[DEFEATED] Protection of Partially Born

[Araraukar]

"Partial Birth Protection" sounds like you are protecting the right to Partial Birth. Partial Birth Termination Ban is very clear.

^This.

[The Sheika]

"Partial Birth Protection" sounds like you are protecting the right to Partial Birth. Partial Birth Termination Ban is very clear.

^This.

^Indeed, this.

[Separatist Peoples]

^This.

^Indeed, this.

^This, indeed.


OOC: I'm sorry, I couldn't resist!

[Excidium Planetis]

^Indeed, this.

^This, indeed.


OOC: I'm sorry, I couldn't resist!

^This.

Wait, who are we talking about again?

[The Sheika]

^This, indeed.


OOC: I'm sorry, I couldn't resist!

OOC: Actually I am grateful that somebody took it that far. Indeed.

[Wallenburg]

^This, indeed.


OOC: I'm sorry, I couldn't resist!

^This.

^This

Wait, who are we talking about again?

Does it matter?

[Araraukar]

Wait, who are we talking about again?

Does it matter?

^This.

[Ovybia]

OOC: Ok, cut it out, kids. Go home to your mothers.

On topic, I will be submitting this in the next few weeks or so. After conferring with my co-authors, I've decided to keep the current name even though it may be a bit unfamiliar to some. It is a legal term so it makes it much harder for the mods to say this proposal has anything to do with abortions (since even the wiki article on the subject clearly states that child destruction =/= abortion).

[Araraukar]

OOC: Ok, cut it out, kids. Go home to your mothers.

(OOC: I think most of us are older than you in real life. *looks at certain persons* Well, many of us anyway.)

I've decided to keep the current name even though it may be a bit unfamiliar to some.

You do realize that it'll make it all the more easier for someone to run a counter campaign and/or do a repeal, because many people won't read much past the title? You've been given sensible alternatives, and the fact that you stubbornly cling to the one that's most misleading, tells to me that you're not actually wanting this resolution to stay in the books, but rather you're just seeking attention on the grand scale.

Now, ambassador Critter#3, if the offspring is damaged/defective beyond being viable to survive due to reasons unrelated to the birth, can the doctors then kill it to ease its remains passing through the birth canal? Presuming this is noticed during the birth.

OOC again: Also, I think you've written this sentence wrong:

This resolution applies to children during or after birth (i.e. at a time when they are no longer viable).

Viable in these circumstances means "able to survive on its own", and you saying they aren't viable anymore, makes me think of babies that die due to birth defects...

If you so strongly believe that child destruction is a form of abortion then please present some kind of evidence to back your point up (besides the fact that the layman term for the procedure contains the word "abortion").

It's not just a layman term. It's a legal term. It's in the name of the law that outlaws it here in the US.

Also, ^this.

[Ovybia]

OOC: Ok, cut it out, kids. Go home to your mothers.

(OOC: I think most of us are older than you in real life. *looks at certain persons* Well, many of us anyway.)

It's just a humorous expression for your childish behavior but enough of this threadjacking.

I've decided to keep the current name even though it may be a bit unfamiliar to some.

You do realize that it'll make it all the more easier for someone to run a counter campaign and/or do a repeal, because many people won't read much past the title?

It actually makes it harder for repeals and counter campaigns (as long as they plan on writing an honest repeal which I suppose is now a ? ) because child destruction is a real legal thing that is medically different from abortion.

You've been given sensible alternatives

That's true. And I, personally, think another name may be better but my co-author (who has much more experience than I do) thinks the current name is best for, among other things, legality purposes, as I said before.

Now, ambassador Critter#3, if the offspring is damaged/defective beyond being viable to survive due to reasons unrelated to the birth, can the doctors then kill it to ease its remains passing through the birth canal? Presuming this is noticed during the birth.

IC: "That's a rare case. And the child should definitely not be killed during the birth procedure which would only complicate the procedure and possibly cause health problems for the mother. If you wish to legalize child euthanasia, you'll have to work to repeal the other GA proposal on causing harm to children. But that has nothing to do with this proposal."

It's not just a layman term. It's a legal term. It's in the name of the law that outlaws it here in the US.

Also, ^this.

"Partial birth abortion" is a layman term in the sense that it's not medical. Whether you call it child destruction or partial birth abortion (my understanding is that they actually have slightly different meanings), child destruction is still not an abortion according to the very definition of the word as has been pointed out and explained in overwhelming depth for such a simple point about 50 times now.

[Ryanvillle]

This is a very reasonable proposal, and I'd support it. There is absolutely no reason to kill a healthy child in the process of being born. I really can't think of a non-nitpicky reason to oppose this.

[Araraukar]

There is absolutely no reason to kill a healthy child in the process of being born.

Except the proposal makes no exception to when it is not a healthy child, or even a child that will die once it's been born due to birth defect.

[Ovybia]

There is absolutely no reason to kill a healthy child in the process of being born.

Except the proposal makes no exception to when it is not a healthy child, or even a child that will die once it's been born due to birth defect.

the child should definitely not be killed during the birth procedure which would only complicate the procedure and possibly cause health problems for the mother. If you wish to legalize child euthanasia, you'll have to work to repeal the other GA proposal on causing harm to children. But that has nothing to do with this proposal."

[Voltrovia]

Am I correct in understanding that the essential definition of a child in this case includes any foetus deemed viable?

Could you clarify whether, by extension, this resolution would therefore apply to foetuses in the following circumstances:

1. The death [or destruction] of the foetus in utero
2. Foetuses which are alive but deemed not viable due to length of gestation or severe genetic disorders

My nation's support rests on the legal bearing of the proposal in the respects I have mentioned. Currently, without clarification, I should inform you that we are minded to abstain. My thanks, Ambassador, for your consideration.

[Ovybia]

Am I correct in understanding that the essential definition of a child in this case includes any foetus deemed viable?

Could you clarify whether, by extension, this resolution would therefore apply to foetuses in the following circumstances:

1. The death [or destruction] of the foetus in utero
2. Foetuses which are alive but deemed not viable due to length of gestation or severe genetic disorders

My nation's support rests on the legal bearing of the proposal in the respects I have mentioned. Currently, without clarification, I should inform you that we are minded to abstain. My thanks, Ambassador, for your consideration.

You have convinced me to change the name of the proposal. This proposal has nothing to do with viability.

It only states that during the birth procedure one cannot kill the partially born child (offspring/fetus or whatever you wish to refer to him as). Unborn children with genetic disorders can still be terminated at any time before birth.

EDIT: Also note that the proposal only applies when the child leaves the uterus, so it does not apply in utero (i.e. before birth).

[Imperium Anglorum]

North: Oh wait? I've heard about this from Parsons! (gets out the popcorn, starts munching.)

[United Massachusetts]

I just want to say thank you to everyone on the forums for their help in drafting

[Lady Scylla]

Still don't see how this can't be covered under already set homicide laws. This wording here;

Observing that most intelligent species, including mankind, are well-developed at the time of birth; each having a living brain, beating heart, a full body, or their functional equivalents; and are, in every way, persons who are entitled to the full and equal recognition of their dignity and protection under the law of their inherent rights, among which includes the right to live,

A developing foetus will start having a heart-beat long before birth, as well as the beginning development for the brain. While the legislation outlines that it is meant to apply to the process of birth, this wording here creates a sort of contradiction that could be used by states attempting to promote anti-abortion policies, or at least intentionally create some unfavourable confusion. It is also important to not only look at how legislation will be implemented -- and what it does -- but to also look at the motivation behind said legislation submitted by the delegate. Due to this rather dubious legislation, it still appears to carry an anti-abortion undertone. The bill itself, still seems rather useless, as well.

It's hard to imagine any state seeing it perfectly acceptable to terminate a child during the birthing procedure, and not already expect medical personnel involved in said termination to be charged under murder or an equivalent. While abortion strictly applies to the termination of a foetus before the start of labour, this legislation seemingly tries to protect "partially born" children, yet it seems to create more of a potential loophole for anti-abortion advocacy. Due to what appears to be dubious wording and motivation, as well as the aforementioned reasoning over murder coverage -- We'll still remain opposed, and further advocate delegates to not support this legislation.

[Bears Armed]

It's hard to imagine any state seeing it perfectly acceptable to terminate a child during the birthing procedure

OOC: in RL, it's apparently been known to occur in mainland China as a way of enforcing their "one child per family" law. A quick websearch using the terms "partial birth abortion" + "China" will give you links to reports about this.

[Ovybia]

Still don't see how this can't be covered under already set homicide laws. This wording here;

OOC: Until recently, partial birth abortion was legal in many countries including the US. It is not covered under most homicide laws. Bears Armed is also correct about China.

A developing foetus will start having a heart-beat long before birth, as well as the beginning development for the brain. While the legislation outlines that it is meant to apply to the process of birth, this wording here creates a sort of contradiction that could be used by states attempting to promote anti-abortion policies, or at least intentionally create some unfavourable confusion.

No. It is a preambulatory phrase and it has no legal weight. It only states a medical fact in order to give reasons for and explain its purpose. Reproductive Freedoms already legalizes all forms of termination of pregnancy.

[Lady Scylla]

Still don't see how this can't be covered under already set homicide laws. This wording here;

OOC: Until recently, partial birth abortion was legal in many countries including the US. It is not covered under most homicide laws. Bears Armed is also correct about China.

A developing foetus will start having a heart-beat long before birth, as well as the beginning development for the brain. While the legislation outlines that it is meant to apply to the process of birth, this wording here creates a sort of contradiction that could be used by states attempting to promote anti-abortion policies, or at least intentionally create some unfavourable confusion.

No. It is a preambulatory phrase and it has no legal weight. It only states a medical fact in order to give reasons for and explain its purpose. Reproductive Freedoms already legalizes all forms of termination of pregnancy.

OoC: Interesting

The concern, is that even as a preambulatory phrase, it could be used to contradict Reproductive Freedoms. In order to avoid such controversy, I'd suggest a simple amendment to this wording to cover the potential loophole in a manner that conveys the same meaning;

Observing that most intelligent species, including mankind, are well-developed at the time of birth and are, in every way, persons who are entitled to the full and equal recognition of their dignity and protection under the law of their inherent rights, among which includes the right to live,

[Araraukar]

Observing that most intelligent species, including mankind, are well-developed at the time of birth and are,

If I was you, I'd make that "many sapient species, including humans", just to be on the safe side. (OOC: we can only really use the RL ones as examples, and of those - toothed whales, elephants, other great apes, some birds - some aren't. Birds, mainly. And humans, really, at least when compared to the other sapient mammals.)

[Voltrovia]

You have convinced me to change the name of the proposal. This proposal has nothing to do with viability.

I see! Happy to have helped!

It only states that during the birth procedure one cannot kill the partially born child (offspring/fetus or whatever you wish to refer to him as). Unborn children with genetic disorders can still be terminated at any time before birth.

EDIT: Also note that the proposal only applies when the child leaves the uterus, so it does not apply in utero (i.e. before birth).

Following diligent consideration of the application, scope and structure of the proposed resolution, I am pleased to confirm that the Voltrovian Delegation is satisfied with the proposition in its present general form. Given the careful response of the Authors towards the host of legal, moral and political issues in play, especially with regards the wider issue of abortion, we deem this proposal amenable to our aims and interests in the international forum, so long as it retains its specific and commendable remit over child destruction only.

The Imperial Dominion of Voltrovia intends to SUPPORT this resolution in the quorate and assembly stages.

[Ovybia]

OOC: Until recently, partial birth abortion was legal in many countries including the US. It is not covered under most homicide laws. Bears Armed is also correct about China.


No. It is a preambulatory phrase and it has no legal weight. It only states a medical fact in order to give reasons for and explain its purpose. Reproductive Freedoms already legalizes all forms of termination of pregnancy.

OoC: Interesting

The concern, is that even as a preambulatory phrase, it could be used to contradict Reproductive Freedoms. In order to avoid such controversy, I'd suggest a simple amendment to this wording to cover the potential loophole in a manner that conveys the same meaning;

Observing that most intelligent species, including mankind, are well-developed at the time of birth and are, in every way, persons who are entitled to the full and equal recognition of their dignity and protection under the law of their inherent rights, among which includes the right to live,

Preambulatory clauses have no legal weight and cannot ever be considered to be contradictory. I think it's always better when explaining something to be more specific than less when length allows so I see no reason to edit out the examples provided in that clause. It says "well-developed", it only makes sense to explain why.

Once again, that clause cannot legally mandate anything in the WA. It only states facts to support the legal changes proposed.

If I was you, I'd make that "many sapient species, including humans", just to be on the safe side. (OOC: we can only really use the RL ones as examples, and of those - toothed whales, elephants, other great apes, some birds - some aren't. Birds, mainly. And humans, really, at least when compared to the other sapient mammals.)

In content, how is your proposed change any different from the current wording? It seems to me they both say the same thing in different words.

The Imperial Dominion of Voltrovia intends to SUPPORT this resolution in the quorate and assembly stages.

Thank you I'm glad to have your support.

[Adawn]

I support this bill