[ON TAP] Abortion Rights Accord

[Christian Democrats]

If Resolution 128, On Abortion, is repealed . . .

GENERAL ASSEMBLY PROPOSAL
Abortion Rights Accord
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Christian Democrats

The General Assembly,

Seeking to protect the right of individuals to procure medically necessary induced abortions,

Trying to put a stop to the inhumane practice of forced abortion,

Recognizing the varied cultures of its member states,

Attempting to enact legislation that is widely acceptable to almost all member states,

1. Defines abortion, as used in this resolution, as any induced termination of pregnancy that is intended to cause and does cause the end of biological functions in a prenatal offspring;

2. Requires each member state, while maintaining its authority to enact and enforce reasonable health and safety regulations, to legalize abortion in all cases when it is absolutely necessary to prevent the death of the individual who is pregnant;

3. Decrees that each member state shall prohibit forced abortions, or abortions performed on pregnant individuals against their will or without their free and informed consent, except in those cases when active legislation previously adopted by this Assembly dictates otherwise and in those cases when abortion definitely will prevent the imminent death of the pregnant individual; and

4. Grants to individual member states the authority to determine for themselves their own abortion laws in all other circumstances subject only to this resolution and active resolutions previously adopted by this Assembly.

[Alqania]

"No, this proposal is far too limited to garner any support from the Queendom", Lord Raekevik announced. "If we are going to support any proposal about abortion, it will need to be a lot more pro-choice."

[The Republic of Lanos]

You know, I wish there was a ban on sex-selective abortions but it doesn't seem this proposal addresses that.

[Auralia]

Could the consent provision be modified to include a physician's opinion if the mother is unable to grant consent and her life is at risk?

In addition, could the following clause be added: "Declares that no physician, nurse or other member of medical staff, who has not made a specific, legally-binding commitment to perform abortions, may be penalized for refusing to perform an induced abortion, except if the patient's life is at serious risk;"

[Christian Democrats]

Clauses 1 & 4 altered.

Clause 5 added.

[Auralia]

Support.

[Alqania]

Clauses 1 & 4 altered.

Clause 5 added.

"And as a result, our opposition grows stronger", Lord Raekevik said with a wry smile.

[Christian Democrats]

Support.

FYI: I don't mean this to replace your draft for a replacement.

Rather, there should be multiple replacements protecting national rights ready if and when On Abortion is repealed.

[Mousebumples]

Opposed. I didn't love it to start with, but the .... questionable definition of abortion within this resolution's text pretty much seals it for me.

[Christian Democrats]

Opposed. I didn't love it to start with, but the .... questionable definition of abortion within this resolution's text pretty much seals it for me.

How could the definition be altered to your liking?

[Auralia]

Clauses 1 & 4 altered.

Clause 5 added.

"And as a result, our opposition grows stronger", Lord Raekevik said with a wry smile.

I'm a little confused why you would be opposed to a provision which ensures that a woman who is unable to grant consent still undergoes a lifesaving procedure.

[Alqania]

"And as a result, our opposition grows stronger", Lord Raekevik said with a wry smile.

I'm a little confused why you would be opposed to a provision which ensures that a women who is unable to grant consent still undergoes a lifesaving procedure.

"It was the other changes that I referred to. My apologies for not being clearer."

[Mousebumples]

Opposed. I didn't love it to start with, but the .... questionable definition of abortion within this resolution's text pretty much seals it for me.

How could the definition be altered to your liking?

Generally, within the RL medical community, pregnancy is considered to begin at implantation. It's not uncommon (in fact, per this About.com source, it's theorized that up to 70% of conceptions do not implant in the uterine lining), and the definition you're using is one that is commonly used by pro-life groups to outlaw/criminalize/denigrate valid medical therapies such as Plan B. (One of the ways in which Plan B works is to decrease the likelihood that a fertilized egg will implant.

To be honest, I don't know that you really need a definition for pregnancy within this resolution anyhow. Is there really a nation that doesn't know what pregnancy is and requires this resolution to law it out for them? (Common argument I hear in favor of said definitions - they make sure the resolution can't be loopholed. However, I find when looking to repeal something, the definitions are often the easiest place to start since they're often filled with problem phrases that can be used to successfully repeal a resolution.)

Anyhow: in the case of this definition? It's going to lose you more votes than it will gain you, I'd bet. Especially since I'm not going to stay silent about what a terrible definition that is, from a medical perspective.

[Christian Democrats]

How could the definition be altered to your liking?

Generally, within the RL medical community, pregnancy is considered to begin at implantation. It's not uncommon (in fact, per this About.com source, it's theorized that up to 70% of conceptions do not implant in the uterine lining), and the definition you're using is one that is commonly used by pro-life groups to outlaw/criminalize/denigrate valid medical therapies such as Plan B. (One of the ways in which Plan B works is to decrease the likelihood that a fertilized egg will implant.

To be honest, I don't know that you really need a definition for pregnancy within this resolution anyhow. Is there really a nation that doesn't know what pregnancy is and requires this resolution to law it out for them? (Common argument I hear in favor of said definitions - they make sure the resolution can't be loopholed. However, I find when looking to repeal something, the definitions are often the easiest place to start since they're often filled with problem phrases that can be used to successfully repeal a resolution.)

Anyhow: in the case of this definition? It's going to lose you more votes than it will gain you, I'd bet. Especially since I'm not going to stay silent about what a terrible definition that is, from a medical perspective.

Reason for using fertilization in the definition:

To extend the ban on forced abortions to prevent postcoital contraception from being forced on women.

If implantation is used as the point at which pregnancy begins, then member states would be allowed to force postcoital contraception on women. Why should postcoital contraception be given to women without their consent?

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Reason for using fertilization in the definition:

To extend the ban on forced abortions to prevent postcoital contraception from being forced on women.

If implantation is used as the point at which pregnancy begins, then member states would be allowed to force postcoital contraception on women. Why should postcoital contraception be given to women without their consent?

Why wouldn't you just ban forced administration of postcoital contraception and call it good?

[Christian Democrats]

Reason for using fertilization in the definition:

To extend the ban on forced abortions to prevent postcoital contraception from being forced on women.

If implantation is used as the point at which pregnancy begins, then member states would be allowed to force postcoital contraception on women. Why should postcoital contraception be given to women without their consent?

Why wouldn't you just ban forced administration of postcoital contraception and call it good?

Too wordy. It's easier just to define pregnancy as beginning at fertilization.

In effect, both do exactly the same thing.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Why wouldn't you just ban forced administration of postcoital contraception and call it good?

Too wordy. It's easier just to define pregnancy as beginning at fertilization.

In effect, both do exactly the same thing.

Is it really too wordy?

REQUIRES Member Nations to prohibit and outlaw the forced administration of postcoital contraception.

13 words. You have my permission to use that one, if you'd like.

You can pursue your legislation and your interests however you like, of course. I just know a BS justification when I hear one.

[Christian Democrats]

Too wordy. It's easier just to define pregnancy as beginning at fertilization.

In effect, both do exactly the same thing.

Is it really too wordy?

REQUIRES Member Nations to prohibit and outlaw the forced administration of postcoital contraception.

13 words. You have my permission to use that one, if you'd like.

You can pursue your legislation and your interests however you like, of course. I just know a BS justification when I hear one.

Change made. No change in the effect that this proposal would have.

[Linux and the X]

We will freely acknowledge that we do not and will not support this. However, we would like to suggest two amendments that would make this slightly (but only slightly) less distasteful.

4. Requires each member state to prohibit forced abortion, or abortion performed on a pregnant individual against her their will or without her their free and informed consent, except in those cases when active legislation previously adopted by this Assembly dictates otherwise and in those cases when abortion definitely will prevent the imminent death of the pregnant individual;

6. Declares that no individual shall be compelled to participate in an abortion that is not lifesaving or penalized in any way for choosing not to participate in an abortion that is not lifesaving, except as part of their agreed professional duties; and

[Paper Flowers]

We find it quite concerning that once again authors seem to feel that medical staff have some inherent right to refuse to do their jobs. We would suggest that the change highlighted by the above ambassador, or one very much like it, be made to the draft.

Deputy Ambassador Saunders

[Mousebumples]

Reason for using fertilization in the definition:

To extend the ban on forced abortions to prevent postcoital contraception from being forced on women.

If implantation is used as the point at which pregnancy begins, then member states would be allowed to force postcoital contraception on women. Why should postcoital contraception be given to women without their consent?

I still fail to see why a definition is needed at all. If you do not define pregnancy, your nation is free to define it however you'd like.

However, with the definition in place as is, I am opposed to this draft and will campaign against it, should it reach quorum.

[Goddess Relief Office]

Has my support.

[Christian Democrats]

Gender-neutral language is now used.

The conscience clause has been removed so that the issue can be decided in a separate proposal.

[Garbolav]

If Resolution 128, On Abortion, is repealed . . .

(Image)

(Image)(Image)

GENERAL ASSEMBLY PROPOSAL
Abortion Rights Accord
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: (Image) Christian Democrats

The General Assembly,

Seeking to protect the right of individuals to procure medically necessary induced abortions,

Trying to put a stop to the inhumane practice of forced abortion,

Recognizing the varied cultures of its member states,

Attempting to enact legislation that is widely acceptable to almost all member states,

1. Defines pregnancy, as used in this resolution, as the condition of carrying an offspring within the body;

2. Defines abortion, as used in this resolution, as any induced termination of pregnancy that is intended to cause and causes the end of biological functions in a prenatal offspring;

3. Requires each member state to legalize abortion in all cases when it is absolutely necessary to prevent the death of the individual who is pregnant;

4. Requires each member state to prohibit forced abortions, or abortions performed on pregnant individuals against their will or without their free and informed consent, except in those cases when active legislation previously adopted by this Assembly dictates otherwise and in those cases when abortion definitely will prevent the imminent death of the pregnant individual;

5. Prohibits the administration of postcoital contraceptives to individuals against their will or without their free and informed consent, and

6. Grants to individual member states the right to determine their own abortion laws in all other circumstances subject only to this resolution and active resolutions previously adopted by this Assembly.

The Federation of Garbolav strongly opposes this contingency measure. Though we applaud the attempt at securing human rights in such a volatile controversy as abortion and we would happily accept a resolution banning forced abortions we cannot and will not support any resolution that forces abortion on all nations. Section 3 of your resolution forces abortion on all nations, though it is much narrower than the current mandate in WA resolution 128 we still cannot accept it given that many governments would avoid WA membership based solely on this issue due to their beliefs and laws regarding the status of unborn life. In our own nation the unborn are considered legal citizens and we unequivocally oppose any measure that will infringe on their rights.

[Nulono]

Remove the blocker on future pro-life resolutions and I'm all for it.