[DEFEATED] Protection of Partially Born

[Adawn]

As Well as the region The League of Conservative Nations

[Wallenburg]

As Well as the region The League of Conservative Nations

OOC: Please don't advertise your region in the GA. It has nothing to do with the draft.

[Lady Scylla]

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;

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.

While it isn't intended to be used in such a way, and I do agree with you on that, it doesn't mean someone won't try. It's not legally binding, yet it is still listed in the initial legislation, even as a preamble:

The preamble of a draft resolution states the reasons for which the committee is addressing the topic and highlights past international action on the issue. Each clause begins with a present participle (called a preambulatory phrase) and ends with a comma.

The wording of the offending section reads like an affirmative or operational clause rather than a preambulatory one.

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,

It defines what is considered to be necessary for personhood in order to exempt it from termination. Under the guidelines used for preambulatory phrases, the offending section becomes superfluous and the delegation would like to request an amendment to this offending section to remove such wording. Stating that species are well-developed at the time of birth alone, should be sufficient enough to give reason for the legislation (which we can support) without it teetering along the line of being an askew operational clause.

The delegation shall remain OPPOSED to the resolution until which time the submitting delegate amends the legislation. When the offending section has been modified appropriately to bring it in line with preambulatory guidelines, then the delegation will support the legislation.

[The Coalition of the Magical unicorns]

Honestly, I fail to see why there is a need for this resolution. Care to explain? And I've read through the 10 pages.

[Ovybia]

The wording of the offending section reads like an affirmative or operational clause rather than a preambulatory one.
...
The delegation shall remain OPPOSED to the resolution until which time the submitting delegate amends the legislation. When the offending section has been modified appropriately to bring it in line with preambulatory guidelines, then the delegation will support the legislation.

Although under my understanding that clause is and must be considered preambulatory because of the opening word "Observing," I would be happy if someone more experienced than I (perhaps the Wallenburg ambassador or SP ambassador) could clarify whether or not this is preambulatory.

Would replacing the semicolons with commas such as done below make it clearer for you (so that it shows that it is adding description to the noun "well-developed")? I think the semicolons make the clause more readable so I am hesitant to make such a change unless it is necessary for legality purposes as you mentioned.

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,

Honestly, I fail to see why there is a need for this resolution. Care to explain? And I've read through the 10 pages.

The proposal criminalizes what is commonly known as "partial birth abortion," the procedure of killing the child/fetus after he has exited the uterus but before he is fully born which is not covered under current WA homicide laws.

[Excidium Planetis]

which is not covered under current WA homicide laws.

"As of this moment, the WA doesn't have any homicide laws. The only law we did have that applied to homicide was our ban on summary executions, and that is no longer in effect. I believe that right now, you can kill anyone you want according to the WA as long as you aren't committing genocide by doing so. You also can't discriminate in your killing, so be sure to kill everyone equally."

[Ovybia]

which is not covered under current WA homicide laws.

"As of this moment, the WA doesn't have any homicide laws. The only law we did have that applied to homicide was our ban on summary executions, and that is no longer in effect. I believe that right now, you can kill anyone you want according to the WA as long as you aren't committing genocide by doing so. You also can't discriminate in your killing, so be sure to kill everyone equally."

I believe there is a WA law regarding harming minors. That's what I was referring to. You have to wait until the children grow up before you can kill them.

[Excidium Planetis]

"As of this moment, the WA doesn't have any homicide laws. The only law we did have that applied to homicide was our ban on summary executions, and that is no longer in effect. I believe that right now, you can kill anyone you want according to the WA as long as you aren't committing genocide by doing so. You also can't discriminate in your killing, so be sure to kill everyone equally."

I believe there is a WA law regarding harming minors. That's what I was referring to. You have to wait until the children grow up before you can kill them.

"GA#222 prohibits 'the causing of excessive physical pain, injury or harm with a malicious intent, or through negligence, outside that which may occur from peer-to-peer bullying', but it could be argued that the killing was not done with a malicious intent, or perhaps that the killing was not 'excessive harm'."

[Wallenburg]

While it isn't intended to be used in such a way, and I do agree with you on that, it doesn't mean someone won't try. It's not legally binding, yet it is still listed in the initial legislation, even as a preamble:

The preamble of a draft resolution states the reasons for which the committee is addressing the topic and highlights past international action on the issue. Each clause begins with a present participle (called a preambulatory phrase) and ends with a comma.

The wording of the offending section reads like an affirmative or operational clause rather than a preambulatory one.

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,

It defines what is considered to be necessary for personhood in order to exempt it from termination. Under the guidelines used for preambulatory phrases, the offending section becomes superfluous and the delegation would like to request an amendment to this offending section to remove such wording. Stating that species are well-developed at the time of birth alone, should be sufficient enough to give reason for the legislation (which we can support) without it teetering along the line of being an askew operational clause.

The delegation shall remain OPPOSED to the resolution until which time the submitting delegate amends the legislation. When the offending section has been modified appropriately to bring it in line with preambulatory guidelines, then the delegation will support the legislation.

"The wording of this clause is entirely preambulatory. Nothing about it even remotely suggests an operative effect, let alone a mandate. The World Assembly 'believes', 'observes', and 'advocates' a large number of things without any operational effect."

[Voltrovia]

Little typo in 1. 'tchild destruction...'

[Ovybia]

Little typo in 1. 'tchild destruction...'

Thanks. Corrected. I had recently changed that clause and I must have mistyped.

[Tyrnica]

Little typo in 1. 'tchild destruction...'

Thanks. Corrected. I had recently changed that clause and I must have mistyped.

It was there when I first read the draft. You must've either re-added it or never noticed in the first place.

[Ovybia]

Thanks. Corrected. I had recently changed that clause and I must have mistyped.

It was there when I first read the draft. You must've either re-added it or never noticed in the first place.

That would depend when you read it. By recently, I mean in the last week or so. Either way, it's fixed now and I'm glad someone noticed. I would have reread it before I submitted but still thanks Voltrovia.

[United Massachusetts]

I think this is ready for submission, and I've written up the letter. great job, Ovybia!

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

I think this is ready for submission, and I've written up the letter. great job, Ovybia!

TY: Not quite yet. It's missing an "of" in numbered clause three. Termination "of" pregnancy. Also, not all children have a "full body" at birth; some have undeveloped limbs or missing organs or other birth defects. The "Observing" clause reads fine if you remove the words "a full body". And, there should be a comma, not a period, after the word "Defines" in numbered clause 1.

(He glances down at his tablet. A flamboyantly dressed old lady looks back with him with a smile, holds up two fingers, and silently mouths the words, "That's two.")

[Christian Democrats]

Being credited as a coauthor on this proposal, I agree with Wrapper.

[Europe and Oceania]

Just another attempt to get closer to banning abortions all together which is their ultimate goal. Opposed.

[Percussionland]

This seems like the start of the slippery slope leading to a ban on late term abortions. Also, if the child is strangled by the umbilical cord, the mother should not be responsible for such a tragedy. This is pointless, redundant, too broad, and frankly, dangerous.

[Ovybia]

Just another attempt to get closer to banning abortions all together which is their ultimate goal. Opposed.

This is totally different from banning abortion. A mother has no reason to end her child's life during birth. With abortion, a mother can always argue that she is burdened by child-bearing and therefore has an interest in ending the pregnancy. With partial birth abortion, there is absolutely no legitimate reason.

OOC: Even the American Medical Association Council Council on Legislation agreed that the partial birth abortion "procedure is basically repulsive." Many real world countries including the US have criminalized the procedure.

This seems like the start of the slippery slope leading to a ban on late term abortions. Also, if the child is strangled by the umbilical cord, the mother should not be responsible for such a tragedy. This is pointless, redundant, too broad, and frankly, dangerous.

See above for your answer on the slippery slope. And as it says in the proposal "child destruction as the legal term describing an overt act or intentional attempt to end a child's life during birth;" An accident does not count as an "intentional attempt" or "overt act." Also there is nothing dangerous, overly broad, or redundant about this proposal.

I think this is ready for submission, and I've written up the letter. great job, Ovybia!

TY: Not quite yet. It's missing an "of" in numbered clause three. Termination "of" pregnancy. Also, not all children have a "full body" at birth; some have undeveloped limbs or missing organs or other birth defects. The "Observing" clause reads fine if you remove the words "a full body". And, there should be a comma, not a period, after the word "Defines" in numbered clause 1.

(He glances down at his tablet. A flamboyantly dressed old lady looks back with him with a smile, holds up two fingers, and silently mouths the words, "That's two.")

"Thank you, Mr. Ty. The changes have been made."

[United Massachusetts]

Just another attempt to get closer to banning abortions all together which is their ultimate goal. Opposed.

What in the world does this mean? It makes absolutely no sense to say that this will ban abortion. It won't. What you are saying is like claiming that if Bernie Sanders becomes elected President, America will turn communist. It isn't going to happen

[Wallenburg]

Just another attempt to get closer to banning abortions all together which is their ultimate goal. Opposed.

What in the world does this mean? It makes absolutely no sense to say that this will ban abortion. It won't. What you are saying is like claiming that if Bernie Sanders becomes elected President, America will turn communist. It isn't going to happen

They didn't say that this bans abortion. Try again, without strawmanning your opponent.

[United Massachusetts]

What in the world does this mean? It makes absolutely no sense to say that this will ban abortion. It won't. What you are saying is like claiming that if Bernie Sanders becomes elected President, America will turn communist. It isn't going to happen

They didn't say that this bans abortion. Try again, without strawmanning your opponent.

Fine, then (I didn't really strawman).
What in the world does this mean? It makes absolutely no sense to say that this will eventually ban abortion. That's a slippery-slope argument, which is incredibly weak. Just because A happens doesn't mean B will. It won't. What you are saying is like claiming that if Bernie Sanders becomes elected President, America will turn communist. It isn't going to happen.

[Europe and Oceania]

Just another attempt to get closer to banning abortions all together which is their ultimate goal. Opposed.

What in the world does this mean? It makes absolutely no sense to say that this will ban abortion. It won't. What you are saying is like claiming that if Bernie Sanders becomes elected President, America will turn communist. It isn't going to happen

I never said this proposal will ban abortions. I'm saying this is one-inch closer or one step closer. Which is why I said it is
"their ultimate goal". I never said banning all abortions will happen in the WA either. I was simply saying it is probably your
intention to ban abortions. Which is why you support this proposal.

But you believe in banning all abortions except in cases of rape and incest, right?
So you would ban abortions if you could. And no, it is not the same because Bernie Sanders is a Democratic Socialist, not a
Communist, so, therefore, your analogy doesn't apply here.

[United Massachusetts]

What in the world does this mean? It makes absolutely no sense to say that this will ban abortion. It won't. What you are saying is like claiming that if Bernie Sanders becomes elected President, America will turn communist. It isn't going to happen

I never said this proposal will ban abortions. I'm saying this is one-inch closer or one step closer. Which is why I said it is
"their ultimate goal". I never said banning all abortions will happen in the WA either. I was simply saying it is probably your
intention to ban abortions. Which is why you support this resolution.

But you believe in banning all abortions except in cases of rape and incest, right?
So you would ban abortions if you could. And no, it is not the same because Bernie Sanders is a Democratic Socialist, not a
Communist, so, therefore, your analogy doesn't apply here.

Maybe my analogy wasn't perfect. But the point still applies. Furthermore, you know in order to ban abortion, we would have to
a. Repeal Reproductive Freedoms and On Abortion
b. Pass a replacement.
Not going to happen

[Wallenburg]

They didn't say that this bans abortion. Try again, without strawmanning your opponent.

Fine, then (I didn't really strawman).

Yes, you did. Look up "strawman".

What in the world does this mean? It makes absolutely no sense to say that this will eventually ban abortion. That's a slippery-slope argument, which is incredibly weak. Just because A happens doesn't mean B will. It won't. What you are saying is like claiming that if Bernie Sanders becomes elected President, America will turn communist. It isn't going to happen.

Again, you are strawmanning. They never claimed this will ban abortion. Strike two.