[DEFEATED] Protection of Partially Born

[Wallenburg]

Currently. This proposal would change that.

Define "alive".

We all know you support this. You're the co-author.

1.) This proposal would not change current WA law concerning the rights of a child before birth. It does not even mention the matter.

Going over the proposal again, it appears I was wrong.

2.)Alive- Recognized by law as a person deserving of the protection of the law, as such including the right to live.

Then you are correct, given the right to life is qualified.

3.) OK, maybe I didn't need to say I support it, but it is quite clear that this resolution expands human rights to include life during the birth process.

True.

[Normlpeople]

IC: "Talk about splitting hairs" Clover said "Its pretty cut and dry. Either its alive, and covered by existing legislation, or not, and again covered. There isn't a 3rd realm to it."

OOC: Classic badge hunt. Non issue.

[Wallenburg]

IC: "Talk about splitting hairs" Clover said "Its pretty cut and dry. Either its alive, and covered by existing legislation, or not, and again covered. There isn't a 3rd realm to it."

"Ambassador, perhaps you have heard of zombies?"

[Separatist Peoples]

IC: "Talk about splitting hairs" Clover said "Its pretty cut and dry. Either its alive, and covered by existing legislation, or not, and again covered. There isn't a 3rd realm to it."

OOC: Classic badge hunt. Non issue.

"Indeed. It doesn't help that anything that comes out of Right To Life is immediately suspect. The issue is pretty definitively covered."

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

However, if a fetus were considered a child, abortion would be legal under "On Abortion" and "Reproductive Freedoms", and illegal under "Prevention of Child Abuse". Something cannot be both legal and illegal. Therefore, fetuses must not be children, by the requirements of World Assembly law.

Yes if we adopt a contradictory definition for widely used terms then I'm sure we can create all sorts of entertaining illegalities. If however a fetus were to refer to the unborn while "child" were to refer those being born or in the process of being born then the contradiction disappears. The question is, does existing law preclude this definition?

"Ambassador, perhaps you have heard of zombies?"

Hahaha Zombies aren't real... r-right?

[United Massachusetts]

However, if a fetus were considered a child, abortion would be legal under "On Abortion" and "Reproductive Freedoms", and illegal under "Prevention of Child Abuse". Something cannot be both legal and illegal. Therefore, fetuses must not be children, by the requirements of World Assembly law.

Yes if we adopt a contradictory definition for widely used terms then I'm sure we can create all sorts of entertaining illegalities. If however a fetus were to refer to the unborn while "child" were to refer those being born or in the process of being born then the contradiction disappears. The question is, does existing law preclude this definition?

All we are saying is that at birth, the child is alive. Period.

[Phydios]

IC: "Talk about splitting hairs" Clover said "Its pretty cut and dry. Either its alive, and covered by existing legislation, or not, and again covered. There isn't a 3rd realm to it."

OOC: Classic badge hunt. Non issue.

The issue is where the WA draws the line between "parasitic blob of tissue that just happens to look and act like a baby but doesn't actually have any shred of humanity until it changes location" and "human being with just as much (taxonomic) similarity to its mother as the young of every other life form on earth". Do partially-born babies count as the first or the second? If the WA has legislated on this, please say where.

Oh, and SP: I dare you to find any evidence that the author's pro-life bias will affect the resolution's impact. If you are merely discriminating, though, please continue in your tolerance.

[Ovybia]

IC: "Talk about splitting hairs" Clover said "Its pretty cut and dry. Either its alive, and covered by existing legislation, or not, and again covered. There isn't a 3rd realm to it."

Existing legislation covers fetuses; this resolution is focused on partially born and born children. Whether or not you consider them alive, this resolution will ensure child destruction is illegal. Please read the wiki article I referenced earlier if you don't understand the term.

Doesn't look like you did.

Correction bolded

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,

You could shift the clause to under the hereby clause, and specify that, say, sapient beings of those species are people. However, that would duplicate part of existing legislation protecting the equal rights of sapient beings.

I don't see the point in that. I've looked at the clause again (reproduced below).

Defines child destruction as the birthing or partial birthing of a child accompanied by or otherwise involving an overt act or an intentional attempt to end the child's life;

It clearly says "birthing or partial birthing of." I suppose I could replace "child" with "intelligent being" or "sapient being."

[Separatist Peoples]

Yes if we adopt a contradictory definition for widely used terms then I'm sure we can create all sorts of entertaining illegalities. If however a fetus were to refer to the unborn while "child" were to refer those being born or in the process of being born then the contradiction disappears. The question is, does existing law preclude this definition?

All we are saying is that at birth, the child is alive. Period.

"In which case, international laws on child abuse and welfare are applicable, and this is a waste of time."

[United Massachusetts]

IC: "Talk about splitting hairs" Clover said "Its pretty cut and dry. Either its alive, and covered by existing legislation, or not, and again covered. There isn't a 3rd realm to it."

OOC: Classic badge hunt. Non issue.

This is not a badge hunt. We believe that children, at birth, deserve the right to live. That is all this resolution has ever said. Dismissing this as a non-issue is...
a.) Not true. This is an expansion of human rights universally.
b.) Very rude.

[United Massachusetts]

All we are saying is that at birth, the child is alive. Period.

"In which case, international laws on child abuse and welfare are applicable, and this is a waste of time."

No, because many nations don't classify this as child abuse because they still call it "not alive" even during birth

[United Massachusetts]

IC: "Talk about splitting hairs" Clover said "Its pretty cut and dry. Either its alive, and covered by existing legislation, or not, and again covered. There isn't a 3rd realm to it."

OOC: Classic badge hunt. Non issue.

"Indeed. It doesn't help that anything that comes out of Right To Life is immediately suspect. The issue is pretty definitively covered."

It has no bearing as to whether this comes out of RTL

[Ovybia]

All we are saying is that at birth, the child is alive. Period.

"In which case, international laws on child abuse and welfare are applicable, and this is a waste of time."

No international law to date defines when a child is alive.

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

Yes if we adopt a contradictory definition for widely used terms then I'm sure we can create all sorts of entertaining illegalities. If however a fetus were to refer to the unborn while "child" were to refer those being born or in the process of being born then the contradiction disappears. The question is, does existing law preclude this definition?

All we are saying is that at birth, the child is alive. Period.

Which is the entirety of my objection; the rest of the legislation is duplicative. Now, I don't particular care about that¹ and am prepared to support this regardless, but it may result in it getting pulled, which is boring and to be avoided.

1.Frankly I think the amendment/duplication/house-of-cards rules are retarded and promote poor legislative practices

[Phydios]

All we are saying is that at birth, the child is alive. Period.

"In which case, international laws on child abuse and welfare are applicable, and this is a waste of time."

Point to the specific area(s) of the specific resolution(s) that define when the WA begins to recognize life.

[Separatist Peoples]

"In which case, international laws on child abuse and welfare are applicable, and this is a waste of time."

No, because many nations don't classify this as child abuse because they still call it "not alive" even during birth

"If it isn't alive, then no life is taken, and no crime is committed any moreso than when toenails are clipped. Reproductive Freedoms protects an individuals right to terminate a pregnancy carte blanche. Restricting that, no matter how well intentioned, is a contradiction of Reproductive. Freedoms. However, after a successful birth there is no longer any question, medically or legally, that the individual is alive, and therefore would be covered by extant law. This is a nonissue, unless you truly believe nations are so incompetent that they cannot define birth."

"In which case, international laws on child abuse and welfare are applicable, and this is a waste of time."

No international law to date defines when a child is alive.

"They don't have to. RF covers everything up to birth, because the pregnancy terminates, naturally, at birth. Anything after a successful birth is, by all conventional wisdom, a living individual. This would be akin to passing legislation assuring us all that the sky is blue and that up and down have not, in fact, been reversed. Which is what I've come to expect."

"Indeed. It doesn't help that anything that comes out of Right To Life is immediately suspect. The issue is pretty definitively covered."

It has no bearing as to whether this comes out of RTL

"When something tolerable comes out of your region, I'll happily reverse that sentiment with full apologies."

[Wallenburg]

Hahaha Zombies aren't real... r-right?

"Of course not! Hehe, at least in Minecraftia."

OOC: Yes, that is supposed to be ironic.

"Indeed. It doesn't help that anything that comes out of Right To Life is immediately suspect. The issue is pretty definitively covered."

It has no bearing as to whether this comes out of RTL

I'll have to second this statement. Stellonia is not his region.

[Ovybia]

"They don't have to. RF covers everything up to birth, because the pregnancy terminates, naturally, at birth. Anything after a successful birth is, by all conventional wisdom, a living individual. This would be akin to passing legislation assuring us all that the sky is blue and that up and down have not, in fact, been reversed. Which is what I've come to expect."

It may seem obvious to you, ambassador, but nations can and have legalized child destruction.

OOC: There is a reason real world countries have this law.

"When something tolerable comes out of your region, I'll happily reverse that sentiment with full apologies."

It is my sincere hope that you will find this proposal tolerable. We seem to agree on the principle of the resolution (i.e. partially born and born children are indeed entitled to their right to life). We are disagreeing on whether or not the proposal is necessary.

[Separatist Peoples]

"They don't have to. RF covers everything up to birth, because the pregnancy terminates, naturally, at birth. Anything after a successful birth is, by all conventional wisdom, a living individual. This would be akin to passing legislation assuring us all that the sky is blue and that up and down have not, in fact, been reversed. Which is what I've come to expect."

It may seem obvious to you, ambassador, but nations can and have legalized child destruction.

"As far as I can tell, there is nothing supporting that statement. Child is a word so common it needs no defining. It is an individual, and it becomes such after birth. As such, it is protected by Prevention of Child Abuse. Considering a child a non-individual after it's birth is a silly bit of sophistry that has no basis in reasonable judicial interpretation, and instead represents the kind of semantics used by either leadership so insane such measures wouldn't be effective anyway, or a solution looking for a problem."

OOC: There is a reason real world countries have this law.

OOC: and there are reasons real world countries have outlawed free speech. That doesn't make it relevant to the debate.

It is my sincere hope that you will find this proposal tolerable. We seem to agree on the principle of the resolution (i.e. partially born and born children are indeed entitled to their right to life). We are disagreeing on whether or not the proposal is necessary.

"It isn't. Ergo, it's not tolerable, not in my book. That may mean little to you, but it's my opinion we're discussing."

[Ovybia]

It may seem obvious to you, ambassador, but nations can and have legalized child destruction.

"As far as I can tell, there is nothing supporting that statement. Child is a word so common it needs no defining. It is an individual, and it becomes such after birth. As such, it is protected by Prevention of Child Abuse. Considering a child a non-individual after it's birth is a silly bit of sophistry that has no basis in reasonable judicial interpretation, and instead represents the kind of semantics used by either leadership so insane such measures wouldn't be effective anyway, or a solution looking for a problem."

You say the being becomes a child "after birth." But the question is, when after birth? Is the being a child during birth? Is the being a child before the feeding tube is cut? These are legitimate questions that are answered in this resolution.

OOC: There is a reason real world countries have this law.

OOC: and there are reasons real world countries have outlawed free speech. That doesn't make it relevant to the debate.

OOC: If we were discussing whether to legalize free speech, then, yes, it would be relevant to the debate as proof that such a resolution is needed. In this case, my point still holds. Real world countries do feel a need to pass anti-child destruction laws.

[The Enclave Government]

"The Reich is opposed, as there could be circumstances such as breech birth in which the mother's health is endangered by the baby's birth vaginally, and there's substantial populations of the world unable to provide reliable caesarian sections. Notwithstanding the fact this violates many jurisdictions thought on when a person can be murdered, which is often when the first full breath is taken."

[Railana]

"As far as I can tell, there is nothing supporting that statement. Child is a word so common it needs no defining. It is an individual, and it becomes such after birth. As such, it is protected by Prevention of Child Abuse. Considering a child a non-individual after it's birth is a silly bit of sophistry that has no basis in reasonable judicial interpretation, and instead represents the kind of semantics used by either leadership so insane such measures wouldn't be effective anyway, or a solution looking for a problem."

I think that you're missing the primary purpose of this proposal, which is to outlaw the killing of a child during birth. Birth is a process, not an instant, and one can certainly make the case that there is some legal confusion as to whether a child in the process of being born is legally a human person who possesses the right to life under Would Assembly law.

((OOC: You're aware that this is essentially a NationStates version of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, right?))

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[Ovybia]

"The Reich is opposed, as there could be circumstances such as breech birth in which the mother's health is endangered by the baby's birth vaginally, and there's substantial populations of the world unable to provide reliable caesarian sections.

The mother could always have an abortion before she began giving birth.

Notwithstanding the fact this violates many jurisdictions thought on when a person can be murdered, which is often when the first full breath is taken."

Thank you, sir, for proving my point. Such a definition of when life begins is indeed necessary.

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

Child is a word so common it needs no defining.

Which is why the world assembly has such a hard time defining it.

[The Enclave Government]

"The Reich is opposed, as there could be circumstances such as breech birth in which the mother's health is endangered by the baby's birth vaginally, and there's substantial populations of the world unable to provide reliable caesarian sections.

The mother could always have an abortion before she began giving birth.

Notwithstanding the fact this violates many jurisdictions thought on when a person can be murdered, which is often when the first full breath is taken."

Thank you, sir, for proving my point. Such a definition of when life begins is indeed necessary.

"There are many religions where the practice is immoral and not allowed. There is also the issue of cost and some governments prohibiting it."

"In your opinion, but it significgantly impedes national sovereignty in this area."