GA Resolution: Abortion Ethics Act

Thank you for your views. Well, that clause was intended to replicate another draft clause from the original draft of #128.

"AFFIRMS the right of a doctor to conscientious object against performing abortions and refer the patient to another doctor instead."

This proposal would limit referrals to abortions that have been legalised by "On Abortion". This is to ensure that international law does not become meaningless. Furthermore, a physician may have freedom of conscience, but does he/she not also have an obligation to refer patients to a physician whose moral views allow him/her to perform an abortion, to ensure that patients' privileges do not become mere words?

Of course, the wording is imprecise and lacks clarity, and I must apologise for that. The original intention was to allow nations to pass laws mandating referrals, which would not cover compelling physicians through violent and illegal means, but I see that it is open to interpretation. Nevertheless, I still hope that you will consider this proposal. Thank you.

This goes to vote in a few hours!

Remember to vote!

This resolution reduces freedoms that have been granted to women through the resolution ”On Abortion”. Those seeking abortion do not need to be preached at beforehand, as the process is arduous enough as it is.

I shall not go into this further, as abortion is one of my most loathed debating topics. AGAINST. AGAINST. AGAINST.

Certain Responses to Monkiah, and the Residents of Texas and the Pacific:

The emphasis should not be on abortion, but an individual's right to free and informed choice, thinking it through and considering his/her options, before taking responsibility for his/her ultimate decision. We trust individual nations to make the best decisions, but we also feel that some guidance is needed. The importance of making ethical and wise decisions is universal, just like the effects of irresponsible or reckless choices. National sovereignty should be coupled with this principle.

I note, for example, the situation in Monkiah.

"The point is that this legislation does not explicitly stipulate that the state may have offspring removed for genetic defects. These genetic defects are harmful to the society at large, whether the offspring has the trait itself or merely carries a recessive gene for that trait. Indeed it was through very careful artificial selection that most genetic disorders were eliminated in Monkiah.

We would argue that in the case of minors who are capable of reproduction, that the next-of-kin is not capable of making responsible decisions. Many times in the Past in Monkiah it was assumed that a male carrying a lingpod would "settle down" after giving birth if he was being rebelious. In most cases this did not happen and the result was that the offspring in question was not given the necessary post-natal care, including but not limited to oscillation, temple touching, and general social interaction. In fact depriving offspring of these things was used by the !Kleezsatsun during the Slavery Era to create further !Kleezatsun. It is our view that is better to abort a healthy lingpod than to create a sociopath.

Finally we do not care what you think. States have the need to control their societies in question. If this means that abortions must take place without the consent of the male carrying the lingpod, then that is the case. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

As one can see, in Monkiah, the state has gone so far as to shift the focus from being pro-choice to being both anti-choice and anti-life at the same time. This is not the meaning of national sovereignty.

"Does the WA have the duty to override National Sovereignty?
In cases of international importance that transcend national boundaries, perhaps. Some would include most Human Rights proposals into this category. Others might consider Environmental or Free Trade as paramount. There is no single criterion that any given nation is required to follow in determining their duty to the WA, and ambassadors should not be chastised for failure to share common values. With more than 37,000 WA member nations, it is absurd to think that every one will agree on any given issue, much less the phrasing and language of its presentation. The value of such duty is a variable which can only be set by the member nation."
- Sovereigntism in the WA: A Helpful Guide

Preserving an individual's choice and control over his/her own body, while encouraging personal responsibility, should be an issue all national bodies take note of. This proposal would leave the methods of doing so to individual member nations, as long as there are no forced abortions. However, when nations shows blatant disrespect for either individual choice or a culture of responsibility for life, it is the duty of the international community to step in and change their policy direction, for good.

I must also point out that the first two clauses allow nations to formulate their own methods of implementation, according to their situations, and is thus flexible, not forcing nations to do anything specifically.

Furthermore, with regards to the requirement for consent forms, do you read the consent forms and contracts you sign, either for medical treatment of purchasing goods (eg. iTunes)? Is it unreasonable to extend that same protection to abortions? Thank you.

this resolution forces doctors who believe that abortion is murder to provide patients with a reference to a killing clinic thus overriding their religious beliefs. they don't 'work' in that field as was suggested but may provide ob/gyn services and thus be forced to do something they consider unethical. against wholeheartedly

LUAC is AGAINST this proposed resolution. (2-1)