[DRAFT] Born Alive Infants Protection Act

[Auralia]

Born Alive Infants Protection Act
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Mild

Acknowledging that an infant may unintentionally be born alive following an induced termination of pregnancy,

Emphasizing that the right to terminate one's pregnancy presently guaranteed under World Assembly law does not constitute a right to kill a born alive infant,

Recognizing that born alive infants require special legal protection given their uniquely vulnerable condition upon birth,

The General Assembly,

1. Defines a "born alive infant", for the purposes of this resolution, as an offspring who is still alive following the complete extraction or expulsion of the offspring from their parent's body in the course of an induced termination of pregnancy, but who may or may not still be connected by an umbilical cord;
   
2. Clarifies that reproductive matter that is not live offspring, such as unfertilized eggs or sperm, does not constitute a born alive infant;
   
3. Declares that a born alive infant is a person for the purposes of member state and international laws, and is entitled to equal protection under such laws;
   
4. Mandates that member states require that any individual who performs or provides medical assistance during an induced termination of pregnancy:
   
   1. ensure that the infant is checked for signs of life following the procedure,
   2. take whatever action is medically appropriate to preserve the life and health of a born alive infant,
   3. facilitate the timely admission of the born alive infant to a hospital, unless there are compelling medical reasons to treat the infant locally, and
   4. provide the same standard of medical care to a born alive infant as would be provided to a child born normally at the same gestational age;
5. Requires member states to provide appropriate criminal penalties, comparable to those provided for in the case of a child born normally at the same gestational age, for:
   
   1. the deliberate killing of a born alive infant, and
   2. the deliberate failure to provide appropriate medical care to a born alive infant;
6. Further clarifies that nothing in this resolution affects an individual's right to terminate their pregnancy, so long as this is done in a manner consistent with this resolution.

[Imperial Polk County]

"This may sound sillier than a manatee with eyeglasses, Ambassador, but please indulge me. Can you define 'extraction or expulsion of the offspring'? Do you intend that to mean the complete extraction or expulsion of the child, or even the partial expulsion, say, the appearance of the head? Perhaps you can see where I'm going with this."

[The First German Order]

OOC: This wouldn't apply to all WA members nations due to the fact that some have banned sexual reproduction and instead use cloning to reproduce.

[Wrapper]

OOC: This wouldn't apply to all WA members nations due to the fact that some have banned sexual reproduction and instead use cloning to reproduce.

OOC: Not that it's relevant but yes it could. What if a pregnant person traveling in such a WA nation suddenly went into labor and gave birth?

[The First German Order]

OOC: This wouldn't apply to all WA members nations due to the fact that some have banned sexual reproduction and instead use cloning to reproduce.

OOC: Not that it's relevant but yes it could. What if a pregnant person traveling in such a WA nation suddenly went into labor and gave birth?

OOC: Well then that would be a problem because I doubt such a nation would have maternity wards in their hospitals.

[Wrapper]

OOC: Not that it's relevant but yes it could. What if a pregnant person traveling in such a WA nation suddenly went into labor and gave birth?

OOC: Well then that would be a problem because I doubt such a nation would have maternity wards in their hospitals.

Still not relevant, the proposal would apply.

[The First German Order]

OOC: Well then that would be a problem because I doubt such a nation would have maternity wards in their hospitals.

Still not relevant, the proposal would apply.

OOC: How is it irrelevant and how would the proposal still apply?

[Wrapper]

OOC: You really need me to spell out a scenario for you?

Pregnant tourist, late first-trimester or early second trimester, goes into premature labor. Goes to a hospital. Asks for an abortion because fill-in-the-blank (reason doesn't matter, it's a WA nation, they have to comply with On Abortion and Reproductive Freedoms). The process is botched, the child is (partially or fully) born. Can't kill it now under this proposal.

Nowhere in that scenario does it matter that a nation has banned sexual reproduction. It still must comply with WA laws.

[The First German Order]

OOC: You really need me to spell out a scenario for you?

Pregnant tourist, late first-trimester or early second trimester, goes into premature labor. Goes to a hospital. Asks for an abortion because fill-in-the-blank (reason doesn't matter, it's a WA nation, they have to comply with On Abortion and Reproductive Freedoms). The process is botched, the child is (partially or fully) born. Can't kill it now under this proposal.

Nowhere in that scenario does it matter that a nation has banned sexual reproduction. It still must comply with WA laws.

OOC: Alright. I was talking about citizens of said nation originally but you make a good point.

[Imperium Anglorum]

While I agree with Wrapper here, even if it never occurred because of a magic field which suspends foetal development, 'this doesn't apply in some absurd roleplay' is an argument carrying so little weight that it may as well not be an argument. And even if we were to consider it, it doesn't mean anything, because anything which 'doesn't apply' to some nation will necessarily have zero weight on that nation, making the effect on that nation necessarily neutral.

The 'argument' is so intellectually lazy that it doesn't even consider the second-order effect of the argument: that it necessarily weighs itself to zero.

[The First German Order]

While I agree with Wrapper here, even if it never occurred because of a magic field which suspends foetal development, 'this doesn't apply in some absurd roleplay' is an argument carrying so little weight that it may as well not be an argument. And even if we were to consider it, it doesn't mean anything, because anything which 'doesn't apply' to some nation will necessarily have zero weight on that nation, making the effect on that nation necessarily neutral.

The 'argument' is so intellectually lazy that it doesn't even consider the second-order effect of the argument: that it necessarily weighs itself to zero.

OOC: My apologies for starting the "argument". I never intended on starting something.

[The dark Panther]

"i personally say it is good" -WA Ambassador Bolesław Kozminski

[Wrapper]

OOC: My apologies for starting the "argument". I never intended on starting something.

If nobody ever started any arguments here it would be boring as hell.

[Aclion]

What about sapient species that don't give birth to live young? Aren't you defining their eggs(or whaever else) as persons?

(and before someone asks: Yes, fish and other egg layers do get pregnant.)

OOC: My apologies for starting the "argument". I never intended on starting something.

OOC: You can't just post in the GA without starting arguments! What are you thinking!?

[The First German Order]

OOC: My apologies for starting the "argument". I never intended on starting something.

OOC: You can't just post in the GA without starting arguments! What are you thinking!?

OOC: That's true but false at the same time. Arguments do make things interesting.

[The First German Order]

OOC: My apologies for starting the "argument". I never intended on starting something.

If nobody ever started any arguments here it would be boring as hell.

OOC: Agreed.

[Auralia]

"This may sound sillier than a manatee with eyeglasses, Ambassador, but please indulge me. Can you define 'extraction or expulsion of the offspring'? Do you intend that to mean the complete extraction or expulsion of the child, or even the partial expulsion, say, the appearance of the head? Perhaps you can see where I'm going with this."

For clarity, this proposal is not intended to affect the legality of partial-birth abortion. The definition should read "complete extraction or expulsion of the offspring". I will make an appropriate change.

What about sapient species that don't give birth to live young? Aren't you defining their eggs(or whaever else) as persons?

(and before someone asks: Yes, fish and other egg layers do get pregnant.)

I think it is clear that this proposal does not apply in such cases. An egg is not living offspring.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Wallenburg]

"I honestly don't see what need we have for this. In most species, it is far safer for such a late abortion to simply be induced labor and live birth. And by the time childbirth is complete, you have a new person. Please explain why this form of murder is being legislated on in the World Assembly when we have refrained from legislating on any other kind?"

[The First German Order]

"This may sound sillier than a manatee with eyeglasses, Ambassador, but please indulge me. Can you define 'extraction or expulsion of the offspring'? Do you intend that to mean the complete extraction or expulsion of the child, or even the partial expulsion, say, the appearance of the head? Perhaps you can see where I'm going with this."

For clarity, this proposal is not intended to affect the legality of partial-birth abortion. The definition should read "complete extraction or expulsion of the offspring". I will make an appropriate change.

What about sapient species that don't give birth to live young? Aren't you defining their eggs(or whaever else) as persons?

(and before someone asks: Yes, fish and other egg layers do get pregnant.)

I think it is clear that this proposal does not apply in such cases. An egg is not living offspring.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

OOC: I'd suggest making changes to make it clear that eggs do not count.

[Auralia]

"I honestly don't see what need we have for this. In most species, it is far safer for such a late abortion to simply be induced labor and live birth. And by the time childbirth is complete, you have a new person. Please explain why this form of murder is being legislated on in the World Assembly when we have refrained from legislating on any other kind?"

This is a fair question, and one that we answered during debate on a similar proposal. The simple answer is that there is reason to believe that not all World Assembly member states provide adequate legal protection against this form of murder.

1) It is not actually clear whether the World Assembly presently guarantees human rights to born alive infants, since no resolution states when personhood begins. It sounds like Wallenburg maintains it begins at birth, but there is no basis for that claim under World Assembly law.

2) Some states might hold that the right to abortion guaranteed by the World Assembly derives not only from a right to bodily sovereignty but also from a right not to be a genetic parent, and that this latter right trumps whatever right to life that that a born alive infant possesses. Therefore, the right to abortion would include the right to kill a born alive infant.

3) A failed abortion is a unique situation that deserve special legal scrutiny. The child was likely born prematurely and so requires special medical care. The child is also probably suffering from harm caused by the attempted abortion. Most importantly, the attending physician has a clear conflict of interest as he was attempting to kill the child not moments before. It would certainly be convenient for both the physician and the party undergoing the abortion if the child were not to survive the ordeal.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Aclion]

4) It's a lot easier to legislate, as the complications of self defense and war and what have you aren't an issue with newborn infants.

(and before someone asks: Yes, fish and other egg layers do get pregnant.)

I think it is clear that this proposal does not apply in such cases. An egg is not living offspring.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly[/quote]

I think it's perfectly clear that a (fertilised, since if it, wasn't it would not be a pregnancy) egg is offspring, so my question for you is why do you believe a egg is not alive.

[Auralia]

4) It's a lot easier to legislate, as the complications of self defense and war and what have you aren't an issue with newborn infants.

(and before someone asks: Yes, fish and other egg layers do get pregnant.)
I think it is clear that this proposal does not apply in such cases. An egg is not living offspring.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

I think it's perfectly clear that a (fertilised, since if it, wasn't it would not be a pregnancy) egg is offspring, so my question for you is why do you believe a egg is not alive.

Yes, I agree that a fertilized egg is living offspring. However, there is little that one can do to preserve the life or health of a fertilized egg outside of his or her mother's womb. This proposal might have more significance in such cases if and when artificial wombs are created.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Imperial Polk County]

For clarity, this proposal is not intended to affect the legality of partial-birth abortion.

"Well, why not? It is a repugnant practice that is not protected under current WA legislation as other safer methods of abortion are available. Wouldn't you agree? Otherwise, this proposal is quite toothless. All it does is protect the newly born."

[San Hieronymi]

4) It's a lot easier to legislate, as the complications of self defense and war and what have you aren't an issue with newborn infants.



I think it's perfectly clear that a (fertilised, since if it, wasn't it would not be a pregnancy) egg is offspring, so my question for you is why do you believe a egg is not alive.

Yes, I agree that a fertilized egg is living offspring. However, there is little that one can do to preserve the life or health of a fertilized egg outside of his or her mother's womb. This proposal might have more significance in such cases if and when artificial wombs are created.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

(OOC: Can't answer IC as we are MT and haven't encountered such a situation but I believe the egg they refer to is a reptile style egg that may be produced by a non-humanoid sapient. Such an egg may hold a partly formed sapient inside it.)

[Auralia]

For clarity, this proposal is not intended to affect the legality of partial-birth abortion.

"Well, why not? It is a repugnant practice that is not protected under current WA legislation as other safer methods of abortion are available. Wouldn't you agree? Otherwise, this proposal is quite toothless. All it does is protect the newly born."

We are also opposed to the practice of partial-birth abortion, but we believe the issue would be better dealt with in a separate proposal, if at all.

We believe this proposal is far from toothless, as it is far from clear that member states presently provide adequate legal protection for infants born alive.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly