At Vote:[GA] Protection of Partially Born [Complete]

Mousebumples

Mousebumples

TNPer
Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Ovybia
Onsite discussion

Protection of Partially Born:
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.

Co-authored by:
The Life At All Stages Republic of United Massachusetts
The Most Holy and Grand Empire of Christian Democrats
Click to expand...

Please vote: For, Against, Abstain, or Present.
 
Dear god am I against this.

Mainly cuz it violates rule 5 of my personal GA code of ethics. "Never even consider anything proposed by Christian Democrats"

Edit: For those of you brought to this post by Christian Democrat's linking to this page. Its not that I won't argue with those that I disagree with politically. Its just that I am sick... just so sick and tired of doing it. Especially since 90% of the time I end up screaming at a brick wall.
 
St George:
Aren't multiple co-authors illegal under the rules?
Click to expand...
The semi-recent GA rules revision allows more. I think up to 2 or 3 co-authors, but I'd have to look up the exact details there.

The listed 2 co-authors are legal.
 
quak1234:
Myroria:
Against. This legislation is a creeping vine planted next to women's uteruses.
Click to expand...
I don't... What are you saying here?
Why are you all against this?
Click to expand...
Despite the claim in the resolution that it, "does not, in any way, interfere with the legal right to abortion." ... The identity of the authors make me question the motivations, frankly. They are among the most staunchly anti-choice individuals in the GA, and given how the GA draft has meandered and previously contradicted existing abortion resolution, I'm afraid that I don't trust their motives here. And the phrasing of that clause is such that if/when they manage to repeal the existing pro-choice resolutions on the books, this text would in no way ensure that women have a right to an abortion or sovereignty over their own bodies/reproductive systems.

If they wanted to make sure that nations could add another charge of murder when a pregnant woman is killed by a drunk driver (i.e. to account for the death of the fetus), they could have included that within the text. They did not. If they wanted to make it clear that they were targeting at term births where a doctor or other individual murders the infant mid-birth, they could have done that. They did not. They used unclear language that could include those instances where a serious birth defect (that would cause tremendous debilitation or pain to the child after birth) is discovered late in the pregnancy. If the parents want to exercise their right to terminate the pregnancy (at, say, 24 weeks - which is past the typical stage of viability) and would prefer to have a D&X procedure done so that they can hold and bury their child, that could be covered under this legislation. While there are ways around the exact details mentioned in this legislation - to be able to do that while still being compliant - I'd rather defer to the doctor and the family about what they think is best for their situation.

It's a politically charged issue that has it's own Real World Controversy associated with it. The text of this proposal is well written enough to need a closer examination to determine if it's something worth supporting. However, the laser-like focus on the birthing process - and not on the general theme of protecting the newly born (or the unborn outside of abortion, as described above) makes me highly uncomfortable, overall.

I would probably support (*pending wording/phrasing) a proposal that includes Safe Haven provisions and the like. But I find myself unable to support this, personally.
 
Against.

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.
 
Okay, it appears heavily in me voting against, so I've done so.

Gradea: please be advised that you need a WA Nation in TNP before the vote starts for your vote to count.
 
Regardless of whatever anyone thinks about partial-birth abortions. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO FORCE THESE REGULATIONS ON MY NATION!!!!!
 
Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top