the sex of the fetus is the reason for the abortion;

8. FURTHER AFFIRMS the right of nations to ban abortions after the sixth month of the pregnancy;

9. STRONGLY ENCOURAGES nations to engage in programs to impartially educate their populations about reproductive matters, and increase access to contraceptives and contraceptive techniques;

10. RECOGNIZES doctor-patient confidentiality, and the right of women seeking abortions to remain anonymous;

11. VEHEMENTLY AVOWS that no woman may ever be coerced in her decision whether or not to have an abortion.
Please note that the draft was composed shortly after repeals were introduced and without the knowledge that amendments were still illegal. Nonetheless, you might find it useful. It was still contentious - after nearly two months and eleven pages of debate, many contributors were somewhat unhappy with the end product. I suppose this just goes to show problematic the issue is when there are such divisions even within the pro-choice camp.

For the record, Ecopoeia is uneasy about article 5 and would like to see article 7 made stronger.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

Broadly speaking we are very much pro-choice in Compadria. We have based this principal on the observation that women have the right to decide whether or not they wish to bear children and that they are entitled to control over their bodies as free citizens. Equally, we recognise that many unfortunate circumstances, such as rape, impoverishment, incest, etc. May cause great suffering either to the mother and her family, or the child. There is no point in forcing women to have children when they don't want them simply for 'pro-life' principles. Surely it is worse to have a child, who will forever be seen by his parents as unwanted, than to not have one and then have one later who will, hopefully, not have to endure such trauma.

That said, it is very much a tragedy when an abortion takes place, as, regardless of the details concerning conception and such matters, it remains the termination of a potential human being. That this should happen is awful, yet in an imperfect world, it is an imperfect solution.

I have real concerns over this document, which I shalll now list:

-"Convinced that the rights of an existing person to choose clinical abortion at any stage of pregnancy override any perceived rights to life of the potential person."

Try as I might, I cannot reconcile myself, for all my pro-choice inclinations, to contemplate without nausea the possibility of a 25 week or older feotus, which can with modern technology survive delivary at this stage, being aborted on personal choice, without good reason. If there are good reasons, like severe handicap, danger to life of mother, rape or incest being the cause of impregnation, then I can stomach it. But not purely on whim; I'm afraid that I cannot support such a measure in good conscience.

"The state may, at its own discretion, impose a minimum age limit for a teenager/young woman to access a clinical abortion. This age limit must be no higher than the legal age of majority of the nation in which the woman is residing at the time she requests the procedure."

This leaves a dangerous loophole, in my view, for the potential to deny vulnerable teenagers the right to abortion and thus force them to have a child or worse, induce them to endanger their lives by attempting to self-abort.

In conclusion, I wish to state that though the majority of the components of this resolution are excellent, timely and logical; the above objections give me great misgivings and I seek reassurance before I can pledge my support for the document in its entirety.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Broadly speaking we are very much pro-choice in Compadria. We have based this principal on the observation that women have the right to decide whether or not they wish to bear children and that they are entitled to control over their bodies as free citizens. Equally, we recognise that many unfortunate circumstances, such as rape, impoverishment, incest, etc. May cause great suffering either to the mother and her family, or the child. There is no point in forcing women to have children when they don't want them simply for 'pro-life' principles. Surely it is worse to have a child, who will forever be seen by his parents as unwanted, than to not have one and then have one later who will, hopefully, not have to endure such trauma.

That said, it is very much a tragedy when an abortion takes place, as, regardless of the details concerning conception and such matters, it remains the termination of a potential human being. That this should happen is awful, yet in an imperfect world, it is an imperfect solution.

I have real concerns over this document, which I shalll now list:

-"Convinced that the rights of an existing person to choose clinical abortion at any stage of pregnancy override any perceived rights to life of the potential person."

Try as I might, I cannot reconcile myself, for all my pro-choice inclinations, to contemplate without nausea the possibility of a 25 week or older feotus, which can with modern technology survive delivary at this stage, being aborted on personal choice, without good reason. If there are good reasons, like severe handicap, danger to life of mother, rape or incest being the cause of impregnation, then I can stomach it. But not purely on whim; I'm afraid that I cannot support such a measure in good conscience.

"The state may, at its own discretion, impose a minimum age limit for a teenager/young woman to access a clinical abortion. This age limit must be no higher than the legal age of majority of the nation in which the woman is residing at the time she requests the procedure."

This leaves a dangerous loophole, in my view, for the potential to deny vulnerable teenagers the right to abortion and thus force them to have a child or worse, induce them to endanger their lives by attempting to self-abort.

In conclusion, I wish to state that though the majority of the components of this resolution are excellent, timely and logical; the above objections give me great misgivings and I seek reassurance before I can pledge my support for the document in its entirety.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.


First take a look at the latest draft in post 29 ;):).

The age limit clause is gone.

Clause 3 covers your other concern.

I hope you realize that you've opened just as many loopholes as you've closed.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

That doesn't surprise me.

I'm not an expert at this. I'm not an university graduate and don't have expertise in this area. I'm just a housewife who never finished highschool so miracles I can't do.

I am doing my best however and though this will no doubt have more holes than swiss cheese, I am hoping it will have a few less than the current resolution.

That doesn't surprise me.

I'm not an expert at this. I'm not an university graduate and don't have expertise in this area. I'm just a housewife who never finished highschool so miracles I can't do.

I am doing my best however and though this will no doubt have more holes than swiss cheese, I am hoping it will have a few less than the current resolution.

OOC: Don't be fooled by the In-Character stuff. I actually think you have a lot of courage for trying to address the abortion issue from a more moderate and practical perspective.

And it's not really possible to close all loopholes, even if you tried. It would take years of work and the text would probably be millions of characters over the limit. So don't feel too bad. :)

Thanks for the pointers, I must have missed them the first time round.

Leonard Otterby

Thanks for posting the ACA's definition Ecopoeia. It is very interesting.

I was going to use the idea of point 7 and add it to my draft but had to rethink it. While I deplore and disagree strongly with allowing clinical abortion on the sole basis of sex of the child, I also can't agree with putting a clause in allowing the state to ban it. Either the woman has the right to chose the procedure or she doesn't, and in my opinion her reason for wanting the clinical abortion really doesn't come into it. She shouldn't have to give a reason to anyone as her body is her body and what she decides and why is up to her. I may try to think up a clause for my replacement affirming the woman's right to privacy over this issue and not allowing the state to require her to give the state reasons or any other private identifiable information unless she wants to.

The draft has a lot of interesting points on Doctors rights and duties. Can't help wondering if a full on resolution just on that subject would fly with the other UN members. Not just in cases of clinical abortion, but overall to protect doctor patient relationships and the right of doctors to practice medicine in the best interests of the patients, not the state. Just an idea :).

That doesn't surprise me.

I'm not an expert at this. I'm not an university graduate and don't have expertise in this area. I'm just a housewife who never finished highschool so miracles I can't do.

I am doing my best however and though this will no doubt have more holes than swiss cheese, I am hoping it will have a few less than the current resolution.
OOC: Hey, how many of us do you reckon have backgrounds in legislation drafting? Very few, I reckon. My only resolution (never again!) is in human rights but I have no experience in the field beyond my intermittent Amnesty activities. Posters ought to remember that we're only playing at this; of course, IC posts can be as vicious as you like, so long as they're not a mask for OOC sniping.

Don't worry, you're doing fine.

OOC: Hey, how many of us do you reckon have backgrounds in legislation drafting? Very few, I reckon. My only resolution (never again!) is in human rights but I have no experience in the field beyond my intermittent Amnesty activities. Posters ought to remember that we're only playing at this; of course, IC posts can be as vicious as you like, so long as they're not a mask for OOC sniping.

Don't worry, you're doing fine.

I'm sorry I put that post in now. My excuse is I'd been up since before 5am so I was barely awake, and a cold plus an early morning athsma attack equals depleted oxygen to the brain :D.

Sorry :).

Clinical Abortion Rights

Human rights

Strong

Understanding the deep divisions and emotions surrounding the issue of clinical abortion.

Convinced however, that all women must have the right to ultimate control over their own reproduction and fertility, and those rights exceed any perceived right to life of a potential person.

Defining a potential person as an embryo or foetus incapable of survival outside the womb of the woman carrying it.

Defining a viable foetus, child or baby as a foetus capable of survival outside the womb of the woman carrying it

Defines a clinical abortion as a medical procedure performed on a pregnant woman, at any stage of the pregnancy prior to natural birth, where the sole aim is to remove a developing foetus from the womb that results in the termination of the pregnancy.

Stands firm in the belief that no state has the right to force any woman to bear a child she does not want, and that the right of all women to control their own reproduction and fertility is a basic human right.

Mandates the following….

1 – The state cannot remove the rights of any woman to control over her own reproduction and fertility unless she is suffering from a diagnosed internationally recognised mental disease or defect, and has been legally deemed incapable giving informed consent. In such cases, informed consent can be given by the woman’s legal guardian or advocate and such consent must be accepted by the state.

2 – All women must have access to clinical abortion services if they wish to use it. Premises allocated must be set up and equipped with everything necessary for the procedure to be performed in a safe and sterile environment. All staff directly involved with the procedure must be trained and licensed medical professionals.

3 – While the state may not refuse to allow a woman access to a clinical abortion at any stage of pregnancy, it may at its own discretion request the woman to allow doctors to take all necessary steps to deliver any viable foetus safely. The child will receive all the medical care it requires as a premature baby, and may then be adopted out by the state if the woman who gave birth relinquishes, or the state removes the child from, her custody. This clause does not apply to clinical abortions in cases where such an operation would endanger the woman.

4 – The state may at its own discretion, refuse to publicly fund a clinical abortion for any woman who has the means necessary to pay for the operation herself. This includes coverage of the procedure by private health insurance. The state may not refuse to fund the procedure for any woman who does not have the means necessary to pay for the operation herself, and who does not have private health insurance.

5 – The state may at its own discretion, offer education sessions to all pregnant women. It may not at any stage of the pregnancy force women to attend such sessions. Information given must be factual, balanced, and presented without any preconceived judgements. If offered, the sessions must include, though are not solely limited to, all aspects of pregnancy, birth, adoption and clinical abortion.



This is the final draft and won't be changed again unless I've missed something really huge as I've run out of characters. Its not much different from the draft in post 29 except I've changed a few words to make it sound better.

I've just submitted the repeal. Could any delegates who agree with striking the original Abortion Rights resolution down, for whatever reason, endorse it please :).

It can be found using this link....

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=abortion

We will support this. I guess it's time to go approve the repeal of Abortion Rights now? <sigh> A stiff drink is called for.

Thanks Yeldan UN Mission for the support.

It begins. My husband is under orders to keep the coffee coming, the cats are locked outside, I'm prepared to forget what sun and fresh air are like for the next week or so, and the fridge is well stocked. Now to start sending telegrams, and lots of them :).

Approved

We really appreciate the professionalism of the author, who had written and published on the UN forum a “new proposition” and worked on it with others UN Nations, before submitting the repeal of the “existing resolution”

Thanks a lot

The replacement causes more problems than the current resolution. The current resolution is simple and direct. It is written like a provision of the US Constitution and not like a statute.

Even if I supported the "replacement," it is not wise or necessary to repeal the original resolution.

There is no guarantee a repeal will be followed by the replacement.

I will not endanger the lives and freedoms of citizens of every nation in furtherance of wishful nitpicking.

Please, abandon this campaign. You will only hurt the cause you seek to aid.

The original resolution is an absurdity. That said, we are inclined to wait for a satisfactory replacement to be drafted before offering our support for the repeal (unless region members instruct us otherwise).

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

OOC: Why is the following relevant to the NSUN?
It is written like a provision of the US Constitution and not like a statute.
That's not intended to sound aggressive, I'm just struggling to see where you're coming from (I'm a Brit).

The original resolution is an absurdity. That said, we are inclined to wait for a satisfactory replacement to be drafted before offering our support for the repeal (unless region members instruct us otherwise).

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Because you don't explain what is allegedly absurd about the current resolution, it is impossible to respond other than to say you are wrong.

I do agree that you should not support the repeal.

OOC: Why is the following relevant to the NSUN?

That's not intended to sound aggressive, I'm just struggling to see where you're coming from (I'm a Brit).

The point was a simple phrase protecting a basic right is sometimes preferrable to a long detailed statute. Nations can find ambiguities in either, but the latter actually creates as many ambiguities as it seeks to close.

OCC: As a Brit, you should be even more inclined to general protections like the unwritten protections of the Magna Carta than some long micromanagement of a right. I referenced the US Constitution. The UN Declaration of Human Rights is another example. Rights should be broad and sweeping with room for individual states to apply as they think best without violating the basic principle.

Ok, ok, I can take a hint :).

Not just in this thread either, but with the repeal attempt as well. Support has been lukewarm to say the least.

I'm not going to send anymore TGs for the repeal and just let it die. The replacement will be kept on my computer though and I will continue to tinker with it to try to improve it, and if any of the "god doesn't like it" or "its murder" crowd ever manage to repeal the original resolution, then I will bring it out and try to pass it then.

Thanks to all who helped and/or supported me with this :).

Because you don't explain what is allegedly absurd about the current resolution, it is impossible to respond other than to say you are wrong.

I do agree that you should not support the repeal.
OOC: Some explanation may be necessary... I'm very much pro-choice like you, but my nation takes a very conciliatory and inclusive view of international affairs and adopts fairly centrist positions on UN policy. And, in fairness, the exisiting resolution is hopelessly sledgehammer-like in its approach. No country even in the real world would adopt such a blunt position. It is absurd.

The point was a simple phrase protecting a basic right is sometimes preferrable to a long detailed statute. Nations can find ambiguities in either, but the latter actually creates as many ambiguities as it seeks to close.

OCC: As a Brit, you should be even more inclined to general protections like the unwritten protections of the Magna Carta than some long micromanagement of a right. I referenced the US Constitution. The UN Declaration of Human Rights is another example. Rights should be broad and sweeping with room for individual states to apply as they think best without violating the basic principle.
Ah, thank you. I agree, I think. Well, aside from a general scorn of Britain's pitiful written protection of rights.

Note: I'm quite drunk, so I'm struggling to be articulate here...

I think that having an abortion should be illegal because you would be killing an innocent child. Who knows that child could change everyones lives for the better of the world!!! I think that if someone could kill an unborn child on purpose that they would murder someone that they thought may change their lives. As far as i am concerned they are criminals!!!!!!!!!! :mad: