[Defeated] Abortion Ethics Act

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Proposal can be found here: http://www.nationstates.net/page=ga

Abortion Ethics Act
Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Mild
________________________________________________________________________
The World Assembly,

RECOGNISING a compelling practical interest in making abortions safe and rare,

DEFINING pregnancy as the condition of carrying a developing offspring within the body,

DEFINING abortion as the intentional termination of a pregnancy resulting in the end of biological functions in a developing offspring,

DEFINING elective abortions as abortions performed for purposes other than to preserve the life and/or permanent health of patient,

HEREBY

ENCOURAGES member nations to adopt policies which promote reducing abortions sought because of medically non-harmful traits in the developing offspring,

FURTHER ENCOURAGES member nations to promote prudent and thorough consideration by pregnant persons before they seek elective abortions under circumstances in which live delivery of developing offspring is a viable option and developing offspring should, on the balance of probabilities, be able to lead a normal life under medical care available in the nation of citizenship of offspring and/or the nation where offspring is born,

EMPHASISES that physicians who refuse to perform abortions which have been explicitly legalised by prior international legislation are encouraged, and may be compelled, to provide information about when, where and how such abortions may be procured,

REQUIRES that all requests for abortions which have not been explicitly legalised by prior international legislation are confirmed by patient through written consent after being fully informed of the process of abortion, and its effects on patient,

STIPULATES that if patient is rendered incapable of granting fully informed consent under the previous clause, and has not previously expressed disapproval of such action, person with patient's medical power of attorney, or, in the absence of such person, patient's legal next-of-kin, may do so on behalf of the patient,

URGES member nations to provide and promote services that help to enhance the physical and mental health of pregnant persons, in addition to circulating information about available alternatives to abortion,

MANDATES that the above public services shall neither be used to infringe on individual choice in any way, nor to circulate information that is explicitly faith-based in content,

AFFIRMS the authority of individual member nations to determine the amount of funding they provide, both directly and indirectly, for elective abortion services, except as and when explicitly stipulated by prior international legislation,

TRUSTS that the provisions of this resolution shall not be construed to either abridge the right of member nations to further regulate the procedure of abortion within the confines of prior international legislation, or to allow and/or promote restrictions on this procedure which impose an undue burden on patient's rights and privileges under prior international legislation.

Well, to start with, I'm sure that all of you know that the World Assembly has been engaged in a fierce discussion on the legality of abortion since the end of 2010 (the Abortion Wars ). This vigorous debate ultimately led to the passage of GAR #128, popularly known as On Abortion. OA is generally recognised as a good compromise and enjoys great support. However, it has failed to address several key issues. This proposal seeks to supplement "On Abortion", precisely to rectify this flaw.

The AEA, if enacted, would discourage selective-elective abortions, most notably sex-selective abortions, and late-term abortions, when the developing offspring has a chance to survive and lead a normal life. This would guide nations in the direction of promoting parental responsibility and protecting potential life against any discrimination etc., while preserving personal choice and leaving implementation to member nations, to formulate the best national-level policies by themselves.

Two of the greatest flaws in OA are that it does not fully prevent forced abortions, as well as the fact that physicians are not held accountable if their refusal to perform an abortion leads to the loss of life. For the first problem, this proposal would tighten restrictions on forced abortions by requiring the free, informed consent of the patient, in addition to promoting access to alternatives and information. As for the second point, this proposal would allow physicians to be compelled to refer patients seeking abortions to another physician, ensuring access to essential abortion services.

Furthermore, the second last clause allows member nations to determine the amount of funding they provide for elective abortions, blocking any future legislation requiring state funding of these procedures. This would defend national sovereignty, especially for nations with fiscal difficulties.

Last but not least, this proposal would allows member nations to place regulations on the procedure of abortion, including requirements for a waiting period etc., provided that these regulations do not place an undue burden on patients' rights under international law.

To conclude, I urge all of you to support this proposal for a good compromise and a significant milestone, for the culture of life, national sovereignty and personal choice. Hurray and have a nice day!

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

The emphasis should not be on abortion, but an individual's right to free and informed choice, thinking it through and considering his/her options, before taking responsibility for his/her ultimate decision. We trust individual nations to make the best decisions, but we also feel that some guidance is needed. The importance of making ethical and wise decisions is universal, just like the effects of irresponsible or reckless choices. National sovereignty should be coupled with this principle.

I note, for example, the situation in Monkiah.

"The point is that this legislation does not explicitly stipulate that the state may have offspring removed for genetic defects. These genetic defects are harmful to the society at large, whether the offspring has the trait itself or merely carries a recessive gene for that trait. Indeed it was through very careful artificial selection that most genetic disorders were eliminated in Monkiah.

We would argue that in the case of minors who are capable of reproduction, that the next-of-kin is not capable of making responsible decisions. Many times in the Past in Monkiah it was assumed that a male carrying a lingpod would "settle down" after giving birth if he was being rebelious. In most cases this did not happen and the result was that the offspring in question was not given the necessary post-natal care, including but not limited to oscillation, temple touching, and general social interaction. In fact depriving offspring of these things was used by the !Kleezsatsun during the Slavery Era to create further !Kleezatsun. It is our view that is better to abort a healthy lingpod than to create a sociopath.

Finally we do not care what you think. States have the need to control their societies in question. If this means that abortions must take place without the consent of the male carrying the lingpod, then that is the case. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

As one can see, in Monkiah, the state has gone so far as to shift the focus from being pro-choice to being both anti-choice and anti-life at the same time. This is not the meaning of national sovereignty.

"Does the WA have the duty to override National Sovereignty?
In cases of international importance that transcend national boundaries, perhaps. Some would include most Human Rights proposals into this category. Others might consider Environmental or Free Trade as paramount. There is no single criterion that any given nation is required to follow in determining their duty to the WA, and ambassadors should not be chastised for failure to share common values. With more than 37,000 WA member nations, it is absurd to think that every one will agree on any given issue, much less the phrasing and language of its presentation. The value of such duty is a variable which can only be set by the member nation."
- Sovereigntism in the WA: A Helpful Guide

Preserving an individual's choice and control over his/her own body, while encouraging personal responsibility, should be an issue all national bodies take note of. This proposal would leave the methods of doing so to individual member nations, as long as there are no forced abortions. However, when nations shows blatant disrespect for either individual choice or a culture of responsibility for life, it is the duty of the international community to step in and change their policy direction, for good.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

I wonder how many people just looked at the title and the first few clauses...

[Briutannia]

I would vote for this however the fact that Briutannia does not vote FOR WA legislation compels me to vote against, simply for the reason that the bill implies or does enact legislation which tramples upon the national sovereignty of each individual sovereign state.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

I would vote for this however the fact that Briutannia does not vote FOR WA legislation compels me to vote against, simply for the reason that the bill implies or does enact legislation which tramples upon the national sovereignty of each individual sovereign state.

Well, this act tries to guide member nations in a pro-life, pro-choice direction without infringing unnecessarily on their national sovereignty. I hope you'll reconsider your position. Thank you.

[Kowalewski]

I think this fall to far into the "national sovereignty" part. this would be a great issue, however something as hot at abortions; where IRL country's are still debating on it shouldn't be a WA resolution.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

I think this fall to far into the "national sovereignty" part. this would be a great issue, however something as hot at abortions; where IRL country's are still debating on it shouldn't be a WA resolution.

Would you mind elaborating on why precisely you feel this infringes on national sovereignty too much?

And On Abortion did just that. ^^

[Diogenes Epicurius]

Absolutely not. I will not "compel" my physicians to do something against their conscience or better judgement as doctors by mandating they tell people how they can get abortions. I will also not take action to stop selective abortion should individuals seek to improve the chances of their offspring to be successful for genetic reasons. Also, under your definition, the morning after pill would be discouraged which is a key factor in rape treatment and preventing unwanted pregnancy. Despite claiming not to infringe on personal choice, you do so repeatedly throughout the bill. Either your bill is a waste of time (we don't have to do anything) or we have to obey to the letter (which contradicts your own work) and in both situations I categorically stand against this ill conceived bill.

As soon as we discovered safe birth control pregnancy became a choice and should not an affliction.

From the desk of His Most Holy and Gracious:

-Emperor Flavius Vespasian II

[Ethevana]

I can't vote for it because "stongly suggesting" that a country does something doesn't mean it will. It's like a doctor saying that smoking is bad and suggesting that you stop, but you don't have to listen. I also believe that a parent should be able to abort up to labor. Until that point, the foetus is just a same-species parasite. Anyway, the mother can always "accidentally" abort with a fall or binge drinking one night. That would at least cause brain damage and then, under this Act, it would be legal to abort because the foetus would not be able to live a healthy life (at least not in my country).

[The Rich Port]

AGAINST.

Sorry, my Jewish ewok buddy.

[Kowalewski]

I think this fall to far into the "national sovereignty" part. this would be a great issue, however something as hot at abortions; where IRL country's are still debating on it shouldn't be a WA resolution.

Would you mind elaborating on why precisely you feel this infringes on national sovereignty too much?

And On Abortion did just that. ^^

on the topic of nat sov it is mostly due to the fact that keeping the child (due to national law) would not breech any right of mankind. and as some nations feel strongly against abortion, they should not be held accountable by other nations, to change national policy.
for you to say otherwise is like for me to say that, "fur coats should be outlawed" (i only use this as an example as it was recently passed by your nation) and then put it up to vote in the WA. it is not blatantly against morals to have fur coats, but i still put it up.

and on the second question i will not respond to anything having a example, that is not linked.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Would you mind elaborating on why precisely you feel this infringes on national sovereignty too much?

And On Abortion did just that. ^^

on the topic of nat sov it is mostly due to the fact that keeping the child (due to national law) would not breech any right of mankind. and as some nations feel strongly against abortion, they should not be held accountable by other nations, to change national policy.
for you to say otherwise is like for me to say that, "fur coats should be outlawed" (i only use this as an example as it was recently passed by your nation) and then put it up to vote in the WA. it is not blatantly against morals to have fur coats, but i still put it up.

and on the second question i will not respond to anything having a example, that is not linked.

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=4524923#p4524923

This seeks to affirm the WA's pro-life, but also pro-choice stance by standing against the worst forms of abortions and requiring informed consent, but giving the nations and the patients great flexibility.

By the way, some nations are against this because they support free elective abortions by the WA, funded by nations.

[Kowalewski]

By the way, some nations are against this because they support free elective abortions by the WA, funded by nations.

On Abortions (WA resolution CXXVIII) puts that the mothers life is more important that that of an unborn fetus' and is dealing with morals of the aforstated statement, it does not however allow for a LARGE amount of leniency. I see none in this one, say Jill gets pregnant, Jill gets knocked unconscious by hitting her head (IDGAF why) with the baby her road of recovery would be a slow one, however without it would be easier. however when the baby is due would be far to soon for them to, wake her up, ask if she is ok with an abortion, perform said abortion, then continue. National (not international) law states that a husband (or family member) can make the choice, goes ahead. baby dies mother lives, the end. with your law it would create a problem at "the baby is due would be far to soon for them to, wake her up, ask if she is ok with an abortion, perform said abortion, then continue. National (not international) law states that a husband (or family member) can make the choice." as it would have to make her wake up (might not happen) so then what? her life isn't "in danger" meaning CXXVIII wouldnt come into play so nothing could be done.

TL;DR version: your resolution isn't going to pass ether way as it has vary little logic behind it.'
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?t=127210&f=20&view=unread#unread for if you need to debate

[DarthStassen]

A resolution to restrict civil freedoms

At this point I stopped reading and voted against. No moral is important enough to limit freedom of any kind.

[Kowalewski]

A resolution to restrict civil freedoms

At this point I stopped reading and voted against. No moral is important enough to limit freedom of any kind.

all i have to say is: Jesus 4 years with only 3 posts in non-F7 threads

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

By the way, some nations are against this because they support free elective abortions by the WA, funded by nations.

On Abortions (WA resolution CXXVIII) puts that the mothers life is more important that that of an unborn fetus' and is dealing with morals of the aforstated statement, it does not however allow for a LARGE amount of leniency. I see none in this one, say Jill gets pregnant, Jill gets knocked unconscious by hitting her head (IDGAF why) with the baby her road of recovery would be a slow one, however without it would be easier. however when the baby is due would be far to soon for them to, wake her up, ask if she is ok with an abortion, perform said abortion, then continue. National (not international) law states that a husband (or family member) can make the choice, goes ahead. baby dies mother lives, the end. with your law it would create a problem at "the baby is due would be far to soon for them to, wake her up, ask if she is ok with an abortion, perform said abortion, then continue. National (not international) law states that a husband (or family member) can make the choice." as it would have to make her wake up (might not happen) so then what? her life isn't "in danger" meaning CXXVIII wouldnt come into play so nothing could be done.

TL;DR version: your resolution isn't going to pass ether way as it has vary little logic behind it.

Um, what? Rephrase? And OA does not, for your information, apply only to lifesaving abortions, though I don't see how that comes into this and why only that part of my reply was quoted in the first place... And I don't see how this would conflict with anything you said, though I may not understand what you said anyway.

[Kowalewski]

On Abortions (WA resolution CXXVIII) puts that the mothers life is more important that that of an unborn fetus' and is dealing with morals of the aforstated statement, it does not however allow for a LARGE amount of leniency. I see none in this one, say Jill gets pregnant, Jill gets knocked unconscious by hitting her head (IDGAF why) with the baby her road of recovery would be a slow one, however without it would be easier. however when the baby is due would be far to soon for them to, wake her up, ask if she is ok with an abortion, perform said abortion, then continue. National (not international) law states that a husband (or family member) can make the choice, goes ahead. baby dies mother lives, the end. with your law it would create a problem at "the baby is due would be far to soon for them to, wake her up, ask if she is ok with an abortion, perform said abortion, then continue. National (not international) law states that a husband (or family member) can make the choice." as it would have to make her wake up (might not happen) so then what? her life isn't "in danger" meaning CXXVIII wouldnt come into play so nothing could be done.

TL;DR version: your resolution isn't going to pass ether way as it has vary little logic behind it.

Um, what? Rephrase? And OA does not, for your information, apply only to lifesaving abortions, though I don't see how that comes into this and why only that part of my reply was quoted in the first place... And I don't see how this would conflict with anything you said, though I may not understand what you said anyway.

if you will excuse me i have sleeping to do, instead of debating a doomed proposal, goodnight.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Um, what? Rephrase? And OA does not, for your information, apply only to lifesaving abortions, though I don't see how that comes into this and why only that part of my reply was quoted in the first place... And I don't see how this would conflict with anything you said, though I may not understand what you said anyway.

if you will excuse me i have sleeping to do, instead of debating a doomed proposal, goodnight.

Well, at least I got your point with this post. But I still can't decipher that mess of words...

[Briutannia]

Well, this act tries to guide member nations in a pro-life, pro-choice direction without infringing unnecessarily on their national sovereignty. I hope you'll reconsider your position. Thank you.

[Telegram] From HM Government of Briutannia,
The Imperial Foreign Office,

The element you name is what the government opposes. The idea that the World Assembly can guide or influence the sovereign parliaments, rulers or legislative bodies in general of sovereign states. Although Briutannia supports your pro-life stance as a government policy which represents our general public, to implement a resolution of the WA on the basis that it conforms to our national mood would be hypocritical of us along with defying the beliefs which we invest in the Imperial Council in that the WA should not be permitted to overrule national courts or legislative bodies.

HM Government finds this resolution very good on the basis that it were to be on a national level, but sadly has to oppose on the basis of national sovereignty of each individual state.

Yours truly,
William Dartmouth,
Imperial Foreign Secretary of Briutannia

[Mousebumples]

I have voted AGAINST this proposal. The meritorious aspects of it seem to more or less duplicate the Reduction of Abortion Act. In the event that Knoot (or someone else) manages to successfully repeal that resolution, I would likely reconsider my opinion on this draft. However, I see no reason why such text needs to be in the WA books twice. Further, my preferred method of reducing abortion is by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies - not by coercing or convincing unwilling mothers that they're better off not having an abortion after all.

Otherwise, it seems to be too restrictive as presently written and may infringe on the rights of a woman to make a decision about her future for herself. While I do understand that the text tries to not be overly onerous - and I do appreciate those efforts - by adding additional steps and tasks and such to the abortion process, it will likely discourage some women from obtaining legal abortions and may make them feel forced to obtain unsafe abortions from untrained individuals.

Yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador of the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Timurid Empire]

The Empire WILL NOT vote for any resolution that seeks to limit the freedoms of it's people. What a woman does to her own body is of no matter to the Nation, and we will forever stand by this.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

The Empire WILL NOT vote for any resolution that seeks to limit the freedoms of it's people. What a woman does to her own body is of no matter to the Nation, and we will forever stand by this.

Yet, that same unlimited freedom, when exercised recklessly, only serves to diminish the importance of a woman's choice.

[Keronians]

An excellent resolution, Ambassador. Our vote FOR it has been casted.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

An excellent resolution, Ambassador. Our vote FOR it has been casted.

Thank you.

[Gratslova]

I'm sorry but I cannot vote for this bill, it openly attempts to rob women of their free will. Abortion is a choice and a decision to be made by the female nobody else. This bill is unethical and appears to me as a little authoritarian. No good can come of this in my opinion.