[DEFEATED] Protection of Partially Born

[Wrapper]

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.

OOC: No sweat, took me a bit to figure that out.

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.

IC: Well, we shall never agree on this, shall we? Killing a fetus during birth is the very definition of a partial-birth abortion.

[Ovybia]

IC: Well, we shall never agree on this, shall we? Killing a fetus during birth is the very definition of a partial-birth abortion.

The medical term is Intact dilation and extraction. But whatever term we use, I don't see why you oppose the resolution. The mother is no longer physically carrying the child so the mother should have no legitimate reason to end the child's life.

[Lady Scylla]

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.

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.

I fail to see how this can't simply be covered under already pre-determined Murder laws. If it is strictly being applied to children already born, than Murder should cover this, making the need for such a proposal rather unnecessary.

[Wrapper]

IC: Well, we shall never agree on this, shall we? Killing a fetus during birth is the very definition of a partial-birth abortion.

The medical term is Intact dilation and extraction. But whatever term we use, I don't see why you oppose the resolution. The mother is no longer physically carrying the child so the mother should have no legitimate reason to end the child's life.

Why do you assume we oppose the proposal? So far we've objected to clause 3, and we've objected to the obfuscation of the fact that you are trying to ban partial-birth abortions by using less-familiar wording. We haven't stated our opposition to nor our support for this proposal yet.

[Araraukar]

OOC: "Partial birth" makes me think of breeching, where a baby is born feet first and gets stuck in the birthing canal, at which point "child destruction" would be the logical step to remove the infant as it dies, or perhaps before it dies (yes, yes, the placenta is a life-support unit, but it gets detached from the mother's circulation and no longer serves its purpose), as having dead tissue stuck in that area of the body would be a major health hazard for the mother.

Off the bat I can't OOCly think of any nation or culture where sacrificing the mother's life would be preferable to sacrificing the offspring (which might be unsalvageable anyway, even if the mother was killed).

IC: All of you arguing against "child destruction" and whatnot, do any of you ever eat fruit? Nuts? Eggs? Caviar? Or heck, larvae, pupae, etc.? I'm sure I don't need to point to the greenery for the most of you to get the idea of what I mean...

OOC: You may be willing to put that kind of RP aside for these issues, SP, but I'll remain a staunch defender, even if it means I in turn need to put up with the various things that I consider preposterous...

[Ovybia]

OOC: "Partial birth" makes me think of breeching, where a baby is born feet first and gets stuck in the birthing canal, at which point "child destruction" would be the logical step to remove the infant as it dies, or perhaps before it dies (yes, yes, the placenta is a life-support unit, but it gets detached from the mother's circulation and no longer serves its purpose), as having dead tissue stuck in that area of the body would be a major health hazard for the mother.

Off the bat I can't OOCly think of any nation or culture where sacrificing the mother's life would be preferable to sacrificing the offspring (which might be unsalvageable anyway, even if the mother was killed).

OOC: If the baby is not lined up correctly, the mother can always have a cesarean section.

IC: All of you arguing against "child destruction" and whatnot, do any of you ever eat fruit? Nuts? Eggs? Caviar? Or heck, larvae, pupae, etc.? I'm sure I don't need to point to the greenery for the most of you

Yes and many trees are hundreds of years old, much older than the average lifespan of an intelligent being.

[Ovybia]

I fail to see how this can't simply be covered under already pre-determined Murder laws. If it is strictly being applied to children already born, than Murder should cover this, making the need for such a proposal rather unnecessary.

It is being applied to children during birth.

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: If the baby is not lined up correctly, the mother can always have a cesarean section.

OOC: I think you missed this bit:

where a baby is born feet first and gets stuck in the birthing canal

Cesareans are not always possible everywhere. Even in RL, not everyone has the privilege of giving birth in a hospital, or a hospital with a surgeon able to perform such an operation safely.

IC: All of you arguing against "child destruction" and whatnot, do any of you ever eat fruit? Nuts? Eggs? Caviar? Or heck, larvae, pupae, etc.? I'm sure I don't need to point to the greenery for the most of you

Yes and many trees are hundreds of years old, much older than the average lifespan of an intelligent being.

OOC: Since you're kinda new here (going by nation founding date, I dunno if you're someone's puppet), you might not know that the "greenery" refers to this nation (puppet of Araraukar), a nation of intelligent plants, some of which indeed are trees.

I highlighted some of the RP issues on the related thread. Just because it seems the majority or WA nations are populated by humans, it doesn't mean the resolutions should be allowed to be written only with RL human biology in mind. Hell, Wallenburg is populated by humans, but their reproduction is very different from RL humans'.

[Ovybia]

OOC: If the baby is not lined up correctly, the mother can always have a cesarean section.

OOC: I think you missed this bit:

where a baby is born feet first and gets stuck in the birthing canal

Cesareans are not always possible everywhere. Even in RL, not everyone has the privilege of giving birth in a hospital, or a hospital with a surgeon able to perform such an operation safely.

Before the delivery begins, the doctors should know the child isn't lined up correctly and should either attempt to realign the child or have a cesarean section.

OOC: I'm not a medical expert but according to the websites I've seen on the subject, medical researchers seem to agree that it is never necessary to have a partial birth abortion to save the life of the mother. In the US, partial birth abortion has been illegal since at least 2007 and I haven't heard of a single mother's health problem.

Yes and many trees are hundreds of years old, much older than the average lifespan of an intelligent being.

OOC: Since you're kinda new here (going by nation founding date, I dunno if you're someone's puppet), you might not know that the "greenery" refers to this nation (puppet of Araraukar), a nation of intelligent plants, some of which indeed are trees.

I highlighted some of the RP issues on the related thread. Just because it seems the majority or WA nations are populated by humans, it doesn't mean the resolutions should be allowed to be written only with RL human biology in mind. Hell, Wallenburg is populated by humans, but their reproduction is very different from RL humans'.

I see. I've tried to make the proposal as non-specific to mankind as possible.

[Wallenburg]

OOC: I think you missed this bit: Cesareans are not always possible everywhere. Even in RL, not everyone has the privilege of giving birth in a hospital, or a hospital with a surgeon able to perform such an operation safely.

Before the delivery begins, the doctors should know the child isn't lined up correctly and should either attempt to realign the child or have a cesarean section.

OOC: If the baby is not lined up correctly, the mother can always have a cesarean section.

OOC: I think you missed this bit:

where a baby is born feet first and gets stuck in the birthing canal

Cesareans are not always possible everywhere. Even in RL, not everyone has the privilege of giving birth in a hospital, or a hospital with a surgeon able to perform such an operation safely.

[Ovybia]

Before the delivery begins, the doctors should know the child isn't lined up correctly and should either attempt to realign the child or have a cesarean section.

OOC: I think you missed this bit: Cesareans are not always possible everywhere. Even in RL, not everyone has the privilege of giving birth in a hospital, or a hospital with a surgeon able to perform such an operation safely.

OOC: I'll look into this subject more. As I said, medical researchers seem to agree that there are no maternal health problems associated with a child destruction ban so I'll need to see the specific answer they have to this problem.

Also IC: Without a well trained physician, intact dilation and extraction is also an unsafe operation for the mother so either way, without the proper equipment and a trained doctors, the mother's health can be in serious danger in these situations.

[Ovybia]

I've submitted this proposal. If you support this resolution, please ask your WA delegate to approve it: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vie ... 1457385359

[Floor 448]

I've submitted this proposal. If you support this resolution, please ask your WA delegate to approve it: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vie ... 1457385359

Can I campaign for it?

[Ovybia]

I've submitted this proposal. If you support this resolution, please ask your WA delegate to approve it: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vie ... 1457385359

Can I campaign for it?

Certainly. I'll telegram you for more details. Before you start, be sure you understand all of the rules for campaigning through telegrams and on the RMB.

[Wallenburg]

I've submitted this proposal. If you support this resolution, please ask your WA delegate to approve it: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vie ... 1457385359

You must be kidding me. You submitted this without even waiting 24 hours, while ignoring essentially all criticism. Opposed.

[Ovybia]

I've submitted this proposal. If you support this resolution, please ask your WA delegate to approve it: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vie ... 1457385359

You must be kidding me. You submitted this without even waiting 24 hours, while ignoring essentially all criticism. Opposed.

Specifically, what criticisms did I ignore? Whether or not you agree with me, I thought I adequately answered all of them. This resolution is pretty straightforward.

OOC: FMI in the future, approximately how long do people usually discuss resolutions on the NS forum before proposing?

[Separatist Peoples]

You must be kidding me. You submitted this without even waiting 24 hours, while ignoring essentially all criticism. Opposed.

Specifically, what criticisms did I ignore? Whether or not you agree with me, I thought I adequately answered all of them. This resolution is pretty straightforward.

OOC: FMI in the future, approximately how long do people usually discuss resolutions on the NS forum before proposing?

OOC: There is no standard. Some only need a week, some need ten months.

[Lady Scylla]

I fail to see how this can't simply be covered under already pre-determined Murder laws. If it is strictly being applied to children already born, than Murder should cover this, making the need for such a proposal rather unnecessary.

It is being applied to children during birth.

And this can't be covered under pre-existing murder laws... because?

[Araraukar]

OOC: FMI in the future, approximately how long do people usually discuss resolutions on the NS forum before proposing?

OOC: There is no standard. Some only need a week, some need ten months.

OOC: But generally speaking, submitting within 48 hours without addressing criticism, does generally count as idiotism. You can file a GHR to have it pulled, if you'd prefer continuing drafting.

[Separatist Peoples]

It is being applied to children during birth.

And this can't be covered under pre-existing murder laws... because?

"There are no international laws against plain ol' murder. Killing children, civilians by the military, and surrendering soldiers is illegal, but that's 'bout it."

[Ovybia]

It is being applied to children during birth.

And this can't be covered under pre-existing murder laws... because?

Because pre-existing murder laws relating to children allow nations to define an "individual." As an example: A nation could decide that a child does not become an "individual" until after his umbilical cord is cut thereby allowing the child to be killed up to that point (even when his whole body is completely outside of the mother's). This resolution criminalizes these and related acts but does not interfere with a woman's ability to have an abortion before birth.

[Ovybia]

OOC: There is no standard. Some only need a week, some need ten months.

OOC: But generally speaking, submitting within 48 hours without addressing criticism, does generally count as idiotism. You can file a GHR to have it pulled, if you'd prefer continuing drafting.

Just to clarify: I have and will continue to address criticisms.

I will certainly be aware of that time limit in the future. For the time being, I will leave this resolution as submitted. I believe it is fairly straightforward and I already have been through a lengthy editing process with my co-authors.

[Wallenburg]

Just to clarify: I have and will continue to address criticisms.

I will certainly be aware of that time limit in the future. For the time being, I will leave this resolution as submitted. I believe it is fairly straightforward and I already have been through a lengthy editing process with my co-authors.

Just as a bit of advice, this is not a resolution. It is a proposal. It will become a resolution if it gets to vote

[Ovybia]

Just to clarify: I have and will continue to address criticisms.

I will certainly be aware of that time limit in the future. For the time being, I will leave this resolution as submitted. I believe it is fairly straightforward and I already have been through a lengthy editing process with my co-authors.

Just as a bit of advice, this is not a resolution. It is a proposal. It will become a resolution if it gets to vote

This is the first time I'm doing this so please excuse some of the protocol and definition problems in my posts. I'll figure it all out someday

I assure you that the proposal itself does not have any of these problems. One of my co-authors is an experienced NS player and has corrected and looked over the entire resolution. Unfortunately, he is inactive at this time so I'm unable to communicate with him about the proper next steps to take.

[Separatist Peoples]

I assure you that the proposal itself does not have any of these problems. One of my co-authors is an experienced NS player and has corrected and looked over the entire resolution. Unfortunately, he is inactive at this time so I'm unable to communicate with him about the proper next steps to take.

OOC: An experienced player who has never passed a resolution hand has barely participated in the GA forum. That is not a heartwarming endorsement of your preparedness by a longshot.

IC: "We look forward to opposing this through our campaign offices. Should we even need to bother."