NATION

PASSWORD

[DEFEATED] Protection of Partially Born

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
Ovybia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 578
Founded: Jun 25, 2015
Ex-Nation

[DEFEATED] Protection of Partially Born

Postby Ovybia » Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:52 pm

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.
Last edited by Wrapper on Sun Jul 24, 2016 3:56 pm, edited 35 times in total.
Reason: MODEDIT: Defeated.
Please approve Child Destruction Ban. If you don't, the Ovybian dragon will come eat you.
Prolife? Consider joining Right to Life, one of the 100 largest regions of NS
Signature Details
Practicing courteousness in an NS argument never hurt anyone.
Disclaimer: Admittedly sometimes I need to take my own advice.

User avatar
Leppikania
Minister
 
Posts: 2331
Founded: Apr 13, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Leppikania » Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:59 pm

"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."
INTP, -4.25 Economic Left/Right, -4.1 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian, tastes like chicken.
I do use NS stats, thank you very much.
Funny Quotes
Pie charts for industries
Request an Embassy

User avatar
Ovybia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 578
Founded: Jun 25, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Ovybia » Sat Mar 05, 2016 5:06 pm

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."

"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.
Please approve Child Destruction Ban. If you don't, the Ovybian dragon will come eat you.
Prolife? Consider joining Right to Life, one of the 100 largest regions of NS
Signature Details
Practicing courteousness in an NS argument never hurt anyone.
Disclaimer: Admittedly sometimes I need to take my own advice.

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22117
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Wallenburg » Sat Mar 05, 2016 5:34 pm

I'm not really sure why it is necessary to criminalize murder. Isn't that kind of redundant?
I want to improve.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Kiu Ghesik wrote:harris' interpretation of bidenism and subsequent establishment of a bidenist vanguard party to root out malarkey and revisionist elements in society was revisionist in and of itself and should never have been implemented.

King of Snark, Minister of World Assembly Affairs, Arbiter for The East Pacific

User avatar
We Couldnt Agree On A Name
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 485
Founded: Nov 18, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby We Couldnt Agree On A Name » Sat Mar 05, 2016 5:35 pm

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;
World Assembly Representative: Ms. Adriene Beaumont | "We write legislation here, not dictionaries."
I'll use stats when you fix 443.3

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 16807
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sat Mar 05, 2016 5:37 pm

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

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence, Arbiter of Right, Toxic Globalist Dog, Dark Psychic Vampire, and Chief Populist Elitist!
Separatist Peoples should RESIGN!

User avatar
Ovybia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 578
Founded: Jun 25, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Ovybia » Sat Mar 05, 2016 5:49 pm

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.
Please approve Child Destruction Ban. If you don't, the Ovybian dragon will come eat you.
Prolife? Consider joining Right to Life, one of the 100 largest regions of NS
Signature Details
Practicing courteousness in an NS argument never hurt anyone.
Disclaimer: Admittedly sometimes I need to take my own advice.

User avatar
Wrapper
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 5971
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Wrapper » Sat Mar 05, 2016 6:26 pm

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

User avatar
We Couldnt Agree On A Name
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 485
Founded: Nov 18, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby We Couldnt Agree On A Name » Sat Mar 05, 2016 6:45 pm

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.

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.

Wrapper wrote: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.
World Assembly Representative: Ms. Adriene Beaumont | "We write legislation here, not dictionaries."
I'll use stats when you fix 443.3

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22117
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Wallenburg » Sat Mar 05, 2016 6:56 pm

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.

In that case, your proposal would do nothing, as such nations certainly wouldn't consider such children to be children.
I want to improve.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Kiu Ghesik wrote:harris' interpretation of bidenism and subsequent establishment of a bidenist vanguard party to root out malarkey and revisionist elements in society was revisionist in and of itself and should never have been implemented.

King of Snark, Minister of World Assembly Affairs, Arbiter for The East Pacific

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22117
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Wallenburg » Sat Mar 05, 2016 6:58 pm

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.
I want to improve.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Kiu Ghesik wrote:harris' interpretation of bidenism and subsequent establishment of a bidenist vanguard party to root out malarkey and revisionist elements in society was revisionist in and of itself and should never have been implemented.

King of Snark, Minister of World Assembly Affairs, Arbiter for The East Pacific

User avatar
We Couldnt Agree On A Name
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 485
Founded: Nov 18, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby We Couldnt Agree On A Name » Sat Mar 05, 2016 7:10 pm

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.

Do any resolutions actually define when a fetus become a child?
World Assembly Representative: Ms. Adriene Beaumont | "We write legislation here, not dictionaries."
I'll use stats when you fix 443.3

User avatar
Ovybia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 578
Founded: Jun 25, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Ovybia » Sat Mar 05, 2016 7:16 pm

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.

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;
Last edited by Ovybia on Sat Mar 05, 2016 7:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Please approve Child Destruction Ban. If you don't, the Ovybian dragon will come eat you.
Prolife? Consider joining Right to Life, one of the 100 largest regions of NS
Signature Details
Practicing courteousness in an NS argument never hurt anyone.
Disclaimer: Admittedly sometimes I need to take my own advice.

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22117
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Wallenburg » Sat Mar 05, 2016 7:20 pm

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?

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.
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;

I saw that. Thank you for proving my point.
Last edited by Wallenburg on Sat Mar 05, 2016 7:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I want to improve.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Kiu Ghesik wrote:harris' interpretation of bidenism and subsequent establishment of a bidenist vanguard party to root out malarkey and revisionist elements in society was revisionist in and of itself and should never have been implemented.

King of Snark, Minister of World Assembly Affairs, Arbiter for The East Pacific

User avatar
Ovybia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 578
Founded: Jun 25, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Ovybia » Sat Mar 05, 2016 7:27 pm

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.
Last edited by Ovybia on Sat Mar 05, 2016 7:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Please approve Child Destruction Ban. If you don't, the Ovybian dragon will come eat you.
Prolife? Consider joining Right to Life, one of the 100 largest regions of NS
Signature Details
Practicing courteousness in an NS argument never hurt anyone.
Disclaimer: Admittedly sometimes I need to take my own advice.

User avatar
We Couldnt Agree On A Name
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 485
Founded: Nov 18, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby We Couldnt Agree On A Name » Sat Mar 05, 2016 7:34 pm

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.
Last edited by We Couldnt Agree On A Name on Sat Mar 05, 2016 8:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.
World Assembly Representative: Ms. Adriene Beaumont | "We write legislation here, not dictionaries."
I'll use stats when you fix 443.3

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22117
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Wallenburg » Sat Mar 05, 2016 7:35 pm

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."

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

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.
I want to improve.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Kiu Ghesik wrote:harris' interpretation of bidenism and subsequent establishment of a bidenist vanguard party to root out malarkey and revisionist elements in society was revisionist in and of itself and should never have been implemented.

King of Snark, Minister of World Assembly Affairs, Arbiter for The East Pacific

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22117
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Wallenburg » Sat Mar 05, 2016 7:40 pm

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.

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.
I want to improve.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Kiu Ghesik wrote:harris' interpretation of bidenism and subsequent establishment of a bidenist vanguard party to root out malarkey and revisionist elements in society was revisionist in and of itself and should never have been implemented.

King of Snark, Minister of World Assembly Affairs, Arbiter for The East Pacific

User avatar
United Massachusetts
Minister
 
Posts: 2574
Founded: Jan 17, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby United Massachusetts » Sat Mar 05, 2016 7:41 pm

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.

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

User avatar
United Massachusetts
Minister
 
Posts: 2574
Founded: Jan 17, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby United Massachusetts » Sat Mar 05, 2016 7:45 pm

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.

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

User avatar
Phydios
Minister
 
Posts: 2448
Founded: Dec 06, 2014
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Phydios » Sat Mar 05, 2016 7:46 pm

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.
James 1:26-27, Matthew 7:21-23
If you claim to be religious but don’t control your tongue, you are fooling yourself, and your religion is worthless. Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you. | Not everyone who calls out to me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter. On judgment day many will say to me, ‘Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.’ But I will reply, ‘I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God’s laws.’

User avatar
Ovybia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 578
Founded: Jun 25, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Ovybia » Sat Mar 05, 2016 7:47 pm

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.

You're right. My bad.

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."
Last edited by Ovybia on Sat Mar 05, 2016 7:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Please approve Child Destruction Ban. If you don't, the Ovybian dragon will come eat you.
Prolife? Consider joining Right to Life, one of the 100 largest regions of NS
Signature Details
Practicing courteousness in an NS argument never hurt anyone.
Disclaimer: Admittedly sometimes I need to take my own advice.

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22117
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Wallenburg » Sat Mar 05, 2016 7:49 pm

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.

Currently. This proposal would change that.
Before birth=not alive*
during birth process=alive

Define "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

We all know you support this. You're the co-author.
I want to improve.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Kiu Ghesik wrote:harris' interpretation of bidenism and subsequent establishment of a bidenist vanguard party to root out malarkey and revisionist elements in society was revisionist in and of itself and should never have been implemented.

King of Snark, Minister of World Assembly Affairs, Arbiter for The East Pacific

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22117
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Wallenburg » Sat Mar 05, 2016 7:56 pm

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

Thanks for pointing that out. Corrected.

Doesn't look like you did.
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."

Yes and no. The preamble, were it written as intended, would say that fetuses are people. However, the current active clauses would not.
I want to improve.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Kiu Ghesik wrote:harris' interpretation of bidenism and subsequent establishment of a bidenist vanguard party to root out malarkey and revisionist elements in society was revisionist in and of itself and should never have been implemented.

King of Snark, Minister of World Assembly Affairs, Arbiter for The East Pacific

User avatar
United Massachusetts
Minister
 
Posts: 2574
Founded: Jan 17, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby United Massachusetts » Sat Mar 05, 2016 7:57 pm

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.



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.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads