[DEFEATED] Protection of Partially Born

[Ovybia]

This proposal has been submitted. If you support, please approve here: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1468869803
If you don't support, please approve anyway.

Protection for the Partially Born | Moral Decency| Mild

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

Please make comments, suggestions, or criticisms. If you agree with the general idea but don't like a specific part, let me know and I'll try to make it agreeable for everyone.

Just to be extremely clear: This resolution in no way impedes a mother's access to abortion. This resolution applies to children during or after birth (i.e. at a time when they are no longer viable). I'm hoping this will be a mostly bi-partisan proposal as it doesn't interfere with a woman's rights or a woman's choice.

[Leppikania]

"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."

[Ovybia]

"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."

"I'm sorry. I didn't know about that protocol. I have corrected the error. On the proposal, it is specific to young children. Because of the age of the child involved, it is not considered a homicide in many countries."

OOC: See, as an example, this Wikipedia article: Child Destruction.

[Wallenburg]

I'm not really sure why it is necessary to criminalize murder. Isn't that kind of redundant?

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

From resolution #222

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;

[Separatist Peoples]

"Ambassador Beaumont has the right if it, this issue is covered."

[Ovybia]

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]

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

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

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.

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.

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

Or this, but know that abortion rights is one of the few topics that have overcome national sovereigntism.

[Wallenburg]

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.

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

[Wallenburg]

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]

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.

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

[Ovybia]

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.

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]

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?

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.

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;

I saw that. Thank you for proving my point.

[Ovybia]

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."

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]

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.

[Wallenburg]

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."

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

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.

That clause is preambulatory, and therefore carries no legal weight. Second, it says that species are people, which makes no sense. 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.

[Wallenburg]

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.

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.

[United Massachusetts]

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.

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

[United Massachusetts]

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.

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
OOC: I would like to say that I believe that from conception the child is a human being deserving of the right to live

*according to WA law

[Phydios]

If it's legal to kill a baby during or right after birth, what exactly is the magic ingredient or event that makes them recognized as a person? The proposal's not touching killing before birth. That's a fight for another day. It simply wishes to ban killing during or after birth.

[Ovybia]

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.

You're right. My bad.

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

How would you suggest I clarify it?

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

Thanks for pointing that out. Corrected.

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]

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.

Currently. This proposal would change that.

Before birth=not alive*
during birth process=alive

Define "alive".

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

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

[Wallenburg]

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

How would you suggest I clarify it?

You could shift the clause to under the hereby clause, and specify that, say, sapient beings of those species are people. However, that would duplicate part of existing legislation protecting the equal rights of sapient beings.

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

Thanks for pointing that out. Corrected.

Doesn't look like you did.

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."

Yes and no. The preamble, were it written as intended, would say that fetuses are people. However, the current active clauses would not.

[United Massachusetts]

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".

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.

1.) This proposal would not change current WA law concerning the rights of a child before birth. It does not even mention the matter.
2.)Alive- Recognized by law as a person deserving of the protection of the law, as such including the right to live.
3.) OK, maybe I didn't need to say I support it, but it is quite clear that this resolution expands human rights to include life during the birth process.