[DEFEATED] Protection of Partially Born

[Ovybia]

"There are many religions where the practice is immoral and not allowed."

"Sir," the Ovybian ambassador responds in surprise, "If a religion considers abortion immoral, it most logically should consider child destruction immoral."

There is also the issue of cost and some governments prohibiting it."

The WA has already legalized abortion across all member states. In all nations where my proposal will apply, abortion is therefore legal.

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

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

There are no such governments in the world assembly.

[The Enclave Government]

"There are many religions where the practice is immoral and not allowed."

"Sir," the Ovybian ambassador responds in surprise, "If a religion considers abortion immoral, it most logically should consider child destruction immoral."

There is also the issue of cost and some governments prohibiting it."

The WA has already legalized abortion across all member states. In all nations where my proposal will apply, abortion is therefore legal.

"Point taken, but there are many people who have no access to birth screening or chose not to have it for personal reasons. This resolution would make it illegal for the mother's life to be valued above that of the - in some jurisdictions - still not a child. There also exist situations in which the baby's birth will kill both the mother and the baby, so this resolution serves to defend a child from the outset determined by fate to death by punishing the mother."

"Prohibiting was a wrong word. There exist many nations which severely limit the practice of abortion to the point of obsessive regulation. Until the WA takes a definitive stance on this, we can't possibly risk lives on the assumption of prompt abortion legislation."

[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."

"Ambassador, perhaps you have heard of zombies?"

Clover nodded "I have. We don't practice such dark magic in the kingdom, I am aware of it though. We had to deal with a rogue unicorn who messed in Necromancy a few months back actually."

"As SP has already stated, RF defines a child until birth, and afterward, Child Abuse and reasonably sane nations domestic law protect the children."

"While I applaud your alarmist title, this is absolutely not necessary and attempting to create an issue where there is none."

OOC: Its a badge hunt. You can cease denying such. Expect a legality challenge, and I suspect I wont be the only one.

[Ovybia]

"As SP has already stated, RF defines a child until birth, and afterward, Child Abuse and reasonably sane nations domestic law protect the children."

"While I applaud your alarmist title, this is absolutely not necessary and attempting to create an issue where there is none."

I believe Mr. Fulton has already answered this argument quite well.

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

[Imperium Anglorum]

One could also just... leave it up to the nations to decide.

[Wrapper]

I believe Mr. Fulton has already answered this argument quite well.

So you do agree that this is in fact an attempt to ban so-called partial birth abortions?

[Normlpeople]

"Where Ambassador Fulton see eye to eye on most issues, this isnt one of them. In existing WA law, there is no grey area between fetus and birth. RF makes this abundantly clear."

[Ovybia]

I believe Mr. Fulton has already answered this argument quite well.

So you do agree that this is in fact an attempt to ban so-called partial birth abortions?

The proposal does exactly what it says.

[Wallenburg]

"Prohibiting was a wrong word. There exist many nations which severely limit the practice of abortion to the point of obsessive regulation.

Which, under World Assembly law, is also illegal."

Until the WA takes a definitive stance on this, we can't possibly risk lives on the assumption of prompt abortion legislation."

"The World Assembly has taken a definitive stance on abortion. 'On Abortion' and 'Reproductive Freedoms' both guarantee to varying degrees the right of women to have abortions."

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

"Point taken, but there are many people who have no access to birth screening or chose not to have it for personal reasons.

"As a mother I can assure you: There will be quite enough hints before the time comes"

[Wrapper]

So you do agree that this is in fact an attempt to ban so-called partial birth abortions?

The proposal does exactly what it says.

Well, then, we'll take that as a yes.

[Railana]

For the record, I've long maintained that the World Assembly should maintain a stance of absolute neutrality on the legality of abortion in member states, since I think that's probably the best long-term compromise we pro-lifers are going to get.

With that said, if the author nonetheless intends to fight for substantive restrictions on abortion by the World Assembly, they might as well attempt a broader approach than simply prohibiting partial-birth abortion. On Abortion and Reproductive Freedoms make this difficult, but certainly not impossible.

---

It's important to keep in mind the distinction between terminating a pregnancy and killing an unborn child (or prenatal offspring, or clump of cells, or whatever euphemism you prefer). It is possible to accomplish the former without doing the latter, at least after viability. Indeed, when we talk about "birth", we're generally referring to the natural (or induced, in cases of medical necessity) termination of a pregnancy; the difference is that every attempt is made to protect and preserve the life and health of both mother and child.

Of course, abortions generally consist of killing the unborn child as a means to terminate the pregnancy. If the child was born alive, then he or she would be legally recognized as a human person and the biological mother and father would have a parental duty of care towards the child; the whole point of abortion is to eliminate that duty of care. My point is that this doesn't necessarily have to be the case; you can sometimes terminate the pregnancy without killing the child.

Now, let's examine extant World Assembly legislation on the issue:

1. On Abortion legalizes abortion in cases of rape, incest, and severe fetal abnormality, and guarantees the right of member states and the World Assembly to further legalize abortion. The term "abortion" is never defined, though. The consensus definition seems to be "the termination of a pregnancy before the fetus can independently survive outside of the womb." I think most would agree that this is a fair definition, so I'll assume that it's correct. This means that On Abortion doesn't affect the legal status of the termination of pregnancies after viability; member states can still impose restrictions on such procedures.

2. Reproductive Freedoms guarantees an effectively absolute right to individuals to "have their pregnancies terminated." But again, note that termination of pregnancy is not the same thing as killing an unborn child. Even Reproductive Freedoms recognizes this by permitting member states to "encourage[] individuals to allow live delivery of their offspring." More importantly, nowhere does Reproductive Freedoms prohibit member states from not merely encouraging, but requiring the live delivery of offspring wherever possible, so long as the procedure is still "safe [and] openly accessible". Reproductive Freedoms also prohibits "any impediment to the termination of pregnancy that is not applied to medical procedures of similar risk and complexity." However, it's fairly easy to satisfy that requirement by characterizing the termination of pregnancy as a procedure of unique risk and complexity due to the involvement of prenatal life.

As such, I think a compelling case can be made that current World Assembly law allows the World Assembly to prohibit the killing of an unborn child in the course of terminating a pregnancy, so long as there is some way to safely terminate the pregnancy that is openly accessible but does not require that the unborn child be killed. In other words, the World Assembly can legally ban the killing of unborn children after viability.

---

To that end, I propose the following re-write of your proposal. The beauty of it is that -- much like your existing proposal -- you can't really oppose it on bodily sovereignty grounds. The right to terminate one's pregnancy is completely unaffected; only the right to kill the child in the process of terminating the pregnancy is curtailed.

On Prenatal Life
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Mild

Recalling extant World Assembly legislation on reproductive freedoms, which guarantees the absolute right of individuals to terminate their pregnancies,

Acknowledging that it is generally possible to terminate a pregnancy without causing the death of the prenatal offspring after the point of viability,

Recognizing the termination of pregnancy as a medical procedure of unique risk and complexity, due to the presence of prenatal life,

Seeking to preserve life wherever possible while recognizing the primacy of the individual's right to bodily sovereignty,

The General Assembly,

1. Defines the "unnecessary killing of prenatal life", for the purposes of this resolution, as the use of a particular method to terminate a pregnancy in cases where:

1. the use of that method results in the death of the prenatal offspring, and
2. there exists an alternate method to terminate the pregnancy that is safe, openly accessible, and preserves the life of both the pregnant individual and the prenatal offspring;

2. Requires 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. Clarifies that this resolution does not in any way restrict an individual's right to terminate their pregnancy.

Here's a variant that I could formally support that merely reserves the right to criminalize abortions after viability to member states:

On Prenatal Life
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Mild

Recalling extant World Assembly legislation on reproductive freedoms, which guarantees the absolute right of individuals to terminate their pregnancies,

Acknowledging that it is generally possible to terminate a pregnancy without causing the death of the prenatal offspring after the point of viability,

Recognizing the termination of pregnancy as a medical procedure of unique risk and complexity, due to the presence of prenatal life,

Seeking to permit member states to preserve life wherever possible while recognizing the primacy of the individual's right to bodily sovereignty,

The General Assembly,

1. Defines the "unnecessary killing of prenatal life", for the purposes of this resolution, as the use of a particular method to terminate a pregnancy in cases where:

1. the use of that method results in the death of the prenatal offspring, and
2. there exists an alternate method to terminate the pregnancy that is safe, openly accessible, and preserves the life of both the pregnant individual and the prenatal offspring;

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 do so;

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.

[Ovybia]

My proposal is on Child Destruction, relating to born or partially born children. This proposal does not restrict abortion in any way. If you want to propose a resolution on another issue, please create another forum topic. I'll be more than happy to discuss that with you there.

Once again: This resolution does not affect a woman's ability to obtain an abortion at any time before birth.

Let's please try to stay on topic. I think this resolution should have bi-partisan support. At birth the child is no longer viable and the mother has no right to end the child's life as she is no longer physically carrying the baby.

Ironically, there seems to be two conflicting views of opposition to our proposal:
1) This is obvious and there is no need to have such a resolution.
2) This is not obvious and I disagree with the resolution.

I'm hoping that people holding position #2 have adequately convinced the people who hold position #1 that it's not as obvious as it seems.

The proposal does exactly what it says.

Well, then, we'll take that as a yes.

Read the proposal. If you disagree with something, please let me know and tell me what you disagree with and why.

[Wrapper]

Read the proposal. If you disagree with something, please let me know and tell me what you disagree with and why.

As we've indicated, ambassador, we've read the proposal. Stop intimating that we have not.

We disagree with clause 3. Whether you wish to use the phrase "partial-birth abortion" or not -- and we understand why you want to avoid that phrase -- that is the effect of this proposal, to ban partial-birth abortions. Append clause 3 with the words "prior to birth".

[Separatist Peoples]

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

"There is no conundrum. Unless a nation is so determined to destroy newborns that they are willing to ignore medical science which has a consensus on when the birth is concluded, then the line between unborn and newborn is pretty clear: when the placenta is expelled. The World Assembly have considerations in place for prenatal offspring and post-birth individuals in Reproductive Freedoms and Prevention of Child Abuse. Nations willing to blur the line for the sake of maliciously killing infants won't be prevented from maliciously blurring the line in a million other ways to accomplish an end that is, frankly, unlikely to occur systemically. While there may be room to deal with this in a different way, this proposal, with all the subtly of a greasy fist, fails."

[Railana]

snip

((OOC: Sorry, are you saying that a child who has fully exited the womb is not yet "born" until the placenta is expelled?))

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

snip

Even your own source states that the placenta is expelled "after the baby is born"

[Separatist Peoples]

snip

((OOC: Sorry, are you saying that a child who has fully exited the womb is not yet "born" until the placenta is expelled?))

OOC: According to my mother in law the nurse-midwife with thirty years experience, that is exactly the case, medically speaking. I was equally mystified, but apparently that is the way it works.

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

snip

OOC: According to my mother in law the nurse-midwife with thirty years experience, that is exactly the case, medically speaking. I was equally mystified, but apparently that is the way it works.

Suppose the placenta is retained?

Come to think of it the discussion until now has been entirely focused on human births, how will this proposal affect species that lay eggs, or reproduce by budding?

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: According to my mother in law the nurse-midwife with thirty years experience, that is exactly the case, medically speaking. I was equally mystified, but apparently that is the way it works.

Suppose the placenta is retained?

Come to think of it the discussion until now has been entirely focused on human births, how will this proposal affect species that lay eggs, or reproduce by budding?

OOC: Then the birth isn't complete. You can't leave the afterbirth in the mother.

Honestly, this issue is so bloody complicated for biologies we are intimately aware of, its just not practical to worry about the biologies of others. I tend to suspend that portion of RP for these terrible, terrible debates.

[Ovybia]

Read the proposal. If you disagree with something, please let me know and tell me what you disagree with and why.

As we've indicated, ambassador, we've read the proposal. Stop intimating that we have not.

We disagree with clause 3. Whether you wish to use the phrase "partial-birth abortion" or not -- and we understand why you want to avoid that phrase -- that is the effect of this proposal, to ban partial-birth abortions. Append clause 3 with the words "prior to birth".

Partial birth abortion is not the correct medical terminology although it is a common name for the procedure. The proposal deals with the act or attempt to kill a child during or shortly after birth. If a mother wants to end the pregnancy earlier, under WA law, she is totally free to do so. This resolution specifies that, during birth, the baby cannot be killed as the mother no longer has any right (or legitimate reason, for that matter) to do so because the child is no longer viable.

Just a note: As Wallenburg pointed out, clause 3 is preambulatory and therefore has no legal weight.

[Wrapper]

Just a note: As Wallenburg pointed out, clause 3 is preambulatory and therefore has no legal weight.

3. Clarifies that this resolution in no way impedes a mother's access to abortion.

That clause is in no way preambulatory. Wallenburg was talking about the third paragraph, not the third numbered clause.

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

OOC: Then the birth isn't complete. You can't leave the afterbirth in the mother.

So then it would be perfectly legal to terminate offspring after it has left the womb and had it's umbilical cut, rendering it fully independent of the mother, provided the mother hasn't yet expelled the placenta?

[Ovybia]

Just a note: As Wallenburg pointed out, clause 3 is preambulatory and therefore has no legal weight.

3. Clarifies that this resolution in no way impedes a mother's access to abortion.

That clause is in no way preambulatory. Wallenburg was talking about the third paragraph, not the third numbered clause.

I misunderstood you. The resolution protects children during and after birth. Not only would your suggestion (adding "prior to birth" in clause three) undermine the whole point of the resolution but it would also be incorrect, killing a child during birth is not an abortion.