(SUBMITTED) Defense of Life Act

[Glen-Rhodes]

No, I'm not kidding. There's no real reason for that clause to even exist. Without it, the proposal is perfectly legal and accomplishes the same thing it would if the clause were to remain. It's an unnecessary redundancy placed in the proposal to pacify illegitimate concerns that unfortunately accomplishes the opposite of what it desired to achieve.

And none of this has to do with CoCR. Anyways, what nearly everybody seems to forget when claiming CoCR covers everything under the sun is that it provides exemptions for numerous things. For instance, the discrimination has to be based on an 'arbitrarily and reductive categorization.' Then there's the whole 'compelling practical purposes' bit. A clause in a resolution about human abortion saying it only applies to humans is not arbitrary and reductive, and such 'discrimination,' if you want to call it that, has a purpose that is both compelling and practical.

Whatever happened to just arguing against the merits of a resolution, rather than trying to get it removed from the queue entirely?

[Kryozerkia]

I was wrong. The point isn't moot. The final clause stating the proposal only applies to humans puts it in violation of CoCR provision 2)a. It unfairly discriminates against members of Homo sapiens by placing racially-based restrictions on access to a public service in nations where abortions are legalized in a less restrictive manner than the methods outlined herein. So, yes, that clause makes this proposal illegal, whether others agree with me on the concept of optionality or not.

As a result of this point in conjunction with the arguments being brought up by both sides, and the optionality issue, the proposal is being removed pending a review of the legality issues surrounding this proposal. It's clear a proper ruling is needed. The best way to achieve it is to remove this from queue and allow the Moderators time to deliberate over the proposal at this time.

[Mahaj WA Seat]

Homo sapiens isn't a race.

That's arguable, depending on whether one wishes to use the real life or roleplay based definitions of the word (and for once it might be reasonable to use the latter, though that could be a stretch); however, it's still an "arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination", which is illegal for the same reason and under the exact same clause of CoCR.

well, do you define a species as a race? Because homo sapiens is a species, whereas, say, Indian would be a race.

[Unibot]

Makes sense, if this resolution could be applied to more species than just humans, it ought to be.. instead of just narrowing and arbitrarily attributing it to humans. That's the difference between Female Genitalia Mutilation and this act, FGM doesn't state anywhere that it couldn't be applied to other species where the genitalia is the same, it's just assumed that because the genitalia described in the resolution is different from a fish's whatever, that a school of sentient fish won't have to work very hard to comply with FGM's standards because of the obvious biological differences. Biological and arbitrary categorizations are two different things in this instance.

I'd also like to point out that the resolution states "REQUIRES member states to recognize a fetus' personhood before or during the 24th week of pregnancy, ", which seems to promote inconsistency in law -- and I think it ought to be ruled as an optionality violation because the difference between the two dictates two different category strengths according to the preambles' conclusions.

[Urgench]

I was wrong. The point isn't moot. The final clause stating the proposal only applies to humans puts it in violation of CoCR provision 2)a. It unfairly discriminates against members of Homo sapiens by placing racially-based restrictions on access to a public service in nations where abortions are legalized in a less restrictive manner than the methods outlined herein. So, yes, that clause makes this proposal illegal, whether others agree with me on the concept of optionality or not.

This is entirely correct, an entire species cannot be deprived of the facility legally secured to them of obtaining a medical procedure simply because they happen to be of that species.

The CoCR clearly makes it illegal to unfairly discriminate in this fashion, after all why should non-humans be able to obtain abortions or terminations of their pregnancies even up to full term while humans are not? Or for that matter why should human offspring be given personhood at some arbitrarily designated point prior to birth while non-human offspring remain without personhood until birth?


Yours,

[Mahaj WA Seat]

Makes sense, if this resolution could be applied to more species than just humans, it ought to be.. instead of just narrowing and arbitrarily attributing it to humans. That's the difference between Female Genitalia Mutilation and this act, FGM doesn't state anywhere that it couldn't be applied to other species where the genitalia is the same, it's just assumed that because the genitalia described in the resolution is different from a fish's whatever, that a school of sentient fish won't have to work very hard to comply with FGM's standards because of the obvious biological differences. Biological and arbitrary categorizations are two different things in this instance.

I agree. I think it should be changed so that the Resolution states that it applies to ALL species where it is physically possible.

I'd also like to point out that the resolution states "REQUIRES member states to recognize a fetus' personhood before or during the 24th week of pregnancy, ", which seems to promote inconsistency in law -- and I think it ought to be ruled as an optionality violation because the difference between the two dictates two different category strengths according to the preambles' conclusions.

Good catch. yeah, needs changing.

[Glen-Rhodes]

well, do you define a species as a race? Because homo sapiens is a species, whereas, say, Indian would be a race.

Not to mention 'Endangered Species Protections' gives legal protection to certain species above others. That must be in violation of CoCR; it only helps species of certain socioeconomic status. In fact, the entire resolution is predicated upon the betterment of 'humans.' What about Right to Privacy? It begins by talking about 'human beings.' Ban on Slavery and Trafficking is all about 'human trafficking.' Can we please just get over this obsession?

Furthermore, the idea that limiting regulations on a medical procedure performed on human beings to applying to only human beings is 'arbitrary' or 'reductive' is just seriously the most jump-the-shark moment I've seen in my entire time playing this game. The fact that the proposal, even though it's horrible and I would never vote for it, was preemptively deleted because mods think this question needs to be further address is.. it's pretty much beyond description. The CoCR doesn't apply to species. Treating species differently is necessary. But even besides that, nobody should be expected to craft their resolution around whatever fantastical creatures a few people imagine.

[Urgench]

I agree. I think it should be changed so that the Resolution states that it applies to ALL species where it is physically possible.

Though in fact there is absolutely no need to mention species at all in the resolution. That it continues to be discriminatory to child bearing persons, in humans that being the female, is we feel insurmountable and makes the entire purpose of the resolution illegal in our opinion.


Yours,

[Glen-Rhodes]

Though in fact there is absolutely no need to mention species at all in the resolution. That it continues to be discriminatory to child bearing persons, in humans that being the female, is we feel insurmountable and makes the entire purpose of the resolution illegal in our opinion.

The CoCR in no way makes regulations specifically targeted towards pregnant females illegal.

[Urgench]

well, do you define a species as a race? Because homo sapiens is a species, whereas, say, Indian would be a race.

Not to mention 'Endangered Species Protections' gives legal protection to certain species above others. That must be in violation of CoCR; it only helps species of certain socioeconomic status. In fact, the entire resolution is predicated upon the betterment of 'humans.' What about Right to Privacy? It begins by talking about 'human beings.' Ban on Slavery and Trafficking is all about 'human trafficking.' Can we please just get over this obsession?

Furthermore, the idea that limiting regulations on a medical procedure performed on human beings to applying to only human beings is 'arbitrary' or 'reductive' is just seriously the most jump-the-shark moment I've seen in my entire time playing this game. The fact that the proposal, even though it's horrible and I would never vote for it, was preemptively deleted because mods think this question needs to be further address is.. it's pretty much beyond description. The CoCR doesn't apply to species. Treating species differently is necessary. But even besides that, nobody should be expected to craft their resolution around whatever fantastical creatures a few people imagine.

The CoCR absolutely does apply to species, however it seems a confusion is arising as to how it applies to species. It applies only where a species is unfairly discriminated against by a law or action.

Since none of the resolutions you mention unfairly discriminate against any species they do not conflict with the CoCR.

We agree with historical rulings on the part of the secretariat that for most purposes "human" may be read as "person" and that there is no conflict inherent in purely mentioning "human" or variants thereof.

We do think that the specification of "Homo Sapiens Sapiens" however is a conflict with the CoCR since it clearly deprives a single taxonomically described species of rights which other species continue to have, in this context.


Yours,

[Urgench]

Though in fact there is absolutely no need to mention species at all in the resolution. That it continues to be discriminatory to child bearing persons, in humans that being the female, is we feel insurmountable and makes the entire purpose of the resolution illegal in our opinion.

The CoCR in no way makes regulations specifically targeted towards pregnant females illegal.

It does if those regulations unfairly discriminate against pregnant females, as is the case in this instance, but of course the CoCR does not prevent fair regulations of any variety of situations and persons.


Yours,

[Glen-Rhodes]

We do think that the specification of "Homo Sapiens Sapiens" however is a conflict with the CoCR since it clearly deprives a single species of rights which other species continue to have, in this context.

This resolution isn't depriving a species of rights. It's regulating a medical procedure as it is performed on a certain gender of a certain species. If that is not a 'compelling practical purpose,' I don't know what is. Certainly, other fantastical species have completely different reproductive systems, so attempting to regulate all of them under the same law is entirely impractical.

It does if those regulations unfairly discriminate against pregnant females, as is the case in this instance, but of course the CoCR does not prevent fair regulations of any variety of situations and persons.

Pregnancy is not an arbitrary or reductive categorization. It is a state that any person can enter into. Special laws regarding pregnant people would apply to all pregnant people. That's what equality before the law is. The CoCR does not make all person equal in all ways.

[Unibot]

Furthermore, the idea that limiting regulations on a medical procedure performed on human beings to applying to only human beings is 'arbitrary' or 'reductive' is just seriously the most jump-the-shark moment I've seen in my entire time playing this game. The fact that the proposal, even though it's horrible and I would never vote for it, was preemptively deleted because mods think this question needs to be further address is.. it's pretty much beyond description. The CoCR doesn't apply to species. Treating species differently is necessary. But even besides that, nobody should be expected to craft their resolution around whatever fantastical creatures a few people imagine.

Nah, you just shouldn't have a clause that declares the proposal as being reduced to applying only to one species or a group of species. You should let the proposal's mandates speak for itself, if a species won't be biologically applicable for the requirements of the resolution, they won't be, and the compliance commission will recognize this.

It's like if I put this into a resolution >>> "AFFIRMS this resolution only applies to tortoises. "

.. why should tortoises be treated differently then camels, sentient lollipops or humans... unless there is an obvious reason like the resolution's mandates could only be biologically relevant to an reptile .. in which case the resolution's mandates will only apply to reptiles... and need no affirmation of the latter ilk which discriminates against other types of reptiles for no apparent reason.

[Christian Democrats]

The proposal currently is in limbo and, for the meantime, suspended.

The Moderators wrote:

Your proposal Beginning of Life Act has been removed as a result of legality issues, namely the one over a conflict with CoCR. While the mods review your proposal, we request that in the interim, you not submit it to queue, so we can provide you with a better, more thorough ruling in order to assist you in your drafting. We will be looking at the current issues that have been brought up.

You are free to in the meanwhile to revise it and otherwise continue the discussion that you have going on in the forum.

[Urgench]

We do think that the specification of "Homo Sapiens Sapiens" however is a conflict with the CoCR since it clearly deprives a single species of rights which other species continue to have, in this context.

This resolution isn't depriving a species of rights. It's regulating a medical procedure as it is performed on a certain gender of a certain species. If that is not a 'compelling practical purpose,' I don't know what is. Certainly, other fantastical species have completely different reproductive systems, so attempting to regulate all of them under the same law is entirely impractical.

Even if it isn't depriving a species (though we disagree that it is not) it certainly deprives women of the right to control their own bodies, something which in this context is not deprived of men.

Why should women be forced to bear offspring they do not wish to bear when men are not forced to do so?

Yours,

[Christian Democrats]

Homo sapiens isn't a race.

That's arguable, depending on whether one wishes to use the real life or roleplay based definitions of the word (and for once it might be reasonable to use the latter, though that could be a stretch); however, it's still an "arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination", which is illegal for the same reason and under the exact same clause of CoCR.

Compliance gnomes use real life definitions and translate and apply those definitions as necessary (i.e., they'll properly apply GA rules to your nation).

Feel free to introduce a proposal outlawing speciesism.

[Urgench]

Pregnancy is not an arbitrary or reductive categorization. It is a state that any person can enter into. Special laws regarding pregnant people would apply to all pregnant people. That's what equality before the law is. The CoCR does not make all person equal in all ways.

How is it not arbitrary to treat all pregnant people as one? It is in fact entirely arbitrary to in essence create a class of persons capable of gestation of offspring and then deprive them of rights which persons incapable of gestation of offspring continue to enjoy. There is nothing compellingly practical about forcing billions of women to bear unwanted offspring.


Yours,

[Unibot]

That's arguable, depending on whether one wishes to use the real life or roleplay based definitions of the word (and for once it might be reasonable to use the latter, though that could be a stretch); however, it's still an "arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination", which is illegal for the same reason and under the exact same clause of CoCR.

Compliance gnomes use real life definitions and translate and apply those definitions as necessary (i.e., they'll properly apply GA rules to your nation).

Feel free to introduce a proposal outlawing speciesism.

Already done in the COCR.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Even if it isn't depriving a species (though we disagree that it is not) it certainly deprives women of the right to control their own bodies, something which in this context is not deprived of men.

Why should women be forced to bear offspring they do not wish to bear when men are not forced to do so?

Those are all great questions for debate, but not a debate on the proposal's legality.

[Unibot]

Even if it isn't depriving a species (though we disagree that it is not) it certainly deprives women of the right to control their own bodies, something which in this context is not deprived of men.

Why should women be forced to bear offspring they do not wish to bear when men are not forced to do so?

Those are all great questions for debate, but not a debate on the proposal's legality.

It is relevant when the proposal's definitions are discriminatory..

DEFINING therapeutic abortion as abortion performed because of a threat to a pregnant woman's life, a threat to a pregnant woman's physical health, or a severe abnormality in a pregnancy,

All other kinds of abortions are ruled illegal.

Which discriminates against a legally-recognized man who was raped but still has his female genitalia from before a gender-switch.

[Christian Democrats]

Makes sense, if this resolution could be applied to more species than just humans, it ought to be.. instead of just narrowing and arbitrarily attributing it to humans. That's the difference between Female Genitalia Mutilation and this act, FGM doesn't state anywhere that it couldn't be applied to other species where the genitalia is the same, it's just assumed that because the genitalia described in the resolution is different from a fish's whatever, that a school of sentient fish won't have to work very hard to comply with FGM's standards because of the obvious biological differences. Biological and arbitrary categorizations are two different things in this instance.

I'd also like to point out that the resolution states "REQUIRES member states to recognize a fetus' personhood before or during the 24th week of pregnancy, ", which seems to promote inconsistency in law -- and I think it ought to be ruled as an optionality violation because the difference between the two dictates two different category strengths according to the preambles' conclusions.

As I've pointed out, the gestation periods of various species differ greatly. This makes it impossible to write a proposal applicable to all (especially because on the word limit for proposals).

[Glen-Rhodes]

.. why should tortoises be treated differently then camels, sentient lollipops or humans... unless there is an obvious reason like the resolution's mandates could only be biologically relevant to an reptile .. in which case the resolution's mandates will only apply to reptiles... and need no affirmation of the latter ilk which discriminates against other types of reptiles for no apparent reason.

This resolution's mandates clearly only apply to humans, do they not? I think it would be a worse thing to not say that the resolution only applies to humans, if the resolution is creating regulations for human medical procedures.

How is it not arbitrary to treat all pregnant people as one? It is in fact entirely arbitrary to in essence create a class of persons capable of gestation of offspring and then deprive them of rights which persons incapable of gestation of offspring continue to enjoy.

Under this logic, any classification of people is entirely arbitrary. You need to be reasonable. This entire comment is entirely unreasonable, simply because you're saying people incapable of bearing children are still able to get abortions.

There is nothing compellingly practical about forcing billions of women to bear unwanted offspring.

Again, a great argument to debate the merits, but not the legality.

[Glen-Rhodes]

It is relevant when the proposal's definitions are discriminatory..

No, none of it is relevant to discussing the proposal's legality. Those are all political questions that are supposed to be answered by voting on the resolution.

[Eireann Fae WA Mission]

As I've pointed out, the gestation periods of various species differ greatly. This makes it impossible to write a proposal applicable to all (especially because on the word limit for proposals).

(OOC: Pssh. I could do it. I'm not going to, because I disagree with the principle, but it's not impossible to ban terminating gestation periods after a certain period in a species development.)

[Glen-Rhodes]

(OOC: Pssh. I could do it. I'm not going to, because I disagree with the principle, but it's not impossible to ban terminating gestation periods after a certain period in a species development.)

And it's not impossible to write proposals that cover all time periods being roleplayed on NationStates. But it's certainly unreasonable to force people to do so.