(SUBMITTED) Defense of Life Act

[Christian Democrats]

A) An orbit is a year, not a week.

We shall define whatever quantities of time, including "week", as we see fit, we thank Your Excellency.

Considering that the rules require proposals to use standard English, then it rationally can be assumed that resolutions should be interpreted according to their standard English meanings -- i.e., one week is one week.

[Linux and the X]

We shall define whatever quantities of time, including "week", as we see fit, we thank Your Excellency.

Considering that the rules require proposals to use standard English, then it rationally can be assumed that resolutions should be interpreted according to their standard English meanings -- i.e., one week is one week.

And how long is that?

[Quintessence of Dust]

As far as we are concerned, we shall simply redefine "week" to mean "the time it takes for the Sun to make a complete orbit around the Galactic Center" and therefore we shall never be affected by this cartload of cow manure disguised as written text.

Next!

That's neither funny nor reasonable.

(Sidebar: oh man, anyone remember when Ceorana tried to define a 'week'? Hilarious.)

Look, proposals have a character limit of 3500, and have to be written in English. If they didn't - if appendices were allowed, translations required, if every word could be spelled out - perhaps yours would be a legitimate tactic; but given proposal authors only have so much space in which to define the terms, the game cannot function unless a certain degree of common sense is applied. I enjoy the Creative Solutions Agency's tactics as much as anyone, but at least they had some spirit to what they were doing; mindlessly interpreting any word as something it clearly does not mean is not conducive to an enjoyable game playing experience, to productive discussions, or to effective legislation. It reminds me more of a childish oneuppersonship: "infinity plus one!!"

[Christian Democrats]

As far as we are concerned, we shall simply redefine "week" to mean "the time it takes for the Sun to make a complete orbit around the Galactic Center" and therefore we shall never be affected by this cartload of cow manure disguised as written text.

Next!

That's neither funny nor reasonable.

(Sidebar: oh man, anyone remember when Ceorana tried to define a 'week'? Hilarious.)

Look, proposals have a character limit of 3500, and have to be written in English. If they didn't - if appendices were allowed, translations required, if every word could be spelled out - perhaps yours would be a legitimate tactic; but given proposal authors only have so much space in which to define the terms, the game cannot function unless a certain degree of common sense is applied. I enjoy the Creative Solutions Agency's tactics as much as anyone, but at least they had some spirit to what they were doing; mindlessly interpreting any word as something it clearly does not mean is not conducive to an enjoyable game playing experience, to productive discussions, or to effective legislation. It reminds me more of a childish oneuppersonship: "infinity plus one!!"

[Christian Democrats]

This is just an opinion:

I do not believe it is in the spirit of fair play or good sportsmanship (considering that this is a game) to try to get around GA resolutions. My nation LEGITIMATELY adheres to all GA resolutions, even those which were adopted before I joined the WA and those with which I completely disagree, especially those resolutions legalizing gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research, and active euthanasia.

^^^^^ (my own post)

[Sionis Prioratus]

We shall define whatever quantities of time, including "week", as we see fit, we thank Your Excellency.

Considering that the rules require proposals to use standard English, then it rationally can be assumed that resolutions should be interpreted according to their standard English meanings -- i.e., one week is one week.

Indeed, one week is one week:

WordNet Search - 3.0 - WordNet home page - Glossary - Help
Word to search for:
Display Options:
Key: "S:" = Show Synset (semantic) relations, "W:" = Show Word (lexical) relations
Noun

S: (n) week, hebdomad (any period of seven consecutive days) "it rained for a week"

And one day is one day:

WordNet Search - 3.0 - WordNet home page - Glossary - Help
Word to search for:
Display Options:
Key: "S:" = Show Synset (semantic) relations, "W:" = Show Word (lexical) relations
Noun

S: (n) day (the period of time taken by a particular planet (e.g. Mars) to make a complete rotation on its axis) "how long is a day on Jupiter?"

Lucky us the planet my nation is on takes a full eight hundred YEARS to make a complete rotation on its axis!

[Linux and the X]

This is just an opinion:

I do not believe it is in the spirit of fair play or good sportsmanship (considering that this is a game) to try to get around GA resolutions. My nation LEGITIMATELY adheres to all GA resolutions, even those which were adopted before I joined the WA and those with which I completely disagree, especially those resolutions legalizing gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research, and active euthanasia.

^^^^^ (my own post)

Um... WHAT? Did you really just quote your own post and add little more than "this"?

[Christian Democrats]

^^^^^ (my own post)

Um... WHAT? Did you really just quote your own post and add little more than "this"?

Yeah. I wanted to make my opinion abundantly clear and put it next to a similarly-themed post.

[Sionis Prioratus]

Um... WHAT? Did you really just quote your own post and add little more than "this"?

Yeah. I wanted to make my opinion abundantly clear and put it next to a similarly-themed post.

OOC: It looks like spam to me.

[Christian Democrats]

Now, let's get back on topic. I don't want this thread to be locked for digression.

[Linux and the X]

We shall define whatever quantities of time, including "week", as we see fit, we thank Your Excellency.

Considering that the rules require proposals to use standard English, then it rationally can be assumed that resolutions should be interpreted according to their standard English meanings -- i.e., one week is one week.

We use "week" as a colloquialism for "decaday"; that is ten rotations of the planet on its axis. Do you intend to deny personhood to prematurely-born babies?

Now, let's get back on topic. I don't want this thread to be locked for digression.

CD, I really recommend that you acquaint yourself with the rules for posts before a mod looking to boost their stats in the Olympics notices what you're up to. Spamming and garish posts are not appreciated.

[Sedgistan]

Christian Democrats - cut out the smiley spam, and refrain from posting in garish colours.

[Orlkjestad]

"Hell to the no."
-Orlkjestadi Representative To the WA, Jan Frederick

[Glen-Rhodes]

As far as we are concerned, we shall simply redefine "week" to mean "the time it takes for the Sun to make a complete orbit around the Galactic Center" and therefore we shall never be affected by this cartload of cow manure disguised as written text.

Next!

And we'll redefine 'mandates' to mean 'urges,' and all of our problems will be solved.

[Christian Democrats]

Christian Democrats - cut out the smiley spam, and refrain from posting in garish colours.

Okay.

(Aside: I like the candy cane on your flag.)

[Christian Democrats]

Do you intend to deny personhood to prematurely-born babies?

This proposal addresses personhood for fetuses. A prematurely-born baby isn't a fetus.

[Christian Democrats]

I want to propose this, but I still haven't received clarification from a moderator for how this proposal violates the optionality clause.

[Sanctaria]

I want to propose this, but I still haven't received clarification from a moderator for how this proposal violates the optionality clause.

I do believe that the below is your problem.

DECLARES that the provisions of this resolution apply only to the modern human species known taxonomically as Homo sapiens.

I'm also opposed to this piece of legislation, but I do enjoy helping the newer nations out.

Kind regards.,

[Linux and the X]

Do you intend to deny personhood to prematurely-born babies?

This proposal addresses personhood for fetuses. A prematurely-born baby isn't a fetus.

Twenty-four weeks is only thirty days shorter than the typical pregnancy. Therefore, a premature birth could be prior to that demarcation.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Ms. Harper still feels that the use of the 24 week rule is oddly specific. Also, what about in cases of rape or when the mother's life is in danger?

If you closely read the definitions, then there are exceptions for maternal life and maternal physical health after week 24.¹

It is assumed that a woman who conceived of rape would seek an abortion before the 24th week of pregnancy if she wanted to do so.²

I chose week 24 because it is during this week that the 50% mark is passed for the percentage of fetuses who are viable (i.e., can live outside of the womb).³

¹ Of course, you don't care if being forced to give birth against her will causes even the most extreme mental harm to the woman. Apparently mental harm -- no matter how severe, long-term or permanent, or debilitating -- is really insignificant. (I wonder why you think that, but I'm sure the answer would only piss me off.)

² You make a HUGE assumption. You are playing with women's lives -- including the lives of women who have been the victims of the most heinous of crimes (including barely pubescent teens who may have been the victim of incestual rape) based on this ASSUMPTION. The arrogance and cruel indifference to suffering and human dignity is oustanding and appalling.

³ This is a challenged, but unproven assertion on your part. Kindly provide the evidence. It is also unclear why it is morally or legally relevant.

(I'm sure like almost all of my copious objections to, criticisms of, and questions about your proposal you will ignore this post. That only strengthens the conclusion your proposal is a bad one and that you are a fraud.

[Eireann Fae WA Mission]

That only strengthens the conclusion your proposal is a bad one and that you are a fraud.

"Ambassador, I started reaching that conclusion two drafts of his ago. You should see this guy's Assembly record. I'm amazed the stenographers haven't given up entirely and started ignoring him themselves."

[The Cat-Tribe]

I want to propose this, but I still haven't received clarification from a moderator for how this proposal violates the optionality clause.

Honestly, I don't care if your proposal is legal or not. It is still morally abhorrent, poorly written, entirely unnecessary, counter-productive, liable to kill women, unable to stop a single abortion (even if that were desirable), violative of national sovereignty, not a matter of international concern, a waste of our time, and (as copiously demonstrated in this thread) poorly thought out and defended.

It should not be submitted. Even if it is legal, it will fail. Count on it.

[Quadrimmina]

I doubt it's optional and doubt it's illegal. However, we still consider it a longshot because many nations (like ours) recognize a female's right to choose what to do with her body. Due to this, we must urge the honored ambassador to withdraw this Act from consideration and stop wasting this august assembly's time by trying to force your nation's morals down our nations' throats...and failing at it.

[Ardchoille]

Re "week": since we've already had a ruling on "February" -- that it's legal in proposals -- I don't see why "week" shouldn't be either. The IC version is: the Gnomes translate it into the proper terminology to cover the equivalent period of time for each nation.

Re "what category": "Moral Decency", because this proposal is "a resolution to restrict civil freedoms" for the person bearing the child. I can see why you think "human rights" might apply, via the argument that the foetus is a person, and you are giving that person the right to continue living. However, at this stage of the WA, before your proposal becomes law, the status of the foetus is unclear. Whatever the case in individual nations, there is no overall WA law saying it is a person, and no law saying it's not. So putting the proposal into the category that is about "improving the human and civil rights" of a person is accepting the very point that the proposal is trying to establish.

If that's not clear, I'll try another tack. The WA can act "governmentally" on the individual whose body is carrying the foetus, because that person already has a legislative existence as a person. Right now, before your proposal passes, the foetus doesn't. So the WA can't act governmentally -- extending or restricting civil rights -- on it. It's something in a person's body. It doesn't have separate civil rights unless it is legally a separate person. It won't be legally a separate person until your proposal passes. So you can't submit the proposal in a category that presupposes it is a person. SInce there doesn't seem to be any argument that the proposal is about civil rights, that leaves you the category in which the WA can act governmentally by limiting the civil rights of an existing person, the pregnant one.

tl;dr: "Moral Decency" because "Human Rights" jumps the gun.

Re "humans": the above points are diversions to cushion my entry to this bit, where I have to eat crow and reverse my earlier advice about making the proposal more general, less species-specific. I'd completely forgotten Female Genital Mutilation.

As Just Guy and others have pointed out, clauses in that are quite specifically homo sapiens sapiens human, not just "human" in the sense "human may be read in WA legislation as meaning any sapient species". Therefore, precedent says that the GA may legislate on subsets of the international population. Therefore, though it galls me to say it, a specifically human proposal can be written legally. (Note: I'm not saying this one is. As I said earlier, such blanket pre-submission approvals aren't my job.)

I still regard species-specific proposals as unsuitable legislation for a supposedly international body. If anyone's thinking of flooding the list with parallels of existing "physical body" proposals adapted for sapient ursine, cetaceous, macropod, feline, crustacean, arachnid, draconic or other species, don't. I imagine that they would fail to gain delegate approval anyway, owing to their niche status. If necessary, there's the ultimate mod nuke, "unworthy of the WA's attention", though as a player I'd view that as a total cop-out.

Re OOC/IC: I vaguely remember Fris's ruling QoD referenced, but I believe it was in relation to some rule breach -- either a player who habitually switched between IC and OOC to flame and then pretended it was his ambassador being badass, or a player whose RPd comments were so obscure and long-winded they took drafting debates off-topic. I know I wrote posts in drafts IC as Brother Tim of Findhorn. However, I did it consistently -- IC all through the thread -- and Tim didn't "hear" comments he shouldn't have. That ruled out posts such as "this looks illegal to me because of game mechanics or metagaming", which made a reasonable drafting discussion damn difficult, and I eventually gave up. But I'm not going to jump on players who manage to do it successfully, and ascribing other players' OOC posts to "the ambassador for ..." or addressing them as "ambassador" is not going to make the sky fall.

FWIW, anything posted as Ardchoilleans is not a mod ruling because Ardchoilleans is not a mod, and is usually IC.

[Christian Democrats]

Re "week": since we've already had a ruling on "February" -- that it's legal in proposals -- I don't see why "week" shouldn't be either. The IC version is: the Gnomes translate it into the proper terminology to cover the equivalent period of time for each nation.

Re "what category": "Moral Decency", because this proposal is "a resolution to restrict civil freedoms" for the person bearing the child. I can see why you think "human rights" might apply, via the argument that the foetus is a person, and you are giving that person the right to continue living. However, at this stage of the WA, before your proposal becomes law, the status of the foetus is unclear. Whatever the case in individual nations, there is no overall WA law saying it is a person, and no law saying it's not. So putting the proposal into the category that is about "improving the human and civil rights" of a person is accepting the very point that the proposal is trying to establish.

If that's not clear, I'll try another tack. The WA can act "governmentally" on the individual whose body is carrying the foetus, because that person already has a legislative existence as a person. Right now, before your proposal passes, the foetus doesn't. So the WA can't act governmentally -- extending or restricting civil rights -- on it. It's something in a person's body. It doesn't have separate civil rights unless it is legally a separate person. It won't be legally a separate person until your proposal passes. So you can't submit the proposal in a category that presupposes it is a person. SInce there doesn't seem to be any argument that the proposal is about civil rights, that leaves you the category in which the WA can act governmentally by limiting the civil rights of an existing person, the pregnant one.

tl;dr: "Moral Decency" because "Human Rights" jumps the gun.

Re "humans": the above points are diversions to cushion my entry to this bit, where I have to eat crow and reverse my earlier advice about making the proposal more general, less species-specific. I'd completely forgotten Female Genital Mutilation.

As Just Guy and others have pointed out, clauses in that are quite specifically homo sapiens sapiens human, not just "human" in the sense "human may be read in WA legislation as meaning any sapient species". Therefore, precedent says that the GA may legislate on subsets of the international population. Therefore, though it galls me to say it, a specifically human proposal can be written legally. (Note: I'm not saying this one is. As I said earlier, such blanket pre-submission approvals aren't my job.)

I still regard species-specific proposals as unsuitable legislation for a supposedly international body. If anyone's thinking of flooding the list with parallels of existing "physical body" proposals adapted for sapient ursine, cetaceous, macropod, feline, crustacean, arachnid, draconic or other species, don't. I imagine that they would fail to gain delegate approval anyway, owing to their niche status. If necessary, there's the ultimate mod nuke, "unworthy of the WA's attention", though as a player I'd view that as a total cop-out.

Re OOC/IC: I vaguely remember Fris's ruling QoD referenced, but I believe it was in relation to some rule breach -- either a player who habitually switched between IC and OOC to flame and then pretended it was his ambassador being badass, or a player whose RPd comments were so obscure and long-winded they took drafting debates off-topic. I know I wrote posts in drafts IC as Brother Tim of Findhorn. However, I did it consistently -- IC all through the thread -- and Tim didn't "hear" comments he shouldn't have. That ruled out posts such as "this looks illegal to me because of game mechanics or metagaming", which made a reasonable drafting discussion damn difficult, and I eventually gave up. But I'm not going to jump on players who manage to do it successfully, and ascribing other players' OOC posts to "the ambassador for ..." or addressing them as "ambassador" is not going to make the sky fall.

FWIW, anything posted as Ardchoilleans is not a mod ruling because Ardchoilleans is not a mod, and is usually IC.

Thank you for clarifying the legality issues.