GA Resolution: On Abortion

[Guy]

This is the discussion thread. Please go here to cast your vote.

On Abortion
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Charlotte Ryberg


Description: 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.

[Guy]

AYE.

[Consortina]

I fear this one will be asking too much from self-declared pro-lifers. But what the hell: AYE! It is worth the try.

[Deleted]

Thanks to the members of 10000 Islands for bringing this resolution to the spotlight. It has been carefully written and negotiated in a very long drafting thread: 29 pages of them.

tl;dr: To speak loosely, it allows abortions in cases of (non-consensual) rape and incest (carefully defined), severe foetal abnormality (carefully defined), and physical or mental condition which would result in the death or life-long severe disability of the mother (more carefully defined). In my opinion most pro-life nations would agree with these humane exceptions to their objections to abortion. I think most nations would agree it is barbaric to force a woman to carry for nine months and give birth to a child where the woman is a rape or incest victim, the unborn is extremely deformed, or the mother will die or be severely disabled as a result.

Thank you once again.

[Guy]

Devil's advocate:

where the woman is [an]... incest victim

Incest victim? If it's consensual, you're not a victim.

[Sionis Prioratus]

FOR, if only to stop that Christian Democrats nutcase in his tracks.

[SO-VI_ET_0246]

FOR!!

[Takaram]

FOR. Better than nothing.

[Tsim Sha Tsui]

Jan 11, 2011 9:21:41 GMT -5 Sionis Prioratus said:

FOR, if only to stop that Christian Democrats nutcase in his tracks.

I don't think anything is going to stop Christian Democrats, short of a Mod.

[Reckoner]

I voted for it

[Cerb]

I shall (go on, act surprised) take up the position of opposing this.

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;

1.a Er, that doesn't threaten their life though. It does not match the preamble and therefor seems to contradict the purpose of the entire act.

I will also switch into frothing at the mouth religious leader, just for a moment.
"That shalt not take the life of another living soul you sinners! Thou shalt not contrive to cause the holy temple of the woman to prematurely eject the life that the great dawg in the sky has seeded and commanded to grow... If the mother be with child and she passes to the next life, she is most blessed for she has held her body in purity and sinned not...".
And other such stuff.
I'm not condoning any termination of life, be it willingly conceived or not.

[Consortina]

www.musc.edu/vawprevention/research/mentalimpact.shtml

Please consider the exacerbating effects that having to carry the spawn of your rapist around for 9 months is going to have on this one. FOR! Now more than before.

[Cerb]

I don't deny it's horrible. Still I think I'd like the remainder of the legislation to match the preamble.

I'll also maintain the dawgist stance of causing death by any means, is in the Dawg's hand, not us lowly mortals.
(we won't mention the bit where the Dawg orders the minions to take the head off of a potential threat with the new .75 L97A3 BigThunder (TM) sniper rifle).


In all seriousness though, I do dislike terminating life no matter how it has been created. I feel for the victims of sex crimes but there are probably a large number of studies that show trauma to the mother after aborting the ill gotten feotus.

I'll fall back on a one liner:
Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Consortina]

Jan 13, 2011 1:40:52 GMT -5 Cerb said:

In all seriousness though, I do dislike terminating life no matter how it has been created. I feel for the victims of sex crimes but there are probably a large number of studies that show trauma to the mother after aborting the ill gotten feotus.

I'll fall back on a one liner:
Two wrongs don't make a right.

I don't like abortions and I would wager a guess that the women seeking them are not looking forward to the operation either. Nonetheless there are situations where you have to choose between two evils - only in this case one outcome is obviously evil and the other one only evil to a part of the population who has a certain concept about the beginning of 'life'.

Also, if you assume the dawgist stance, I'll counter with the good ol' slippery slope: What do you do with abortifacients? Do you prohibit their use? Do you forbid women from making lifestyle decision that endanger the fetus?

[Cerb]

Those won't get past my medical department for every day use. As for lifestyles? People will live their lives, I won't state sanction their activities.

The state isn't responsible for solving every problem. People have to be accountable for
themselves.

Therefor, any individual found terminating a pregnancy will be considered criminal, until further notice.

See here's a big problem with the rape aspect.
1. Woman has sexual encounter. Possibly rape, possibly not.
2. She attempts to acquire an abortion on the grounds of rape.
3. Pregnancy terminated.
4. Under the criminal prosecution for the rape charge, no evidence of rape was found.

So, now I throw her in prison for murdering the man's potential offspring.

The problem with establishing rape is that a criminal charge has to be filed, prosecuted, and satisfied to the court before any ruling can be made on whether a viable copulation took place.

This takes time, possibly months. Then we go from a morning after pill to partial delivery abortions and so on.

I sound like I don't care about the victims of real rape. I absolutely do. I just reckognize that not all people are honest.

Incest has to be proven by DNA tests, rape has to be proven in court.
If people could be relied upon to be honest, none of this would be necessary.

[Bepi]

For. People will seek abortions regardless of the legality of the procedure. If banned, citizen's seeking abortion may resort to more dangerous alternatives.

(it says I'm not a WA member on my profile, but I just joined the WA yesterday and this is the first resolution I've voted on)