[Draft] Ban on Forced Abortions

[Greenlandic People]

Consensual Abortions
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Greenlandic People


The World Assembly,

OBSERVING that there exist nations which support or sponsor programs which remove or jeopardize the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.

BELIEVING that such programs and practices violate human rights on a basic level.

SEEKING to eliminate said programs and to prevent their creation and introduction.

Hereby:

DEFINES “abortion” as the intentional termination of the life of a fetus or embryo.

PERMITS nations to properly inform patients of any potential health risks in refraining from abortion.

OUTLAWS any abortion conducted without the explicit consent of the parent carrying the fetus, except for the exceptions noted below.

MANDATES that any pregnant person who undergoes an abortion must give their signature to a confidential, certified legal form which asserts that the person undergoing the abortion is choosing to do so on the basis of their own free will and not under the influence of any form of coercion, bribery, or threat toward their person or any of their relations or property.

NOTES that in a case where the patient is in a state where they are physically unable to give their consent to procedure, the person who shall give consent to the procedure shall be a next of kin as specified by national law;

HOLDS that where no next-of-kin are readily available or where next-of-kin refuse to participate in the decision, doctors may use their expertise to decide whether or not an abortion is necessary to protect the life of the mother and carry out the necessary procedures.

CONFIRMS that any infant born medically alive must be regarded as a citizen and a person and is entitled to full protection and must be given any and all requested medical treatment and rehabilitation in order to preserve its life concordant with national law.

This is the draft of my next resolution, designed to ban any existing programs of forced abortion and preserve the rights of the parent. More or less straightforward, I hope. I've been drafting it for some time on an off-site forum, so it shouldn't be too flawed by this stage.

Comments?

[Krioval]

Would it be possible to guarantee confidentiality on the legal form? The Great Chiefdom could imagine problems arising if the form was to be made public.

[Lord] Ambassador Darvek Tyvok
Great Chiefdom of Krioval

[Arkinesia]

Would it be possible to guarantee confidentiality on the legal form? The Great Chiefdom could imagine problems arising if the form was to be made public.

[Lord] Ambassador Darvek Tyvok
Great Chiefdom of Krioval

I agree, this is the only major problem I see...or problem, for that matter...

[Ostronopolis]

2025 Hours - Ostronopolis Ambassador To The World Assembly - Margret Brown

"A step in the right direction, I do find this resolution. However, I do also find that this resolution, is lacking in the area of working to discourage women around the world and especially in WA nations, which are supposed to be held to the highest standards of the world, in both morality and willingness to contribute peaceably to the world and international community at large.

I believe that this resolution should work towards making the world a safer place for the unborn, and the eventual abolition of unnatural, immoral, and totally wrong thing that is abortion, save cases of extreme need. Thereby, I will submit my recommendation to this resolution, that it officially discourage abortion, not simply forced abortion, and I shall go on record, in final, that I find this act a step in the right direction, and believe that with some work, it can truly become a marvel, and perhaps implement basic morality among the states of the World Assembly united."

[Greenlandic People]

2025 Hours - Ostronopolis Ambassador To The World Assembly - Margret Brown

"A step in the right direction, I do find this resolution. However, I do also find that this resolution, is lacking in the area of working to discourage women around the world and especially in WA nations, which are supposed to be held to the highest standards of the world, in both morality and willingness to contribute peaceably to the world and international community at large.

I believe that this resolution should work towards making the world a safer place for the unborn, and the eventual abolition of unnatural, immoral, and totally wrong thing that is abortion, save cases of extreme need. Thereby, I will submit my recommendation to this resolution, that it officially discourage abortion, not simply forced abortion, and I shall go on record, in final, that I find this act a step in the right direction, and believe that with some work, it can truly become a marvel, and perhaps implement basic morality among the states of the World Assembly united."

Honored ambassador, I think you'll be waiting a while. I am, in fact, ardently pro-choice in matters of abortion, and I will never in any way support any resolution that moves toward the eventual elimination of abortion. I am writing this resolution in order to protect the right of the parents to choose, and I shall not even begin to consider adding any provisions that discourage abortion. Write your own ban on abortion if you fell passionate about it, just don't look for a whole lot of support. I doubt either a blanket legalization or ban on abortion will ever pass a vote.

Yours,

Sigismund Ibsen,
World Assembly Delegate of Lavinium

[Greenlandic People]

Minor changes have been made. The legal form is now specified as a confidential form, and I standardised the spelling of "fetus" across the entire proposal.

[Burninati0n]

This is a good idea, however...

In some cases, people choose not to have an abortion, even if it has been medically determined that the person's health is endangered by the pregnancy. Therefore, should this problem reach a point where the person cannot give their signature, doctors would not be able to abort the pregnancy to save the person's life. This is akin to a doctor having to ask for a signature before attempting a quadruple bypass on a patient who has just suffered a heart attack. That is a violation of basic human rights.

Respectfully,

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

This is a good idea, however...

In some cases, people choose not to have an abortion, even if it has been medically determined that the person's health is endangered by the pregnancy. Therefore, should this problem reach a point where the person cannot give their signature, doctors would not be able to abort the pregnancy to save the person's life. This is akin to a doctor having to ask for a signature before attempting a quadruple bypass on a patient who has just suffered a heart attack. That is a violation of basic human rights.

Respectfully,

NOTES that in a case where the patient is in a state where they are physically unable to give their consent to procedure, the person who shall give consent to the procedure shall be a next of kin as specified by national law.

[Burninati0n]

NOTES that in a case where the patient is in a state where they are physically unable to give their consent to procedure, the person who shall give consent to the procedure shall be a next of kin as specified by national law.

Yeah...given the state of some marital issues...I'm sure some would rather not.

[Orlkjestad]

Orlkjestad fiercely opposes this bill.

[Gobbannium]

OUTLAWS any abortion conducted without the explicit consent of the parent carrying the fetus.

[...]

NOTES that in a case where the patient is in a state where they are physically unable to give their consent to procedure, the person who shall give consent to the procedure shall be a next of kin as specified by national law.

May we suggest adding "except as noted below" to the first of these lines to reduce the apparent conflict between the two lines?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Forcing abortions are opposed greatly by the honoured ambassador Sarah Harper. The freedom of family planning should be protected so this draft has a potential. However, it would be worth checking World Assembly Resolution #44 which is in effect, to ensure that the provisions of this draft does not conflict with each other.

Yours etc,

[Enn]

Orlkjestad fiercely opposes this bill.

May I ask why? I fail to see anything in this proposal that needs to be 'fiercely' opposed, from any sane standpoint. Unless your nation has a program of forced abortions, why would Orlkjestad stand opposed?

Stephanie Fulton,
WA Ambassador for Enn

[Caliyfornia Maternity]

DEFINES “abortion” as the premeditated termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo, resulting in or caused by its death

Well em-bass-a-door, zhat sounds like a good defynition except for ze fact that ze men in my nation are capable of getting pregnant too. Zit was all a just large scientologist experiment that went very, very wrong .. nevertheless ze majority of pregnant people in my nation would not be protected by zist bill.

[Greenlandic People]

DEFINES “abortion” as the premeditated termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo, resulting in or caused by its death

Well em-bass-a-door, zhat sounds like a good defynition except for ze fact that ze men in my nation are capable of getting pregnant too. Zit was all a just large scientologist experiment that went very, very wrong .. nevertheless ze majority of pregnant people in my nation would not be protected by zist bill.

If they are pregnant, ambassador, then surely they still have a fetus inside of them somewhere, correct? So, you cannot abort your...pregnant males without removing the fetus from their body, right? I don't see your point, to be honest.

Yours,

Sigismund Ibsen,
World Assembly Delegate of Lavinium

[Caliyfornia Maternity]

DEFINES “abortion” as the premeditated termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo, resulting in or caused by its death

Zi was rising complications with zhat word, em-bass-door. But zi see what you mean zhat ze uterus is merely the "hollow muscular organ" zhat contains the embryo, and not zomething limited to females. Hhhm... my opposition is withdrawn until further research can be made, zha ?

[Tybra]

We are against this proposal. Mainly because of

MANDATES that any pregnant person who undergoes an abortion must give their signature to a confidential, certified legal form which asserts that the person undergoing the abortion

It does not clarify whether this document should be held private according to any national law, it also would create a severe bureaucratic fuss. Not only that but we also fear it would only scare women to choose abortion.

Furthermore it does not state the mental condition of a woman during pregnancy. Would the foetus endanger the female, to the limit of permanent injury it is our obligation to terminate the pregnancy. There are however certain mental conditions, including certain idealogical ideas which can complicate the matter as the female would not be willing to terminate the pregnancy. In those matters we, the state, are forced to do so.

CONFIRMS that any infant born medically alive must be regarded as a citizen and a person and is entitled to full protection under the law and must be given any and all requested medical treatment and rehabilitation in order to preserve its life; in doing so the infant shall not be made to endure extreme pain and suffering and a radically reduced quality of life.

This also a concern to us. Let us assume that there is a Foetus whose survival expectancy is close to 0%, under Tybran law the life will be terminated. This law however forces us to not do so, it forces to give costly aide to those whose life we see as 'not sustainable'.

We are also concerned about those nations who do not have the capabilities to give the requested medical treatment.

[Quintessence of Dust]

I see absolutely no difference between forcing someone to have an abortion and forcing someone to not have an abortion. Why legislate on one but not the other? Or, alternatively, why should abortion be singled out: that is, is there a reason any medical procedure should be conducted on someone without their consent?

-- Samantha Benson
Assistant Manager
The Preludin Lounge
(Formerly known as the Office of WA Affairs)

[Qumkent]

I see absolutely no difference between forcing someone to have an abortion and forcing someone to not have an abortion. Why legislate on one but not the other? Or, alternatively, why should abortion be singled out: that is, is there a reason any medical procedure should be conducted on someone without their consent?

-- Samantha Benson
Assistant Manager
The Preludin Lounge
(Formerly known as the Office of WA Affairs)

The incomparable Ms. Benson makes an extremely interesting and pertinent point. It could be argued that the CoCR, and the Patient's Rights act in combination already make forced abortion illegal. In the first case this would be the case because the CoCR demands that persons be treated equally under the law, meaning that the law of a member nation could not single out women ( in this case ) as being less in complete control of their own bodies than men and therefore subject to being forced to undergo an abortion, or for that matter to undergo a pregnancy if they did not wish to do so. After all no man could be forced to undergo a pregnancy or an abortion. Granted the state might in theory declare all it's citizen's reproductive rights void and carryout mass sterilisations so long as no group of citizens was singled out by this process but it could not force it's female citizens to undergo pregnancies against there will, and nor could it force abortions upon them.

So far as we are aware the Patient's Rights act would also make forced sterilisations illegal also so the example we give is purely hypothetical.

Yours,

[Liberalitos]

Abortion is already a tough issue, why even bother to make changes. I say leave the procedure as it has been implemented. Just like the old saying " If it ain't broke, don't fix it" The women have their privacy. And why sign a paper, I think that they feel bad enough having an abortion, why make them sign something that just points out the fact of what they just did? I think this draft should just withdrawd. Thanks for your try.

Sincerly,

A Proud President
[Liberalitos]
[President T. Edwards]

[Niihama]

Honored World Assembly,

Niihama believes that Abortion is really a matter to be decided by the individual nations, a matter of their sovereignty. We reject any law that infringes upon that sovereignty.

- Prime Minister Kayabuki, Niihama delegate to the WA.

[Cynthia McKinney]

Democratic Socialist Alliance supports your proposed ban on forced abortions.

[Qumkent]

Honored World Assembly,

Niihama believes that Abortion is really a matter to be decided by the individual nations, a matter of their sovereignty. We reject any law that infringes upon that sovereignty.

- Prime Minister Kayabuki, Niihama delegate to the WA.

Has your Excellency bothered to familiarise themselves with the canon of WA laws ? If not then we suggest your Excellency's sovereignty loving government do so and then decide if continued membership of the WA is really for them.


Yours,

[HeatDeath]

lol man, neone who votes down this notion is srsly messed in the head, ya kno?
forced aborshons r so contrary 2 human dignity tht any presumption two allow their institution must b viciously and swiftly condemned. we do not hve the luxry of tact in deeling with such an egregious abuse of life and its respect thereof, nor do we hve any leeway in allowin this appalling facade to continu.

[Grays Harbor]

His Majesties government is tentatively leaning towards support for this proposal. Like many here, we too frequently have issues with proposals which overly infringe on domestic policies. This, however, is not among those.