[PASSED] On Abortion

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Honoured ambassadors,

On 26 December 2010, Ms. Harper, the ambassador from Minoa (Charlotte Ryberg), first wanted to release this idea as a potential proposal for development, and get some feedback. The issue of abortion is 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 was a draft on mandating the neutrality of abortion and if it passed then the opportunity would have been missed.

Her response was to create a resolution which:

• Secures the rights to abortion in cases of rape, incest, severe foetal abnormality and life-threatening situations.
• Allows member states to determine whether to allow for abortion in more general circumstances.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION # 128

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

Category/Strength: Human Rights, Mild: as it is rendered as a "right for the patient to seek abortion" to save their lives: however the area of policy is small compared to general civil rights.

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 (see also explanation by Urgench)

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.

A lot of challenges have been encountered during the development of this resolution and a lot of hard choices had to be made to get this far. Mainly:

• Programmes to reduce abortion, such as birth control, sexual abstinence, sexual education and contraception were already recommended by GA#44.
• The confidentiality of patients' data was already covered by GA#29 and GA#58.

Thanks to all the ambassadors who have supported and offered other suggestions and thank you for your participation,

- Ms. S. Harper.

MODEDIT: Author's first post in the AT VOTE debate is here
EDIT: Ms. Harper's post-vote reflection is here.

[Zeltros WA Mission]

Hmm. No.

A woman retains the right to deny occupancy of her body to a foetus, no matter its condition.

[Quintessence of Dust]

I am - so far as I know - the product of a consensual union. If I were not, though, I would still have exactly the same human rights as anyone who was. You would not be permitted to kill me, or harm me, or discriminate against me. In fact doing so would not only probably be in violation of international law (the Charter of Civil Rights), but would be deemed by, I would think, all people to be an act of intolerable cruelty. The circumstances of my conception are not my fault.

By admitting an exception in cases of rape, anyone advocating restrictions on abortion under other circumstances is, it seems to me, relinquishing any capacity to argue on behalf of the rights of the foetus. We can only justify treating a foetus that is the product of rape differently from that which is not by admitting that a foetus is, by definition, not a person!

Which leaves me torn as to the merits of such a proposal. On the one hand passing such an act would more or less remove any capacity for those who prioritise (consensually conceived) foetuses over actual people to argue their case; on the other hand passing laws simply to conclusively prove they're complete bullshit seems a tad wasteful, even for the WA.

~ Tiffany
Intern-at-Large
The World Assembly

[The Cat-Tribe]

Hmm. No.

A woman retains the right to deny occupancy of her body to a foetus, no matter its condition.

You fail to understand. That can remain the case in your nation. It will in mine.

But other nations disagree. They are CURRENTLY free to disallow abortion anytime -- including in cases of rape, incest, severe fetal deformaty, or threat to the life or health of the mother.

Moreover, there are attempts CURRENTLY being made to limit the ability of all WA nations -- to allow abortion. Such as the HLPA which would ban abortions after 24 weeks except under certain circumstances.

There is also a more sensible compromise being offered that the WA pass a resolution leaving abortion up to each individual nation.

CR is rather insightfully suggesting we modify such a compromise to require that abortions being allowed at least in extreme cases.

Now do you get it?

BTW, CR, I'm not sure how much traction this will get, but I like the idea a great deal.

[The Cat-Tribe]

I am - so far as I know - the product of a consensual union. If I were not, though, I would still have exactly the same human rights as anyone who was. You would not be permitted to kill me, or harm me, or discriminate against me. In fact doing so would not only probably be in violation of international law (the Charter of Civil Rights), but would be deemed by, I would think, all people to be an act of intolerable cruelty. The circumstances of my conception are not my fault.

By admitting an exception in cases of rape, anyone advocating restrictions on abortion under other circumstances is, it seems to me, relinquishing any capacity to argue on behalf of the rights of the foetus. We can only justify treating a foetus that is the product of rape differently from that which is not by admitting that a foetus is, by definition, not a person!

Which leaves me torn as to the merits of such a proposal. On the one hand passing such an act would more or less remove any capacity for those who prioritise (consensually conceived) foetuses over actual people to argue their case; on the other hand passing laws simply to conclusively prove they're complete bullshit seems a tad wasteful, even for the WA.

~ Tiffany
Intern-at-Large
The World Assembly

Under current WA law, a fetus is not a person.

That also happens to concur with common sense and almost any reasonable definition of what a "person" is.

Once one is born it does not matter how one is conceived. You are then a person. You are protected by the CoCR, other WA laws, and (againg) common sense.

In sum, your objection lacks ... common sense.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I'll start the development of the draft and get the point of Ms. Harper's plan straight. It must be compatible specifically with World Assembly Resolution #44, Reduction of Abortion.

[Quintessence of Dust]

Under current WA law, a fetus is not a person.

This is only true insofar as the WA has never defined personhood. WA member nations are indeed entitled to given foetuses rights associated with personhood.

In sum, your objection lacks ... common sense.

Another quality my objection lacks is that of actually being an objection in the first place. It was an observation about a common rhetorical theme of proponents of legislatively limiting access to abortion: that a foetus is a person whose rights should supercede that of the woman they are parasitising.

For example:

And yes, it is a BABY, fetus is just a name for that stage of HUMAN development, like the term adolescent, teenager, adult, child.

My point - which was parenthetical at best; we all know Ms Harper will never actually succeed in passing this speculative notion as law - was that an exception for rape is commonly waved as a notional olive branch by those wishing to prohibit abortion as an indication that they are reasonable, whereas its premise actually makes no sense.

~ Tiffany
Intern-at-Large
The World Assembly

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Honoured ambassador, it may be common, but there will be cases where member states refuse to allow abortion for cases of rape and incest et al. It is definitely not the victim's fault for being raped, so why let some member force them to put their life at risk through pregnancy because of that?

- Ms. S. Harper.

[Darenjo]

I like this idea (the neutrality proposal I think has the potential to be another SC#3). However, could you please have a clause similar to this:

ENCOURAGES pregnant women considering abortion, unless their life is threatened by the pregnancy or the child will be born with a deadly, painful, incurable condition, to instead choose to give the child up for adoption or, in cases of child disability, give the child to a facility fully and readily equipped to take care of severly handicapped children;

It needs work but I'd like such a clause in the proposal.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I like this idea (the neutrality proposal I think has the potential to be another SC#3). However, could you please have a clause similar to this:

ENCOURAGES pregnant women considering abortion, unless their life is threatened by the pregnancy or the child will be born with a deadly, painful, incurable condition, to instead choose to give the child up for adoption or, in cases of child disability, give the child to a facility fully and readily equipped to take care of severly handicapped children;

It needs work but I'd like such a clause in the proposal.

Hmm, I think we may be walking to the edge of the topic, but we know that in WA#44 member states are urged to provide financial aid to pregnant individuals and parents to reduce or remove economic reasons for abortion and economic barriers to childbirth. The clause may be related to the intents of WA#44.

On the other hand, as written, it could be abused to allow abortion of foetuses with long term yet non-fatal conditions. If you like, let's try:

REQUIRES member states to legalise abortion for cases of rape or incest, severe foetal abnormality which would result in a child being born with a fatal, painful and incurable condition, or where the pregnant female's life is threatened by the pregnancy;

...

ENCOURAGES pregnant females considering abortion, unless their life is threatened by the pregnancy or the child will be born with a fatal, painful and incurable condition, to instead choose to give the child up for adoption or, in cases of child disability, give the child to a facility or a family fully and readily equipped to take care of severely handicapped children;

[Quintessence of Dust]

Honoured ambassador

Who?

it may be common, but there will be cases where member states refuse to allow abortion for cases of rape and incest et al. It is definitely not the victim's fault for being raped, so why let some member force them to put their life at risk through pregnancy because of that?

In saying that it is 'not the victim's fault' in cases of rape, there is an implication in your tone that it is her fault when the sexual act is consensual - that the little slut deserves to be a saddled with a pregnancy she is legally required to bring to term as punishment for her sexuality.

This is the root of my problem with an exception for rape: it necessarily implies that obtaining abortion under other circumstances is somehow less worthy of legal protection. So let me reformulate your question:

Why should any nation be allowed to force any woman to put their life at risk through pregnancy for any reason?

I like this idea (the neutrality proposal I think has the potential to be another SC#3). However, could you please have a clause similar to this:

ENCOURAGES pregnant women considering abortion, unless their life is threatened by the pregnancy or the child will be born with a deadly, painful, incurable condition, to instead choose to give the child up for adoption or, in cases of child disability, give the child to a facility fully and readily equipped to take care of severly handicapped children;

It needs work but I'd like such a clause in the proposal.

Cool.

Seeing as how Ms. Harper's willingness to take your suggestion at face value seems to clearly indicate that this is no longer a proposal about legalising medical procedures, but rather about promulgating with the WA stamp of approval the opinions of random individuals, I'd like some clauses along these lines in the proposal:

ENCOURAGES women not to yield to the hectoring social pressures of moralists who wish to restrict their personal freedom;

ENCOURAGES everyone to recognise that the Giants suck;

ENCOURAGES people to take swing dance lessons;

~Tiffany
Intern-at-Large
The World Assembly

[Darenjo]

I like this idea (the neutrality proposal I think has the potential to be another SC#3). However, could you please have a clause similar to this:



It needs work but I'd like such a clause in the proposal.

Hmm, I think we may be walking to the edge of the topic, but we know that in WA#44 member states are urged to provide financial aid to pregnant individuals and parents to reduce or remove economic reasons for abortion and economic barriers to childbirth. The clause may be related to the intents of WA#44.

On the other hand, as written, it could be abused to allow abortion of foetuses with long term yet non-fatal conditions. If you like, let's try:

REQUIRES member states to legalise abortion for cases of rape or incest, severe foetal abnormality which would result in a child being born with a fatal, painful and incurable condition, or where the pregnant female's life is threatened by the pregnancy;

...

ENCOURAGES pregnant females considering abortion, unless their life is threatened by the pregnancy or the child will be born with a fatal, painful and incurable condition, to instead choose to give the child up for adoption or, in cases of child disability, give the child to a facility or a family fully and readily equipped to take care of severely handicapped children;

That would do.

And Quintessence,

[Kylarosa]

Honourable Delegates, It is clear that the issue of abortion is a difficult one primarily because of subjectivism and there are facts which we simply do not have.
The illegaility of aborition is in affect because it actively impinges on the potential for human life. Neither do we posses facts about the transitionary process of human conscienceness. There is no single step in the development of the embryo where conscienceness arises.

We have come to the conclusion that although the victim did not willingly perticipate in the sexual act and that it is a monstrous action upon any individual resulting in severe psychological impact, the issue of abortion should be made illegal. We cannot presume to know the correct course of action at this time with insufficient knowledge. However the law is not inflexible and can be open to active interpretation when more knowledge is collected.
The only exception to this is when the mothers life is threatened by the birth. At such a circumstance it would be morally inconceiveable to risk both lives.

[TannerFrankLand]

On a national level I agree with you. Howevermy our nation's economies are not endangered if another nation bans all abortion. Nor would it affect our nat'l security interests.

What right do we have to force our morals on every nation? None.this is not a global government.

I will cast my region's vote against.

OOC: this is my first post from my iPod. Sorry for any mistypes.

[Darenjo]

On a national level I agree with you. Howevermy our nation's economies are not endangered if another nation bans all abortion. Nor would it affect our nat'l security interests.

What right do we have to force our morals on every nation? None.this is not a global government.

I will cast my region's vote against.

OOC: this is my first post from my iPod. Sorry for any mistypes.

What do you mean the WA isn't a global government? Have you read the resolutions? There are currently 113 of them from the GA that dictate what individual nations can, cannot, and should do.

[Kylarosa]

The problem with social rights is that they are not considered in the context of responsibility. Everyone automatically has rights regardless of whether they have the ability to be responsible for those rights. Thats the problem with the western world. Then the east is the complete opposite, people are constrained by too much responsibility and no rights. Neither system is satisfactory for long term sustainability. We must achieve a fine balance between the two. Its the only way to move forward.
Rights should not be automatically given to everyone. Neither should rights be automatically denied to anyone.

[Darenjo]

The problem with social rights is that they are not considered in the context of responsibility. Everyone automatically has rights regardless of whether they have the ability to be responsible for those rights. Thats the problem with the western world. Then the east is the complete opposite, people are constrained by too much responsibility and no rights. Neither system is satisfactory for long term sustainability. We must achieve a fine balance between the two. Its the only way to move forward.
Rights should not be automatically given to everyone. Neither should rights be automatically denied to anyone.

As much as I enjoyed reading this, certain "rights" are just obscene, and certain "responsibilities" are just impossible. On the other hand, there are some rights and responsibilities that are expected. So yes, some rights/responsibilities must be automatically given and some must be automatically banned - some of the repeat attempts to disregard this are the constant attempts to repeal FoMA.

[Jerryfuryia]

Jerry Fury, His Awesomeness of Jerryfuryia:

As the leader of the esteemed nation of The Democratic Monarchy of Jerryfuryia, I can say from my position and with absolute certainty that this situation... is balls-to-the-walls complex. I mulled about it in my office while playing a bunch of 'downer music', resisting my usual temptations to play skiball or 'punch the secret service guy'. As such, I've decided to put on my serious face for this one.

... There. There it is.

Please don't think that I am not taking this seriously. Believe me, I am, even if my opinions on the matter are noooooot the most solid... and I'm sure they're not. Eh, I believe I was failing to understand all the fancy-pantsy language being used until somebody clarified that the proposal at hand is not a mandate for us to allow ONLY these sorts of abortions, but AT LEAST. If that could be clarified a little better, that'd be great.

As far as Jerryfuryia is concerned, the lady-folk can do what they want in the matter of abortion, but not as a form of contraception... over-use it, and you're likely to get a healthy dose of common sense in the form of a punch from the government (literally, I'm afraid, but it's just so effective). In the cases listed in this proposal, we think that it should certainly be allowed, at least by our standards! We will vote to approve, but other nations who outlaw abortion outright...

Well, it should be easy to see they're not gonna like this.

Stay furious!

[TannerFrankLand]

Yes. But a body like the WA should only decide issues with global consequences. Most of the GA resolutions you mentioned should be repealed. This body has been drastically overstepping it's authority. Our region will vote to fix this mistake.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Jerry Fury, His Awesomeness of Jerryfuryia:

As the leader of the esteemed nation of The Democratic Monarchy of Jerryfuryia, I can say from my position and with absolute certainty that this situation... is balls-to-the-walls complex. I mulled about it in my office while playing a bunch of 'downer music', resisting my usual temptations to play skiball or 'punch the secret service guy'. As such, I've decided to put on my serious face for this one.

... There. There it is.

Please don't think that I am not taking this seriously. Believe me, I am, even if my opinions on the matter are noooooot the most solid... and I'm sure they're not. Eh, I believe I was failing to understand all the fancy-pantsy language being used until somebody clarified that the proposal at hand is not a mandate for us to allow ONLY these sorts of abortions, but AT LEAST. If that could be clarified a little better, that'd be great.

As far as Jerryfuryia is concerned, the lady-folk can do what they want in the matter of abortion, but not as a form of contraception... over-use it, and you're likely to get a healthy dose of common sense in the form of a punch from the government (literally, I'm afraid, but it's just so effective). In the cases listed in this proposal, we think that it should certainly be allowed, at least by our standards! We will vote to approve, but other nations who outlaw abortion outright...

Well, it should be easy to see they're not gonna like this.

Stay furious!

I've added at least and I acknowledge the fact that the topic of abortion in cases of rape, life at danger et. al. is like that runaway train problem. However, unlike other proposals I am not rushing but my stance remains that member states will at least legalise abortion for cases of rape, incest, severe foetal abnormality or where the pregnant female's life is in peril if the pregnancy was not terminated; member states can ban or legalise the rest but this is in the interest of saving lives in peril.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Yes. But a body like the WA should only decide issues with global consequences. Most of the GA resolutions you mentioned should be repealed. This body has been drastically overstepping it's authority. Our region will vote to fix this mistake.

Well, if you wish to see it declare neutrality on the rest of the topic other than the said cases I may happily do it for you, honoured ambassador. But there isn't likely to be any point in doing so yet because the WA is currnetly neutral. Again this is just a workshop to see if we can reach a middle ground.

[Just Guy]

Love it!

[Darenjo]

Yes. But a body like the WA should only decide issues with global consequences. Most of the GA resolutions you mentioned should be repealed. This body has been drastically overstepping it's authority. Our region will vote to fix this mistake.

How has it been overstepping its bounds in your view (personally, there are a couple of resolutions that I think are stupid, and a couple that Darenjo just ignores because they don't apply to us).

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I consider this topic worthy of international consideration on the grounds of the wellbeing of the patient. We find it immoral to deny the right to abortion if it is clear that both the patient and the unborn child are going to die if the pregnancy continues. It is quite a hard decision to make and I hope we can reach a compromise, yet we feel it is important to guarantee the welfare and wellbeing of pregnant women.

[Sionis Prioratus]

We support this. We think it is beautiful, even. We wish this finds its way to a vote in the soonest.

Yours for women's rights,