[SUBMITTED] Out of the Womb

[Strahcoin]

I have an idea for an issue. If you have any thoughts about this, please provide some here.

Current draft:

[title]Out of the Womb
[validity]Must not have No Abortion policy, must not have Child Self-Rearing policy

[description]Following a failed abortion, a new baby is born. However, the abortion has permanently deformed the child, sparking a controversy on whether doctors should be allowed to withhold treatment to babies who survive abortions.

[option 1]"It's kind of simple, actually," stated @@RANDOMNAME@@, the doctor of the newly born child. "The child has several broken bones, a deformed skull, and many other defects that I cannot begin to explain. Letting the child pass away peacefully would be a mercy, and it would save a lot of future grief and trauma."
[effect]doctors treat patients based on how healthy they look

[option 2]"I fail to see how that will improve anything," objected @@RANDOMFIRSTNAMEMALE@@ @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@, the child's father. "Maybe the child will have a difficult future, but letting @HIM_2@ die is not the answer. We, the parents, are responsible for raising and supporting @@HIM_2@@. @@LEADER@@, keep parents accountable for their children's livelihood, no matter what problems they may face."
[effect]threatening to disown a child is punishable for incitement

[option 3]"Is nobody going to ask me?" questioned @@RANDOMFIRSTNAMEFEMALE@@ @@LASTNAME_1@@, the child's mother. "I had to carry the child for several months, even though I never wanted one. @@LEADER@@, let society care for all children who survive abortions. If you can find them an adoptive family to care for them, then all the better, but don't force parents to keep children they don't want."
[effect]deformed babies disowned by their parents make up half of @@NAME@@'s adoption centers

[title]Out of the Womb
[validity]Must not have No Abortion policy

[description]Following a failed abortion, a new baby is born. However, the abortion has permanently deformed the child, and the woman, stating that she doesn't want the child, is petitioning the government to allow doctors to withhold treatment.

[option 1]"My body, my choice!" shouted @@RANDOMNAMEFEMALE_1@@, the unwilling mother, leaving the baby to his own devices. "Err... anyways, I shouldn't have to care for the baby. It couldn't have survived without me, so I shouldn't be forced to let it live. And besides, it's already deformed, and I cannot guarantee that I love it, so letting it die is more merciful than letting it live. Right?"
[effect]@@NAME@@ is driven by a class struggle between the birthers and the born.

[option 2]"Woah, woah, woah! Slow down there." argued social liberal commentator @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Look, I'm all in for the women's right to choose, but I think we should keep the baby alive once it's born. The baby is not your body anymore, it is a human being now, it isn't infringing upon your liberty anymore. I say that once it's no longer a part of you, it should be protected like another human being. It's not like adoption centers don't exist."
[effect]unprepared mothers sometimes wait to cut the umbilical cord before deciding whether they want the baby or not

[option 3]"Our son wasn't part of anyone's body to begin with!" angrily shouts @@FIRSTNAME_1@@'s husband, @@RANDOMFIRSTNAMEMALE@@ @@LASTNAME_1@@, whose last birthday wish was for a child. "He has always been a person, just like us, and we the parents have the duty to care for him. Everyone must be equally protected, no matter how they're born. Oh, and while we're at it, ban abortions, and severely punish those who try to abandon the responsibility." [must not have slavery]
[effect]slapping a pregnant woman's belly is considered child abuse
[policy]Implements "No Abortion" policy

[option 4]"Well, actually," starts prominent right-libertarian @@RANDOMNAME@@, author of the book The NAP and You. "I understand that one shouldn't infringe upon the child's right to life, but forcing doctors to care for them? Two wrongs don't make a right. If hospitals think the doctors who refuse to heal deformed babies are evading their duties by doing so, they can just replace them with doctors who won't. @@LEADER@@, incarcerate those who commit abortion, but let anybody who doesn't aggress upon the child be. Once the baby is outside the womb, he is responsible for his own life.
[effect]abandoning innocent children in the wild is perfectly legal in @@NAME@@
[policy]Implements "No Abortion" policy

[title]Out of the Womb
[validity]Must not have No Abortion policy

[description]Following a failed abortion and the baby's survival, a woman is petitioning the government to legalize "post-birth abortions".

[option 1]"My body, my choice!" shouted @@RANDOMNAMEFEMALE_1@@, the unwilling mother, holding the baby in her arms. "Err... anyways, I shouldn't have to care for the baby. It couldn't have survived without me, so I shouldn't be forced to let it live. And besides, it's already deformed, and I cannot guarantee that I love it, so letting it die is more merciful than letting it live. Right?"
[effect]@@NAME@@ is driven by a class struggle between the birthers and the born.

[option 2]"Woah, woah, woah! Slow down there." argued social liberal commentator @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Look, I'm all in for the women's right to choose, but I think we should keep the baby alive once it's born. The baby is not your body anymore, it is a human being now, it isn't infringing upon your liberty anymore. I say that once it's no longer a part of you, it should be protected like another human being. It's not like adoption centers don't exist."
[effect]unprepared mothers sometimes wait to cut the umbilical cord before deciding whether they want the baby or not

[option 3]"Our son wasn't part of anyone's body to begin with!" angrily shouts @@FIRSTNAME_1@@'s husband, @@RANDOMFIRSTNAMEMALE@@ @@LASTNAME_1@@, whose last birthday wish was for a child. "He has always been a person, just like us, and we the parents have the duty to care for him. Ban abortions, and severely punish those who try to abandon the responsibility." [must not have slavery]
[effect]slapping a pregnant woman's belly is considered child abuse
[policy]Implements "No Abortion" policy

[option 4]"Blah blah morality blah," mocks nihilist egoist @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Why should we prevent anybody from killing anyone, period? Look, I'm not saying I want to murder anybody. I don't think that anybody should prevent anybody from exercising their right to end the rights of others to live. No, wait, scratch that. I meant that people should have absolute freedom to control others... no, wait... You know what? Just scrap the idea of rights entirely."
[effect]@@LEADER@@ considers infringing upon others' civil rights a civil right

[title]Out of the Womb
[validity]Must not have No Abortion policy

[description]Following a failed abortion and the baby's survival, a woman is petitioning the government to legalize "post-birth abortions".

[option 1]"My body, my choice!" shouted @@RANDOMNAMEFEMALE_1@@, the unwilling mother, holding the baby in her arms. "Err... anyways, I should be able to abort the baby. It couldn't have survived without me, so I should be able to end its life. And besides, it's already deformed, and I cannot guarantee that I love it, so killing it is more merciful than letting it live. Right?"
[effect]@@NAME@@ is driven by a class struggle between the birthers and the born.

[option 2]"Woah, woah, woah! Slow down there." argued social liberal commentator @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Look, I'm all in for the women's right to choose, but I don't think we should murder the baby once it's born. The baby is not your body anymore, it is a human being now, it isn't infringing upon your liberty anymore. I say let it live once it's no longer part of you."
[effect]unprepared mothers sometimes wait to cut the umbilical cord before deciding whether they want the baby or not

[option 3]"Our son wasn't part of anyone's body to begin with!" angrily shouts @@FIRSTNAME_1@@'s husband, @@RANDOMFIRSTNAMEMALE@@ @@LASTNAME_1@@, whose last birthday wish was for a child. "He has always been a person, just like us. And the idea that one can murder an innocent child simply because it isn't outside the womb is just like the idea that slaveowners can murder and control their slaves simply because they live on their plantations! Ban abortions, and severely punish those who try." [must not have slavery]
[effect]slapping a pregnant woman's belly is considered child abuse
[policy]Implements "No Abortion" policy

[option 4]"Our son wasn't part of anyone's body to begin with!" angrily shouts @@FIRSTNAME_1@@'s husband, @@RANDOMFIRSTNAMEMALE@@ @@LASTNAME_1@@, whose last birthday wish was for a child. "He has always been a person, just like us. Ban abortions, and severely punish those who try." [must have slavery]
[effect]slapping a pregnant woman's belly is considered child abuse
[policy]Implements "No Abortion" policy

[option 5]"Blah blah morality blah," mocks nihilist egoist @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Why should we prevent anybody from killing anyone, period? Look, I'm not saying I want to murder anybody. I don't think that anybody should prevent anybody from exercising their right to end the rights of others to live. No, wait, scratch that. I meant that people should have absolute freedom to control others... no, wait... You know what? Just scrap the idea of rights entirely."
[effect]@@LEADER@@ considers infringing upon others' civil rights a civil right

[USS Monitor]

I think this would be more interesting if the options touched on who is responsible for the child instead of just rehashing the same old arguments about abortion.

[Australian rePublic]

How does an abortion fail?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

How does an abortion fail?

It happened back in the 1970s, and back then mums even got told they were mistaken when they thought themselves still pregnant.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/683631

Medication-only termination still has only 95% efficacy, but follow up mechanisms in place identify the failed terminations.

It's hugely unlikely with modern medicine, though, simply because of the monitoring in place to check success of termination. Furthermore, even if it did happen, there's not a country in the world which legally allows for killing babies after birth, and most have a hard limit on when terminations can take place up to, normally no more than 24 weeks gestation... which makes the issue premise itself stillborn.

[Bears Armed]

Furthermore, even if it did happen, there's not a country in the world which legally allows for killing babies after birth, and most have a hard limit on when terminations can take place up to, normally no more than 24 weeks gestation...

Here in NS, a resolution requires all WA member nations to legalise it right up to birth.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Furthermore, even if it did happen, there's not a country in the world which legally allows for killing babies after birth, and most have a hard limit on when terminations can take place up to, normally no more than 24 weeks gestation...

Here in NS, a resolution requires all WA member nations to legalise it right up to birth.

Damn, someone needs to fix that.

[Strahcoin]

Edited. Thanks to those who responded.

I think this would be more interesting if the options touched on who is responsible for the child instead of just rehashing the same old arguments about abortion.

Sounds like a good idea.

How does an abortion fail?

It happened back in the 1970s, and back then mums even got told they were mistaken when they thought themselves still pregnant.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/683631

Medication-only termination still has only 95% efficacy, but follow up mechanisms in place identify the failed terminations.

It's hugely unlikely with modern medicine, though, simply because of the monitoring in place to check success of termination. Furthermore, even if it did happen, there's not a country in the world which legally allows for killing babies after birth, and most have a hard limit on when terminations can take place up to, normally no more than 24 weeks gestation... which makes the issue premise itself stillborn.

Perhaps not. I changed it so instead, it addresses how in some places (such as New York), babies that were born after surviving chemical abortions can be denied treatment.

[USS Monitor]

It happened back in the 1970s, and back then mums even got told they were mistaken when they thought themselves still pregnant.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/683631

Medication-only termination still has only 95% efficacy, but follow up mechanisms in place identify the failed terminations.

It's hugely unlikely with modern medicine, though, simply because of the monitoring in place to check success of termination. Furthermore, even if it did happen, there's not a country in the world which legally allows for killing babies after birth, and most have a hard limit on when terminations can take place up to, normally no more than 24 weeks gestation... which makes the issue premise itself stillborn.

Perhaps not. I changed it so instead, it addresses how in some places (such as New York), babies that were born after surviving chemical abortions can be denied treatment.

There's a meaningful difference between withholding treatment and allowing the baby to die vs. pro-actively killing it. You should make it clearer that you're talking about withholding treatment.

I mean, I still think people that don't want a kid should use contraception, abort it sooner, or put it up for adoption -- but that thing in NY is still not talking about taking a healthy baby and killing it. It's talking about taking a baby that already has serious medical problems from being premature, and letting it die on its own from those problems.

[Strahcoin]

Edited (again).

Perhaps not. I changed it so instead, it addresses how in some places (such as New York), babies that were born after surviving chemical abortions can be denied treatment.

There's a meaningful difference between withholding treatment and allowing the baby to die vs. pro-actively killing it. You should make it clearer that you're talking about withholding treatment.

I mean, I still think people that don't want a kid should use contraception, abort it sooner, or put it up for adoption -- but that thing in NY is still not talking about taking a healthy baby and killing it. It's talking about taking a baby that already has serious medical problems from being premature, and letting it die on its own from those problems.

Yep, and (I hope) the changes I made now clearly reflect that as opposed to post-birth abortions.

I have also changed the fourth option from completely legalizing murder to criminalizing abortion yet allowing doctors to refuse to treat the children. (Because the former won't work as well for an issue about withholding treatment.)

[The Free Joy State]

This issue lacks any sense of balance and the options make no sense.

"My body, my choice" is not an argument that anyone, anywhere, ever would use to refuse treatment to someone else once they had been born.

As Monitor said, who should care for the born child would be far more interesting than this same old, same old abortion debate.

I suggest you get rid of all the options and start again from scratch with:

Option One: The child's doctor: The child is severely damaged and will never have a good quality of life; we should let the child pass away peacefully.

Option Two: The father: We are the child's parents. It's our responsibility to raise the child and support it, despite its problems.

Option Three: The mother: I never wanted this child. Society can raise the child, and hope to find an adoptive home, but let mothers revoke all parental responsibility if the foetus survives abortion.

[Strahcoin]

This issue lacks any sense of balance and the options make no sense.

"My body, my choice" is not an argument that anyone, anywhere, ever would use to refuse treatment to someone else once they had been born.

As Monitor said, who should care for the born child would be far more interesting than this same old, same old abortion debate.

I suggest you get rid of all the options and start again from scratch with:

Option One: The child's doctor: The child is severely damaged and will never have a good quality of life; we should let the child pass away peacefully.

Option Two: The father: We are the child's parents. It's our responsibility to raise the child and support it, despite its problems.

Option Three: The mother: I never wanted this child. Society can raise the child, and hope to find an adoptive home, but let mothers revoke all parental responsibility if the foetus survives abortion.

Thank you for your feedback. Updated.

My current draft currently requires using third-person macros (@@HIM@@, @@HER@@) to refer to the baby. If anyone has suggestions to render them unnecessary, please share.

[Strahcoin]

Last call for suggestions. I will submit this soon.

[Strahcoin]

Submitted. Thanks again to all who have given advice, and Merry Christmas/happy holidays.

[Australian rePublic]

Good Luck

[Strahcoin]

Good Luck

Thank you.