In Queue: Clinical Abortion Rights
#1

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Kalibara

Description: Understanding the deep divisions and emotions surrounding the issue of clinical abortion.

Convinced however that all women have the right to ultimate control over their own reproduction and fertility, and those rights exceed any perceived right to life of a potential person

DEFINES

1) A "potential person" as an embryo or foetus incapable of survival outside the womb of the woman carrying it;

2) A "viable foetus" as one capable of survival outside the womb of the woman carrying it;

3) A "clinical abortion" as a medical procedure performed on a pregnant woman, at any stage of the pregnancy prior to natural birth, with the sole aim of terminating the pregnancy;

Strongly encourages nations to reject the practice of late term abortion based solely on the gender of the foetus.

Stands firm in the belief that no state has the right to force women to bear unwanted children, and that the right of women to control their own reproduction and fertility is a basic human right;

Mandates the following:

1 - Member states shall not restrict the right of a woman to control her own reproduction and fertility, unless she is suffering from a diagnosed and internationally recognised mental disease or defect and has been legally deemed incapable of giving informed consent. In such cases, informed consent may be given by her legal guardian or advocate and such consent shall be accepted by the state.

2 ? Member states shall neither restrict the right of qualified individuals to perform abortions, nor prevent said individuals from setting up conveniently located, properly equipped, and universally accessible abortion clinics. No medical personal may be compelled to directly participate in an abortion if such a procedure goes against their personal ethics.

3 ? While a member state may not refuse to allow a woman access to clinical abortion at any stage of pregnancy, it may, at its own discretion, request that doctors be allowed to take all necessary steps to deliver a viable foetus safely. The child shall receive all medical care it requires as a premature baby, and may then be placed for adoption if the woman who gave birth relinquishes, or the state removes the child from her custody. This clause does not apply to cases where such an operation would endanger the woman or in circumstances of deformities of the foetus.

4 - Member states shall ensure, by such measures as deemed adequate, that costs of clinical abortion are kept at a reasonable level and that all women can access abortion services, regardless of their financial situation. These measures may include regulation, state coverage, requiring private health insurance to cover abortion, and free competition...

5 ? The state may at its own discretion, offer education sessions to all pregnant women. It may not at any stage of the pregnancy force women to attend such sessions. Information given must be factual, balanced, and presented without bias. If offered, the sessions must include, though not be solely limited to, all aspects of contraception, pregnancy, birth, adoption and clinical abortion.
Reply
#2

We endorse the intentions of the author, to free underprivileged and distressed women from the opression of selfrighteous religious fanatics, who feel the need to impose their morality on others. Independently of one's personal beliefs, those who do not share those beliefs should not be outcast and sent to jail.

However, this proposal is too extreme for us to offer our vote:
- It imposes the debatable view that a fetus is strictly a part of a woman's body, which is unacceptable to many;
- It makes no effort to balance the rights of women with the views of significant factions, specifically regarding late term abortions;
- It forces states to find financial means for abortions, which is no longer a human rights issue, and as such overextends the legitimate scope of the UN

We would have no problems implementing this proposal in Fonzoland. However, we urge other nations to consider the divisive impact it would have on (voluntary) UN membership. Abstain.

We would also like to enquire what the regional voting procedure is. Are there circumstances (other than an exact for/against split) which would lead the delegate to refrain from voting?
Reply
#3

FonzolandFeb 18 2006, 12:01 PM We would also like to enquire what the regional voting procedure is. Are there circumstances (other than an exact for/against split) which would lead the delegate to refrain from voting? [/quote]
I got this off of: http://s10.invisionfree.com/IDU/index.php?showtopic=90

Groot GoudaApr 23 2005, 04:52 AMThe delegate may choose to follow the poll results, if it is representative. In case of moral issues with a resolution, the delegate can choose not to follow the region's decision. In that case, abstaining from voting is the preferred way of dealing with that situation. In all cases, the delegate must explain their vote. [/quote]

I plan on voting however the region decides. There are very few things that I have a very strong opinion on, and most of the time I agree with the region. There are really only one or two resolutions that I would consider abstaining on (one of them is the drug legalization resolution coming up, Antrium is entirely drug-free)

I don't know what would happen if there was a tie between for and against, in that case I would assume I could decide which way to vote. (if someone knows the official procedure, feel free to help me out here Smile )
Reply
#4

Strongly support.
Reply
#5

While parts of this are acceptable, the package absolutely is not.

First, the only reference I see to third trimester abortions is that they shall not be administered for selecting gender. This is absolutely unacceptable. J-T does not support third trimester abortions unless the life of the mother is in danger.

Second, it either contradicts itself, or it forces state expenditure. Clause 4 proposes measures that are by-and-large opposite to other parts of the legislation, as regulation of prices can restrict the ability of medical personnel to offer the procedure, while making private insurance cover abortion ignores that some private insurance is out of the price range of the poor. Requiring state subsidies and free competition, meanwhile, infringes on NatSov in the economy.

Third, the term "potential person" is not appropriate, as this is the type that would actually exacerbate the debate rather than help reduce it. A better term would be something like "non-viable foetus."

Hence, J-T would not and cannot support such a resolution.
Reply
#6

I'm not sure about this one. I think a change should be made to un-viable foetus. Here in Australia when have just had a major kerfuffle over the so called "Abortion Pill" RU486. Previously the drug had been under the control of the health minister who currently is a Roman Catholic and would not let it become available. Following a private member's bill by a female senator - our parliament has just had a "conscience" vote and have passed control from the Health Minister to our Theraputic Goods Administration. (I think its like the FDA in the US).

This drug will be available in Australia within the year so women will have the choice of having safe non-surgical abortions. I don't think this proposal adequatley covers all methods of abortion and the wording covers other issues which have been raised by other members such as financial, or the foetus being part of the body, etc.

Why cant someone just write a resolution that guarantees women the right to control their own bodies and have abortions. All of the other details such as education, councelling, finance, timing of abortion, method - can be sorted out by individual nations based on their female citizens needs. Women just simply need to have the right to have an abortion.

While we agree with the spirit with which this was written, Lawtonia can not support this proposal in its current form.
Reply
#7

DAMN and BLAST - I accidently hit the wrong button (still havnt finished my morning coffee) I meant to vote no but hit yes.
Reply
#8

AntriumFeb 18 2006, 10:11 PM I plan on voting however the region decides. There are very few things that I have a very strong opinion on, and most of the time I agree with the region. There are really only one or two resolutions that I would consider abstaining on (one of them is the drug legalization resolution coming up, Antrium is entirely drug-free)

I don't know what would happen if there was a tie between for and against, in that case I would assume I could decide which way to vote. (if someone knows the official procedure, feel free to help me out here Smile ) [/quote]
That sounds fine. I support some degree of discretionary power from the delegate, in tight votes or moral issues. And if you start misbehaving, one can always overthrow you... Tongue
Reply
#9

AntriumFeb 19 2006, 12:11 AM I don't know what would happen if there was a tie between for and against, in that case I would assume I could decide which way to vote. (if someone knows the official procedure, feel free to help me out here Smile ) [/quote]
With a tie, you as Delegate decide what you want to do.

Personally, I fully support this legislation. I think women are responsible enough to make their own decision about their body and any foetuses contained therein.
Reply
#10

We do not believe that government has any right or reason to interfere with private medical decisions. Ethical and moral questions on medical choices must be decided by the individual, their families and medical personnel independent of government interference.

Therefore we OPPOSE this proposal in its current form.
Reply
#11

GrosseschnauzerFeb 20 2006, 12:43 AM We do not believe that government has any right or reason to interfere with private medical decisions. Ethical and moral questions on medical choices must be decided by the individual, their families and medical personnel independent of government interference.

Therefore we OPPOSE this proposal in its current form. [/quote]
We agree with the reasoning of Grosseschnauzer.

We further believe that Article 1 treads the slippery slope of eugenics.
We disagree with the scope of Article 3. Abortion of a viable fetus, we believe is infanticide.
We do laud encouraging nations to reject the practice of late term abortion based solely on the gender of the foetus.

We do not support this resolution.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)