Post by kyraina on Jun 19, 2011 18:58:03 GMT -5
Argument: The General Assembly,
Realizing that On Abortion is a hastily written, ill-conceived, and deeply flawed resolution,
Noting the controversial nature of abortion and its legality,
Recognizing that the final preambulatory clause of On Abortion is misleading on the intrusive effects of that resolution,
Recalling Resolution 29, the Patient's Rights Act, which already protects "the right to emergency medical treatment under circumstances requiring lifesaving procedures," therefore,
Emphasizing that repeal of On Abortion will not remove legal access to emergency lifesaving abortions,
Repeals Resolution 128, On Abortion, for the following reasons:
(a) On Abortion unfairly coerces member states to permit those impregnated at ages younger than the age of consent to procure elective abortions;
(b) On Abortion unjustly compels member states to allow any adult who was impregnated by someone younger than the age of consent to obtain an elective abortion;
(c) The two aforementioned effects of On Abortion are discriminatory on the basis of age;
(d) The kinds of abortion that On Abortion compels member states to allow are permitted for the entire duration of pregnancy, including when the fetus is viable and, if born, would be able to live a completely healthy and normal life and even when it is possible to end pregnancy without ending biological functions in the fetus through a procedure such as labor induction or cesarean section;
(e) On Abortion can place considerable fiscal burden on rural and poorer member states by requiring them "to ensure that abortion facilities are easily available to patients seeking abortion [in the circumstances the resolution permits]" when such funds could be dedicated to more worthy causes such as alleviating poverty, reducing homelessness, or bolstering education;
(f) On Abortion unreasonably allows someone other than an incapacitated person's doctor to decide whether a therapeutic abortion to preserve life or permanent health should be performed;
(g) On Abortion allows an incapacitated person's next-of-kin to decide whether an elective abortion allowed by On Abortion should be performed, even when that patient may not desire such termination;
(h) How the mandates of On Abortion with respect to pregnant, incapacitated loners should be executed is unclear, even when life or permanent health is at risk;
(i) On Abortion's procedure to obtain consent for emergency lifesaving abortions for the incapacitated is irrational and differs from a more sensible procedure established by Resolution 29, the Patient's Rights Act, which rightly places such important decisions in the hands of "physician or qualified caregiver";
(j) On Abortion unreasonably allows qualified physicians to refuse to perform emergency lifesaving abortions for "moral" reasons.
Realizing that On Abortion is a hastily written, ill-conceived, and deeply flawed resolution,
Noting the controversial nature of abortion and its legality,
Recognizing that the final preambulatory clause of On Abortion is misleading on the intrusive effects of that resolution,
Recalling Resolution 29, the Patient's Rights Act, which already protects "the right to emergency medical treatment under circumstances requiring lifesaving procedures," therefore,
Emphasizing that repeal of On Abortion will not remove legal access to emergency lifesaving abortions,
Repeals Resolution 128, On Abortion, for the following reasons:
(a) On Abortion unfairly coerces member states to permit those impregnated at ages younger than the age of consent to procure elective abortions;
(b) On Abortion unjustly compels member states to allow any adult who was impregnated by someone younger than the age of consent to obtain an elective abortion;
(c) The two aforementioned effects of On Abortion are discriminatory on the basis of age;
(d) The kinds of abortion that On Abortion compels member states to allow are permitted for the entire duration of pregnancy, including when the fetus is viable and, if born, would be able to live a completely healthy and normal life and even when it is possible to end pregnancy without ending biological functions in the fetus through a procedure such as labor induction or cesarean section;
(e) On Abortion can place considerable fiscal burden on rural and poorer member states by requiring them "to ensure that abortion facilities are easily available to patients seeking abortion [in the circumstances the resolution permits]" when such funds could be dedicated to more worthy causes such as alleviating poverty, reducing homelessness, or bolstering education;
(f) On Abortion unreasonably allows someone other than an incapacitated person's doctor to decide whether a therapeutic abortion to preserve life or permanent health should be performed;
(g) On Abortion allows an incapacitated person's next-of-kin to decide whether an elective abortion allowed by On Abortion should be performed, even when that patient may not desire such termination;
(h) How the mandates of On Abortion with respect to pregnant, incapacitated loners should be executed is unclear, even when life or permanent health is at risk;
(i) On Abortion's procedure to obtain consent for emergency lifesaving abortions for the incapacitated is irrational and differs from a more sensible procedure established by Resolution 29, the Patient's Rights Act, which rightly places such important decisions in the hands of "physician
(j) On Abortion unreasonably allows qualified physicians to refuse to perform emergency lifesaving abortions for "moral" reasons.
