[DEFEATED] Protection of Partially Born

[Great Chota]

Although the Community of Great Chota is sympathetic if not supportive of the goals that the authors of this bill seek to attain, we must vote against this resolution. We do not like abortion, and we do not view it as something a woman should have to go through, which is why we provide sex education and contraceptives free of charge to all citizens of our land. Despite our objections to the procedure of abortion, especially in the second and third trimesters, we believe it is a decision only an individual or a family can make. It is not the place of our nation, nor the place of the World Assembly to make that decision for that individual or for that family.

Additionally, we have concerns over the wording of this bill and who would be affected by it.

- What is an "overt act?" Yes, it seems like something someone should be able to know as common sense, but it has to be properly defined, and this bill does not do that.
- This bill simply states that nations must, "criminalize and duly prosecute child destruction as a form of homicide." Who is getting prosecuted; the abortion provider or the would-be-mother in this case? Who determines what constitutes a medical necessity; a judge, a doctor, an arbitrator, or someone else entirely?

[Ovybia]

Please take the abortion debate to another topic.

And, I'd like to respectfully remind people that the proposal is at vote, not my opinions. The only thing that should influence your vote is the proposal itself. I believe the proposal is written in a bipartisan way so that anyone who opposes the IDX procedure should be able to support it.

Except the discussion about abortion was directly relevant to explaining why your proposal was legal. I even explained why in my last post. In the future, though, I'll be sure to let confused voters post uncorrected, since you clearly aren't thankful for the assist.

I understand that. I was referring to Serene Israel when he said:

So i can't really see that a pregnant woman, who is completely healthy and has no known risks during the pregnancy, should, by international law, be completely able to just walk up to a doctor and proclaim she demands an abortion because "It's monday!" or something like that. This is only assumed by those who try to push their own agenda in my eyes.

I apologize if I wasn't clear.

[Azurius]

This entire issue is stupid and in my oppinion should be voted against and dismissed.

Even if we overlook a lot of flaws in the definition and praxis this resolution would bring, fact remains that forcing a mother to have a child is a very, VERY bad idea. As she will plain and simply dislike the child and not want it, that will inevitably lead to the child not beeing loved properly and suffering and making the child prone to either abuse or at least simple neglect by the mother.

In some cases it really is best if a child isn´t born at all instead of that you condemn them to a life of misery and suffering. I don´t see how that is an improvement of civil rights or the quality of life and happieness of a child. Also we have the problem of overpopulation too and would do well with less humans instead of more.

Ah yeah another reason why this is stupid and senseless: Nobody asks you if you want to live or not either. A developing child is not asked if he or she wants to live, as it is simply impossible to ask them. Is that not theorethically also a breach of the childs rights and freedoms? If you give birth to a child that doesn´t WANT to be born? What about that aspect? Unless you also want to make suicide illegal this makes no sense at all. Another reason this entire issue makes no sense at all and pro choice under any circumstance remains the best option.

[Great Zlin]

What a silly thing to do! Banning safe abortions to protect something that isn't even alive.

[Vashta Nerada]

What a silly thing to do! Banning safe abortions to protect something that isn't even alive.

This is why the resolution will fail. Seems folks will do anything to legitimize the death of an unborn life just to avoid responsibility. What sad times we live in.

[Wallenburg]

What a silly thing to do! Banning safe abortions to protect something that isn't even alive.

"Oh, look. Another violation of the 'Read the Resolution Act'."

[Azurius]

What a silly thing to do! Banning safe abortions to protect something that isn't even alive.

This is why the resolution will fail. Seems folks will do anything to legitimize the death of an unborn life just to avoid responsibility. What sad times we live in.

Let´s just ignore my statements and go for the good old "murder" argument.... So do you also think that suicide should be illegal and that people have no right to choose if they want to live or not? Why are fetuses excempted from the right of choice when it comes to the debatte of anything remotely connected to abortion?

[Enderbury]

Enderbury will vote in favour of this proposal, as it is simply common sense.

Once a child is born, it is to be treated as an ordinary human being.

[Azurius]

Enderbury will vote in favour of this proposal, as it is simply common sense.

Once a child is born, it is to be treated as an ordinary human being.

And that is actually 1 of the problems and flaws of this resolution. As technically speaking the child is not born yet but about to be born....

[Wallenburg]

Enderbury will vote in favour of this proposal, as it is simply common sense.

Once a child is born, it is to be treated as an ordinary human being.

And that is actually 1 of the problems and flaws of this resolution. As technically speaking the child is not born yet but about to be born....

"Again, you really ought to actually read the resolution."

Defines - child destruction as an overt act or intentional attempt to end a child's life during birth...Requires that all member states criminalize and duly prosecute child destruction as a form of homicide, except when the procedure is used as a medical necessity to save an individual's life;

[Vashta Nerada]

This is why the resolution will fail. Seems folks will do anything to legitimize the death of an unborn life just to avoid responsibility. What sad times we live in.

Let´s just ignore my statements and go for the good old "murder" argument.... So do you also think that suicide should be illegal and that people have no right to choose if they want to live or not? Why are fetuses excempted from the right of choice when it comes to the debatte of anything remotely connected to abortion?

I'm not sure what it is that you are saying, so I apologize if I come off in the wrong way with regards to the point you were probably making.

There's a difference between trying to stop a grown person from jumping off a bridge and killing a defenseless child. One carries far more moral weight than the other. Using the "I didn't ask for this" argument isn't valid in this case. Any psychologist can tell you that a suicidal person doesn't want to die, with most regretting the decision. Suicide is a call for help, not a legitimate attempt to end one's life. A fetus unlike an adult does not have the ability to reason, as is the case with most infants. They haven't gotten to the point where they can say "I didn't ask for this". Your statement looks to be a strawman.

[Azurius]

And that is actually 1 of the problems and flaws of this resolution. As technically speaking the child is not born yet but about to be born....

"Again, you really ought to actually read the resolution."

Defines - child destruction as an overt act or intentional attempt to end a child's life during birth...Requires that all member states criminalize and duly prosecute child destruction as a form of homicide, except when the procedure is used as a medical necessity to save an individual's life;

And I did, including a lot of this entire discussion. And fact is the definition of "partially born" is extremely flawed at best and also prone to abuse and improper handling of the issue. And even if that were not so again my main arguments are not refuted here at all.

[Wallenburg]

"Again, you really ought to actually read the resolution."

And I did, including a lot of this entire discussion.

"Then why are you ignoring the active clauses of this resolution?"

And fact is the definition of "partially born" is extremely flawed at best and also prone to abuse and improper handling of the issue.

"How is that, Ambassador?"

And even if that were not so again my main arguments are not refuted here at all.

"Actually, they are. If a child is in the process of being born, it is no longer a fetus. It is alive and, quite frankly, there is absolutely no reason to kill it. And if you kill it, you are not performing an abortion, you are carrying out a murder."

[Azurius]

Let´s just ignore my statements and go for the good old "murder" argument.... So do you also think that suicide should be illegal and that people have no right to choose if they want to live or not? Why are fetuses excempted from the right of choice when it comes to the debatte of anything remotely connected to abortion?

I'm not sure what it is that you are saying, so I apologize if I come off in the wrong way with regards to the point you were probably making.

There's a difference between trying to stop a grown person from jumping off a bridge and killing a defenseless child. One carries far more moral weight than the other. Using the "I didn't ask for this" argument isn't valid in this case. Any psychologist can tell you that a suicidal person doesn't want to die, with most regretting the decision. Suicide is a call for help, not a legitimate attempt to end one's life. A fetus unlike an adult does not have the ability to reason, as is the case with most infants. They haven't gotten to the point where they can say "I didn't ask for this". Your statement looks to be a strawman.

And I never said that did I? However fact is again:

You cannot ask an unborn if he or she wants to live under these circumstances or not and would rather choose to never even be born in the first place. What you are doing here is essentially forcing your will on them. But that is also the entire problem of this issue, no matter what you do: Kill it or have it born. You force your will on them as they cannot be asked for their oppinion.

What nonsense is this? How can a person who has successfull attempted suicide regret it later? He or she is dead already and we again cannot ask them lol. And yes it is a call for help indeed, sad reality is that help is often ignored and people don´t help. Which leads a person to become suicidal in the first place. And yes you said it yourself, it does not have an ability to reason. As of such it makes your arguments for this resolution null and void. And sorry the only strawman here is you.

[New Dukaine]

"The Provinces have cast their vote. 56 to 97, the parliament has decided to vote against. the against voters specified why as basically, it only just bans something. Add some more juice."

[Azurius]

And I did, including a lot of this entire discussion.

"Then why are you ignoring the active clauses of this resolution?"

And fact is the definition of "partially born" is extremely flawed at best and also prone to abuse and improper handling of the issue.

"How is that, Ambassador?"

And even if that were not so again my main arguments are not refuted here at all.

"Actually, they are. If a child is in the process of being born, it is no longer a fetus. It is alive and, quite frankly, there is absolutely no reason to kill it. And if you kill it, you are not performing an abortion, you are carrying out a murder."

1: I just explained that I in fact did not ignore the clauses of this resolution and even explained to you why.

2: It is already in the discussion in great detail but okay, let´s go again:

It starts with the fact that "partially born" can mean anything, also other problems include who is to blame here: The mother or the doctors or the authorities that allowed it etc.?

This is prone to abuse and improper application of this law.

3: And how so? And by definition it still is a fetus as it is still not born and outside yet but again in the PROCESS of beeing born. One could easily make the argument that a fetus is a child only once the naval cord is cut off for example. Also the term "alive" in biology is a something that is highly and strongly debatted, as to when exactly a fetus is "alive" or not, as some will claim after a few weeks already, whilst others will claim only once their brain is properly developed and at least capable of basic functions which would be 1-2 years after birth. Again these terms are highly debatable and unclear and this resolution simply didn´t make that clear.

And also as said, it does not negate my main arguments at all. Fact is:

- We got problems with overpopulation.

- You cannot ask a fetus for consent. No matter what you choose in the end you force your will upon them.

- It is sometimes really better from an aspect of a childs happieness and life quality if it isn´t born instead that you condemn it to live and suffer under parents that will not love and abuse and/or neglect it.

[Odinburgh]

Odinburgh Senate Assembly Majority Leader Arnora Breinholst replies, "I voted no on this legislation. This is a decision that should be left to individual NationStates how they setup rules in regards of abortions, not the the World Assembly which should have no say how tell other nations how to run their nations especially in trying enforce how women should run their own bodies from a main world legislative body. Their choice, their decision. I stand for nationstates individual rights. The World Assembly should stay out."

[Vashta Nerada]

I'm not sure what it is that you are saying, so I apologize if I come off in the wrong way with regards to the point you were probably making.

There's a difference between trying to stop a grown person from jumping off a bridge and killing a defenseless child. One carries far more moral weight than the other. Using the "I didn't ask for this" argument isn't valid in this case. Any psychologist can tell you that a suicidal person doesn't want to die, with most regretting the decision. Suicide is a call for help, not a legitimate attempt to end one's life. A fetus unlike an adult does not have the ability to reason, as is the case with most infants. They haven't gotten to the point where they can say "I didn't ask for this". Your statement looks to be a strawman.

And I never said that did I? However fact is again:

You cannot ask an unborn if he or she wants to live under these circumstances or not and would rather choose to never even be born in the first place. What you are doing here is essentially forcing your will on them. But that is also the entire problem of this issue, no matter what you do: Kill it or have it born. You force your will on them as they cannot be asked for their oppinion.

What nonsense is this? How can a person who has successfull attempted suicide regret it later? He or she is dead already and we again cannot ask them lol. And yes it is a call for help indeed, sad reality is that help is often ignored and people don´t help. Which leads a person to become suicidal in the first place. And yes you said it yourself, it does not have an ability to reason. As of such it makes your arguments for this resolution null and void. And sorry the only strawman here is you.

Allowing the natural reproductive function of the human race to reach fruition is not "forcing one's will" upon the fetus. That is letting nature take it's course. By letting the child live, you are allowing the default nature of human, to thrive and reproduce, to continue as it should. By killing the child, you are breaking that cycle and are truly forcing your arbitrary will upon the fetus. There is no "either or". By tampering with the natural cycle of the species, you are deliberately interfering in the proper course of reproduction which is the actual act of forcing your will on the outcome. There is no way to argue against this. Birth is a natural act whereas abortion is an artificial one.

As for the latter part of the argument, you are intentionally ignoring the point I was making for the sake of tearing down the analogy. A person who has survived a suicide attempt, regrets the decision. They do not want to die, and making people who are involved in preventing suicides have stated that a suicidal person just wants someone to talk to about their problems, but when they lack that, they turn to suicide. That's the reason suicide hotlines are so effective. They need someone to pour their heart out too because they have no one else.

Now, as to the reasoning ability, my point maintains validity as it only goes to show that a fetus cannot decide if it wants to live or not. By your logic, a born infant which cannot reason as well, does not have the right to live. By inferring that a fetus that cannot reason has no right to life, you have instead shown that babies which too cannot reason, are unworthy of life as well by your own conclusion of my argument. So I have presented no strawman. You cannot draw two parallel standards and attempt to stand on both simultaneously.

[Corrivilia]

As she will plain and simply dislike the child and not want it, that will inevitably lead to the child not beeing loved properly and suffering and making the child prone to either abuse or at least simple neglect by the mother.

The WA has already passed abortion law. If a woman does not want to have a child, for whatever reason, she has almost a full nine months to have that procedure. See Reproductive Freedoms (GA #286). What this particular proposal will do, if enshrined into international law, is criminalize the act of intentionally aborting children in the process of, or who are about to be born, unless there is danger to the mother's life.

In some cases it really is best if a child isn´t born at all instead of that you condemn them to a life of misery and suffering. I don´t see how that is an improvement of civil rights or the quality of life and happieness of a child.

This is covered under Prevention of Child Abuse (GA #222). Also, just because a woman does not want to raise a child and ends up having to do so anyway, doesn't mean that she will abuse or neglect that child as it grows up.

Ah yeah another reason why this is stupid and senseless: Nobody asks you if you want to live or not either. A developing child is not asked if he or she wants to live, as it is simply impossible to ask them. Is that not theorethically also a breach of the childs rights and freedoms? If you give birth to a child that doesn´t WANT to be born? What about that aspect?

Nobody asks the developing child if they want to be born because, in their infancy, children are primarily instinctual in nature and have yet to fundamentally understand the concept of life and death. If, later in life, they decide that they no longer want to go on living, they can make that decision. It's also well established, in science, that late-term fetuses have the ability to feel pain, which therefore means, in my opinion, that late-term abortions shouldn't be performed at all.

[Wallenburg]

1: I just explained that I in fact did not ignore the clauses of this resolution and even explained to you why.

"No, you simply said that you did not ignore them. Quite frankly, I cannot believe that based on your ignorance of the resolution."

2: It is already in the discussion in great detail but okay, let´s go again:

It starts with the fact that "partially born" can mean anything,

"Where does it say that, and how the hell can 'partially born' mean anything?"

also other problems include who is to blame here: The mother or the doctors or the authorities that allowed it etc.?

"That is for member states to decide."

This is prone to abuse and improper application of this law.

"Please explain, because I don't see room for abuse."

3: And how so? And by definition it still is a fetus as it is still not born and outside yet but again in the PROCESS of beeing born.

"If the child's head is peeking out, I'm damn well certain that it is a living being and a person."

One could easily make the argument that a fetus is a child only once the naval cord is cut off for example.

"No, you really couldn't. When the child is crying and moving and exhibiting full sentience, it is fucking alive, ambassador."

Also the term "alive" in biology is a something that is highly and strongly debatted, as to when exactly a fetus is "alive" or not, as some will claim after a few weeks already, whilst others will claim only once their brain is properly developed and at least capable of basic functions which would be 1-2 years after birth. Again these terms are highly debatable and unclear and this resolution simply didn´t make that clear.

"If you are so unreasonable as to suggest that a toddler is not alive, I really see no hope in debating with you on the subject of life."

And also as said, it does not negate my main arguments at all. Fact is:

- We got problems with overpopulation.

"Since when? Wallenburg's population is actually quite sparse, same with many other nations. Don't apply your national situation to the entire Assembly."

- You cannot ask a fetus for consent. No matter what you choose in the end you force your will upon them.

"This isn't about fetuses. This is about partially born children."

- It is sometimes really better from an aspect of a childs happieness and life quality if it isn´t born instead that you condemn it to live and suffer under parents that will not love and abuse and/or neglect it.

"How the hell can you improve a life by destroying it simply because a child's parents don't want it? Furthermore, what kind of idiot waits until they are about to birth another living being to have an abortion, and why the hell would they rather kill their child then simply give birth and give away the child? Ambassador, your argument relies on totally unrealistic scenarios."

[Azurius]

And I never said that did I? However fact is again:

You cannot ask an unborn if he or she wants to live under these circumstances or not and would rather choose to never even be born in the first place. What you are doing here is essentially forcing your will on them. But that is also the entire problem of this issue, no matter what you do: Kill it or have it born. You force your will on them as they cannot be asked for their oppinion.

What nonsense is this? How can a person who has successfull attempted suicide regret it later? He or she is dead already and we again cannot ask them lol. And yes it is a call for help indeed, sad reality is that help is often ignored and people don´t help. Which leads a person to become suicidal in the first place. And yes you said it yourself, it does not have an ability to reason. As of such it makes your arguments for this resolution null and void. And sorry the only strawman here is you.

Allowing the natural reproductive function of the human race to reach fruition is not "forcing one's will" upon the fetus. That is letting nature take it's course. By letting the child live, you are allowing the default nature of human, to thrive and reproduce, to continue as it should. By killing the child, you are breaking that cycle and are truly forcing your arbitrary will upon the fetus. There is no "either or". By tampering with the natural cycle of the species, you are deliberately interfering in the proper course of reproduction which is the actual act of forcing your will on the outcome. There is no way to argue against this. Birth is a natural act whereas abortion is an artificial one.

As for the latter part of the argument, you are intentionally ignoring the point I was making for the sake of tearing down the analogy. A person who has survived a suicide attempt, regrets the decision. They do not want to die, and making people who are involved in preventing suicides have stated that a suicidal person just wants someone to talk to about their problems, but when they lack that, they turn to suicide. That's the reason suicide hotlines are so effective. They need someone to pour their heart out too because they have no one else.

Now, as to the reasoning ability, my point maintains validity as it only goes to show that a fetus cannot decide if it wants to live or not. By your logic, a born infant which cannot reason as well, does not have the right to live. By inferring that a fetus that cannot reason has no right to life, you have instead shown that babies which too cannot reason, are unworthy of life as well by your own conclusion of my argument. So I have presented no strawman. You cannot draw two parallel standards and attempt to stand on both simultaneously.

By logic it is my friend sorry. As you cannot ask a fetus for consent. Also if we go by that then I also guess that things like canibalism are perfectly okay since that is perfectly normal in some speciess in nature too. Fact is the human is very different and very individual and the rules of nature largely do not apply to the human. Starts with the fact that some basic rules that apply to all other speciess(survival of the fittest) simply do not apply to humans.

Start by please explaining what the "default nature" of humans is before you do any attempts to dictate what is best for humans. Or also explain what the "natural cycle" for humans is and how exactly it would support your arguments.

And this is a grave generalization. As there are tons of suicidal people that still do not regrett trying and try again, and again, and again until they suceed. Also, often as soon as people try suicide, other people become aware and suddenly show the much needed support that the suicidal person needed from the very beginning which is highly hypocritical of most people, however that is an entirely different matter. Fact is a suidical person WANTS to die, and only those regret who afterwards actually got HELP that they desperately needed from the start, well obviously not all but most of them(unlike you I will not make a generilization for all people). Which you just total ignore here to justify your dogma and make a broad generilization of suicidal people.

Also false again, there are people that really do want to do no matter what amount of help they get, for whatever reason that is, be it that they cannot take the hypocrisy, be it spiritual or religious reasons or be it god knows what else. Again you just make a broad generilization here.

And nope I never said that, I merely said that in terms of happieness and life quality it sometimes is better for a child to be aborted. Nice strawman here.

[Azurius]

As she will plain and simply dislike the child and not want it, that will inevitably lead to the child not beeing loved properly and suffering and making the child prone to either abuse or at least simple neglect by the mother.

The WA has already passed abortion law. If a woman does not want to have a child, for whatever reason, she has almost a full nine months to have that procedure. See Reproductive Freedoms (GA #286). What this particular proposal will do, if enshrined into international law, is criminalize the act of intentionally aborting children in the process of, or who are about to be born, unless there is danger to the mother's life.

In some cases it really is best if a child isn´t born at all instead of that you condemn them to a life of misery and suffering. I don´t see how that is an improvement of civil rights or the quality of life and happieness of a child.

This is covered under Prevention of Child Abuse (GA #222). Also, just because a woman does not want to raise a child and ends up having to do so anyway, doesn't mean that she will abuse or neglect that child as it grows up.

Ah yeah another reason why this is stupid and senseless: Nobody asks you if you want to live or not either. A developing child is not asked if he or she wants to live, as it is simply impossible to ask them. Is that not theorethically also a breach of the childs rights and freedoms? If you give birth to a child that doesn´t WANT to be born? What about that aspect?

Nobody asks the developing child if they want to be born because, in their infancy, children are primarily instinctual in nature and have yet to fundamentally understand the concept of life and death. If, later in life, they decide that they no longer want to go on living, they can make that decision. It's also well established, in science, that late-term fetuses have the ability to feel pain, which therefore means, in my opinion, that late-term abortions shouldn't be performed at all.

I know einsein I read the topic, tell me something new please and also something that is not already covered or negated in my arguments. And yes I know that too my friend, still doesn´t change the fact that FORCING someone to be a parent is a very bad idea for already mentioned reasons.

And in about 95% or more cases they will and will end up neglecting the child because plain and simple in the end they didn´t want it. And you cannot force them to really love their child can you? You can try to force them to take proper care of it but alas this can and will fail again and again in many cases and praxis and reality show us again and again.

If anything we can talk about punishing mothers(or also fathers who encourage or force a mother to these kind of actions) for beeing neglective and toying with the unborn childs fate and life. If anything that would be the right approach but not forcing someone to have a child or be a parent.

And it still doesn´t change the fact that until the child reaches that point in life where he or she understands said fundamentals and can make the choice to end his or her life, it will inevitably suffer needlessly.

[Azurius]

1: I just explained that I in fact did not ignore the clauses of this resolution and even explained to you why.

"No, you simply said that you did not ignore them. Quite frankly, I cannot believe that based on your ignorance of the resolution."

2: It is already in the discussion in great detail but okay, let´s go again:

It starts with the fact that "partially born" can mean anything,

"Where does it say that, and how the hell can 'partially born' mean anything?"

also other problems include who is to blame here: The mother or the doctors or the authorities that allowed it etc.?

"That is for member states to decide."

This is prone to abuse and improper application of this law.

"Please explain, because I don't see room for abuse."

3: And how so? And by definition it still is a fetus as it is still not born and outside yet but again in the PROCESS of beeing born.

"If the child's head is peeking out, I'm damn well certain that it is a living being and a person."

One could easily make the argument that a fetus is a child only once the naval cord is cut off for example.

"No, you really couldn't. When the child is crying and moving and exhibiting full sentience, it is fucking alive, ambassador."

Also the term "alive" in biology is a something that is highly and strongly debatted, as to when exactly a fetus is "alive" or not, as some will claim after a few weeks already, whilst others will claim only once their brain is properly developed and at least capable of basic functions which would be 1-2 years after birth. Again these terms are highly debatable and unclear and this resolution simply didn´t make that clear.

"If you are so unreasonable as to suggest that a toddler is not alive, I really see no hope in debating with you on the subject of life."

And also as said, it does not negate my main arguments at all. Fact is:

- We got problems with overpopulation.

"Since when? Wallenburg's population is actually quite sparse, same with many other nations. Don't apply your national situation to the entire Assembly."

- You cannot ask a fetus for consent. No matter what you choose in the end you force your will upon them.

"This isn't about fetuses. This is about partially born children."

- It is sometimes really better from an aspect of a childs happieness and life quality if it isn´t born instead that you condemn it to live and suffer under parents that will not love and abuse and/or neglect it.

"How the hell can you improve a life by destroying it simply because a child's parents don't want it? Furthermore, what kind of idiot waits until they are about to birth another living being to have an abortion, and why the hell would they rather kill their child then simply give birth and give away the child? Ambassador, your argument relies on totally unrealistic scenarios."

By mere logic it does as partially born is a broad term plain and simple. If not you can check a dictionary on what partially means and how broad this term can be, and especially in terms of reproductive rights partially born is very broad.

Still doesn´t change the fact that this law and resolution is not only nonsensical, but also prone to corruption and abuse.

And no depending on how you define it it isn´t a living beeing yet. This can not only morally but first and foremost even biologically be challenged but nevermind that eh? Also yeah YOU are damn well certain, guess what other people including authorities may have a different approach here and are just as certain as you in a different way.

And yes you can as born technically means outside the womb and cut off from the mothers nourishing function or rather capable of from then on surviving without it. This can be very easily challenged my friend and when it comes to reproductive rights often enough exactly these kind of arguments are used. And so can authorities, member states etc. use these arguments in terms of this resolution.

I never said that but okay nice strawman again. I said that people use these kind of arguments in debates over reproductive rights and that is a fact. What my personal oppinion on this is absolutely doesn´t matter nor changes anything I said nor refutes anything I said.

Sorry I though the WA was to resemble IRL conditions and not just be anyone can cherrypick anything. But okay, let us take this into account then, 1 out of several arguments refuted. Still there are more to go that you need to refute here.

Context my friend, I know that, however fetuses as in context are mentioned too, and I used it in context here as well. Nice try to make me look stupid just to get support for your attempt to dictate other peoples reproductive rights instead of actually using valid arguments.

And how the hell do you improve the life quality by condemning a child to a life of suffering and misery? Makes no sense at all friend and here it would be indeed better if a child doesn´t even develop a deeper consciousness to feel this suffering and misery. And that again is an entirely different topic. As said if anything the right approach would be to punish these parents for doing that, but not forcing them to have a child exactly for all reasons I mentioned.

[Persepo]

Persepo votes for the resolution. Not because Presepo believes such mutilation is a world problem, but to expose the General Assembly's foot licking to political correctness. Only shoddy legislation that fits the majority agenda (*ahem* horrendous drafting of an international aid resolution that recently passed) gets our votes these days. I vote against this resolution only serves as a contradiction to your "for" votes a resolution ago.

Persepo will continue to fight against the evils the General Assembly once sought to protect, yet has now succumbed to.

[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.