[DEFEATED] Protection of Partially Born

[Persepo]

jesus political correctness or incorrectness.... these entire terms are strawmans to begin with and for people with no arguments. Whoever Persepo is, by using this dumb correctness strawman I could now easily counterclaim that:

Persepo here exposes him foot licking to political incorrectness.

And don´t get me started on the grave contradictions that political incorrect people display. From all I saw they do so actually far more often and frequently then so called political correct people. As said this entire term has been invented by the far right as a strawman since they lack arguments.

Leader, if you have an argument as to why nations should not be concerned with the inconsistencies the General Assembly has displayed, and can refrain from using the "strawman" strawman, I, and all concerned nations, would be all ears.

[Mattopilos]

This has to be one of the most vague things I have had to vote on. There is not clear-cut way of defining "partially born", and the very idea that a baby is anything more than a parasite BY ITS VERY DEFINITION is absurd. If it had said the last, say, 6-8 weeks, I might agree. However, it does not define any of this, nor does it take into account that birth can cause death to the person birthing the child and the only way to prevent this is an abortion.

I disagree with this at a personal level, and find the "moral" approach to it overly subjective and nonsensical. The fact remains it is the person's choice to have the abortion, and the baby is not yet "a fully functioning human".

[Peoples Republic of the Basque People]

Could not convince myself that this would be effective. It is so vague. I'm fairly anti-abortion, but I can't come to terms with this one.

[Othelos]

This proposal is redundant because it is already only performed when medically necessary.

No decent human being would ever needlessly destroy a baby coming out of the womb.

[Malisin]

Today I learned moonbats overwhelmingly support 4th trimester abortions. Bravo!

[Malisin]

This has to be one of the most vague things I have had to vote on. There is not clear-cut way of defining "partially born", and the very idea that a baby is anything more than a parasite BY ITS VERY DEFINITION is absurd. If it had said the last, say, 6-8 weeks, I might agree. However, it does not define any of this, nor does it take into account that birth can cause death to the person birthing the child and the only way to prevent this is an abortion.

I disagree with this at a personal level, and find the "moral" approach to it overly subjective and nonsensical. The fact remains it is the person's choice to have the abortion, and the baby is not yet "a fully functioning human".

This is a child literally exiting the womb during birth. This doesn't impede with the right to an abortion, it only protects babies from being murdered immediately after they leave the birth canal.

That being said, this seems entirely unnecessary since any nation that respects the WA and the human rights it mandates would never have allowed this in the first place, as Othello said.

[The Second Moon Rising]

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

But it does not. The Second Moon Rising would point out that the proposal only defines birth as the second and third stages of labor. It says at no point that the labor is restricted to/near the ninth month. Therefore, induced labor for the purpose of performing an IDX at twenty weeks would, by the wording of the proposal, be included.

OOC: The IDX procedure, which is the common procedure of child destruction, is a very painful and gory procedure that I don't think even animals should be subject to. It involves puncturing the head and sucking out the brain with a vacuum. I think you would agree that child destruction is not the right procedure for euthanizing the infant/fetus. At any time before birth, if there are any fetal health problems or any other problems for that matter, the mother is totally free to have an abortion.

OOC: ... Actually, after making some inquiries today, it seems that in a PROPERLY performed IDX procedure, the fetus is euthanized prior to mechanical cervical dilation/labor is chemically induced. Yes, then the fetus is partially breech-birthed after this, the head is then punctured, and then the brain is removed via surgical vacuum. This collapses the skull, allowing for easier delivery of a mostly intact, dead fetus. IDX is cited as being less invasive/physically traumatizing to the woman, and because less instruments are inserted into her body it carries a significantly lower risk of infection. It also allows for more comprehensive medical examination of the remains, and allows the mother/involved family greater chance at closure as there are intact, recognizable remains that can be used for funeral services.

CONTRAST this to a D&E procedure, where after the fetus is euthanized, it is dismembered while still inside the mother's womb and then surgically vacuumed out.The increased instruments inserted and the risk of bone fragments scratching the womb's interior increase the risk of infection. Closure is potentially harder for the family (who would want to look at a jar of dismembered fetus parts, or think about that being in a closed casket? Would that even be considered remains that could be used for funeral services or be considered medical waste?), and medical examination is complicated by the state of the remains.

Now, if you had drafted a proposal that imposed mandatory criminalization (is that a word? It should be a word...) of those who perform abortions in unsafe and inhumane ways (which in the Real World is known as "backyard/backalley abortions" and is considered illegal), those who attack/assault pregnant women in a manner that result in the death of a fetus, and/or women who perpetuate acts upon themselves outside of approved/legal abortion methods that are properly overseen by a professional licensed in such matters for the purpose to kill their unborn, I'd likely give you support if it were properly worded. I'd consider all those acts of child destruction, and it seems that there is Real World precedent where all three were legally considered as much despite the fact that the fetus involved were killed prior to the mother going into labor.

Unfortunately, what is current up for proposal reads more as an attempt to discreetly reclassify a method of abortion because it involves labor. The wording of the proposal makes no difference regarding labor that is induced at (hypothetically) twenty weeks for the purpose of an IDX procedure (of which almost all of your argument for this proposal has centered around) or occurring at around forty weeks when natural birth of a healthy infant could occur. It simply defines birth as the second and third stages of labor.

[[Edited for wrong word.]]

[Mattopilos]

This has to be one of the most vague things I have had to vote on. There is not clear-cut way of defining "partially born", and the very idea that a baby is anything more than a parasite BY ITS VERY DEFINITION is absurd. If it had said the last, say, 6-8 weeks, I might agree. However, it does not define any of this, nor does it take into account that birth can cause death to the person birthing the child and the only way to prevent this is an abortion.

I disagree with this at a personal level, and find the "moral" approach to it overly subjective and nonsensical. The fact remains it is the person's choice to have the abortion, and the baby is not yet "a fully functioning human".

This is a child literally exiting the womb during birth. This doesn't impede with the right to an abortion, it only protects babies from being murdered immediately after they leave the birth canal.

... Then this whole declaration is stupid, then. Abortion occurs WAY more often than what this person is arguing against. Never have I heard of any such event occurring.

[Vitami]

No decent human being would ever needlessly destroy a baby coming out of the womb.

Technically some nations would do so, in the name of what ever religous practice they follow

Example would be my secondary nation Galicland

[Evan Ryan]

Although it is not considered a homicide in most countries it is still morally wrong. Wrong enough so it should be a tort.

[Excidium Planetis]

"Well, this was a spectacular failure." Schultz says. "You should have named it Partial Birth Termination Ban."

"Might I suggest renaming the proposal 'Ban on Necrophilia'? It has a nice ring to it." Blackbourne states.

[Pyrovikings]

"Well, this was a spectacular failure." Schultz says. "You should have named it Partial Birth Termination Ban."

"Might I suggest renaming the proposal 'Ban on Necrophilia'? It has a nice ring to it." Blackbourne states.

Are you saying that we haven't already banned necrophilia?
Why hasn't this been proposed already!?

[Keam]

This vote was a disaster for the sponsors! Wow.

[Mal-Dalak]

OOC: Oh god, don't bring abortion discussions into NS...please....we don't need that sh*t.

"The nation of Mal-Dalak votes no."

[Tarsonis Survivors]

This is a child literally exiting the womb during birth. This doesn't impede with the right to an abortion, it only protects babies from being murdered immediately after they leave the birth canal.

... Then this whole declaration is stupid, then. Abortion occurs WAY more often than what this person is arguing against. Never have I heard of any such event occurring.

While I firmly oppose abortion in all forms, the writers do seem to be misinformed on what a partial birth abortion actually constitutes.

[Lowell Leber]

This has to be one of the most vague things I have had to vote on. There is not clear-cut way of defining "partially born", and the very idea that a baby is anything more than a parasite BY ITS VERY DEFINITION is absurd. If it had said the last, say, 6-8 weeks, I might agree. However, it does not define any of this, nor does it take into account that birth can cause death to the person birthing the child and the only way to prevent this is an abortion.

I disagree with this at a personal level, and find the "moral" approach to it overly subjective and nonsensical. The fact remains it is the person's choice to have the abortion, and the baby is not yet "a fully functioning human".

A "parasite"? Wow! You must be a firm believer in the human race. Complete self absorption on full display...

[Tarsonis Survivors]

This has to be one of the most vague things I have had to vote on. There is not clear-cut way of defining "partially born", and the very idea that a baby is anything more than a parasite BY ITS VERY DEFINITION is absurd. If it had said the last, say, 6-8 weeks, I might agree. However, it does not define any of this, nor does it take into account that birth can cause death to the person birthing the child and the only way to prevent this is an abortion.

I disagree with this at a personal level, and find the "moral" approach to it overly subjective and nonsensical. The fact remains it is the person's choice to have the abortion, and the baby is not yet "a fully functioning human".

Parasitism invovles invasive species. Offspring doesn't constitute a parasite.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: Oh god, don't bring abortion discussions into NS...please....we don't need that sh*t.

"The nation of Mal-Dalak votes no."

OOC: That has nothing to do with this resolution.

This has to be one of the most vague things I have had to vote on. There is not clear-cut way of defining "partially born", and the very idea that a baby is anything more than a parasite BY ITS VERY DEFINITION is absurd. If it had said the last, say, 6-8 weeks, I might agree. However, it does not define any of this, nor does it take into account that birth can cause death to the person birthing the child and the only way to prevent this is an abortion.

I disagree with this at a personal level, and find the "moral" approach to it overly subjective and nonsensical. The fact remains it is the person's choice to have the abortion, and the baby is not yet "a fully functioning human".

A "parasite"? Wow! You must be a firm believer in the human race. Complete self absorption on full display...

That has nothing to do with this resolution.

This has to be one of the most vague things I have had to vote on. There is not clear-cut way of defining "partially born", and the very idea that a baby is anything more than a parasite BY ITS VERY DEFINITION is absurd. If it had said the last, say, 6-8 weeks, I might agree. However, it does not define any of this, nor does it take into account that birth can cause death to the person birthing the child and the only way to prevent this is an abortion.

I disagree with this at a personal level, and find the "moral" approach to it overly subjective and nonsensical. The fact remains it is the person's choice to have the abortion, and the baby is not yet "a fully functioning human".

Parasitism invovles invasive species. Offspring doesn't constitute a parasite.

That has nothing to do with this resolution.

Damn, you might as well have named it Ban on Necrophilia. The conversation would have been equally off topic.

[Cumberlanda]

I disagree with this at a personal level, and find the "moral" approach to it overly subjective and nonsensical. The fact remains it is the person's choice to have the abortion, and the baby is not yet "a fully functioning human".

Can I ask, just curious, when does one become a fully-functioning human?

[Yodle]

This has to be one of the most vague things I have had to vote on. There is not clear-cut way of defining "partially born", and the very idea that a baby is anything more than a parasite BY ITS VERY DEFINITION is absurd. If it had said the last, say, 6-8 weeks, I might agree. However, it does not define any of this, nor does it take into account that birth can cause death to the person birthing the child and the only way to prevent this is an abortion.

I disagree with this at a personal level, and find the "moral" approach to it overly subjective and nonsensical. The fact remains it is the person's choice to have the abortion, and the baby is not yet "a fully functioning human".

Parasitism invovles invasive species. Offspring doesn't constitute a parasite.

Definition of parasitism: "Parasitism is a relationship between two different organisms where the parasite harms the host. When worms live in a dog and take nutrients from the dog, this is an example of parasitism." A baby is akin to a worm living in the guts of a dog. It sucks nutrients from the host and gives nothing in return, as the child is quite literally living off the mother. That's biology 101, a literal parasite on the mother's body. Just because you associate parasitism with tape worms or other insidious organisms does not change the fact that a child in the womb is a literal parasite, whether the mother wants to give it nutrients or not.

[Azurius]

jesus political correctness or incorrectness.... these entire terms are strawmans to begin with and for people with no arguments. Whoever Persepo is, by using this dumb correctness strawman I could now easily counterclaim that:

Persepo here exposes him foot licking to political incorrectness.

And don´t get me started on the grave contradictions that political incorrect people display. From all I saw they do so actually far more often and frequently then so called political correct people. As said this entire term has been invented by the far right as a strawman since they lack arguments.

Leader, if you have an argument as to why nations should not be concerned with the inconsistencies the General Assembly has displayed, and can refrain from using the "strawman" strawman, I, and all concerned nations, would be all ears.

Never said that and I agree here, nice strawman. Still doesn´t make anything I said wrong or negates it.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

OOC: Oh god, don't bring abortion discussions into NS...please....we don't need that sh*t.

"The nation of Mal-Dalak votes no."

OOC: That has nothing to do with this resolution.

A "parasite"? Wow! You must be a firm believer in the human race. Complete self absorption on full display...

That has nothing to do with this resolution.

Parasitism invovles invasive species. Offspring doesn't constitute a parasite.

That has nothing to do with this resolution.

Damn, you might as well have named it Ban on Necrophilia. The conversation would have been equally off topic.

The fuck it doesn't. If a delegate is going to offer parasitism as a reason why they don't support this bill, it's a topic up for discussion, that we may correct said delegates ignorance and they may be properly equipped to decide on the matter

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: That has nothing to do with this resolution.


That has nothing to do with this resolution.



That has nothing to do with this resolution.

Damn, you might as well have named it Ban on Necrophilia. The conversation would have been equally off topic.

The fuck it doesn't. If a delegate is going to offer parasitism as a reason why they don't support this bill, it's a topic up for discussion, that we may correct said delegates ignorance and they may be properly equipped to decide on the matter

The person you were replying to had not commented on the resolution at vote at all in their post. That person was directing their comment pretty much entirely at someone themselves, and not at anything they said about the resolution. And then that person was making an argument against the resolution that had nothing to do with the resolution, really.

So we have someone announcing they are voting against for a reason that has little to do with the resolution, someone mocking that person, and then you replying to the person mocking the person voting against the resolution. Nothing to do with the resolution.

[Mattopilos]

This has to be one of the most vague things I have had to vote on. There is not clear-cut way of defining "partially born", and the very idea that a baby is anything more than a parasite BY ITS VERY DEFINITION is absurd. If it had said the last, say, 6-8 weeks, I might agree. However, it does not define any of this, nor does it take into account that birth can cause death to the person birthing the child and the only way to prevent this is an abortion.

I disagree with this at a personal level, and find the "moral" approach to it overly subjective and nonsensical. The fact remains it is the person's choice to have the abortion, and the baby is not yet "a fully functioning human".

A "parasite"? Wow! You must be a firm believer in the human race. Complete self absorption on full display...

Learn the definition of parasite and come back to me.

[Mattopilos]

I disagree with this at a personal level, and find the "moral" approach to it overly subjective and nonsensical. The fact remains it is the person's choice to have the abortion, and the baby is not yet "a fully functioning human".

Can I ask, just curious, when does one become a fully-functioning human?

When the vital organs have developed enough that they can function on their own - that is far into the development of the baby.