[DEFEATED] Protection of Partially Born

[Christian Democrats]

Given in all reasonable countries the MDs are bound by Hippocratic Oath, they will not kill the baby which is 'partially born'.

If all doctors were bound by the Hippocratic Oath, then it would also be wrong for them to participate in euthanasia, assisted suicide, and abortion. (EDIT: Looking back at the Oath, participation in capital punishment would be wrong too.)

OOC: You can't abort a fetus in the first place. You abort a pregnancy. When a space launch is cancelled, you abort the launch, not the rocket.

When you abort a launch, the rocket is not destroyed. It still exists after the abortion.

[Wallenburg]

OOC: You can't abort a fetus in the first place. You abort a pregnancy. When a space launch is cancelled, you abort the launch, not the rocket.

When you abort a launch, the rocket is not destroyed. It still exists after the abortion.

Your point?

[Tinfect]

When you abort a launch, the rocket is not destroyed. It still exists after the abortion.

Your point?

OOC:
That perhaps your analogy wasn't quite as appropriate as you thought.

[Morteuphoria]

That depends on certain factors such as population control (is it legal in WA?)

Not only that, but what about eugenics, which can take many forms? There are some tribal-type "cultures" that are known to commit infanticide to rid their genetic stock of disfigured or otherwise abnormal offspring.

In the case of modern technology, depending on quite how advanced that is, and what form it actually takes in comparison to the aforementioned literal infanticide, in regards to things such as knowledge of genetics and even how to manipulate genes and whatnot prebirth to make a potential offspring come out with particular desired features. Eugenics in general, of any kind, seems to have a sort of stigma around it, but it's something that's been done in some form or another for quite some time in most places, I would say, before civilized civilization gave a mighty lesson to those backwater indigenous peoples. And I mean this in regards to literal infanticide post-birth. But if a particular nation has only the lowly, miserable technology to complete a task such as that rather than the common, modern alternative, should they not be allowed to? I would say that keeping the "survival of the fittest" as is, and even helping to enforce it, would be a good thing for those people.

But this is much more important than some silly superstitious heathens. Why shouldn't a nation who is much more advanced and thus have the technology to do such things as choosing features of offspring.. do so? So, as I was saying... what about eugenics?

[Wallenburg]

Your point?

OOC:
That perhaps your analogy wasn't quite as appropriate as you thought.

That really doesn't disqualify my analogy in any way. The analogy compares two different procedures that both qualify as abortion, not the two different objects primarily involved.

[Christian Democrats]

OOC:
That perhaps your analogy wasn't quite as appropriate as you thought.

That really doesn't disqualify my analogy in any way. The analogy compares two different procedures that both qualify as abortion, not the two different objects primarily involved.

Does the abortion of a pregnancy destroy an unborn child? Does the abortion of a rocket launch destroy a rocket?

[Araraukar]

Does the abortion of a pregnancy destroy an unborn child? Does the abortion of a rocket launch destroy a rocket?

OOC: Abortion is the action of stopping (or preventing, in some usages) a process. Pregnancy is a process. Rocket launching is a process. Hence both can be aborted.

Just because the abortion of one of those processes is done in a way that destroys the object of the process, doesn't take anything away from the simile.

And, for the millionth time, this is not a general abortion debate, go to NSG for one. This goes for you too, CD.

[Falcania]

The delegation from Falcania would like to note that birth as defined by the proposed legislation does not include caesarean section, so strictly speaking a child killed midway through a caesarean section would not be a victim of child destruction as defined by the proposed legislation.

In general, the delegation votes against any proposal which would make Falcanians subject to anatomy-specific legislation; this proposal is no different.

[Eastern Exelitia]

Instead of arguing so much over the terminology: fetus or child, why not specify that once the process of birthing begins it is an infant we must protect?

This murder of an infant during or within a calendar year of being born is recognized as infanticide.

[Wallenburg]

"Protection of Partially Born" was defeated 12,561 votes to 3,660.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

We are happy to see this resolution fail. States should retain the right to formulate their own social policies, against agitators on either the left or the right seeking to impose their own morality on the rest of the world. National sovereignty desperately needs to make a comeback in this august chamber.

[Ovybia]

We are happy to see this resolution fail. States should retain the right to formulate their own social policies, against agitators on either the left or the right seeking to impose their own morality on the rest of the world. National sovereignty desperately needs to make a comeback in this august chamber.

I believe that proposals such as this one are the best ones for the WA to legislate on. General moral principles, such as child destruction is wrong, do not change based on borders. It's when the WA tries to get into the running nations' business and dictating what it sees as the "best" way to solve problems that issues come up.

"Protection of Partially Born" was defeated 12,561 votes to 3,660.

On behalf of the nation, Ovybia is sad to see this proposal fail but would like to thank the following countries for their invaluable assistance on making this well-written proposal possible:
United Massachusetts
Culture of Life
Voltrovia
The rouge Christmas state

Along with all the WA delegates who supported this proposal and every single WA member who voted for it.

[Excidium Planetis]

We are happy to see this resolution fail. States should retain the right to formulate their own social policies, against agitators on either the left or the right seeking to impose their own morality on the rest of the world. National sovereignty desperately needs to make a comeback in this august chamber.

"Unfortunately, Reproductive Freedoms has demonstrated that pretty much all national sovereignty in the area of abortion is impossible. It forces nations to allow near unrestricted access to abortions for any reason, and the Secretariat has ruled that even proposals seeking to limit which form of termination is legal are illegal for imposing limits, and on top of that RF has survived multiple repeal attempts, even those drafted and sponsored by pro-choice delegates, and the forces that helped put RF into place and keep it there still acted against even this resolution to defeat it." Schultz says.

[Arach-Naga Combine]

We are happy to see this resolution fail. States should retain the right to formulate their own social policies, against agitators on either the left or the right seeking to impose their own morality on the rest of the world. National sovereignty desperately needs to make a comeback in this august chamber.

"Unfortunately, Reproductive Freedoms has demonstrated that pretty much all national sovereignty in the area of abortion is impossible. It forces nations to allow near unrestricted access to abortions for any reason, and the Secretariat has ruled that even proposals seeking to limit which form of termination is legal are illegal for imposing limits, and on top of that RF has survived multiple repeal attempts, even those drafted and sponsored by pro-choice delegates, and the forces that helped put RF into place and keep it there still acted against even this resolution to defeat it." Schultz says.

Indeed. I suppose that many others, like the Combine in general, feel that bodily sovereignty should be held inviolable. One would think that, considering the frantic pleas of soveriegnty of nations that wish to make their own laws, those same nations would have more empathy for citizens that wish to make their own choices. But it appears that such a thing is asking too much.

[Excidium Planetis]

"Unfortunately, Reproductive Freedoms has demonstrated that pretty much all national sovereignty in the area of abortion is impossible. It forces nations to allow near unrestricted access to abortions for any reason, and the Secretariat has ruled that even proposals seeking to limit which form of termination is legal are illegal for imposing limits, and on top of that RF has survived multiple repeal attempts, even those drafted and sponsored by pro-choice delegates, and the forces that helped put RF into place and keep it there still acted against even this resolution to defeat it." Schultz says.

Indeed. I suppose that many others, like the Combine in general, feel that bodily sovereignty should be held inviolable. One would think that, considering the frantic pleas of soveriegnty of nations that wish to make their own laws, those same nations would have more empathy for citizens that wish to make their own choices. But it appears that such a thing is asking too much.

"One would think, given the General Assembly's commitment to gender equality, a resolution which allows selective abortions to systematically eliminate any potential female offspring should not be something our Assembly supports."