| Welcome to The Rejected Realms, NationStates' ejection-free zone! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you can only view some areas of the board and you can only post in the Troubleshooting and Suggestions forum. If you register an account, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customising your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Register now! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Protection of Partially Born; Proposed by: Ovybia | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jul 19 2016, 11:58 PM (83 Views) | |
| Libetarian Republics | Jul 19 2016, 11:58 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Spammer
|
Description: 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. |
![]() |
|
| Christian Democrats | Jul 20 2016, 03:35 AM Post #2 |
|
HMSM James II
|
There are several changes I would have liked, but my coauthors didn't want them. That said, I approve this proposal overall. A woman has no legitimate interest in taking away her child's life once her pregnancy has ended (i.e., once her child has exited or has been removed from her uterus). For. |
|
"I was born free and desire to continue so." | |
![]() |
|
| Guy | Jul 20 2016, 04:39 PM Post #3 |
![]()
Old Admin Slave
|
Nay. Abortions should be safe and legal, regardless of method, unless there are exceptionally strong reasons for the WA/state to assert medical judgment on these matters. The proposal at hand gets medical facts wrong, and bans many procedures that do not even resmeble what it is trying to ban. It discriminates between legitimate abortion methods, even though this particular one may in fact be medically necessary in some cases. Notably, there isn't even a requirement for viability here. Further, the definition of birth not only is not medically accurate (it is internally inconsistent), but does not seem to distinguish between a complete delivery (that is, the fetus being entirely outside of its mother) and a mere small part of it being outside of the uterus. This means that an abortion which involves some delivery out of the uterus of any extent, at any stage of the pregnancy, is prohibited. The resolution claims that these procedures are "needlessly bloody but also dangerous". There is no evidence for this. Further, it claims that these procedures are never "medically necessary". Again, the evidence is simply not there. An abortion may be necessary to save the woman's life, and a partial delivery may be the only safe method to perform it. For a medical judgment of necessity to be made by the WA in the negative in absolutely all cases would be astonishing. Astonishingly, after claiming that this operation is never medically necessary, the proposal goes on to make medical necessity an exception to prosecution. (The requirement to "duly prosecute" in itself is also a gross breach of the prosecutorial discretion that WA member states would want to uphold, and amounts to micromanaging the prosecutorial process.) Another false claim passed off as "fact" is that at the time of birth, the fetus is necessarily "well-developed". Given that these types of abortions are at times performed as early as 16 weeks, well before viability, this claim doesn't really help the proposal's already abysmal record on getting the facts right. For a technical discussion on 'partial-birth abortion', one cannot go past Stenberg v. Carhart, which deals directly with some of the factually incorrect material the authors attempt to import as medical 'facts'. Finally, as one last trick up its sleeve, the proposal somehow claims that it does not interfere with the right to an abortion. I thought I could not be any more incredulous, but here I am. |
![]() |
|
| Christian Democrats | Jul 20 2016, 07:08 PM Post #4 |
|
HMSM James II
|
Killing a child while his mother is in labor can hardly be called an abortion. |
|
"I was born free and desire to continue so." | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." Learn More · Register for Free |
|
| « Previous Topic · General Assembly · Next Topic » |







8:20 AM Jul 11