[DRAFT] Born Alive Infants Protection Act

[San Hieronymi]

The rather paunchy junior delegate stumbles to his feet, happy to get to speak for a second time so soon.

"Honourable members of the committee, we feel that this is a noble endeavour and hope that an acceptable resolution can be drafted as the rights of the newly born are an important matter and if this assembly insists on legislating on matters more appropriately left to individual nations then it has the responsibility of ensuring it does so comprehensively.

I can see us supporting the resolution, though we will consider any amendments we might suggest to support this motion."

he settles back down in his chair.

[The First German Order]

"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

TFGO's representative stands. "This proposal is unnecessary. Unless of course you are attempting to spread out a nation's police force if they don't have a large one, as counting killing an aborted infant or failure to give medical assistance as a crime would spread out a small nation's police force, if the force is small. Also what if a hospital or wherever abortions take place doesn't have a large enough staff it'd be easy to forget about an aborted fetus. In the case of a hospital, would you rather possibly save the life of an already alive human that can be useful or save an aborted fetus?" The representative sits.

[Imperial Polk County]

"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

"So then, why just newborns? Why not all unwanted children?"

[Kenmoria]

"Given that there is a line break after clauses 4 and 5, I see no reason not to put one after clauses 1, 2 and 3."

[Dirty Americans]

At this point all I can do is face palm and say "not again." I understand what you are looking for here and I think it is a worthy cause. Yes, in the real world we have "failed" abortions; infants who come through the procedure alive. If properly treated some actually lead very productive lives (although for some strange reason they tend to be very pro-life ... I assume the circumstances makes it somewhat personal for them).

But the real question is whether it is really necessary. Abortions are the law of the WA land, although technically, there are a number of criteria that has to be applied to this procedure [OOC] that already are far superior to the standards in real world countries like the United States [/OOC] but they apply to the condition of the child within the womb (or the vagina). Outside the resolutions don't apply and it's hard not to assume that other WA resolutions are therefore in full force such as #29 Patient's Rights Act which states, "Patients have the right to emergency medical treatment under circumstances requiring lifesaving procedures." Now the question may arise as to whom the legal guardian of the infant is, since the mother effectively abdicated that right by seeking the abortion in the first place. But since the legal guardian is only necessary for the refusal of treatment, in the absence thereof the choice should always be towards providing the medical treatment.

[OOC] It's sort of a shame that we spend a ton of effort in crafting legislation and fail to realize all the impacts of that legislation within our own nations. This problem occurs when we then map real world problems back into the nations technically under the WA mandates, which are not the real world mandates. And that's before we have all the technological god modding that takes place ... I can guarantee many nations will claim that all their abortions always results in non living creatures outside the womb from the moment it is outside the womb because that's how debate happens here these days. [/OOC]

[Imperium Anglorum]

I can guarantee many nations will claim that all their abortions always results in non living creatures outside the womb from the moment it is outside the womb because that's how debate happens here these days.

But, but, what about the clones?!

[Auralia]

Also what if a hospital or wherever abortions take place doesn't have a large enough staff it'd be easy to forget about an aborted fetus. In the case of a hospital, would you rather possibly save the life of an already alive human that can be useful or save an aborted fetus?

This is precisely the kind of callous attitude towards the health and safety of survivors of abortion we are attempting to address with this proposal.

"Given that there is a line break after clauses 4 and 5, I see no reason not to put one after clauses 1, 2 and 3."

((OOC: This is a technical problem with the forum implementation of BBCode. The line breaks after clauses 4 and 5 appear because of the numbered list both clauses.))

"So then, why just newborns? Why not all unwanted children?"

I don't really understand the question. Of course all unwanted children should receive medical care. This proposal, however, specifically addresses the case of infants born alive following a deliberate termination of pregnancy because they are uniquely vulnerable for reasons I have already explained.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[The First German Order]

Also what if a hospital or wherever abortions take place doesn't have a large enough staff it'd be easy to forget about an aborted fetus. In the case of a hospital, would you rather possibly save the life of an already alive human that can be useful or save an aborted fetus?

This is precisely the kind of callous attitude towards the health and safety of survivors of abortion we are attempting to address with this proposal.

"Given that there is a line break after clauses 4 and 5, I see no reason not to put one after clauses 1, 2 and 3."

((OOC: This is a technical problem with the forum implementation of BBCode. The line breaks after clauses 4 and 5 appear because of the numbered list both clauses.))

"So then, why just newborns? Why not all unwanted children?"

I don't really understand the question. Of course all unwanted children should receive medical care. This proposal, however, specifically addresses the case of infants born alive following a deliberate termination of pregnancy because they are uniquely vulnerable for reasons I have already explained.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

OOC: The argument I've made is 100% valid. If a place doesn't have enough staff and has to choose between saving an aborted fetus and an already born person, the already born person should take priority.

[Auralia]

OOC: The argument I've made is 100% valid. If a place doesn't have enough staff and has to choose between saving an aborted fetus and an already born person, the already born person should take priority.

An aborted fetus that is born alive is an "already born person". An child's personhood is not a function of whether their parent desired that they be born alive. On what basis do you claim that certain persons are more worthy of medical treatment than other persons?

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Imperium Anglorum]

Expected period-discounted future income.

[Auralia]

Expected period-discounted future income.

Well, that's a pretty significant regression from the principles upon which the modern liberal democratic order was founded, wouldn't you say?

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

ARTICLE 1

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. A human being's dignity and rights are proportional to their expected period-discounted future income.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Welcome to the world of hospital liability.

[Auralia]

Welcome to the world of hospital liability.

We're not talking about triage here. A physician can legitimately determine that one person has a greater need for medical care than another, or that medical care is unlikely to effect a positive change in a particular case, and act accordingly. But these decisions are made under the assumption that every human being is of equal value and has an equal right to medical treatment in principle. A physician cannot conclude that a particular class of human beings is, by their nature, not as worthy of medical treatment as another class of human beings, and simply refuse to treat them.

[Dirty Americans]

But, but, what about the clones?!

What about the clones?
Wait, is someone aborting clones?
Why doesn't anyone tell me that they are aborting clones?
No clone is an island, each is a part of the main ...

[Dirty Americans]

OOC: The argument I've made is 100% valid. If a place doesn't have enough staff and has to choose between saving an aborted fetus and an already born person, the already born person should take priority.

OOC: No it's not. If a place has limited staff and cannot support another person then the addition of another born person is going to cause the same problem. The 100% capacity problem is always going to be a no win situation of rationing, and with all no win scenarios, someone always gets the short end. The fact that one scenario has an added already born person and another scenario has an abortion survivor is of little significance, given that both equally want to live.

[Dirty Americans]

Welcome to the world of hospital liability.

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

[Nobodyville]

I agree with this resolution and support it whole heartedly.

[Alpha Cassiopeiae]

"Require member states to bring the child into their care if the abortee chooses, and I will give full support."

[The First German Order]

"Require member states to bring the child into their care if the abortee chooses, and I will give full support."

OOC: So you want governments to be forced to use tax money on caring for aborted children? And you think the aborted child should choose if they do?! I have no words.

[Alpha Cassiopeiae]

"Require member states to bring the child into their care if the abortee chooses, and I will give full support."

OOC: So you want governments to be forced to use tax money on caring for aborted children? And you think the aborted child should choose if they do?! I have no words.

OOC: Forgive my misuse of language, I meant to refer to the woman who aborted. And it's more like I don't want a living child to be forced upon a woman who doesn't want to or is incapable of caring for the child. That's not a good situation for anyone.

[The First German Order]

OOC: So you want governments to be forced to use tax money on caring for aborted children? And you think the aborted child should choose if they do?! I have no words.

OOC: Forgive my misuse of language, I meant to refer to the woman who aborted. And it's more like I don't want a living child to be forced upon a woman who doesn't want to or is incapable of caring for the child. That's not a good situation for anyone.

OOC: But what if the government doesn't want an aborted child? The government (usually) has more important stuff to be doing.

[San Hieronymi]

OOC: Forgive my misuse of language, I meant to refer to the woman who aborted. And it's more like I don't want a living child to be forced upon a woman who doesn't want to or is incapable of caring for the child. That's not a good situation for anyone.

OOC: But what if the government doesn't want an aborted child? The government (usually) has more important stuff to be doing.

((OOC someone has to look after abandoned children etc. So the government must have made some provision. I would make the clause state that the Government must ensure the child is put into appropriate care if the parents do not wish to raise the child. That would allow the government to put the matter into the hands of an NGO.))

[The First German Order]

OOC: But what if the government doesn't want an aborted child? The government (usually) has more important stuff to be doing.

((OOC someone has to look after abandoned children etc. So the government must have made some provision. I would make the clause state that the Government must ensure the child is put into appropriate care if the parents do not wish to raise the child. That would allow the government to put the matter into the hands of an NGO.))

OOC: Wouldn't saying "the government has to ensure the aborted child gets sent to a properly licensed and maintained orphanage" (or something like "REQUIRES that governments ensure that the abandoned child gets sent to a properly licensed and maintained orphanage,") be easier?

[San Hieronymi]

((OOC someone has to look after abandoned children etc. So the government must have made some provision. I would make the clause state that the Government must ensure the child is put into appropriate care if the parents do not wish to raise the child. That would allow the government to put the matter into the hands of an NGO.))

OOC: Wouldn't saying "the government has to ensure the aborted child gets sent to a properly licensed and maintained orphanage" (or something like "REQUIRES that governments ensure that the abandoned child gets sent to a properly licensed and maintained orphanage,") be easier?

((Well firstly we couldn't call it an aborted child as that would be a confusing definition seeing as the child is still alive. Mentioning orphanages would prevent nations from using alternative systems such as individual fostering or tribal solutions etc. Appropriate care leaves it open, lets try to leave nations as much room as we can here.))

[New United Aotearoa]

"Require member states to bring the child into their care if the abortee chooses, and I will give full support."

Perhaps not into their care, but require member states to have a mechanism for the care of unwanted children, even if it is a private organization that actually has the child in their charge. Ex. A religious or charitable organization.