NATION

PASSWORD

[LEGALITY CHALLENGE] Partial-Birth Abortion Ban

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
States of Glory WA Office
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1769
Founded: Jul 26, 2016
Liberal Democratic Socialists

[LEGALITY CHALLENGE] Partial-Birth Abortion Ban

Postby States of Glory WA Office » Sat Aug 12, 2017 3:12 pm

I hereby challenge whether the proposal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban violates the originality rule.

1) Does Clause Two of the challenged proposal:
BANS the practice of partial-birth abortions in member states.

contradict Clause One of GA #128 a.k.a. On Abortion?

1. REQUIRES member countries to legalise abortion for cases where:
a) The pregnancy resulted from involuntary sexual activity and/or sexual activity in which at least one of the parties could not legally give consent;
b) Severe foetal abnormality would result in a child being born with an incurable condition which is fatal and/or painful;
c) There is a risk of a life-threatening physical or mental condition which would result in the death or life-long severe disability of the pregnant woman if the pregnancy continued;


2) Does Clause Two of the challenged proposal contradict the below clause from GA #286 a.k.a. Reproductive Freedoms?

MANDATES that Member Nations recognise the right of all individuals to have their pregnancies terminated through safe, openly accessible procedures,


3) Does Clause Two of the challenged proposal duplicate the below clause from GA #222 a.k.a. Prevention of Child Abuse?

MANDATES that all acts of child abuse be criminalised;


Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
Category: Moral Decency | Strength: Significant


The World Assembly,

BELIEVING partial-birth abortions to be immoral,

HEREBY:

  1. DEFINES a partial-birth abortion, for the purposes of this resolution, as the intentional killing of a child during the process of childbirth,

  2. BANS the practice of partial-birth abortions in member states.
Ambassador: Bartholomew Harper Fairburn Rowan Flowerhaze Souldream Bartholomew Harper Fairburn
Assistant: Neville Lynn Robert
#MakeLegislationFunnyAgain

Other ambassadorial staff include but are not limited to Barbera Warner and Harold "The Clown" Johnson.

User avatar
Lexicor
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1022
Founded: Jun 10, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Lexicor » Sat Aug 12, 2017 3:29 pm

((All OOC))

1. I don't see it as a contradiction because you're using a Moral Decency argument to place a restriction on a civil liberty granted by GA #128. The right to an [abortion] under the circumstances listed in Clause I does not entail automatically the right to all methods of abortion based upon the wording of the text. Most court cases legalizing abortion, notably Roe vs Wade allowed states to enact restrictions after the point of fetal viability... which I think matches the intent of this ban.

2. It's a specific ban on a type of procedure that the author considers immoral, and does not diminish the right of an individual to have a pregnancy terminated safely or accessibly.

3. On this point I am unsure, because a child being birthed is considered living, but since the WA has not yet determined a frame of reference for fetal viability or at what point life begins, there is a case to be made that this issue is separate and distinct.
"The less one knows about the Civil War the more likely one is to think the North fought to free the slaves."
"As hours worked by an individual approaches zero, the probability of engagement in political activism approaches one."
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of the mention of inter-sectional group identities approaches one."

User avatar
United Massachusetts
Diplomat
 
Posts: 745
Founded: Jan 17, 2016
Left-wing Utopia

Postby United Massachusetts » Sat Aug 12, 2017 4:54 pm

If this is legal, you can expect a ban on partial birth abortion from my delegation. I will campaign for it, and I do expect that said proposal would reach quorum. Can GenSec make a ruling here, as it will prove important to a future resolution.

Personally, I'd say it is legal as per the precedent set by the legality of Protection of the Partially Born, a proposal I co-authored, which would do exactly that. It made it to vote, but was defeated.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=370220
Last edited by United Massachusetts on Sat Aug 12, 2017 4:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
United Massachusetts
Former Foreign Minister, Current Director of News and Senator in Right to Life
A Believer in the Consistent Life Ethic
But Most Importantly, A Catholic Christian
We are still stronger together
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
-Dwight Eisenhower

The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me? There is nothing between.
-Mother Theresa

User avatar
Calladan
Minister
 
Posts: 3064
Founded: Jul 28, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Calladan » Sat Aug 12, 2017 5:57 pm

Just out of curiousness, if I want to raise a legality challenge, can I use this thread or do I have to raise my own one?
Tara A McGill, Ambassador to Lucinda G Doyle III
"Always be yourself, unless you can be Zathras. Then be Zathras"
A Rough Guide To Calladan | The Seven Years of Darkness | Ambassador McGill's Facebook Page
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, providing they are Christian & white" - Trump

User avatar
Fauxia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1524
Founded: Dec 22, 2016
Capitalizt

Postby Fauxia » Sat Aug 12, 2017 6:36 pm

Calladan wrote:Just out of curiousness, if I want to raise a legality challenge, can I use this thread or do I have to raise my own one?
I believe there is a megathread where you can, but a)I could be wrong and b)You probably should open a new thread.
A member of The Order of the Grey Wardens via Shadow Fauxia
Don't always take my posts so seriously, I joke a lot, especially on the Gameplay forum.
Yes, I know, I'm an idiot with a couple issues. Please help me to fix them.
A 16 civilization, according to this index
Araraukar wrote:Given your "accuracy" so far, anyone but you.
Bears Armed wrote:I am neither a Gramma Nazi nor a Grampa Nazi...
Separatist Peoples wrote:8. Bans abortions, nuclear weapons, bodily sovereignty, national sovereignty, and weaponized cats.
Ambassador: Benedict Corwin, Deputy: Evan Williamson, Intern: Nicholas Cantor

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2281
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Sat Aug 12, 2017 9:04 pm

Fauxia wrote:
Calladan wrote:Just out of curiousness, if I want to raise a legality challenge, can I use this thread or do I have to raise my own one?
I believe there is a megathread where you can, but a)I could be wrong and b)You probably should open a new thread.


There is no megathread. Such a monstrosity would invite utter chaos in the event that more than one resolution is challenged at a time, or a new challenge is raised before GenSec rules on the prior one. Each challenge has its own thread so we can keep them straight.

Calladan, if you have an argument not raised by the OP, you can post it here and we'll look at it the same as we'd look at the arguments in the original challenge. Please note, though, that GenSec hasn't always taken up these "obviously trying to make a point" challenges in a timely fashion.
Last edited by Sierra Lyricalia on Sat Aug 12, 2017 9:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Principal-Agent & Master of Duck Recipes, Anarchy
The Mostly Alright Steph Zakalwe *
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
S.L. Ambassador to the World Assembly
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
The Semi-Honorable Leonid Berkman Pavonis,
Ambassador-At-Large
Imperturbable Berserker #279
Pol. Compass: Econ. -5 to -8, Soc. -8 to -9 (depending)
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People’s Stick.'" -Mikhail Bakunin (to Karl Marx)


User avatar
Calladan
Minister
 
Posts: 3064
Founded: Jul 28, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Calladan » Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:58 am

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
Fauxia wrote:I believe there is a megathread where you can, but a)I could be wrong and b)You probably should open a new thread.


There is no megathread. Such a monstrosity would invite utter chaos in the event that more than one resolution is challenged at a time, or a new challenge is raised before GenSec rules on the prior one. Each challenge has its own thread so we can keep them straight.

Calladan, if you have an argument not raised by the OP, you can post it here and we'll look at it the same as we'd look at the arguments in the original challenge. Please note, though, that GenSec hasn't always taken up these "obviously trying to make a point" challenges in a timely fashion.


Okay. I will make my argument here. In the next post.
Tara A McGill, Ambassador to Lucinda G Doyle III
"Always be yourself, unless you can be Zathras. Then be Zathras"
A Rough Guide To Calladan | The Seven Years of Darkness | Ambassador McGill's Facebook Page
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, providing they are Christian & white" - Trump

User avatar
Calladan
Minister
 
Posts: 3064
Founded: Jul 28, 2016
Ex-Nation

Challenge to Partial-Birth Abortion Ban

Postby Calladan » Sun Aug 13, 2017 5:09 am

I hereby challenge whether the proposal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban violates the contradiction rule.

This resolution would introduce a blanket ban on all partial-birth abortions, with no apparent exceptions allowed under any circumstances.

However Resolution #285 (Assisted Suicide Act) permits doctors and other medical professionals the right to carry out euthanasia in member states where the patient consents to it, and in conjunction with Resolution #29 (The Patients Right Act) the authority to act on behalf of the patient can be devolved to the parents or the guardians of the patient (which could be the doctors).

If there is a blanket ban, it would violate the right of the parents, or the doctor, to decide if the good of the child would be best served about euthanasia or not.

This would violate two previous World Assembly Resolutions, making it illegal.
Tara A McGill, Ambassador to Lucinda G Doyle III
"Always be yourself, unless you can be Zathras. Then be Zathras"
A Rough Guide To Calladan | The Seven Years of Darkness | Ambassador McGill's Facebook Page
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, providing they are Christian & white" - Trump

User avatar
The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper
Diplomat
 
Posts: 580
Founded: Mar 05, 2016
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper » Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:09 am

United Massachusetts wrote:Personally, I'd say it is legal as per the precedent set by the legality of Protection of the Partially Born, a proposal I co-authored, which would do exactly that. It made it to vote, but was defeated.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=370220

Just so there is absolutely no confusion, everyone please note once again that the moderator hat is off.

Seems to me you're comparing apples and... er... not quite oranges; apple pie I guess. This one, I think, is illegal; based on this proposal's definition of "partial birth abortion", the fetus is still in the uterus at the beginning stages of childbirth, at which point making its abortion illegal would contradict existing resolution(s). Obybia's proposal was very explicit in that "child destruction" did not cover the first stage of labor; it covered the second and third stages of labor, when the fetus has already entered the birth canal.
The General Assembly Delegation of the Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper:
-- Wad Ari Alaz, Wrapperian Ambassador to the WA; Author, SCR#200, GAR #300, GAR#361.
-- Wad Ahume Orliss-Dorcke, Deputy Ambassador; two-time Intergalactic Karaoke League champion.
-- Wad Dawei DeGoah, Ambassador Emeritus; deceased.
THE GA POSTS FROM THIS NATION ARE IN-CHARACTER AND SHOULD NEVER BE TAKEN AS MODERATOR RULINGS.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 11731
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Mon Aug 14, 2017 5:29 am

The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper wrote:
United Massachusetts wrote:Personally, I'd say it is legal as per the precedent set by the legality of Protection of the Partially Born, a proposal I co-authored, which would do exactly that. It made it to vote, but was defeated.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=370220

Just so there is absolutely no confusion, everyone please note once again that the moderator hat is off.

Seems to me you're comparing apples and... er... not quite oranges; apple pie I guess. This one, I think, is illegal; based on this proposal's definition of "partial birth abortion", the fetus is still in the uterus at the beginning stages of childbirth, at which point making its abortion illegal would contradict existing resolution(s). Obybia's proposal was very explicit in that "child destruction" did not cover the first stage of labor; it covered the second and third stages of labor, when the fetus has already entered the birth canal.

Thats how I'm seeing this, which should answer Question 1 from my perspective.

Your second question is easy. A right isn't always unlimited. You can have a right to an abortion without having a right to any and every kind of abortion method. Some restrictions would be plausibly legal so long as they don't make it unreasonably difficult to get an abortion at all.

For question three, clause Two of the challenged proposal and GAR#222 only kick in depending on how you define "child." Its possible to interpret a child becoming so after leaving the womb and entering the birth canal, and so there is a way that could be viewed as legal. So, I'd say it's not a contradiction, since you have a plausible interpretation otherwise.

If the Law is a whore, then Judges be Pimp$.

Second year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Wrapper
Senior Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 4614
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Postby Wrapper » Mon Aug 14, 2017 5:47 am

As I read SP's reply, I realized, oops, I spelled Ovybia wrong. Quite unintentional. I'm getting more and more like my IC ambassador every day.
Last edited by Wrapper on Mon Aug 14, 2017 5:47 am, edited 1 time in total.


Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Laeral, Priangan, SylvanianEmpire, Yaroi

Remove ads