At Vote:Repeal "Abortion Rights" [Complete]

Former English Colony

Former English Colony

InFECtious
-
-
-
-
Pronouns
she/her
TNP Nation
Former English Colony
Discord
Erastide
Voting ends... on Valentine's Day. :lol: So, get your votes in by the end of Monday.
Repeal "Abortion Rights"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution
Category: Repeal
Resolution: #61
Proposed by: Dorksonia

Description: UN Resolution #61: Abortion Rights (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: RECOGNIZES that abortion is an issue where good people on each side of this issue disagree.

PRAISES the concern for women in crisis and with needs.

POINTS OUT Resolution #61 provides no details or reasons for it's argument.

EMPHASIZES Resolution #61 does not limit abortion to "Women's health" during later trimesters, but allows a woman to have an abortion for any reason whatsoever (age, gender of the baby, etc.), for no reason whatsoever, without parental consent, without spousal consent, and at any any point up to and including the ninth month of pregnancy.

ACKNOWLEDGES this repeal will not prohibit any abortions, but permit it to be a daily issue in which a nation may decide this issue for themselves.

NOTES people are passionate on both sides of this issue and repealing this issue will indeed be "pro-choice" (member nations may choose to permit abortions for any reason, limit it as they deem necessary, or prohibit).

CONSIDERS the further medical technology of prenatal surgery deeming the unborn child as a "patient" and questions if abortion does not protect the rights of these individuals based on their location.

QUESTIONS if women are able to make informed choices without further research into the pychological and emotional side effects of such a common surgical procedure.

REPEALS resolution #61 "Abortion Rights"
Click to expand...
 
This resolution is currently up for vote in the UN.

Please post your views and stance on this resolution below. Note, however, that you must have a UN nation in The North Pacific, or on active NPA duty, in order for the Delegate to count your vote.
 
This repeal seems to be another one of those that presents flawed logic, perhaps even more so than any other repeal in the past few months.

EMPHASIZES Resolution #61 does not limit abortion to "Women's health" during later trimesters, but allows a woman to have an abortion for any reason whatsoever (age, gender of the baby, etc.), for no reason whatsoever, without parental consent, without spousal consent, and at any any point up to and including the ninth month of pregnancy.
Click to expand...

This isn't a valid reason in my opinion. If you grant certain rights to people, you cannot say that those rights can only be used by the informed. Every right in a democracy has the potential to be used/abused by the uninformed, and that itself is a given. You cannot judge by content -- just because one does not like a woman's REASONS for an abortion does not mean one can prohibit abortion to those women (granted that abortion rights are established, which they are in this case from Res 61).

Furthermore, spousal consent is not a valid reason. In the vast majority of cases, I'm sure a woman would tell her husband. But one can imagine cases where a woman would not tell her husband because she knows he will become abusive upon hearing her desire to have an abortion.

Using similar logic, parental consent looks like a good idea but has flaws as well. We may not like to admit it, but there are cases of a father sexually abusing his daughter. Therefore, simply because Res 61 does not have spousal or parental consent is no reason to strike it down.

CONSIDERS the further medical technology of prenatal surgery deeming the unborn child as a "patient" and questions if abortion does not protect the rights of these individuals based on their location.
Click to expand...

This is one of the worst arguments I've ever seen. The repeal author seems to be implying that the unborn fetus is a patient in the process of abortion, which is utterly incorrect based on any medical definition of the word "patient". An unborn child cannot give consent or dissent to a certain procedure, whereas patients can. Even if you assume the fetus is a participant in abortion, the fact that it cannot give consent means that consent has to be given by a near blood relative, following medical practice. In this case, it is the mother -- and that is exactly what happens in abortions: there is no procedure without the mother's consent obviously.

QUESTIONS if women are able to make informed choices without further research into the pychological and emotional side effects of such a common surgical procedure.
Click to expand...

Also poor. There may very well be psychological effects of an abortion, but there is no logic to the argument that we cannot give people rights purely because there may be unintended consequences. ANYTHING can cause psychological effects -- if we followed the reasoning proposed by the author, we would live in a bubble and no one would be permitted to walk across the street for fear of being traumatized.


It is ironic that the author did not mention moral arguments against abortion. It is just as ironic that I would've been more receptive to those arguments -- a moral argument cannot be refuted by facts because morals are not facts. However, the author has chosen to present things that CAN be refuted.

AGAINST.
 
It's only me, or countries present more "repeals" than new resolutions? I see lot of reaccionary negative energy here :P

I think what the author doesn't like for the 61 is that it does not regulate every single affair that the abortion can involve. But we are forgeting that women usually didn't like to abort. It's a hard decition, and they usually avoid it with thing like "the day after pill" It doesn't mind to me what the curch can say about abortion: the civil law will give the posibility to use the anti-conceptive meds, and, as a religion, they can forbid it to their followers. We ar just opening the door to a possible situation. What would happen in the births in wich the mother's live is seriously menaced? Abortion should be an option then, more if you are not sure about children's live too.

Another question: There's no posibility to present modifications to the resolutions? they must be new ones or repeals only?


Against
 
I do not often post here since, as I have no UN, I do not feel it right for me to comment on UN resolutions.

However, I just wanted to praise the logic displayed by Wizard. He wrote what I would have written. This is a poor resolution, and deserves to fail.
 
Sleater:
Another question: There's no posibility to present modifications to the resolutions? they must be new ones or repeals only?


Against
Click to expand...
First, no, there's no alternative to repeals or new resolutions. And DON'T try to make a resolution changing that. You will either get it simply deleted or a warning on your record for being stupid :P Basically, the coding for it is too complicated in the moderators/admins minds, so it's not gonna happen unless someone comes up with a good way to do it.

Second... what's your UN nation in TNP? Can't count your vote unless you have one....
 
AGAINST as this is clearly a repeal with an agenda, as opposed to having valid concerns about the original resolution.


EDIT: Frickin' keyboard
 
I like how it tries to redefine the term pro-choice to give the right to choose to ban abortions. And questioning women's rationality is a super political tactic.

AGAINST
 
Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the UN Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top