[LEGALITY CHALLENGE] Partial-Birth Abortion Ban

[States of Glory WA Office]

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.

[Lexicor]

((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.

[United Massachusetts]

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

[Calladan]

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?

[Fauxia]

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.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

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.

[Calladan]

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.

[Calladan]

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.

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

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.

[Separatist Peoples]

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.

[Wrapper]

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.