[DRAFT] Preserving Life in Pregnancy

[Sciongrad]

The updated rules (which are hopefully going to drop later today) should hopefully clarify that further.

OOC: Quick question: will the new honest mistake rule reflect the players' desires or the strange interpretation the moderators have adopted, which Sedge seemed to be hinting at?

My comment regarding "not ruling on interpretation" was regarding repeals.

Justify this in a way that isn't entirely arbitrary.

[Wrapper]

Ruling of the Secretariat

Preserving Life in Pregnancy contradicts On Abortion, as On Abortion explicitly requires that abortion be legalized in clauses 1a-1c. This is not accounted for in your proposal. Additionally, Section 2 of your proposal permits the criminalization of the performance of an abortion. This contradicts On Abortion clause 2, which mandates abortion facilities are easily available. Allowing the criminalization of performing an abortion would make facilities decidedly unavailable to patients.

Regarding Reproductive Freedoms, your proposal would allow nations to criminalize abortion, which fits your definition of "unnecessary killing of prenatal life". If such medical providers were made criminals, then an abortion would no longer be an "openly accessible procedure". Given that individuals under Reproductive Freedoms are given the right to have their pregnancies safely terminated, without "any impediment... that is not applied to medical procedures of similar risk and complexity", that right would be abridged under clause 2 of your proposal.

The Secretariat rules that this proposal, as written, contradicts both On Abortion and Reproductive Freedoms.

[John Turner]

Can't say that I am overly surprised.

[Separatist Peoples]

Sorry for going MIA the past few days guys. Work's been keeping me busy, unfortunately. My comment regarding "not ruling on interpretation" was regarding repeals. The updated rules (which are hopefully going to drop later today) should hopefully clarify that further. Whenever it comes to judging Duplication and Contradiction on new legislation, there is - unfortunately - an inevitable amount of "interpretation" that is necessary. I'd rather keep our rulings as cut and dried as possible - and some definitely make it easy. (i.e. Branding or House of Cards, for example, are pretty straight forward.) We try to keep "interpretation" out of things as much as we can ... but there are (unfortunately) some rules that can't really be enforced unless we do some interpretation of the existing resolutions.

Thank you. Regardless of how I feel about the ruling, this clears up issues significantly.

Justify this in a way that isn't entirely arbitrary.

Repeals are a different animal than legislation, in that the entire thing is a giant argument followed by a single boilerplate action clause? As such, the context has to be subjective on a greater level than regular legislation can be? /$.02

[Sciongrad]

Repeals are a different animal than legislation, in that the entire thing is a giant argument followed by a single boilerplate action clause? As such, the context has to be subjective on a greater level than regular legislation can be? /$.02

OOC: My question is why is it that moderators will interpret a resolution when another proposal demands it, but not when a repeal demands it, especially if the repeal and the proposal rely on the same interpretation of the original resolution. In other words, a repeal in the future may involve this exact legality question, yet despite making an interpretive ruling for this proposal, the arbitrary standard the moderators have established would prevent them from making the same exact interpretation for the repeal.

[Railana]

(Image) Ruling of the Secretariat (Image)

Preserving Life in Pregnancy contradicts On Abortion, as On Abortion explicitly requires that abortion be legalized in clauses 1a-1c. This is not accounted for in your proposal. Additionally, Section 2 of your proposal permits the criminalization of the performance of an abortion. This contradicts On Abortion clause 2, which mandates abortion facilities are easily available. Allowing the criminalization of performing an abortion would make facilities decidedly unavailable to patients.

Regarding Reproductive Freedoms, your proposal would allow nations to criminalize abortion, which fits your definition of "unnecessary killing of prenatal life". If such medical providers were made criminals, then an abortion would no longer be an "openly accessible procedure". Given that individuals under Reproductive Freedoms are given the right to have their pregnancies safely terminated, without "any impediment... that is not applied to medical procedures of similar risk and complexity", that right would be abridged under clause 2 of your proposal.

The Secretariat rules that this proposal, as written, contradicts both On Abortion and Reproductive Freedoms.

OOC: I appreciate the mods finally getting back to me with a ruling. I don't really understand it, though, because this proposal does not criminalize abortion or the termination of pregnancy at any point during the pregnancy. It merely criminalizes certain methods to terminate a pregnancy, and only when there are other methods that are safe, openly accessible, and do not result in the death of the prenatal life. As such, under this proposal, nations must still ensure that termination of pregnancy (in at least one form that is safe and openly accessible) remains legal throughout the pregnancy. In addition, nations are not permitted under this proposal to target medical personnel who perform such legal terminations. Could you explain why you think this proposal allows nations to criminalize abortion or termination of pregnancy?

(To be clear, my understanding is that if the World Assembly legalizes activity A, and there are methods X, Y, Z to accomplish A, nations are free to prohibit a subset of the methods - say Y and Z. A is still legal because X is still legal, so the nation is still in compliance. In the same way, if there are multiple ways to terminate a pregnancy, nations can prohibit some methods so long as there are other methods that are safe and openly accessible. Nations must be allowed to prohibit some methods to terminate pregnancies -- otherwise, how could nations prohibit unsafe abortions?)

The only way this ruling makes any sense to me is if you are defining "termination of pregnancy" and "abortion" to necessarily include the killing of the prenatal life. In other words, you are ruling that On Abortion and Reproductive Freedoms specifically require nations to permit the killing of prenatal life in order to terminate a pregnancy, even when there are other methods to terminate the pregnancy that are safe, openly accessible, and do not require the killing of prenatal life. Is that correct?

[Mousebumples]

The only way this ruling makes any sense to me is if you are defining "termination of pregnancy" and "abortion" to necessarily include the killing of the prenatal life. In other words, you are ruling that On Abortion and Reproductive Freedoms specifically require nations to permit the killing of prenatal life in order to terminate a pregnancy, even when there are other methods to terminate the pregnancy that are safe, openly accessible, and do not require the killing of prenatal life. Is that correct?

This is totally not an "official ruling" by any means, but if you want a formal ruling, when I discuss this with my colleagues, I'm going to remember this clause from On Abortion:

1. REQUIRES member countries to legalise abortion for cases where:
a) The pregnancy resulted from involuntary sexual activity and/or sexual activity in which at least one of the parties could not legally give consent;
b) Severe foetal abnormality would result in a child being born with an incurable condition which is fatal and/or painful;
c) There is a risk of a life-threatening physical or mental condition which would result in the death or life-long severe disability of the pregnant woman if the pregnancy continued;

Generally speaking, if you're talking about "getting an abortion" - so far as I'm aware - that has to do with killing the fetus. There are certainly other definitions out there, but since On Abortion explicitly used the term Abortion over and over again, that is how I would read it.

[The Rouge Christmas State]

Well regardless of the legality of the proposed WA resolution, I still support this.

[Railana]

Generally speaking, if you're talking about "getting an abortion" - so far as I'm aware - that has to do with killing the fetus. There are certainly other definitions out there, but since On Abortion explicitly used the term Abortion over and over again, that is how I would read it.

((OOC: That doesn't seem to be the consensus definition:

"[T]he standard medical definition of abortion [is] termination of a pregnancy when the fetus is not viable".

Of course, terminating a pregnancy when the fetus is not viable almost certainly results in the fetus's death, so I can see why you'd make the association. But, per the consensus definition, procuring an abortion does not necessarily imply killing the fetus. As such, On Abortion does not protect a right to kill the fetus, so this proposal remains legal.))

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Opposed.

This would a great leap back for both our nation and the world in civil rights.

[Ovybia]

I think you should look into submitting this now. You effectively don't have to worry about legality concerns anymore.

That is extremely bad advice.

I said "look into." I didn't say he should submit it.

[Linux and the X]

If you want to repeal On Abortion and Reproductive Freedom, do so.

OPPOSED

[Excidium Planetis]

First of all, I must agree that On Abortion does say abortion. That much is clear. Rewording this proposal to specifically allow abortions where On Abortion requires them would eliminate most of the illegality.

Then we get into RF. I think the mod ruling on this is BS. If a termination procedure can still be obtained, and is safe and openly accessible, how does outlawing abortion specifically contradict RF?

[Ovybia]

(To be clear, my understanding is that if the World Assembly legalizes activity A, and there are methods X, Y, Z to accomplish A, nations are free to prohibit a subset of the methods - say Y and Z. A is still legal because X is still legal, so the nation is still in compliance. In the same way, if there are multiple ways to terminate a pregnancy, nations can prohibit some methods so long as there are other methods that are safe and openly accessible. Nations must be allowed to prohibit some methods to terminate pregnancies -- otherwise, how could nations prohibit unsafe abortions?

I think you made a very good point here. I'd like to hear the moderator answer to this. If this interpretation is false, it would have major consequences in many other areas of the WA. As I understand it, Railiana's interpretation is the generally accepted one for WA law.

[Wrapper]

Generally speaking, if you're talking about "getting an abortion" - so far as I'm aware - that has to do with killing the fetus. There are certainly other definitions out there, but since On Abortion explicitly used the term Abortion over and over again, that is how I would read it.

((OOC: That doesn't seem to be the consensus definition:

"[T]he standard medical definition of abortion [is] termination of a pregnancy when the fetus is not viable".

Of course, terminating a pregnancy when the fetus is not viable almost certainly results in the fetus's death, so I can see why you'd make the association. But, per the consensus definition, procuring an abortion does not necessarily imply killing the fetus. As such, On Abortion does not protect a right to kill the fetus, so this proposal remains legal.))

Just one question, because apparently I am in need of enlightenment. Can you specify a single method of abortion in use today that does not kill the fetus?

[Railana]

Just one question, because apparently I am in need of enlightenment. Can you specify a single method of abortion in use today that does not kill the fetus?

((OOC: No, I can't. Per the medical definition I cited, abortions are terminations of pregnancy that take place before the prenatal life can survive outside the womb.

I can, however, name a method of deliberate termination of pregnancy that does not necessarily kill the prenatal life: Caesarean section.))

[Linux and the X]

Just one question, because apparently I am in need of enlightenment. Can you specify a single method of abortion in use today that does not kill the fetus?

((OOC: No, I can't. Per the medical definition I cited, abortions are terminations of pregnancy that take place before the prenatal life can survive outside the womb.

I can, however, name a method of deliberate termination of pregnancy that does not necessarily kill the prenatal life: Caesarean section.))

So your idea is to require invasive surgery instead of a simple abortion?

[Excidium Planetis]

((OOC: No, I can't. Per the medical definition I cited, abortions are terminations of pregnancy that take place before the prenatal life can survive outside the womb.

I can, however, name a method of deliberate termination of pregnancy that does not necessarily kill the prenatal life: Caesarean section.))

So your idea is to require invasive surgery instead of a simple abortion?

Not at all. Many NS Nations have the technology to perform noninvasive non-lethal terminations of pregnancy, because they are better more advanced than Modern Nations.

Additionally, Nations could allow terminations of pregnancy after the fetus is viable (which is not necessarily an abortion), this proposal would allow nations to criminalize such methods which result in the fetus' death when other safe, accessible methods exist which would save the fetus.

[Linux and the X]

So your idea is to require invasive surgery instead of a simple abortion?

Not at all. Many NS Nations have the technology to perform noninvasive non-lethal terminations of pregnancy, because they are better more advanced than Modern Nations.

Additionally, Nations could allow terminations of pregnancy after the fetus is viable (which is not necessarily an abortion), this proposal would allow nations to criminalize such methods which result in the fetus' death when other safe, accessible methods exist which would save the fetus.

The alternative method Auralia mentioned, however, was invasive surgery.

[Hyggemata]

"Backdoor attempt to neuter Reproductive Freedoms? No."

I don't see how this "neuters" Reproductive Freedoms. Reproductive Freedoms guarantees a right to terminate a pregnancy, not to kill one's offspring.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

Hyggemata believes that a foetus is not an organism and thus not "alive". You can't kill something that isn't alive.

[Savoyae]

Opposed. While it might be nice to simply yank out the fetus or whatever and hook it up to a tank to grow it in lieu of the mother, 1) such technology is not evenly spread, if even available; 2) it would arise with at the least millions of wards-of-the-state at best, and 3) thus interfere with nearly every nation's own laws on such matters. Yes, I'm aware that's a strawman I've set up, and I've wholly set it in the field to be picked, but whatever. The WA does not need to iron out every. little. thing. We should be focusing on the international and national economy of members, I do say so myself. Plus -

2. Permits member states to criminalize the unnecessary killing of prenatal life, to recognize it as a form of unjustifiable homicide, and to punish it accordingly;

3. Encourages all member states to preserve prenatal life in the course of terminating a pregnancy where possible;

4. Clarifies that this resolution does not in any way permit or encourage member states to restrict an individual's right to terminate their pregnancy.

This is the sort of thing that looks good on paper. It's the sort of thing that sometimes gets passed. And then it ends up allowing, either through the front door or the backdoor, what it so sweetly says it won't allow.

[Excidium Planetis]

I don't see how this "neuters" Reproductive Freedoms. Reproductive Freedoms guarantees a right to terminate a pregnancy, not to kill one's offspring.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

Hyggemata believes that a foetus is not an organism and thus not "alive". You can't kill something that isn't alive.

"A fetus is an organism. It is a mass of billions of living cells, which utilize energy to grow and reproduce. It can be killed, just like that mildew in your shower."

[Hyggemata]

Hyggemata believes that a foetus is not an organism and thus not "alive". You can't kill something that isn't alive.

"A fetus is an organism. It is a mass of billions of living cells, which utilize energy to grow and reproduce. It can be killed, just like that mildew in your shower."

Do you also know that an arm also contains billions of living cells, which utilize energy to grow and reproduce? Hyggemata believes that this is a completely unnecessary resolution, and will vote accordingly in our WA nation.

[Excidium Planetis]

"A fetus is an organism. It is a mass of billions of living cells, which utilize energy to grow and reproduce. It can be killed, just like that mildew in your shower."

Do you also know that an arm also contains billions of living cells, which utilize energy to grow and reproduce? Hyggemata believes that this is a completely unnecessary resolution, and will vote accordingly in our WA nation.

"Yes. Please note that my arm is part of a living organism, and destroying it is assault at best and attempted murder at worst. Surprise!"

[Hyggemata]

Do you also know that an arm also contains billions of living cells, which utilize energy to grow and reproduce? Hyggemata believes that this is a completely unnecessary resolution, and will vote accordingly in our WA nation.

"Yes. Please note that my arm is part of a living organism, and destroying it is assault at best and attempted murder at worst. Surprise!"

"Yes. Please note that my foreskin is part of a living organism, and destroying it is assault at best and attempted murder at worst. Adults circumcise all the time."