Some Statements Concerning the "Right to be Born"

The paper is devoted to the topical issues related to the implementation of the right of a proto-human (nasciturus, an unborn child) to be born and to the assumptions about the legitimate interests of general and special types consolidated in the legislation of a number of countries (constitutional law, civil law, criminal law). The Russian law protects such interests, at least to some extent, in indirect and direct forms. In the indirect form such interests are protected through the benefits and allowances for pregnant women provided under medical, labor, social security, and family legislation. Motherhood is encouraged through the instruments of financial, tax, housing law, and it is given special protection by criminal and penal legislation. In the direct form interests under consideration are protected through the establishment of opportunities under civil law for inheritance and compensation for the loss of a breadwinner. The author explains the difference between approaches to the problem of a legal status and legal capacity of the nisciturus under foreign and Russian laws. The paper provides for the reflections concerning the right to natural biological origin discussed in the doctrine and adjustment of its elements. Also, the paper examines special rights that, due to their purpose and content, are opposed to the right to be born, namely: the right to terminate pregnancy, the right to sterilization. The author emphasizes that not only the right to be born is limited by the lawmaker for objective and subjective reasons. Separate from this complex of interactions, although in connection with the act of the birth, the author analyzes the circumstances caused by the problem of the birth of a dead child. The author elucidates unsettled regulatory and enforcement decisions associated with the protection of the interests of the parents of such a child. The author focuses on inadmissibility of formal legal application of relevant legislation, on the need for its broad interpretation in favor of humanitarian, fair, ethically balanced enforcement of the right of the individual to private and family life.

1. Asnis AYa, Khaziev ShN. Sudebnye ekspertizy na Nyurnbergskom protsesse [Forensic investigations in the Nuremberg Trials]. Theory and Practice of Forensic Examinations. 2016;4:38-45 (in Russ.).

2. Afanasiev SF. Pravo na spravedlivoe sudebnoe razbiratelstvo i ego realizatsiya v rossiyskom grazhdanskom sudoproizvodstve [The right to a fair trial and its implementation in Russian civil proceedings]. Moscow: Yurlitinform Publ.; 2009 (In Russ.)>

3. Ashukha VM, Nevzgodina EL. O novellakh postanovleniya Plenuma Verkhovnogo Suda Rossiyskoy Federatsii ot 16.05.2017 № 16 «O primenenii sudami zakonodatelstva pri rassmotrenii del, svyazannykh s ustanovleniem proiskhozhdeniya detey» [About innovations of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation from 16.05.2017 № 16 "About the application of the legislation by courts hearing cases connected with the derivation of the children"]. Herald of Omsk University. Series «LAW». 2017;3(107-110) (In Russ.).

4. Belova DA. soglasie na primenenie metoda iskusstvennoy reproduktsii i ego pravovoe znachenie dlya ustanovleniya proiskhozhdeniya rebenka [Consent to the Use of Artificial Reproduction and its Legal Significance for Establishing the Origin of the Child]. Lex russica. 2020;8(165):21-31. DOI: 10.17803/1729-5920.2020.165.8.021-031 (In Russ.).

5. Besedkina NI. Prava nerodivshegosya rebenka [The rights of unborn child]. State and Law. 2006;4:54-60 (In Russ.).

6. Romanovskiy GB, Tarusina NN, Mohov AA, et al. Biomeditsinskoe pravo v Rossii i za rubezhom [Biomedical Law in Russia and Abroad]. Moscow: Prospekt Publ.; 2019 (In Russ.).

7. Bogdanova EE, Maleina MN, Ksenofontova DS. Otdelnye problemy zashchity prav grazhdan pri ispolzovanii genomnykh tekhnologiy [Certain problems of citizens' rights protection when using genomic technologies]. Lex russica. 2020;5(162):129—142. DOI: 10.17803/1729-5920.2020.162.5.129-142 (In Russ.).

8. Dunaevskiy I. Papa mozhet [A Father is not Able]. Rossiyskaya Gazeta. 23 Oct 2019. № 240 (In Russ.).

9. Reznik ES. Pravo na zhizn: grazhdansko-pravovye aspekty [Right to life: civil law aspects]. Moscow: Yurlitinform Publ.; 2010 (In Russ.).

10. Romanovskiy GB. Pravovoe regulirovanie meditsinskoy sterilizatsii [Legal regulation of medical sterilization]. Grazhdanin i pravo. 2015;1:23-37. (In Russ.).

11. Romanovskiy GB. yuridicheskoe opredelenie momenta vozniknoveniya prava na zhizn [Legal determination of the moment of origin of the right to life]. Grazhdanin i pravo. 2007;11:71-78 (In Russ.).

12. Salagai OO. Regulirovanie meditsinskoy sterilizatsii cheloveka: sravnitelno-pravovoy analiz i nekotorye aspekty sovershenstvovaniya natsionalnogo zakonodatelstva Rossii Regulation of human medical sterilization: comparative legal analysis and some aspects of improvement of national legislation of Russia]. Journal of Russian Law. 2009;7:75-83 (In Russ.).

13. Samutycheva EYu. Iskusstvennoe preryvanie beremennosti v Rossii i Soedinennom Korolevstve Velikobritanii i Severnoy Irlandii: sravnitelno-pravovoy analiz [Induced termination of pregnancy in Russia and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: a comparative law analysis]. Medical Law. 2020;6:50-55 (In Russ.).

14. Sent-Ros J. Pravo na zhizn [The Right to Life]. Herald of Moscow State University. Series 11: Law. 2003;6:56-68 (In Russ.).

15. Starobinets A. Posmotri na nego [Look at him]. Moscow: AST Publ.; 2017 (in Russ.).

16. Tarusina NN. O prave rasporyazhatsya svoey zhiznyu: razmyshleniya pravoveda, cheloveka i grazhdanina — iz samoizolyatsii [On the right to dispose of one's life: reflections of the legal scholar, an individual and a citizen from self-isolation]. Social and Humanitarian Knowledge. 2021;7(2) (In Russ.).

17. Tarusina NN. O sudebnom usmotrenii: zametki semeynoveda [On Judicial Discretion: Notes of a family lawyer]. Yaroslavl; 2011 (In Russ.).

18. Tarusina NN. Rebenok v prostranstve semeynogo prava [A Child in the Space of Family Law]. Moscow: Prospekt Publ.; 2014 (In Russ.).

19. Tarusina NN. Semeynoe pravo: v «orkestrovke» suverennosti i sudebnogo usmotreniya [Family Law: in "Orchestration" of Sovereignty and Judicial Discretion]. Moscow: Prospekt Publ., 2014 (In Russ.).

20. Tarusina NN. Sudebnaya praktika po semeynym delam: problemy usmotreniya na grani pravotvorchestva [Court Practice in Family Disputes: Problems of Discretion on the Verge of Law-Making]. Lex russica. 2019;5(150):40-48. DOI: 10.17803/1729-5920.2019.150.5.040-048 (In Russ.).

21. Tomashov VV, Porutskaya AYu. Otnoshenie studencheskoy molodezhi Yaroslavlya k reproduktivnoy ustanovke «chayldfri» [Atitude of the students of Yaroslavl to the reproductive policy "childfree"]. Bulletin of SocioPolitical Sciences. 2020;19:25-28 (In Russ.).

22. Shershenevich GF. Uchebnik grazhdanskogo prava [Civil Law Textbook]. Kazan; 1905 (In Russ.).