[DRAFT] Preserving Life in Pregnancy Termination

[Auralia]

Debate on a similar proposal is available here. That proposal was declared illegal by the mods; I think it is clearly not illegal and would like to try again with GenSec.

Preserving Life in Pregnancy Termination
Category: Health | Area of Effect: Bioethics

Acknowledging the right to terminate one's pregnancy presently guaranteed under World Assembly law,

Believing that the prenatal offspring of sapient beings have a presumptive right to life,

Seeking to preserve the life of the prenatal offspring where possible in the course of a deliberate termination of pregnancy to the extent permitted by World Assembly law,

The General Assembly,

1. Declares that the prenatal offspring of sapient beings have a presumptive right to life;
   
2. Promotes the use of methods to induce a termination of pregnancy that are safe, openly accessible, and preserve the life of both the pregnant individual and the prenatal offspring;
   
3. Requires the use of such methods when available, but only where the requirement does not ultimately hinder the individual from terminating their pregnancy in a safe, openly accessible, and timely manner;
   
4. Permits the parents of unwanted offspring following a termination of pregnancy to discharge their parental rights and obligations and transfer them to the state or, subject to appropriate regulation, another willing party.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Perhaps you should include something about fetus viability in there? Because it's useless trying to protect/save the life of something that dies as soon as it's removed from the host.

IC: "No support."

[The First German Order]

TFGO's representative looks over the proposal with a confused look on his face. "Did I grab the wrong thing? Is this something my daughter wrote, playing pretend as a WA representative?" His aid whispers in his ear. "This is the proposal?! This is very poorly made in that case. No support." He rips up his copy of the draft and throws the pieces in the trash.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
This is a blatant attempt to codify the 'termination of pregnancy' backdoor; suffice it to say that it is absolutely unacceptable to legally force a person to carry pregnancy to term.

[The Unfounded]

“Reproductive freedoms already incorporates this language, so I see no reason to waste time or effort considering this law further.”

[Kenmoria]

"No support, this is just Reproductive Freedoms and On Abortions replicated."

[Masurbia]

It seems like you also have Born Alive Infants Protection Act on this forum. Is this any different than that?

[Kenmoria]

It seems like you also have Born Alive Infants Protection Act on this forum. Is this any different than that?

"I believe, with both proposals together, this is intended to restrict abortion by a loophole in the definition of "termination of pregnancy"."

[Imperium Anglorum]

^ Who could have seen that coming?

[Imperial Polk County]

Drane reads the proposal several times. "I don't get it. You want to encourage methods of abortion that are safe... accessible... and preserve the life of the fetus? With all due respect, ambassador, are you stoned?"

[Auralia]

OOC: Perhaps you should include something about fetus viability in there? Because it's useless trying to protect/save the life of something that dies as soon as it's removed from the host.

((OOC: I don't think that's necessary. There may exist in the future medical treatments that allow a nonviable fetus to be kept alive and healthy, such as artificial wombs.))

OOC:
This is a blatant attempt to codify the 'termination of pregnancy' backdoor; suffice it to say that it is absolutely unacceptable to legally force a woman to carry pregnancy to term.

((OOC: This proposal would not compel a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. Such a requirement would "hinder an individual from terminating their pregnancy". I will add "in a timely manner" to make this clearer.))

“Reproductive freedoms already incorporates this language, so I see no reason to waste time or effort considering this law further.”

"No support, this is just Reproductive Freedoms and On Abortions replicated."

This is false. Neither Reproductive Freedoms nor On Abortion encourage the use of methods of pregnancy termination that preserve the life of both the pregnant individual and the prenatal offspring, nor do they explicitly authorize member states to require that such methods be used when available.

"I believe, with both proposals together, this is intended to restrict abortion by a loophole in the definition of "termination of pregnancy"."

This proposal does not prohibit an individual from terminating their pregnancy in a timely manner. It merely encourages the use of methods of termination that preserve the life of both the pregnant individual and the prenatal offspring, and permits member states to insist on the use of such methods when they are available.

Drane reads the proposal several times. "I don't get it. You want to encourage methods of abortion that are safe... accessible... and preserve the life of the fetus? With all due respect, ambassador, are you stoned?"

Are you under the impression that it is impossible to terminate a pregnancy without killing a viable fetus?

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Imperial Polk County]

Are you under the impression that it is impossible to terminate a pregnancy without killing a viable fetus?

Drane looks into Russell's eyes for a moment. Okay, Drane thinks, so, not stoned. "Forgive the impertinence, ambassador, but please, educate me. Is there a method of abortion, aside from, arguably, partial birth abortion, that results in the expulsion of a live fetus?"

[Auralia]

Are you under the impression that it is impossible to terminate a pregnancy without killing a viable fetus?

Drane looks into Russell's eyes for a moment. Okay, Drane thinks, so, not stoned. "Forgive the impertinence, ambassador, but please, educate me. Is there a method of abortion, aside from, arguably, partial birth abortion, that results in the expulsion of a live fetus?"

I think we should be careful not to use the term abortion in this context because abortion is commonly defined as the "ending of pregnancy by removing a fetus or embryo before it can survive outside the uterus", and this proposal is targeted at "post-viability abortions". I think it might be better to use the term "termination of pregnancy", since that is the term used by the more recent World Assembly legislation on the subject.

The commonly stated purpose of terminating a pregnancy is to protect bodily sovereignty. The prenatal offspring is considered to be an invader which the pregnant individual has a right to remove from their body.¹

However, the unspoken purpose of terminating a pregnancy is to kill the prenatal offspring. The pregnant individual does not want to take care of their offspring -- perhaps because the offspring is sick or disabled -- and the easiest way to deal with this issue is to simply kill the offspring. This purpose is unspoken because it is basically impossible to deny that a viable prenatal offspring is a person, and most are unwilling to thereby admit that the purpose of terminating a pregnancy is to deliberately kill an innocent child for the crime of simply existing.

Prior to viability, the distinction between these two purposes is irrelevant, as the act of separating the offspring from the pregnant individual has the effect of killing the offspring. However, in order to be certain of this, and perhaps to avoid causing unnecessary pain, the fetus or embryo is sometimes killed prior to removal. Pre-viability terminations of pregnancy are called abortions.

However, after viability, it becomes possible to terminate a pregnancy without necessarily killing the prenatal offspring, simply by inducing labour or performing a caesarian section, removing the offspring, then providing the offspring with medical care. Unsurprisingly, this is rarely done, since this does not have the effect of killing the offspring. There's also something... disconcerting about the idea of deliberately putting the offspring in harm's way by removing them from the safety of the pregnant individual's womb prematurely, followed by immediately trying to save the offspring's life.

So in answer to your question, yes, in principle, there are ways to terminate a pregnancy while still preserving the offspring's life. But they are a) obviously less safe for the offspring then simply waiting for the pregnancy to end naturally, and b) defeat the unspoken purpose of terminating a pregnancy, which is precisely to kill the offspring.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

¹Pro-lifers, of course, hold that this argument is wrong because bodily sovereignty is in no other circumstance considered adequate justification to refuse to provide one's child with food, water, and shelter, which is precisely what is provided to the child during pregnancy. However, we will accept it nonetheless for the sake of argument.

[Auralia]

We've decided to upgrade the "Permits" clause to a "Requires", at least for the time being.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

We've decided to upgrade the "Permits" clause to a "Requires", at least for the time being.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

Teran Saber: "If you're trying to get support for this, that's a bit of a step backwards."

[Shazbotdom]

The proposal is sorted several times between the ambassador and his aides, all of them reading it through a few times over, "What the actual fuck did I read?" One of the aides ask.

"I have no clue," started the ambassador back to him.

[Auralia]

We've decided to upgrade the "Permits" clause to a "Requires", at least for the time being.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

Teran Saber: "If you're trying to get support for this, that's a bit of a step backwards."

We'd be happy to hear your arguments against.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Araraukar]

We'd be happy to hear your arguments against.

"It's insane to bring an unwanted life into an already overcrowded¹ world, not to mention wasting healthcare and state childcare resources on an offspring that is removed from the pregnant individual prematurely - in most cases very prematurely, at that.

Also, the pregnant individual should be allowed to choose whichever abortion method is most convenient and comfortable for them, and any attempt to limit the rights of the already existing person over the rights of something that might become a person is not only absurd but also violates their right to decide on the medical procedures done to them."

OOC note: ¹That's true on the planet Araraukar is on, and in any case their nation's mission is to reduce sapient beings' effect on the environment, and the easiest way to do so is to reduce the number of sapient beings. That doesn't mean forced abortions or anything stupid like that; very few abortions happen in Araraukar, because of progressive and comprehensive sexual education programs, free healthcare and access to prevention methods, and procreational licencing requirement.

[Kenmoria]

"Upgrading from permitting to requiring is a massive step backwards in making this proposal morally allowable. The rights of the pregnant individual are far above that of the foetus."

[Auralia]

"It's insane to bring an unwanted life into an already overcrowded¹ world, not to mention wasting healthcare and state childcare resources on an offspring that is removed from the pregnant individual prematurely - in most cases very prematurely, at that.

Overpopulation is not a license to kill children or intentionally deprive them of medical care.

Also, the pregnant individual should be allowed to choose whichever abortion method is most convenient and comfortable for them, and any attempt to limit the rights of the already existing person over the rights of something that might become a person is not only absurd but also violates their right to decide on the medical procedures done to them."

A viable fetus -- that is, a fetus that can survive outside the womb, albeit with medical assistance -- certainly cannot be considered a merely "potential" person. They are a person with rights that must be balanced against the rights of the pregnant individual.

Although the right to terminate one's pregnancy in a safe and openly accessible manner is absolute under WA law, I fail to see why personal preference and marginal comfort in choosing one method over another trumps the right to life of the fetus.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Auralia]

"Upgrading from permitting to requiring is a massive step backwards in making this proposal morally allowable. The rights of the pregnant individual are far above that of the foetus."

Why? Even if we accept the right of the pregnant individual to terminate the pregnancy, why does the pregnant individual have the further right to terminate the pregnancy in such a way that results in the death of the fetus? Doesn't a viable fetus have, in principle, a right not to be killed, just like every other person?

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Kenmoria]

"Upgrading from permitting to requiring is a massive step backwards in making this proposal morally allowable. The rights of the pregnant individual are far above that of the foetus."

Why? Even if we accept the right of the pregnant individual to terminate the pregnancy, why does the pregnant individual have the further right to terminate the pregnancy in such a way that results in the death of the fetus? Doesn't a viable fetus have, in principle, a right not to be killed, just like every other person?

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

"No. The rights of the pregnant person come far above that of the foetus, including the right to end a medical condition imposed in any way they like."

[Auralia]

Why? Even if we accept the right of the pregnant individual to terminate the pregnancy, why does the pregnant individual have the further right to terminate the pregnancy in such a way that results in the death of the fetus? Doesn't a viable fetus have, in principle, a right not to be killed, just like every other person?

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

"No. The rights of the pregnant person come far above that of the foetus, including the right to end a medical condition imposed in any way they like."

On what basis do you make that claim? In principle, all persons have equal rights and dignity. How can you make a blanket claim to the effect that a pregnant person's rights automatically and in every case trump the fetus's rights, regardless of the significance or importance of the rights?

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Imperial Polk County]

However, after viability, it becomes possible to terminate a pregnancy without necessarily killing the prenatal offspring, simply by inducing labour or performing a caesarian section, removing the offspring, then providing the offspring with medical care. Unsurprisingly, this is rarely done, since this does not have the effect of killing the offspring. There's also something... disconcerting about the idea of deliberately putting the offspring in harm's way by removing them from the safety of the pregnant individual's womb prematurely, followed by immediately trying to save the offspring's life.

"What you are describing is not termination of pregnancy. It's called birth. And, again, I can't imagine any reason why someone who was just born, wanted or unwanted, regardless of method, wouldn't have the same rights as everyone else who's been born."

[Araraukar]

Overpopulation is not a license to kill children or intentionally deprive them of medical care.
*snip*
A viable fetus -- that is, a fetus that can survive outside the womb, albeit with medical assistance -- certainly cannot be considered a merely "potential" person.

"Are you incapable or just unwilling to see the difference between existence and potential existence, ambassador?" Johan asked, starting to sound annoyed. "Not all full-term babies that are birthed rather than terminated, survive the birth either or survive for long after that. That means that anything still connected to the pregnant individual and leeching nutrients off of them, is only potentially a person. And you still haven't addressed the point about wasting healthcare resources and state childcare resources on a potential life that nobody wants."

They are a person with rights that must be balanced against the rights of the pregnant individual.

OOC: *sing-song voice* Not according to World Assembly resolutions. And this has been explained to you, Auralia, like fifteen if not fifty times by now. The WA can't legally consider an unborn fetus a person.

I fail to see why personal preference and marginal comfort in choosing one method over another trumps the right to life of the fetus.

"Would you be willing to risk your life and health with either general anesthesia and unnecessary operation, or serious complications and possibly death during natural birth, if there was a less dangerous method to get rid of what you don't want to keep?"

OOC: It's not like anyone's forcing pregnant individuals to have abortions. If they don't want to abort, they don't have to, but if they do, you can't stop them from doing so in whichever manner they choose. Patient's Rights Act will get in your way as well.