[DRAFT] On Abortion

[Deleted]

Honoured ambassadors, I just want to release this idea as a potential proposal for development, and get some feedback.

The issue of abortion has been controversial, but Dr. Castro of Glen-Rhodes mentioned something about cases of rape and where a woman's life is in danger.

At the same time there is a draft on mandating the neutrality of abortion and if it passed then the opportunity could be missed. There is also another draft that's trying to ban abortion and if that passed it would be too intrusive for many member states.

On Abortion
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Mild

The World Assembly,

ASSERTING that it is the duty to protect the health of living persons;

ACCEPTING the controversy surrounding the legality of abortion;

NEVERTHELESS CONVINCED that it is inappropriate for member states to deny abortion to any pregnant female who are at risk of death if their pregnancy is not terminated;

Therefore:

1. REQUIRES member countries to legalise abortion for cases where:
a) The pregnancy resulted from involuntary sexual activity and/or sexual activity in which at least one of the parties could not legally give consent;
b) Severe foetal abnormality would result in a child being born with an incurable condition which is fatal and/or painful;
c) There is a risk of a life-threatening physical or mental condition which would result in the death or life-long severe disability of the pregnant woman if the pregnancy continued;

2. FURTHER REQUIRES member countries to ensure that abortion facilities are easily available to patients seeking abortion in circumstances under Section 1;

3. MANDATES that such abortions may only be carried out with the informed consent of the patient without coercion: if the patient is incapacitated and unable to make their wishes known, the patient's legal next-of-kin may make the decision on their behalf;

4. FURTHER MANDATES that physicians who carry out abortions must be trained to the same accepted medical standards that all surgeons are held to, and that abortions are carried out in a way that is as painless as possible while preserving the mother's physical health;

5. DECLARES that no physician may be compelled to perform abortion against their moral stance;

6. DECLARES that it is neither a criminal offence nor a cause for civil suit to have obtained abortion for reasons under Section 1 and no inhabitant of a member country shall be subject to prosecution for having done so, nor otherwise subjected to harassment or persecution in law or at the instigation of the state in consequence;

7. INSISTS that all member nations retain the ability to legalize abortion for purposes not covered under the preceding clauses either unilaterally within their own jurisdiction or collectively through World Assembly resolution.

The rationale:

• It is in the interests of the WA to protect the health of living persons.
  
• Also, it is not the fault of the woman to be raped.

My reply to the issue is to create a resolution in which:

• Member states must allow abortion only in cases of rape, incest, severe foetal abnormality or where the pregnant woman's life is in peril if the pregnancy was not terminated.
  
• Such abortions can only be performed on the consent of the patient.
  
• The legality of abortion in other cases shall remain unaffected.

Category: Human Rights, Mild, as it is rendered as a "right for the patient to seek abortion" to save their lives.

I'm open to other suggestions, should you have any to offer. Thanks for your consideration,

- Ms. S. Harper.

[Guy]

Ms. Harper is already aware I support this proposal, however I do have my concerns.

7. DECLARES that the World Assembly shall maintain neutrality over the legality of abortion in circumstances other than those defined under Section 1.

I believe this wording is even worse than the last one. What this means is that the WA cannot pass any proposal which has got anything to do with abortion. For example, a ban on spousal consent requirements would be illegal, which is something which I believe many nations would support.

I had also thought that there was a clause which was going to be added guarantying the availability of abortion.

I also dislike the sixth clause. It doesn't seem right to us that the WA will convey its opinion on every single individual case in such a broad manner. The WA shouldn't tell pregnant women what to do, even if it is just 'encouraging' them to do so.

[Unibot]

This is not how the World Assembly or any democratic body should work, this is some how more deplorable of a bill than CD's dreadful sexist trash. My opposition thereof is derived from my hatred of silencing and putting the lid on any given issue that becomes contentious because one side is so unreasonable as to put patriarchal convictions before gender equality and the health of women. This bill sets the precedent that all pro-enslavers or pro-torturers or pro-racists have to do is scream and shout and be as unreasonable as possible until the resolution is declared contentious and blocked from further discussion.

Opposed with all my lil' heart.

[Deleted]

I'll first put number 6 on hold, in fact, boot that clause out. There is a quite a lot of pressure to keep number 7 because of what is happening.

[Unibot]

Define neutrality.

[Deleted]

Neutrality in this context means that the WA will not interfere with the right of member countries to legalise or outlaw abortion, within their jurisdiction, for reasons other than those defined under Section 1.

[Unibot]

Jan 2, 2011 15:23:23 GMT -5 @charlotte said:

Neutrality in this context means that the WA will not interfere with the right of member countries to legalise or outlaw abortion, within their jurisdiction, for reasons other than those defined under Section 1.

Okay, I can loophole that.

[Eist]

I'm not convinced either way yet, but my suggestion would be to change the "and" in 1. b) to "and/or"

[Deleted]

Jan 2, 2011 15:38:26 GMT -5 Eist said:

I'm not convinced either way yet, but my suggestion would be to change the "and" in 1. b) to "and/or"

I may wish to clarify that involuntary sexual activity and sexual activity in which at least one of the parties could not legally give consent may in nearly every case be mutually exclusive. If both happened it would still be covered by this draft, but I'll add it on as it is very minor.

[Eist]

Jan 2, 2011 17:18:21 GMT -5 @charlotte said:

Jan 2, 2011 15:38:26 GMT -5 Eist said:

I'm not convinced either way yet, but my suggestion would be to change the "and" in 1. b) to "and/or"

I may wish to clarify that involuntary sexual activity and sexual activity in which at least one of the parties could not legally give consent may in nearly every case be mutually exclusive. If both happened it would still be covered by this draft, but I'll add it on as it is very minor.

That would be for 1. b), not 1. a). I know it is minor, but it is all I've got

[Deleted]

Jan 2, 2011 17:32:27 GMT -5 Eist said:

Jan 2, 2011 17:18:21 GMT -5 @charlotte said:

I may wish to clarify that involuntary sexual activity and sexual activity in which at least one of the parties could not legally give consent may in nearly every case be mutually exclusive. If both happened it would still be covered by this draft, but I'll add it on as it is very minor.

That would be for 1. b), not 1. a). I know it is minor, but it is all I've got

Sadly, in this case I would be worried about Autism falling under the definition if the operator AND became OR.

[Eist]

Jan 3, 2011 10:59:46 GMT -5 @charlotte said:

Jan 2, 2011 17:32:27 GMT -5 Eist said:

That would be for 1. b), not 1. a). I know it is minor, but it is all I've got

Sadly, in this case I would be worried about Autism falling under the definition if the operator AND became OR.

Fair call. On the other hand, I'd be concerned with the legislation regarding a non-fatal, painful and incurable birth defect. I'm sure they exist, but can't think of any. Cystic fibrosis is about as close of an example I can think of.

In saying this, I think that this is a minor issue that is perhaps getting too much attention on this forum. I think it is a good proposal, and am tentatively willing to give it my support. Before this, I'd like some more dialogue on the removal of part 6).

[Deleted]

This is what the NS Forums ambassadors have agreed on so far:

The World Assembly,

ASSERTING that it is the duty to protect the health of living persons;

ACCEPTING the controversy surrounding the legality of abortion;

NEVERTHELESS CONVINCED that it is inappropriate for member states to deny abortion to any pregnant female who are at risk of death if their pregnancy is not terminated;

Therefore:

1. REQUIRES member countries to legalise abortion for cases where:
a) The pregnancy resulted from involuntary sexual activity and/or sexual activity in which at least one of the parties could not legally give consent;
b) Severe foetal abnormality would result in a child being born with an incurable condition which is fatal and/or painful;
c) There is a risk of a life-threatening physical or mental condition which would result in the death or life-long severe disability of the pregnant woman if the pregnancy continued;

2. FURTHER REQUIRES member countries to ensure that abortion facilities are easily available to patients seeking abortion in circumstances under Section 1;

3. MANDATES that such abortions may only be carried out with the informed consent of the patient without coercion: if the patient is incapacitated and unable to make their wishes known, the patient's legal next-of-kin may make the decision on their behalf;

4. FURTHER MANDATES that physicians who carry out abortions must be trained to the same accepted medical standards that all surgeons are held to, and that abortions are carried out in a way that is as painless as possible while preserving the mother's physical health;

5. DECLARES that no physician may be compelled to perform abortion against their moral stance;

6. DECLARES that it is neither a criminal offence nor a cause for civil suit to have obtained abortion for any reason and no inhabitant of a member country shall be subject to prosecution for having done so, nor otherwise subjected to harassment or persecution in law or at the instigation of the state in consequence;

7. INSISTS that all member nations retain the ability to legalize abortion for purposes not covered under the preceding clauses either unilaterally within their own jurisdiction or collectively through World Assembly resolution.

[Eist]

Looks good to me. I'd vote for it

[Takaram]

I can see one loophole here. Shouldn't there be something to protect doctors willing to perform these abortions. As it stands now, it would still be possible for a member state to pass a law outlawing the performing of abortions and punishing the doctors who perform them, just not the patients. As it stands, this law only protects those who obtain abortions, not those who perform them.

[Deleted]

Jan 8, 2011 18:53:17 GMT -5 Takaram said:

I can see one loophole here. Shouldn't there be something to protect doctors willing to perform these abortions. As it stands now, it would still be possible for a member state to pass a law outlawing the performing of abortions and punishing the doctors who perform them, just not the patients. As it stands, this law only protects those who obtain abortions, not those who perform them.

If abortion for cases of rape et. al. is legalised then doctors would not be subject to prosecution for doing so. However, if we were to also protect doctors from prosecution overall then there will be serious concerns in respect of the promotion of surgeon safety standards and medical malpractice.

For example, a doctor secretly poisons the patient while doing its job: I'm not say it is likely, but we have to prepare for that eventuality. Had we protected doctors from prosecution overall then he would have got away with it.

---

The proposal "On Abortion" (Category: Human Rights, Strength: Mild) is now ready for approval.

In short it not only guarantees the right of abortion in cases of rape, incest, life in danger and sever foetal abnormality, but it also affirms the right of member states to, if they want to, legalise abortion in other cases as well, so we no longer have to be worried about some certain ambassadors trying to impose so-called “one-size-fits-all” restrictions on abortion in other cases, which could be perfectly dealt with at national level.

It is also better than the proposal “Right to an Emergency Abortion” because if we denied abortion to rape victims, then that’s equivalent to giving the rapist a lifetime season ticket to Disneyworld and sentencing the rape victim to jail. This proposal, unlike others, will guarantee the right to abortion for cases of rape, incest, severe foetal abnormality, and where the life of the mother is in danger: and also the right for member states to legalise abortion in other cases if they wish.

Please consider approving this proposal, thank you.