[DEFEATED] Protection of Partially Born

[Ovybia]

This proposal has been submitted. If you support, please approve here: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1468869803

I had to modify the title for it to fit. The current title is: Protection for Partially Born

[Esperantujo 2]

I had to look at this forum to understand this proposal. This suggests it could be worded better. I haven't however read the whole thread and I wonder if anyone has submitted expert obstetric evidence, either for or against.

[Christian Democrats]

I wonder if anyone has submitted expert obstetric evidence, either for or against.

Our nation's obstetricians have endorsed this bill. They think it's entirely reasonable to outlaw child destruction.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Well it does have the "mother's life in danger" exception, so while I still think it's stupid to require WA to do something that any reasonable nation would already be doing anyway, my OOC argument has been satisfied, so if this goes to vote, I'll decide on for or against based entirely on IC reasons.

[Ovybia]

OOC: Well it does have the "mother's life in danger" exception, so while I still think it's stupid to require WA to do something that any reasonable nation would already be doing anyway, my OOC argument has been satisfied, so if this goes to vote, I'll decide on for or against based entirely on IC reasons.

OOC: While I agree that objectively speaking the procedure is unreasonable, the procedure has been used in the past in many reasonable real world countries including in the US before it was criminalized. So I do think this proposal is needed.

[Voltrovia]

The Imperial Dominion is pleased to support this resolution. The careful delineation of the abortion issue and the importance of the matter at hand were prime in our government's decision to deposit an instrument of approval with the World Assembly Secretariat.

[The Second Moon Rising]

The Second Moon Rising has attempted to wade through the morass that is this discussion. However, after twenty pages, our eyes began to cross, so please bear with us, as it is entirely possible that The Second Moon Rising missed things in the later pages.

As IDX has been the only specific method of child destruction cited and explained in the discussion of this proposal that we remember, The Second Moon Rising finds this to be significant and also, possibly, the crux of the proposing nation's argument. A very confusing argument, as the proposing nation has cited IDX as both a method of partial-birth abortion and child destruction while arguing that partial-birth abortion and child destruction are not the same thing. The Second Moon Rising has conducted its own research into the matter and it seems that IDX is a preferred method for late-term abortions for medical reasons (typically when fetal anomalies are present/suspected) and has been cited as less emotionally traumatizing for would-be mothers that choose to terminate their late-term pregnancy, as IDX would allow them to seek closure by getting to hold and pay respects (meaning, funeral rights) to a life that was ended.

This proposal defines birth as the second and third stages of labor but does not denote whether or not this is limited to labor that occurs a the natural end of a healthy pregnancy. Under this, and considering that a) IDX is a late-term abortion procedure, b) depending on medical personnel, 'late term' is generally considered any time after twenty weeks but can be as early as sixteen weeks into pregnancy, and c) part of the procedure for IDX includes inducing labor, an IDX abortion at 29 weeks for reasons other than life-saving medical necessity (mother was unaware of early signs/stages of pregnancy, mother was under pressure to keep the child, mother was unable to get an earlier appointment) could criminalize a woman who opted for an IDX over an D&E (where often the unborn child is dismembered inside the uterus before being vacuumed out) because the process of IDX involved inducing labor.*

The Second Moon Rising would also like to point out that at least one source that the proposing nation cited for the purpose of defining child destruction cites convictions of late-term abortions as child destruction.

No, abortion cannot be banned without a repeal of Reproductive Freedoms. As it says, this proposal bans child destruction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_destruction

-- People have been convicted of the offence for injuring a heavily pregnant woman in the abdomen, such that her foetus dies; for killing a foetus during childbirth; or for performing a late-term abortion.
-- When a woman who had a backstreet abortion while 7½ months pregnant was given a suspended sentence of 12 months in 2007

For these reasons, The Second Moon Rising cannot support or approve this proposal, and will be against if it goes to vote. It appears too much as a deceptive way to ban a specific type of abortion because it involves inducing labor. The Second Moon Rising is wary that, if passed, it could be used as a precedent to ban other forms of abortion in the future.





OOC:
*For the sake of ease (and since I'm new to all this), I'm using human terms cause it's just easier. We're all mostly human in the Real World, right?

[Tinfect]

OOC:
*For the sake of ease (and since I'm new to all this), I'm using human terms cause it's just easier. We're all mostly human in the Real World, right?

OOC:
Working from Human is always a safe bet. There are not too many people here that RP nonhumans, and of them.

[Voltrovia]

-snip-

I think the point in question is not that this is somehow a deceptive attempt to put an abortion law on the books but instead that killing a viable baby at thirty weeks has no basis in law.

The whole predication of abortion access, of which I am a supporter, is that the foetus may be aborted until such a time as it is viable. After that point the child gains legal rights; hence child destruction.

As far as I know, there is no country in the world which permits abortion beyond twenty-eight weeks at a maximum unless in the case of risk to the mother or other severe circumstances (which this resolution provides for).

As a final edit, the rationale that an unscrupulous member state could use this to restrict abortion is undermined not only by clause 3. (below) but also by the supremacy of GAR 'Reproductive Freedoms'.

[Voltrovia]

I would quote clause 3. of the resolution: 'Clarifies that this resolution does not, in any way, interfere with the legal right to abortion.'

This is a bipartisan effort which I am happy to support.

[Christian Democrats]

Ovybia, when and why did you remove "or termination of pregnancy" from the third section? Also, why did you reword the second section?

[Voltrovia]

I think a reasonable interpretation of this legislation from the abortion perspective determines that it prohibits IDX and similar procedures after 23-24 weeks, excluding exceptional cases. Interpretations are of course variable, but I can see little to justify a significant deviation from this midpoint.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Ovybia, when and why did you remove "or termination of pregnancy" from the third section? Also, why did you reword the second section?

PARSONS: Probably to interfere with the rights of people to terminate their pregnancies.

[Ovybia]

I think a reasonable interpretation of this legislation from the abortion perspective determines that it prohibits IDX and similar procedures after 23-24 weeks, excluding exceptional cases. Interpretations are of course variable, but I can see little to justify a significant deviation from this midpoint.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

The proposal only applies during birth, which is around 9 months, the exact week of birth changes depending on the baby.

Ovybia, when and why did you remove "or termination of pregnancy" from the third section? Also, why did you reword the second section?

PARSONS: Probably to interfere with the rights of people to terminate their pregnancies.

"Absolutely not. Not only would that violate Reproductive Freedoms but it also has nothing to do with my proposal. The phrase was removed since 'termination of pregnancy' and 'abortion' are usually considered synonymous, at least to the extent that this proposal is concerned, and the sentence becomes more clear and less cluttered when needless words are removed.

To quote the sentence: 'Clarifies that this resolution does not, in any way, interfere with the legal right to abortion.'"

[Wallenburg]

"Absolutely not. Not only would that violate Reproductive Freedoms but it also has nothing to do with my proposal. The phrase was removed since 'termination of pregnancy' and 'abortion' are usually considered synonymous, at least to the extent that this proposal is concerned, and the sentence becomes more clear and less cluttered when needless words are removed."

I wanted her to explain why it violates Reproductive Freedoms which does not allow freedom of abortions; it allows freedom to terminate one's pregnancy. During birth the pregnancy is already being terminated naturally regardless of whether or not the newborn is killed in the process.

Make up your mind.

[Ovybia]

"Absolutely not. Not only would that violate Reproductive Freedoms but it also has nothing to do with my proposal. The phrase was removed since 'termination of pregnancy' and 'abortion' are usually considered synonymous, at least to the extent that this proposal is concerned, and the sentence becomes more clear and less cluttered when needless words are removed."

I wanted her to explain why it violates Reproductive Freedoms which does not allow freedom of abortions; it allows freedom to terminate one's pregnancy. During birth the pregnancy is already being terminated naturally regardless of whether or not the newborn is killed in the process.

Make up your mind.

The latter post was made 4 months ago. Since that time, the moderators have subsequently ruled on other proposals indicating that 'termination of pregnancy' and 'abortion' are effectively synonymous.

[Wallenburg]

Make up your mind.

The latter post was made 4 months ago. Since that time, the moderators have subsequently ruled on other proposals indicating that 'termination of pregnancy' and 'abortion' are effectively synonymous.

Very well then. Thank you for the clarification.

IC: "Although highly reluctant to admit it, the Wallenburgian delegation sees no reason to oppose this proposal. We will support it should it come to vote."

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Dang, I forgot about this. Rushed to make a run for beating my twice-beat insta-repeal record.

[Ovybia]

The latter post was made 4 months ago. Since that time, the moderators have subsequently ruled on other proposals indicating that 'termination of pregnancy' and 'abortion' are effectively synonymous.

Very well then. Thank you for the clarification.

IC: "Although highly reluctant to admit it, the Wallenburgian delegation sees no reason to oppose this proposal. We will support it should it come to vote."

Ovybia is grateful for your support.

[Araraukar]

OOC: *For the sake of ease (and since I'm new to all this), I'm using human terms cause it's just easier. We're all mostly human in the Real World, right?

OOC:Working from Human is always a safe bet. There are not too many people here that RP nonhumans, and of them.

OOC: Instead of what Tinfect says, it's a safe bet to assume that most ambassadors - the roleplayed characters - around here are human, but not nearly all of them. Whereas I'm fairly sure we're all human in the Real Life World.

As far as I know, there is no country in the world which permits abortion beyond twenty-eight weeks at a maximum unless in the case of risk to the mother or other severe circumstances (which this resolution provides for).

Actually, it doesn't account for anything else but the mother's life being at risk. And even getting that addition was a serious battle.

[Silverakia]

Killed due to rape and other circumstances = abortion (legal).
Killed outside of the mother due to legal willing circumstances = murder (illegal).

[Bananaistan]

"So let me get this straight. The author wants to prohibit what could be termed as "murdering the infant as it is sliding down the birth canal"?

"Is there a particular reason why infants sliding down the birth canal are deserving of the WA's protection when the killing (or murder) of an individual at any other time in their life is not?

"Why is the mother's life but not health deserving of a fair shot? There could be many instances where her life may not be in danger but there may still be a significant threat to her health."

- Mrs Ambassador Mary CP Doe

[Araraukar]

Killed outside of the mother due to legal willing circumstances = murder (illegal).

Well, actually the WA has only made murder illegal in very specific cases, but not generally.

"Why is the mother's life but not health deserving of a fair shot? There could be many instances where her life may not be in danger but there may still be a significant threat to her health."

Because the author is an ultra-religionist one that apparently fears that allowing anything else would make everyone kill their babies as they're being born. The proposal also makes no exceptions for non-viable fetuses (ones that will die after being removed from the life-support provided by the host organism due to serious defects).

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Why is the mother's life but not health deserving of a fair shot? There could be many instances where her life may not be in danger but there may still be a significant threat to her health."

Because the author is an ultra-religionist one that apparently fears that allowing anything else would make everyone kill their babies as they're being born. The proposal also makes no exceptions for non-viable fetuses (ones that will die after being removed from the life-support provided by the host organism due to serious defects).

MADSONS: (pouring petrol on a pile of papers) Oh, so that's what this fuel is made of! (almost gets bitten by a piranha) And the source of this repeal bait I've got all over me.

[Ovybia]

Because the author is an ultra-religionist one that apparently fears that allowing anything else would make everyone kill their babies as they're being born.

That kind of rhetoric is not necessary.
OOC: To answer the objections raised, child destruction is an inhumane bloody procedure that is rarely (if ever) medically necessary. In fact the American Medical Association's Council on Legislation, a panel of 12 doctors, voted unanimously to endorse a law banning child destruction in the US. Members of the panel said they "felt this was not a recognized medical technique," and that the council agreed the "procedure is basically repulsive."