General Assembly Resolution #128 “On Abortion” (Category: Civil Rights; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.
Unequivocally celebrating the commitment of this body to reproductive rights,
Determined to further this goal by the removal of laws which hinder the access patients have to reproductive care,
Noting that GAR #128 requires all abortion physicians to meet the same qualifications as surgeons and receive a degree of training equitable to that of surgeons, despite the vast majority of abortions not requiring any surgery,
Also noting that GAR #128 allows physicians to neglect their professional duties out of moral objection to abortion, a privilege not guaranteed concerning any other medical procedure,
Concerned that these terms obstruct the ability of pregnant individuals to access the reproductive care guaranteed to them under World Assembly law,
Confident that the political will of member nations and resolutions GAR #29 "Patient's Rights Act", GAR #286 "Reproductive Freedoms", GAR #499 "Access to Abortion", and GAR #523 "Patient Travel Freedoms" provide for the guarantee of reproductive freedom to all individuals under the jurisdiction of member states,
Resolved that the duplicate protections in GAR #128 do not outweigh the compromises it makes to the opponents of reproductive freedoms,
The World Assembly hereby repeals GAR #128 "On Abortion".
occasional lurker, even more occasional participant
For. Repealing this resolution will overall benefit reproductive rights and increase access to abortion, something I believe to be important. What are your thoughts?
occasional lurker, even more occasional participant
I agree with the proposals arguments and abortion rights are covered completely in the existing proposal and On Abortion does nothing positive remaining on the books - i’d argue it’s mandatory feature of allowing people to object to performing abortions is another reason why it should be repealed.
~ Former Delegate of The Rejected Realms ~ ~ Former Officer for the World Assembly ~ ~ Ex-Speaker of The Rejected Realms Assembly (2 Terms) ~ ~ Former RRA Officer ~
For. OA was a compromise supplanted by later resolutions.
The only effective provisions of On Abortion are those in clauses 4 and 5 that limit access to abortion by requiring surgeon-level training for abortion providers and member states to afford conscientious objection rights. Neither of those things should be required by the WA.
Against. This is better solved at the national level, and I do not see a reason why abortion providers should be held to lower standards than other surgeries.
To both Python and Fauxia, who made points about leaving it up to the member states: this resolution should remove mandates and leave more things up to the member-states, not less. I'm curious what the reasoning there is.
occasional lurker, even more occasional participant
As stated by others, other existing resolutions already cover the majority of rights given be proposals. The only effects that this resolution has beyond the things already covered by other proposals are, indeed, the mandatory surgeon level training and the clause allowing abortion doctors to refuse to perform abortions. These both reduce abortion access--requiring an excessive amount of training makes it more difficult to become an abortion doctor, reducing the number of abortion doctors available; allowing doctors to refuse to perform abortions also means that less doctors will be available to perform abortions.
I do agree with Chip that this repeal actually increases nations' control over abortion laws. Currently, nations 1) must have abortion doctors receive full surgeon training, and 2) must allow doctors to be able to refuse. If this repeal passes, nations have more choice. They can choose to continue requiring the above, or they can choose to remove the surgeon training requirement and prohibit doctors from refusing to perform abortions.
Against. This is better solved at the national level, and I do not see a reason why abortion providers should be held to lower standards than other surgeries.
As stated by others, other existing resolutions already cover the majority of rights given be proposals. The only effects that this resolution has beyond the things already covered by other proposals are, indeed, the mandatory surgeon level training and the clause allowing abortion doctors to refuse to perform abortions. These both reduce abortion access--requiring an excessive amount of training makes it more difficult to become an abortion doctor, reducing the number of abortion doctors available; allowing doctors to refuse to perform abortions also means that less doctors will be available to perform abortions.
In my opinion, it's unethical to force doctors to do abortions if they don't want to. This protects the right of doctors to choose not to perform abortions. After all, there is a resolution (Access to Abortion) that mandates that abortions are provided. All that repealing this will do is allow member-states to force doctors to perform abortion even if they have conscensious objections.
In my opinion, it's unethical to force doctors to do abortions if they don't want to. This protects the right of doctors to choose not to perform abortions. After all, there is a resolution (Access to Abortion) that mandates that abortions are provided. All that repealing this will do is allow member-states to force doctors to perform abortion even if they have conscensious objections.
I don't see how abortion procedures are different from any other medical procedure. Doctors aren't given the right to refuse to do other procedures, so why should doctors be allowed to choose for abortions?
I do not believe repealing this would force doctors to perform abortions anyway. If an existing resolution did, it would be illegal for contradiction.
In my opinion, it's unethical to force doctors to do abortions if they don't want to. This protects the right of doctors to choose not to perform abortions. After all, there is a resolution (Access to Abortion) that mandates that abortions are provided. All that repealing this will do is allow member-states to force doctors to perform abortion even if they have conscensious objections.
I don't see how abortion procedures are different from any other medical procedure. Doctors aren't given the right to refuse to do other procedures, so why should doctors be allowed to choose for abortions?
It's a very controversial procedure. Therefore there will be a lot of doctors who have an objection. Most other medical operations aren't that controversial. Forcing them to do something they have a moral objection against is just wrong.
In my opinion, it's unethical to force doctors to do abortions if they don't want to. This protects the right of doctors to choose not to perform abortions. After all, there is a resolution (Access to Abortion) that mandates that abortions are provided. All that repealing this will do is allow member-states to force doctors to perform abortion even if they have conscensious objections.
I don't see how abortion procedures are different from any other medical procedure. Doctors aren't given the right to refuse to do other procedures, so why should doctors be allowed to choose for abortions?
It's a very controversial procedure. Therefore there will be a lot of doctors who have an objection. Most other medical operations aren't that controversial. Forcing them to do something they have a moral objection against is just wrong.
Against. This is better solved at the national level, and I do not see a reason why abortion providers should be held to lower standards than other surgeries.
Many abortions do not require surgery, so it does not make sense to hold abortions to the high standards to perform surgery.
I don't see how abortion procedures are different from any other medical procedure. Doctors aren't given the right to refuse to do other procedures, so why should doctors be allowed to choose for abortions?
It's a very controversial procedure. Therefore there will be a lot of doctors who have an objection. Most other medical operations aren't that controversial. Forcing them to do something they have a moral objection against is just wrong.
I do not believe repealing this would force doctors to perform abortions anyway. If an existing resolution did, it would be illegal for contradiction.
No, but member states can, if they want, impose a law like that.
If doctors aren't interested in saving lives, they should pursue a different career.
This is embarrassingly disingenuous. Abortions do not save lives in the vast majority of cases. And that is not about fetal personhood. Pregnancy is not a life-or-death scenario except in extremely unusual circumstances, unless you live in a backwards country. Perhaps your nation is so, ambassador?
Against. This is better solved at the national level, and I do not see a reason why abortion providers should be held to lower standards than other surgeries.
Many abortions do not require surgery, so it does not make sense to hold abortions to the high standards to perform surgery.
Fair, but then why isn't the repeal clear on this point? In any case, it does not change that abortion is a much more controversial procedure than most surgeries.
This is embarrassingly disingenuous. Abortions do not save lives in the vast majority of cases. And that is not about fetal personhood. Pregnancy is not a life-or-death scenario except in extremely unusual circumstances, unless you live in a backwards country. Perhaps your nation is so, ambassador?
Abortions save lives, and improve health, and that's what matters. A medical practice should be able to set abortion care as part of its requirements of its physicians, because their goal is providing healthcare. That some people oppose it is besides the point, because someone could also come up with opposition to fitting pacemakers - doesn't mean that they should be allowed to practice medicine if they refuse to fit pacemakers.
Fair, but then why isn't the repeal clear on this point? In any case, it does not change that abortion is a much more controversial procedure than most surgeries.
It's really rather elementary knowledge that many abortions are not surgical in nature. And whether they are 'controversial' or not has nothing to do with whether doctors should hold the same standard of training for them, if e.g. all they do is prescribe or dispense the abortion pill.
This is embarrassingly disingenuous. Abortions do not save lives in the vast majority of cases. And that is not about fetal personhood. Pregnancy is not a life-or-death scenario except in extremely unusual circumstances, unless you live in a backwards country. Perhaps your nation is so, ambassador?
Abortions save lives, and improve health, and that's what matters. A medical practice should be able to set abortion care as part of its requirements of its physicians, because their goal is providing healthcare. That some people oppose it is besides the point, because someone could also come up with opposition to fitting pacemakers - doesn't mean that they should be allowed to practice medicine if they refuse to fit pacemakers.
The comparison is not a good one. In many nations, abortion is illegal, and typically that has to do with longstanding cultural values and conviction of the rights of the fetus. Opposing abortion is certainly the minority, but it is the result of logical and traditional philosophies, not your hypothetical ad-hoc ones.
Fair, but then why isn't the repeal clear on this point? In any case, it does not change that abortion is a much more controversial procedure than most surgeries.
It's really rather elementary knowledge that many abortions are not surgical in nature. And whether they are 'controversial' or not has nothing to do with whether doctors should hold the same standard of training for them, if e.g. all they do is prescribe or dispense the abortion pill.
No, it was an awkward juxtaposition on my part, I was reiterating the earlier point about the procedure's controversial nature. Lowering the standards for non-surgical procedures is reasonable.
The General Assembly
