[UN-ABORTED] Abortion Rights Act

[SchutteGod]

This is a standing draft to be submitted in the (as it stands, highly unlikely) event of the repeal of Reproductive Freedoms. It is based on past (pre-#286) drafts of this nation for an abortion rights resolution, and is intended to emulate the elegant simplicity of past resolutions to protect bodily freedoms, including Permit Male Circumcision and (UN) Abortion Rights:

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the progress made on an international level to protect the rights of privacy and bodily sovereignty,

Seeking to further such progress with a doctrine upholding the individual right to reproductive choice,

Noting the deep, historic and unfortunate divisions present within this body as to how such a law might take shape,

Striking therefore an appropriate balance between the rights of the individual and the power of the state to protect and modify such rights:

AFFIRMS the solemn individual right to reproductive choice, including the freedom to terminate one's own pregnancy,

OBLIGES member states to respect the rights of patients wishing to undergo abortion as a medical procedure,

RESERVES to member states the authority to regulate this practice, provided such policies do not unnecessarily impugn the rights of individuals to avail themselves of such procedures, and that relevant stipulations of previous standing WA resolutions are honored,

FURTHER INSTRUCTS member states to take all necessary measures to protect such patients from undue harassment, intimidation or coercion.

Questions/comments/suggestions for improvement are of course, welcome.

[Railana]

Wouldn't this largely duplicate GAR #128?

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[Chester Pearson]

No...

I have voted to support the repeal, but I will not support a replacement....

[Lexicor]

No...

I have voted to support the repeal, but I will not support a replacement....

Ditto.

[SchutteGod]

Wouldn't this largely duplicate GAR #128?

I don't think so. On Abortion only legalizes abortion in cases of rape, fetal abnormalities and when the life (and health?) of the mother is at stake. This is a blanket affirmation of the right to have an abortion, absent national regulation. I believe this would indeed go beyond the simple provision for abortion in only extreme cases as outlined in #128.

Third clause edited for clarity.

[The Flood]

"This resolution is functionally identical to 'reproductive freedoms', with the sole difference of being less deceptive.

The Flood will stand against it, despite it's honesty. For it is still a genocidal monstrosity of a resolution."

[SchutteGod]

"This resolution is functionally identical to 'reproductive freedoms',...[f]or it is still a genocidal monstrosity of a resolution."

It is not identical to GA#286, as this fully allows for national regulations to prevent late-term or gender-selective abortions, and adds further protections of women from being coerced into having an abortion. If you go back an examine its terms carefully, you'll find it is very amenable to national prerogative where (reasonably) restricting abortion is concerned.

OOC: I am also the author of the repeal. Trust me, I would not seek to repeal #286 just replace it with something "functionally identical."

[The Flood]

"This resolution is functionally identical to 'reproductive freedoms',...[f]or it is still a genocidal monstrosity of a resolution."

It is not identical to GA#286, as this fully allows for national regulations to prevent late-term or gender-selective abortions, and adds further protections of women from being coerced into having an abortion. If you go back an examine its terms carefully, you'll find it is very amenable to national prerogative where (reasonably) restricting abortion is concerned.
OOC: I am also the author of the repeal. Trust me, I would not seek to repeal #286 just replace it with something "functionally identical."

"The only way the Flood would support this is if we could ban all abortions save for those that are necessary to save the mother's life."

[Chester Pearson]

It is not identical to GA#286, as this fully allows for national regulations to prevent late-term or gender-selective abortions, and adds further protections of women from being coerced into having an abortion. If you go back an examine its terms carefully, you'll find it is very amenable to national prerogative where (reasonably) restricting abortion is concerned.
OOC: I am also the author of the repeal. Trust me, I would not seek to repeal #286 just replace it with something "functionally identical."

"The only way the Flood would support this is if we could ban all abortions save for those that are necessary to save the mother's life."

Why does the WA need to take that action? Why cannot The Flood simply ban abortions within its own territory, and not force its belief system upon the rest of us?

What we need is a clear blocker on the matter making this a matter of national purview.

[Hakio]

"Yeah no."

[Railana]

Wouldn't this largely duplicate GAR #128?

I don't think so. On Abortion only legalizes abortion in cases of rape, fetal abnormalities and when the life (and health?) of the mother is at stake. This is a blanket affirmation of the right to have an abortion, absent national regulation. I believe this would indeed go beyond the simple provision for abortion in only extreme cases as outlined in #128.

Third clause edited for clarity.

To what extent is national regulation of abortion permitted under this proposal? Could one, for instance, prohibit abortion in all cases except where necessary to save the mother's life?

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I wish I had a suggestion to improve the wording, but this part strikes me as a living loophole shouting and waving a big orange flag at us:

RESERVES to member states the authority to regulate this practice, provided such policies do not unnecessarily impugn the rights of individuals to avail themselves of such procedures

The decision as to what constitutes "necessary" versus "unnecessary" impugning of the individual right mentioned above is one that everyone on the entire spectrum of possible opinions is going to want to weigh in on. Who decides what is necessary infringement or contravention? As written, that's a matter of national discretion - so I'm really not sure what Mr. Pearson is so pissed off about; unless it's your intention to tighten this up. Other than requiring medical expertise to make that decision, I'm not sure how to fix that without completely rewriting the sentence in question.

[Defwa]

It is not identical to GA#286, as this fully allows for national regulations to prevent late-term or gender-selective abortions, and adds further protections of women from being coerced into having an abortion. If you go back an examine its terms carefully, you'll find it is very amenable to national prerogative where (reasonably) restricting abortion is concerned.
OOC: I am also the author of the repeal. Trust me, I would not seek to repeal #286 just replace it with something "functionally identical."

"The only way the Flood would support this is if we could ban all abortions save for those that are necessary to save the mother's life."

OOC: So basically ignore the Flood because they're so far out of left field that you're not going to win them over while having a reasonable ideology. Not that the flood is a real WA member anyway.

[Railana]

"The only way the Flood would support this is if we could ban all abortions save for those that are necessary to save the mother's life."

OOC: So basically ignore the Flood because they're so far out of left field that you're not going to win them over while having a reasonable ideology. Not that the flood is a real WA member anyway.

((OOC: Correct me if I'm wrong, but based on that post all the Flood wants is the right to ban most abortions within their jurisdiction. That's not "far out of left field" at all.))

[Flamels Stone]

We at Flamel's Stone , don't want a replacement. Leave abortions to the national law.

[The Flood]

"The only way the Flood would support this is if we could ban all abortions save for those that are necessary to save the mother's life."

Why does the WA need to take that action? Why cannot The Flood simply ban abortions within its own territory, and not force its belief system upon the rest of us?

What we need is a clear blocker on the matter making this a matter of national purview.

"I did not say there needed to be a resolution banning abortions. We would be perfectly satisfied by a blocker that preserved national sovereignty on the issue of abortion. Then the Flood could simply invade the pro-choice nations!"

[The Flood]

Not that the flood is a real WA member anyway.

OOC:

Bourbonia

Seriously, it's right there in my signature.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

Totally opposed. I don't like the way it is written. It needs to be precise and clear in everything that it does and does not do.

I'm not opposed to a resolution in general, but I'm sick and tired of the "kill the babies" mentality of the other side and the half arguments that abortion is a medical procedure without realizing that with every "right" comes a "responsibility" is annoying. I don't want a blocker for the sake of blockers. While I believe that nations will never come to the answers of the question of abortions differently, there are some fundamental rights that a resolution must have in order for us to accept it.

If an abortion is a "medical procedure" then it must always be performed to the high standards of medical procedures. It must always be performed by skilled professionals who are able to deal with any possible complication that arises from the procedure. It must always be performed in environments that meets the standards of medical hygiene and patient safety that is required for similar medical procedures. In the event of severe complications, all those who perform the procedure needs to have admitting rights to a nearby medical facility that is close enough to assist the patient suffering from the medical complication.

I highly doubt such a resolution would ever be written in this festering snakepit and if written would never be passed.

[Defwa]

Not that the flood is a real WA member anyway.

OOC:

Bourbonia

Seriously, it's right there in my signature.

OOC: Yeah, like I said, not a real WA nation.

[The Flood]

OOC:
Bourbonia
Seriously, it's right there in my signature.

OOC: Yeah, like I said, not a real WA nation.

OOC: I vote in the World Assembly, therefor I am a World Assembly nation.

[Defwa]

OOC: Yeah, like I said, not a real WA nation.

OOC: I vote in the World Assembly, therefor I am a World Assembly nation.

OOC: I won't continue with this farce unless the author is okay with it. But I derive a simple pleasure from it.

[Hirota]

Having seen the draft, this almost encouraged me to vote for that repeal, and add some suggestions for improvement to this draft.

Then I saw that a lot of the comments were from nations more interested in obstructing progress than actually having a sensible discussion. If they can be obstinate jackasses, then I'll jolly well do the same and vote to keep the original resolution.

In the event the repeal passes, I'll add some observations, but until that time I'll express my appreciation of a draft my government would probably vote for

[Louisistan]

It needs to be precise and clear in everything that it does and does not do.

That.

"While I appreciate the idea behind the proposal: Generally legalizing abortion, while reserving the nation's right to regulate it, I am unsatisfied. As it stands, it is simply not clear, if a nation is allowed to prohibit late-term abortions, or mandate some sort of counselling before undergoing the procedure. Please try and be more specific as to what actual right the nations hold.

As it stands, I am unsure if I would vote for this."

[The Flood]

Having seen the draft, this almost encouraged me to vote for that repeal, and add some suggestions for improvement to this draft.
Then I saw that a lot of the comments were from nations more interested in obstructing progress than actually having a sensible discussion. If they can be obstinate jackasses, then I'll jolly well do the same and vote to keep the original resolution.
In the event the repeal passes, I'll add some observations, but until that time I'll express my appreciation of a draft my government would probably vote for

"Murdering innocent children is not progress."

[Defwa]

Having seen the draft, this almost encouraged me to vote for that repeal, and add some suggestions for improvement to this draft.
Then I saw that a lot of the comments were from nations more interested in obstructing progress than actually having a sensible discussion. If they can be obstinate jackasses, then I'll jolly well do the same and vote to keep the original resolution.
In the event the repeal passes, I'll add some observations, but until that time I'll express my appreciation of a draft my government would probably vote for

"Murdering innocent children is not progress."

OOC: I do so tire of hearing sensationalist/incorrect words being thrown about in order to appeal to emotion where logic fails. So I just want to throw this out there.
"Murder: the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human, and generally this premeditated state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter)."
Abortion, by virtue of being legal in all member nations is not murder, not to mention I've never heard of anyone aborting out of malice to the fetus. Manslaughter, to be manslaughter must also be illegal. Also your lack of jurisdiction outside of your territory means that you do not get to declare abortion illegal in other nations. Please exercise more linguistic care in the future to prevent misunderstanding.