[DEFEATED] Repeal "On Abortion"

[Christian Democrats]

As I have complained in the past, On Abortion impairs a woman's right to obtain lifesaving medical treatment.

I am sure that many of you are aware of my position that abortions ought to be legal only when pregnancies imperil maternal life or when pregnancies are nonviable and, thus, endanger maternal health; but this is not an abortion debate thread. With that in mind, please limit your comments to discussion of the proposal below. Do not discuss the morality or immorality of abortion in general.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY PROPOSAL
Repeal "On Abortion"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA#128 | Proposed by: Christian Democrats

The General Assembly,

Recalling the passage of Resolution 286, Reproductive Freedoms, which provides a general right to abortion in international law,

Believing, therefore, that Resolution 128, On Abortion, which provides a limited right to abortion in international law, is no longer necessary,

Wishing to remove superfluities from international law,

Recognizing that On Abortion is also a resolution with many flaws, including:

• On Abortion, when a pregnant person is incapacitated, allows next-of-kin to make abortion decisions, even if they are not acting in the best interests of the patient (example: refusing consent for a lifesaving abortion to be performed),
  
• On Abortion, when a pregnant person is incapacitated, gives no alternative procedure for obtaining authorization for an emergency lifesaving abortion when no next-of-kin are available to provide consent,
  
• On Abortion permits doctors, for personal moral reasons, to refuse to perform emergency lifesaving abortions, even when they are the only qualified people available to provide these urgent medical procedures,
  
• On Abortion mandates that all abortion providers "be trained to the same accepted medical standards that all surgeons are held to" (emphasis added), even though not all abortion procedures are surgical,

Convinced that Resolution 29, the Patient's Rights Act, is wholly sufficient for protecting the medical rights of pregnant individuals,

Repeals Resolution 128, On Abortion, for the reasons outlined above.

"Repeal "On Abortion"" was defeated 7,221 votes to 3,733.

[Hakio]

I can understand the thinking behind this proposal, though I would like to wait a bit longer because of how controversial "Reproductive Freedoms" was. My point, is that since the debate of "Reproductive Freedoms" was so vigorous, there is still a possibility of its repeal. Thus, if this were passed and then "Reproductive Freedoms" was repealed, then we would have no basis to deter nations from prohibiting the right to an abortion.

Best of luck,
Ambassador Sia Hedishi

[Aquatur]

Rep. Eleanor Robinson, on behalf of the entire nation of Aquatur, is in full support of this motion.

[Schirmerland]

I fully support this bill

[Eireann Fae]

"Respectfully, Ambassador Hedishi, we believe that is the point. We believe that the Christian Democrats fully expect our resolution to be repealed, and wish to strike this law as well. We will not comment on whether or not they would then seek to ban abortions entirely - it is our experience that this delegation is more moderate than that, and would probably prefer there be no law on the books rather than one on either side."

"We are withholding comment on the draft in question until we have a better idea of how this will play out."

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Let's assume, for the moment, that Reproductive Freedoms isn't repealed (and that Patient's Rights Act isn't). What would be the effect of this repeal?

"Articles 1, 2, 6 and 7 of On Abortion are currently redundant. Article 3 would be struck out, and the 'medical procedures' would be governed under the terms of the Patient's Rights Act. Articles 4 and 5 would be struck out.

"On that basis, we would tentatively support this version of the repeal argument."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Christian Democrats]

Yes, if this repeal proposal passes, the international law applicable to abortion procedures reverts to the rules set forth in Resolution 29, the Patient's Rights Act. In other words, there would no longer be any special rules governing abortion if On Abortion is repealed.

http://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolutions/council=1?start=28

To make this clearer to players who are not regulars in the WA, I have added the following clause to this proposal:

Convinced that Resolution 29, the Patient's Rights Act, is wholly sufficient for protecting the medical rights of pregnant individuals.

[Mosktopia]

There's something unsavory about arguing that a law you don't like is unnecessary, and should be repealed, based on the existence of another law you don't like, that you plan to repeal.

Mosktopia believes On Abortion should be kept on the books as a failsafe in case anti-choice nations ever succeed in repealing Reproductive Freedoms. Since the text of this repeal makes it clear that the proponents' ultimate goal is to roll back all pro-choice laws to the Patient's Rights Act, we don't think the argument that "we don't need On Abortion because we have Reproductive Freedoms" is very convincing.

[Elke and Elba]

I'm a bit bored today so it seems I've been dabbling in the WA a bit more often than I should post-RMA.

I'm more appalled by the poll actually. Isn't it taken for granted that doctors must perform emergency lifesaving procedures no matter what his or her moral beliefs are?

If that isn't what they teach in med school, our world is (to put it blatantly) fucked up.

[Christian Democrats]

Mosktopia believes On Abortion should be kept on the books as a failsafe

This argument is absurd. I want two resolutions on the books about the exact same topic even though one of them is flawed.

I'm more appalled by the poll actually. Isn't it taken for granted that doctors must perform emergency lifesaving procedures no matter what his or her moral beliefs are?

According to Section 5 of On Abortion, "no physician may be compelled to perform abortion against their moral stance."

A doctor who refuses to perform an emergency lifesaving abortion will not be held liable for his inaction.

[Christian Democrats]

I am submitting this proposal tonight because I have time for a telegram campaign and because these flaws contained in On Abortion have been discussed over and over again, first, in the original debate thread and, later, in three repeal debates.

I hope it will reach quorum quickly and that it will pass without much controversy.

[Elke and Elba]

I am submitting this proposal tonight because I have time for a telegram campaign and because these flaws contained in On Abortion have been discussed over and over again, first, in the original debate thread and, later, in three repeal debates.

I hope it will reach quorum quickly and that it will pass without much controversy.

"My dear sir, nothing on the topic of abortion has ever went through the halls of the WA without controversy, passed or failed. I would suggest the delegate stop hallucinating about that remote (im)possibility."

[Savage-Borg]

"How about we all stop shoving our political views in law form in other peoples faces and repeal both."

[Butter City]

Personally, the reason I voted for the repeal is because the "On Abortion" act allows women to get an abortion at any stage of the pregnancy even for a reason such as deciding that a woman doesn't want a baby anymore. Also, it does not address the point of view of the male partner. A father must also have some say in the fate of his unborn child

I believe a woman should be allowed to get an abortion at any stage ONLY if it poses a serious concern to her health. If she would like to perform an abortion because she doesn't want to then it can only be done no later than 3 months into the pregnancy.

Anyway, I rarely come to the forums so sorry if I won't read your replies. Goodbye.

[Separatist Peoples]

"How about we all stop shoving our political views in law form in other peoples faces and repeal both."

That's exactly what a democratic system does to minorities, and what the WA does to member states. You joined realizing that this could happen. Of course, its a completely voluntary organization...

[Pacifist Chipmunks]

"How about we all stop shoving our political views in law form in other peoples faces and repeal both."

That's exactly what a democratic system does to minorities, and what the WA does to member states. You joined realizing that this could happen. Of course, its a completely voluntary organization...

Not all democratic systems are tyrannies by the majority.

[Sciongrad]

"How about we all stop shoving our political views in law form in other peoples faces and repeal both."

That's exactly what a democratic system does to minorities, and what the WA does to member states. You joined realizing that this could happen. Of course, its a completely voluntary organization...

You people have the weirdest perception of democracy. You're pointing to a flagrant example of the majority abusing the minority, and simply brushing it off with a "hey, it's democracy at work." That's an example of democracy not doing it's job properly...

Anyways, I support this repeal, but not necessarily for the reasons presented. GAR#128 and GAR#286 both need to be repealed, and hopefully, a compromise with an actual blocker clause will be passed, rather than the hapless "blocker" that is On Abortion.

[Elke and Elba]

That's exactly what a democratic system does to minorities, and what the WA does to member states. You joined realizing that this could happen. Of course, its a completely voluntary organization...

You people have the weirdest perception of democracy. You're pointing to a flagrant example of the majority abusing the minority, and simply brushing it off with a "hey, it's democracy at work." That's an example of democracy not doing it's job properly...

Anyways, I support this repeal, but not necessarily for the reasons presented. GAR#128 and GAR#286 both need to be repealed, and hopefully, a compromise with an actual blocker clause will be passed, rather than the hapless "blocker" that is On Abortion.

I would also prefer this, but as usual, I will not be accepting any form of repeals on rather landmark (to me) pieces of legislation without a substantive and substantial rewrite.

Ambassador Alethea Norrland.
Message sent from my Door Phone.

[Valkhyne]

Representative Jovian Maliet glances at his copy of "On Abortion" before nodding. "Yes, you'll have Valkhyne's support for this repeal. Morality shouldn't have a place where lives are at stake, yeah?"

[Separatist Peoples]

That's exactly what a democratic system does to minorities, and what the WA does to member states. You joined realizing that this could happen. Of course, its a completely voluntary organization...

You people have the weirdest perception of democracy. You're pointing to a flagrant example of the majority abusing the minority, and simply brushing it off with a "hey, it's democracy at work." That's an example of democracy not doing it's job properly...

Anyways, I support this repeal, but not necessarily for the reasons presented. GAR#128 and GAR#286 both need to be repealed, and hopefully, a compromise with an actual blocker clause will be passed, rather than the hapless "blocker" that is On Abortion.

Well, considering the WA is pretty close to a direct democracy, it is. Its not, necessarily, fair, but the system has no failsafe to prevent a tyranny by majority except the opinions of the voters. Ideal? No. A compromise would have been better. But that isn't what the masses voted for.

[Sciongrad]

You people have the weirdest perception of democracy. You're pointing to a flagrant example of the majority abusing the minority, and simply brushing it off with a "hey, it's democracy at work." That's an example of democracy not doing it's job properly...

Anyways, I support this repeal, but not necessarily for the reasons presented. GAR#128 and GAR#286 both need to be repealed, and hopefully, a compromise with an actual blocker clause will be passed, rather than the hapless "blocker" that is On Abortion.

Well, considering the WA is pretty close to a direct democracy, it is. Its not, necessarily, fair, but the system has no failsafe to prevent a tyranny by majority except the opinions of the voters. Ideal? No. A compromise would have been better. But that isn't what the masses voted for.

OOC: That's my point - the fact that the masses voted for it is wrong, and it's our responsibility, as authors, to rectify that. The vast majority of nations that vote in the World Assembly have no idea what's going on here, on the forums. It's the 10-20 of us that essentially determine what the World Assembly does, which resolutions gets to vote, and which ones get repealed. Just because the majority of nations want to do something doesn't mean they should, and there is such a thing as democracy in excess.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: That's my point - the fact that the masses voted for it is wrong, and it's our responsibility, as authors, to rectify that. The vast majority of nations that vote in the World Assembly have no idea what's going on here, on the forums. It's the 10-20 of us that essentially determine what the World Assembly does, which resolutions gets to vote, and which ones get repealed. Just because the majority of nations want to do something doesn't mean they should, and there is such a thing as democracy in excess.

OOC: I don't know if its inherently wrong if the masses voted for it. They got what they wanted, they did have a choice. The catch in giving people the power of choice is accepting that they sometimes make the wrong one.

[Sciongrad]

OOC: That's my point - the fact that the masses voted for it is wrong, and it's our responsibility, as authors, to rectify that. The vast majority of nations that vote in the World Assembly have no idea what's going on here, on the forums. It's the 10-20 of us that essentially determine what the World Assembly does, which resolutions gets to vote, and which ones get repealed. Just because the majority of nations want to do something doesn't mean they should, and there is such a thing as democracy in excess.

OOC: I don't know if its inherently wrong if the masses voted for it. They got what they wanted, they did have a choice. The catch in giving people the power of choice is accepting that they sometimes make the wrong one.

OOC: This is getting pretty philosophical, huh? In a (nearly) pure democracy like the World Assembly, the masses can pass anything they want. We, as authors, have really much less influence on how they actually vote than we think. But now that we've established that the masses can make mistakes, I think you see that it's the responsibility of people here, on the forums, to clean it up. I mean, look at Max Barry Day from the NSUN - the masses passed that too. Obviously, the reasons behind why that was bad and the reason behind why this is bad are different, but you can see my point I hope.

[Separatist Peoples]

\\

OOC: This is getting pretty philosophical, huh? In a (nearly) pure democracy like the World Assembly, the masses can pass anything they want. We, as authors, have really much less influence on how they actually vote than we think. But now that we've established that the masses can make mistakes, I think you see that it's the responsibility of people here, on the forums, to clean it up. I mean, look at Max Barry Day from the NSUN - the masses passed that too. Obviously, the reasons behind why that was bad and the reason behind why this is bad are different, but you can see my point I hope.

OOC: Indeed! We almost need a separate thread on WA ethics. Honestly, I get awfully leery of any group of individuals stepping up and interfering with what the public wants for the sake of "Taking responsibility" for the people's lack of foresight or knowledge. That has some seriously dark connotations to me.

[Sciongrad]

\\

OOC: This is getting pretty philosophical, huh? In a (nearly) pure democracy like the World Assembly, the masses can pass anything they want. We, as authors, have really much less influence on how they actually vote than we think. But now that we've established that the masses can make mistakes, I think you see that it's the responsibility of people here, on the forums, to clean it up. I mean, look at Max Barry Day from the NSUN - the masses passed that too. Obviously, the reasons behind why that was bad and the reason behind why this is bad are different, but you can see my point I hope.

OOC: Indeed! We almost need a separate thread on WA ethics. Honestly, I get awfully leery of any group of individuals stepping up and interfering with what the public wants for the sake of "Taking responsibility" for the people's lack of foresight or knowledge. That has some seriously dark connotations to me.

OOC: I think I may have made it sound more nefarious than it is. I simply meant that we participate in the forums and most voters don't. Anyone can do it, it's not like forum regulars secretly run the World Assembly through some conspiracy - it's public and anyone can join us. We're just the ones that happen to take interest in what goes on here, and therefore, we happen to be the ones writing resolutions and getting them to vote. Therefore, we should try and do what's good for the World Assembly. The WA's goal is to improve peace and goodwill among its members, and passing resolutions like GAR#286 does not do that, therefore, I think it's our responsibility to rectify that.