The Second Moon Rising wrote:After further review, The Second Moon Rising feels compelled to also point out that the terms of this proposal also only gives rights to a fetus only if it experiences birth as defined by the proposal. It gives no protection to a fetus that is removed from the mother via cesarean. Does a fetus that is surgically removed by cutting into the mother's abdomen have less rights than one that is to be, is being, or has been expelled through the birth canal?
Under the very narrow definition of birth this proposal uses, The Second Moon Rising does not look forward to the potential rise of back-alley cesareans that may crop up to circumvent the proposal if it goes into effect.OOC: Unfortunately, though, it does. Either by mistake or design by the author (I highly, and I think reasonably, suspect the latter), the proposal targets a very specific form of late-term abortion -- IDX. Even the author's own arguments over the past 30-ish pages fairly clearly indicates that this is to ban IDX, and has cited it as the "most common form of child destruction".Separatist Peoples wrote:
Ooc: this times a thousand.
The proposal defines birth as the second and third stages of labor (which, while not defined in the contents of the proposal, is the process where the fetus is leaving the uterus, moving down the birth canal, is expelled from the mother's body and and is culminated by the expulsion of the placenta). But does not limit this definition of birth as second/third stages of labor that would occur at/around 40 weeks of pregnancy, at which point would be a healthy, normal birthing event. Only that birth is the second and third stages of labor. Therefore, labor that is mechanically/chemically induced at 20 weeks for the purpose of a late-term abortion via IDX procedure, by the definition put forth in the proposal, is no different than naturally occurring labor at 40 weeks.
The proposal itself speaks nothing towards other, and what seems to be factually -more- common, forms of child destruction, such as assaults/self-induced assaults/pseudo-accidents perpetrated on/by pregnant women for the purpose of killing a fetus before labor begins (and in the Real World, legally falls under child destruction). Instead what it does, is attempt to make a form of abortion that is typically done for medical reasons (it is easier to examine an intact fetus with a collapsed skull than it is to examine a jar of dismembered baby goop, is less invasive/physically traumatizing to the mother) no different from tying the mother's legs together so that the infant smothers just before crowning, smothering the infant before the placenta is expelled, strangling the infant with the umbilical cord while still attached to the mother, etc., because of the way birth has been defined.
Also:Observing that most intelligent species, including mankind, are well-developed at the time of birth; each having a living brain, beating heart, or their functional equivalents; and are, in every way, persons who are entitled to full and equal recognition of their dignity and protection under the law of their inherent rights
Because of how this is worded, coupled with the definition of birth given in the proposal, it seems to say that a 20-week-old fetus that is going to be aborted via IDX has more rights than a 20-week-old fetus that is going to be aborted via D&E, because mechanically/chemically induced labor is involved. And that a fetus that is to be or has been delivered via cesarean has no rights under the proposal.
"This is a fascinating point that I had, up until now, not considered. I think it is distinctly possible that, assuming this goes to drafting in the future, a failure to accommodate for this interpretation would cause a conflict with extant law. I'll just file this away for now."