NationStates

Recognizing that the procedure of ending the life of a partially born child, known legally as child destruction, is gruesome, gravely unjust, and medically unnecessary,

Noting that the procedure is not only needlessly bloody but also dangerous,

Understanding that a mother has no legitimate interest or right to end her child's life once the birth process has started,

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,

The General Assembly hereby:

1. Defines,
- child destruction as an overt act or intentional attempt to end a child's life during birth;
- birth, as used in this resolution, as the second and third stages of labor, namely the passing of a child from the uterus and through the birth canal as well as the expulsion of the afterbirth;
- pregnancy as the state of an individual having an offspring develop within the uterus;

2. Requires that all member states criminalize and duly prosecute child destruction as a form of homicide, except when the procedure is used as a medical necessity to save an individual's life;

3. Clarifies that this resolution does not, in any way, interfere with the legal right to abortion.

Co-authored by:
United Massachusetts
Christian Democrats

Leppikania wrote:"Sir, you are only allowed one co-author. Anything beyond that is a violation of WA protocol. Besides that, I do not believe this would be necessary. Murder is already illegal in most member states."

DEFINES the following for the purpose of this resolution:

• A child as any individual under the national threshold of majority, or equivalent,
  
• Child abuse as any and/or all of the following:

ii. the causing of excessive physical pain, injury or harm with a malicious intent, or through negligence, outside that which may occur from peer-to-peer bullying,

AFFIRMS that all children have the right, and expectancy, to be free from all forms of child abuse;

MANDATES that all acts of child abuse be criminalised;

REQUIRES nations to investigate fully, and to the best of their ability, all reports of child abuse;

We Couldnt Agree On A Name wrote:DEFINES the following for the purpose of this resolution:
A child as any individual under the national threshold of majority, or equivalent,

Ovybia wrote:

We Couldnt Agree On A Name wrote:DEFINES the following for the purpose of this resolution:
A child as any individual under the national threshold of majority, or equivalent,

I believe this resolution makes it open for a nation to define an "individual." Many nations don't consider children in the process of birth as individuals or persons. Hence it is not covered by many homicide/murder laws.

OOC: This is also why "Child Destruction" is specifically outlawed in real world countries such as England, Ireland, and Hong Kong even though they do have murder and homicide laws.

Wrapper wrote:So call it what it is. You're outlawing partial-birth abortions, yes?

Ovybia wrote:

We Couldnt Agree On A Name wrote:DEFINES the following for the purpose of this resolution:
A child as any individual under the national threshold of majority, or equivalent,

I believe this resolution makes it open for a nation to define an "individual." Many nations don't consider children in the process of birth as individuals or persons. Hence it is not covered by many homicide/murder laws.

OOC: This is also why "Child Destruction" is specifically outlawed in real world countries such as England, Ireland, and Hong Kong even though they do have murder and homicide laws.

Wrapper wrote:So call it what it is. You're outlawing partial-birth abortions, yes?

Wallenburg wrote:

Wrapper wrote:So call it what it is. You're outlawing partial-birth abortions, yes?

They can't, because the World Assembly has legalized all consensual abortions and does not consider fetuses children.

We Couldnt Agree On A Name wrote:While that's a loophole that can be exploited your proposal still contains significant duplication.

The best suggestion I can make is making defining partial birth in that way your focus, then including a clause like DEMANDS that these children enjoy the same rights and protections that any other child enjoys under national and international law. but even that flirts with the no amendment rule.

Wallenburg wrote:In that case, your proposal would do nothing, as such nations certainly wouldn't consider such children to be children.

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;

We Couldnt Agree On A Name wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:They can't, because the World Assembly has legalized all consensual abortions and does not consider fetuses children.

Do any resolutions actually define when a fetus become a child?

Ovybia wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:In that case, your proposal would do nothing, as such nations certainly wouldn't consider such children to be children.

To both of you: That's exactly why the proposal states,

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;

Wallenburg wrote:GA #222, which you yourself quoted, would classify abortion as child abuse if fetuses were children. However, the World Assembly has legalized abortion. Therefore, it cannot take the position that fetuses are children.

Wallenburg wrote:I saw that. Thank you for proving my point.

Wallenburg wrote:GA #222, which you yourself quoted, would classify abortion as child abuse if fetuses were children.

Ovybia wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:GA #222, which you yourself quoted, would classify abortion as child abuse if fetuses were children. However, the World Assembly has legalized abortion. Therefore, it cannot take the position that fetuses are children.

To be precise, the WA can't take the position that fetuses are "individuals." But that is another discussion. This is about the proposal "Child Destruction."

Wallenburg wrote:I saw that. Thank you for proving my point.

How? The proposal defines attempting to kill a child at or during birth as "Child Destruction." The third paragraph backs this up by defining them as persons (and therefore children). I think that's clear unless you have a better suggestion.

We Couldnt Agree On A Name wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:GA #222, which you yourself quoted, would classify abortion as child abuse if fetuses were children.

Doesn't really answer my question, since #222 doesn't actually define child at all.

Ovybia wrote:

We Couldnt Agree On A Name wrote:DEFINES the following for the purpose of this resolution:
A child as any individual under the national threshold of majority, or equivalent,

I believe this resolution makes it open for a nation to define an "individual." Many nations don't consider children in the process of birth as individuals or persons. Hence it is not covered by many homicide/murder laws.

OOC: This is also why "Child Destruction" is specifically outlawed in real world countries such as England, Ireland, and Hong Kong even though they do have murder and homicide laws.

Wallenburg wrote:

We Couldnt Agree On A Name wrote:Doesn't really answer my question, since #222 doesn't actually define child at all.

That is true, and is exactly my point. It leaves the definition of "child" untouched. 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.

Wallenburg wrote:

Ovybia wrote:To be precise, the WA can't take the position that fetuses are "individuals." But that is another discussion. This is about the proposal "Child Destruction."

No, to be precise, the WA can't take the position that they are children. Please read 222.

Wallenburg wrote:That clause is preambulatory, and therefore carries no legal weight.

Wallenburg wrote:Second, it says that species are people, which makes no sense.

Wallenburg wrote:Third, if you were to rewrite it as intended, it would make abortion the killing of a child, and therefore illegal under WA law, in contradiction to multiple laws demanding the legalization of abortion.

United Massachusetts wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:That is true, and is exactly my point. It leaves the definition of "child" untouched. 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.

Again, let's remember that this only affirms the right to life of a fetus during birth or the birth process. Before this time, the child is not considered a person (according to WA law). As such, there is not contradiction.

Before birth=not alive*
during birth process=alive

United Massachusetts wrote:

Ovybia wrote:I believe this resolution makes it open for a nation to define an "individual." Many nations don't consider children in the process of birth as individuals or persons. Hence it is not covered by many homicide/murder laws.

OOC: This is also why "Child Destruction" is specifically outlawed in real world countries such as England, Ireland, and Hong Kong even though they do have murder and homicide laws.

I agree w/ Ovybia here. Let's remember that 'child destruction' is not considered murder in many nations. This resolution improves human rights by affirming a right to life during the birth process, which is in no way a violation of pro-abortion laws

Ovybia wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:That clause is preambulatory, and therefore carries no legal weight.

How would you suggest I clarify it?

Wallenburg wrote:Second, it says that species are people, which makes no sense.

Thanks for pointing that out. Corrected.

Wallenburg wrote:Third, if you were to rewrite it as intended, it would make abortion the killing of a child, and therefore illegal under WA law, in contradiction to multiple laws demanding the legalization of abortion.

This proposal does not apply to fetuses. As it says, it applies to born and partially born children (commonly referred to as "infants"). The proposal clearly states: "at the time of birth."

Wallenburg wrote:

United Massachusetts wrote:Again, let's remember that this only affirms the right to life of a fetus during birth or the birth process. Before this time, the child is not considered a person (according to WA law). As such, there is not contradiction.

Currently. This proposal would change that.

Before birth=not alive*
during birth process=alive

Define "alive".

United Massachusetts wrote:I agree w/ Ovybia here. Let's remember that 'child destruction' is not considered murder in many nations. This resolution improves human rights by affirming a right to life during the birth process, which is in no way a violation of pro-abortion laws

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