[PULLED] Repeal "On Abortion"

[Unitum Provincias]

Repeal "On Abortion"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution.

The General Assembly,

Recognizing that there is a conflicting moral consensus as to what point an embryo constitutes a living person, and therefore has a right to life,

Further Recognising that there exists an inconsistent scientific understanding of what point in foetal development constitutes the beginning of personhood,

Understand that, if and embryo is a living person, he or she should have the same rights as other persons,

Acknowledging that it is a woman's inherent right to terminate a pregnancy if her physical well-being is threatened should the pregnancy continue,

Recollecting that GA #128 allows for abortion of embryos that would otherwise not cause more physical harm as can be expected with normal pregnancy,

Hoping that future resolutions in this august body address the inherent right of women to terminate a pregnancy if her physical well-being is threatened should the pregnancy continue,

Hereby repeals GA #128 "On Abortion".

[Covenstone]

Repeal "On Abortion"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution.

The General Assembly,

Recognizing that there exists a conflicting scientific, as well as moralistic, consensus as to whether or not a human embryo constitutes a living human being,

Noting that, should human embryos be living human beings, the rights defined in World Assembly Resolution #35 would apply to them,

Believing that, because of a lack of scientific and moral consensus, it is inappropriate for this body to define what constitutes a living human being,

Acknowledging that it is a woman's inherit right to terminate a pregnancy if her physical well-being is threatened should the pregnancy continue,

Recollecting that GA #128 universally legalizes the abortion of embryos that would otherwise not cause more physical harm as can be expected with normal pregnancy,

Hoping that future resolutions in this august body address the inherit right of women to terminate a pregnancy if her physical well-being is threatened should the pregnancy continue,

Hereby repeals GA #128 "On Abortion".

If Resolution #35 applies to the two cells that are the basis of a fetus, Resolution #128 would never have been passed into law. Therefore one can logically argue Resolution #35 cannot protect those two cells.

Which makes this proposal illogical and possibly illegal? (I am not part of GenSec and have no clue on that subject, so I am just guessing as to that last part.)

[Unitum Provincias]

Repeal "On Abortion"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution.

The General Assembly,

Recognizing that there exists a conflicting scientific, as well as moralistic, consensus as to whether or not a human embryo constitutes a living human being,

Noting that, should human embryos be living human beings, the rights defined in World Assembly Resolution #35 would apply to them,

Believing that, because of a lack of scientific and moral consensus, it is inappropriate for this body to define what constitutes a living human being,

Acknowledging that it is a woman's inherit right to terminate a pregnancy if her physical well-being is threatened should the pregnancy continue,

Recollecting that GA #128 universally legalizes the abortion of embryos that would otherwise not cause more physical harm as can be expected with normal pregnancy,

Hoping that future resolutions in this august body address the inherit right of women to terminate a pregnancy if her physical well-being is threatened should the pregnancy continue,

Hereby repeals GA #128 "On Abortion".

If Resolution #35 applies to the two cells that are the basis of a fetus, Resolution #128 would never have been passed into law. Therefore one can logically argue Resolution #35 cannot protect those two cells.

Which makes this proposal illogical and possibly illegal? (I am not part of GenSec and have no clue on that subject, so I am just guessing as to that last part.)

Actually, when an embryo is in the feotal stage it has far more than two cells. That is, of course, besides the point. Saying that you can't repeal a law because it never would have passed if it was illegal is frankly silly, and contradicts the very purpose of a repeal. The fact is that many scientists believe that human embryos are living human organisms, and therefore deserve the same rights as all other living human organisms. This is, i'll admit, debatable, but the World Assembly should have no place in deciding whether or not this is true.

[Separatist Peoples]

If Resolution #35 applies to the two cells that are the basis of a fetus, Resolution #128 would never have been passed into law. Therefore one can logically argue Resolution #35 cannot protect those two cells.

Which makes this proposal illogical and possibly illegal? (I am not part of GenSec and have no clue on that subject, so I am just guessing as to that last part.)

Actually, when an embryo is in the feotal stage it has far more than two cells. That is, of course, besides the point. Saying that you can't repeal a law because it never would have passed if it was illegal is frankly silly, and contradicts the very purpose of a repeal. The fact is that many scientists believe that human embryos are living human organisms, and therefore deserve the same rights as all other living human organisms. This is, i'll admit, debatable, but the World Assembly should have no place in deciding whether or not this is true.

"Not really," says a flickering hologram of Ambassador Bell, pre-recorded in the event that another pointless abortion debate arose. "No World Assembly nation may hold, as a matter of law, that an embryo or a fetus is a person. I use person in lieu of human because of our decidedly nonhuman membership. No WA law can contradict others. To do so is an illegality, and no passed resolution can be illegal under the existing ruleset. In order to hold that an embryo or fetus is a person or some variation on the word such that it is granted legal personhood coextensive with an adult, one would have to contradict a number of resolutions. Since that isn't possible, the only way to resolve this conflict is for nations not to hold that any embryo or fetus holds personhood. It is a logical inference that assumes that WA law has supremacy and that WA law cannot be illegal once passed, both of which are fundamental rules of the World Assembly.

"Your argument, however, infers an interpretation that would run afoul of the second logical inference I mentioned. As such, it is not a legal interpretation of GAR#35 upon which to base a repeal of GAR#128. You would be best served not using this illegal argument."

[Unitum Provincias]

Actually, when an embryo is in the feotal stage it has far more than two cells. That is, of course, besides the point. Saying that you can't repeal a law because it never would have passed if it was illegal is frankly silly, and contradicts the very purpose of a repeal. The fact is that many scientists believe that human embryos are living human organisms, and therefore deserve the same rights as all other living human organisms. This is, i'll admit, debatable, but the World Assembly should have no place in deciding whether or not this is true.

"Not really," says a flickering hologram of Ambassador Bell, pre-recorded in the event that another pointless abortion debate arose. "No World Assembly nation may hold, as a matter of law, that an embryo or a fetus is a person. I use person in lieu of human because of our decidedly nonhuman membership. No WA law can contradict others. To do so is an illegality, and no passed resolution can be illegal under the existing ruleset. In order to hold that an embryo or fetus is a person or some variation on the word such that it is granted legal personhood coextensive with an adult, one would have to contradict a number of resolutions. Since that isn't possible, the only way to resolve this conflict is for nations not to hold that any embryo or fetus holds personhood. It is a logical inference that assumes that WA law has supremacy and that WA law cannot be illegal once passed, both of which are fundamental rules of the World Assembly.

"Your argument, however, infers an interpretation that would run afoul of the second logical inference I mentioned. As such, it is not a legal interpretation of GAR#35 upon which to base a repeal of GAR#128. You would be best served not using this illegal argument."

"In order to hold that an embryo or fetus is a person or some variation on the word such that it is granted legal personhood coextensive with an adult, one would have to contradict a number of resolutions." Which resolutions are you referring to here?

What if a passed resolution contradicts a resolution previously passed, but the contradiction had not been noticed until after the resolution was passed?

Edit: I will amend the text to replace "human" with the species-inclusive "persons".

[Separatist Peoples]

"Not really," says a flickering hologram of Ambassador Bell, pre-recorded in the event that another pointless abortion debate arose. "No World Assembly nation may hold, as a matter of law, that an embryo or a fetus is a person. I use person in lieu of human because of our decidedly nonhuman membership. No WA law can contradict others. To do so is an illegality, and no passed resolution can be illegal under the existing ruleset. In order to hold that an embryo or fetus is a person or some variation on the word such that it is granted legal personhood coextensive with an adult, one would have to contradict a number of resolutions. Since that isn't possible, the only way to resolve this conflict is for nations not to hold that any embryo or fetus holds personhood. It is a logical inference that assumes that WA law has supremacy and that WA law cannot be illegal once passed, both of which are fundamental rules of the World Assembly.

"Your argument, however, infers an interpretation that would run afoul of the second logical inference I mentioned. As such, it is not a legal interpretation of GAR#35 upon which to base a repeal of GAR#128. You would be best served not using this illegal argument."

"In order to hold that an embryo or fetus is a person or some variation on the word such that it is granted legal personhood coextensive with an adult, one would have to contradict a number of resolutions." Which resolutions are you referring to here?

What if a passed resolution contradicts a resolution previously passed, but the contradiction had not been noticed until after the resolution was passed?

Edit: I will amend the text to replace "human" with the species-inclusive "persons".

"You misunderstand me. As a rule, no passed proposal is illegal, regardless of the contents. That is why it is against the rules of procedure here in the GA to assert that a resolution is illegal in the repeal text. It's entirely irrelevant whether the proposal would have been illegal prior to passing."

[Unitum Provincias]

"In order to hold that an embryo or fetus is a person or some variation on the word such that it is granted legal personhood coextensive with an adult, one would have to contradict a number of resolutions." Which resolutions are you referring to here?

What if a passed resolution contradicts a resolution previously passed, but the contradiction had not been noticed until after the resolution was passed?

Edit: I will amend the text to replace "human" with the species-inclusive "persons".

"You misunderstand me. As a rule, no passed proposal is illegal, regardless of the contents. That is why it is against the rules of procedure here in the GA to assert that a resolution is illegal in the repeal text. It's entirely irrelevant whether the proposal would have been illegal prior to passing."

So, what you are saying is that I can not use the argument that embryos could be human because if they were human, it would make resolution GA #128 illiegal, which is impossible.

[Separatist Peoples]

"You misunderstand me. As a rule, no passed proposal is illegal, regardless of the contents. That is why it is against the rules of procedure here in the GA to assert that a resolution is illegal in the repeal text. It's entirely irrelevant whether the proposal would have been illegal prior to passing."

So, what you are saying is that I can not use the argument that embryos could be human because if they were human, it would make resolution GA #128 illiegal, which is impossible.

"You cannot make the legal argument. You may make a moral argument, ambassador."

[Unitum Provincias]

So, what you are saying is that I can not use the argument that embryos could be human because if they were human, it would make resolution GA #128 illiegal, which is impossible.

"You cannot make the legal argument. You may make a moral argument, ambassador."

Thank you for clarifying. I will amend the text of the proposal accordingly.

[Separatist Peoples]

"You cannot make the legal argument. You may make a moral argument, ambassador."

Thank you for clarifying. I will amend the text of the proposal accordingly.

"Removing any reference to GAR#35 will assuage this concern, ambassador."

[Unitum Provincias]

Thank you for clarifying. I will amend the text of the proposal accordingly.

"Removing any reference to GAR#35 will assuage this concern, ambassador."

In your opinion, ambassador, have all illegalities in the proposal been addressed?

[Covenstone]

Since someone more knowledgeable than me has weighed in on the legal side of things, I will merely point out that, in Covenstone at least, at the point of conception a fetus is made up of one sperm and one egg. Which is two cells. If the argument is going to be that this is "life" and that "life starts at conception" then you are asking The World Assembly to assign legal protection to two cells.

We think this would be somewhat...... dangerous, as there are plenty of other organisms that have only two cells (or more than two cells) and that have all the functions of life that these two cells would have. And yet I suspect if I were to ask you to grant World Assembly protection to them, you would probably say no and think I was taking the piss.

Your repeal does not include time-frames, it does not include any specifics about when you consider "life" to begin. It merely asks for these two cells to be given the same rights as any other living being, despite the fact that claim is ludicrous and impossible because if they were removed from the womb they would die soon after, and no amount of scientific evidence can prove otherwise.

This is why, even without the legal issues aside, I find this repeal impossible to support, and so, I suspect, will many, many others.

[Fauxia]

Repeal "On Abortion"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution.

The General Assembly,

Recognizing that there exists a conflicting scientific, as well as moralistic, consensus as to whether or not an embryo constitutes a living person,

Understand that, should embryos be living person, they should have the same rights as other persons,

Believing that, because of a lack of scientific and moral consensus, it is inappropriate for this body to define what scientifically constitutes a living person,

Acknowledging that it is a woman's inherit right to terminate a pregnancy if her physical well-being is threatened should the pregnancy continue,

Recollecting that GA #128 universally legalizes the abortion of embryos that would otherwise not cause more physical harm as can be expected with normal pregnancy,

Hoping that future resolutions in this august body address the inherit right of women to terminate a pregnancy if her physical well-being is threatened should the pregnancy continue,

Hereby repeals GA #128 "On Abortion".

While I support this resolution, as I am very opposed to abortion, there is no hope in it passing. Furthermore, it is useless, as the real abortion resolution is GA #286 "Reproductive Freedoms"

[Unitum Provincias]

Since someone more knowledgeable than me has weighed in on the legal side of things, I will merely point out that, in Covenstone at least, at the point of conception a fetus is made up of one sperm and one egg. Which is two cells. If the argument is going to be that this is "life" and that "life starts at conception" then you are asking The World Assembly to assign legal protection to two cells.

We think this would be somewhat...... dangerous, as there are plenty of other organisms that have only two cells (or more than two cells) and that have all the functions of life that these two cells would have. And yet I suspect if I were to ask you to grant World Assembly protection to them, you would probably say no and think I was taking the piss.

Your repeal does not include time-frames, it does not include any specifics about when you consider "life" to begin. It merely asks for these two cells to be given the same rights as any other living being, despite the fact that claim is ludicrous and impossible because if they were removed from the womb they would die soon after, and no amount of scientific evidence can prove otherwise.

This is why, even without the legal issues aside, I find this repeal impossible to support, and so, I suspect, will many, many others.

A correction, Ammbasador: At the point of fertilization, the two sex cells merge into one cell, called a zygote. This zygote is living, as far as science is concerned. The skin cells of your hand are living, as well. The argument is not that the cell is "alive", but instead whether or not it constitutes a living "person". People have certain rights. If the cell is a person, it deserves these rights. Science, theology, philosophy; all of these fields are divided on whether or not the embryo is a person.

On a personal note, my belief is that of the Catholic Church; that life starts at conception. That is, the point when the two sex cells merge into one cell.

[Unitum Provincias]

Repeal "On Abortion"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution.

The General Assembly,

Recognizing that there exists a conflicting scientific, as well as moralistic, consensus as to whether or not an embryo constitutes a living person,

Understand that, should embryos be living person, they should have the same rights as other persons,

Believing that, because of a lack of scientific and moral consensus, it is inappropriate for this body to define what scientifically constitutes a living person,

Acknowledging that it is a woman's inherit right to terminate a pregnancy if her physical well-being is threatened should the pregnancy continue,

Recollecting that GA #128 universally legalizes the abortion of embryos that would otherwise not cause more physical harm as can be expected with normal pregnancy,

Hoping that future resolutions in this august body address the inherit right of women to terminate a pregnancy if her physical well-being is threatened should the pregnancy continue,

Hereby repeals GA #128 "On Abortion".

While I support this resolution, as I am very opposed to abortion, there is no hope in it passing. Furthermore, it is useless, as the real abortion resolution is GA #286 "Reproductive Freedoms"

If this resolution passes, there will be a strong legal precedent to repeal "Reproductive Freedoms". Previous attempts at this have failed, so we must start small.

EDIT: I certainly did not mean that this was starting "small". What I was trying to say was that previous attempts to repeal abortion regulation have failed, so a new approach much be considered.

[Araraukar]

If this resolution passes, there will be a strong legal precedent to repeal "Reproductive Freedoms". Previous attempts at this have failed, so we must start small.

OOC: ...going after the abortion resolutions is not "starting small".

[Covenstone]

Since someone more knowledgeable than me has weighed in on the legal side of things, I will merely point out that, in Covenstone at least, at the point of conception a fetus is made up of one sperm and one egg. Which is two cells. If the argument is going to be that this is "life" and that "life starts at conception" then you are asking The World Assembly to assign legal protection to two cells.

We think this would be somewhat...... dangerous, as there are plenty of other organisms that have only two cells (or more than two cells) and that have all the functions of life that these two cells would have. And yet I suspect if I were to ask you to grant World Assembly protection to them, you would probably say no and think I was taking the piss.

Your repeal does not include time-frames, it does not include any specifics about when you consider "life" to begin. It merely asks for these two cells to be given the same rights as any other living being, despite the fact that claim is ludicrous and impossible because if they were removed from the womb they would die soon after, and no amount of scientific evidence can prove otherwise.

This is why, even without the legal issues aside, I find this repeal impossible to support, and so, I suspect, will many, many others.

A correction, Ammbasador: At the point of fertilization, the two sex cells merge into one cell, called a zygote. This zygote is living, as far as science is concerned. The skin cells of your hand are living, as well. The argument is not that the cell is "alive", but instead whether or not it constitutes a living "person". People have certain rights. If the cell is a person, it deserves these rights. Science, theology, philosophy; all of these fields are divided on whether or not the embryo is a person.

On a personal note, my belief is that of the Catholic Church; that life starts at conception. That is, the point when the two sex cells merge into one cell.

Okay, I looked up some definitions and I stand corrected. According to most standard definitions "an embryo" is the period of development from two to eight weeks. Seven days after conception.

Now, not being a genetic scientist (I went a different way) I can't say for certain, but I am fairly sure that after only seven days of development, the average embryo (which is the term YOU use in YOUR repeal) is not going to be able to survive outside the womb on its own separate from its mother. And yet you would have The World Assembly treat it as a living sentient/sapient being, with all the rights thereto? You would have us endow this clump cells, only seven days old, with the same rights, privileges and so forth that we grant to living, breathing beings and AT THE SAME TIME strip away rights from the mother that it is currently using as a host/incubator?

Because make no mistake, this repeal would strip away rights from other sentient/sapient beings (possibly in violation of several other resolutions, including #35 and #286 at the very least) all to protect a group of cells that (according to your own repeal) may or may not even qualify as sentient/sapient under World Assembly law.

All of this is something to consider when you say you are starting out "small."

[United Massachusetts]

Surprisingly, I don't support this proposal. Repealing this would not at all affect International Law, as RF (GAR #286) is still in the books. Furthermore, it would be setting pro-lifers up for a fight it is impossible to win. It's better to spend our time trying to repeal GAR #286

[Attempted Socialism]

Recognizing that there exists a conflicting scientific, as well as moralistic, consensus as to whether or not an embryo constitutes a living person,

Ambassador Marcie Elizabeth 'MacBeth' Illum stops reading at the first line.
"Uh, Ambassador, I think there's a problem with your base premise here. There's scientific and moral consensus that embryos are not living persons. You may be able to find, as you later refer to, groups without firm grasps on morality who think otherwise, but we conveniently discard insane people when checking the boxes for scientific or moral consensus."
"Any definition of personhood that would apply equally to my skincells, myself and my offspring, is simply ludicrous. When your first premise is an erroneous postulation, you may wish to review the entire draft."

[Jarish Inyo]

Great. Another proposal trying to force someone else's religious and moral values on everyone else.

[Darkmania]

It's the first day at work for me, and it's about Repealing "GA #128".

*Sigh*

I am against this Resolution. Why must there be always some ultra-religious nations who wants to repeal some words on a paper just because they conflict for what they belive in?

[Covenstone]

There are also two more issues to consider in regard to this repeal :-

The repeal is focusing all the attention on the "life of the mother" clause (Part 3 of Clause 1) while entirely ignoring the first two parts of Clause 1, which permit abortion in cases of rape and forced pregnancy, and in cases where the unborn child itself is going to suffer from an incurable disease/condition that will cause said unborn child to live a short life full of suffering and pain.

Firstly, this would cause the victim of a crime (and I challenge anyone to argue that a woman who has been raped is not a victim) to be forced to live with the consequences of that crime for another nine months. To expend their money, time, effort and so forth to take care of something they had NO SAY in bringing into the world. And while I understand the argument that this is in no way the fault of the zygote/embryo/fetus, I would also point out that this is not the fault of the woman in question either and that forcing her to suffer through nine months of torment is beyond cruel and unusual punishment and moving into torture and inhumane treatment.

Secondly, given that this proposed repeal is supposed to be based in the well-being of the unborn child, I have to wonder why anyone would want to force the birth of a child whose entire destiny is going to be pain, suffering, torment and a very horrible death. Because to me, that seems to be a tad contradictory.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: this may be an Honest Mistake violation, so hold off on submission until I get a chance to look closer this evening.

[Unitum Provincias]

Recognizing that there exists a conflicting scientific, as well as moralistic, consensus as to whether or not an embryo constitutes a living person,

Ambassador Marcie Elizabeth 'MacBeth' Illum stops reading at the first line.
"Uh, Ambassador, I think there's a problem with your base premise here. There's scientific and moral consensus that embryos are not living persons. You may be able to find, as you later refer to, groups without firm grasps on morality who think otherwise, but we conveniently discard insane people when checking the boxes for scientific or moral consensus."
"Any definition of personhood that would apply equally to my skincells, myself and my offspring, is simply ludicrous. When your first premise is an erroneous postulation, you may wish to review the entire draft."

"You may be able to find, as you later refer to, groups without firm grasps on morality who think otherwise, but we conveniently discard insane people when checking the boxes for scientific or moral consensus." By this, I assume you mean Catholics. I would hardly say Catholics lack a firm grasp on morality.

Recognizing that there exists a conflicting scientific, as well as moralistic, consensus as to whether or not an embryo constitutes a living person,

Ambassador Marcie Elizabeth 'MacBeth' Illum stops reading at the first line.
"Uh, Ambassador, I think there's a problem with your base premise here. There's scientific and moral consensus that embryos are not living persons. You may be able to find, as you later refer to, groups without firm grasps on morality who think otherwise, but we conveniently discard insane people when checking the boxes for scientific or moral consensus."
"Any definition of personhood that would apply equally to my skincells, myself and my offspring, is simply ludicrous. When your first premise is an erroneous postulation, you may wish to review the entire draft."

A quote from the BBC: "Unfortunately there's no agreement in medicine, philosophy or theology as to what stage of foetal development should be associated with the right to life." You can read the whole article here.

[Attempted Socialism]

Ambassador Marcie Elizabeth 'MacBeth' Illum stops reading at the first line.
"Uh, Ambassador, I think there's a problem with your base premise here. There's scientific and moral consensus that embryos are not living persons. You may be able to find, as you later refer to, groups without firm grasps on morality who think otherwise, but we conveniently discard insane people when checking the boxes for scientific or moral consensus."
"Any definition of personhood that would apply equally to my skincells, myself and my offspring, is simply ludicrous. When your first premise is an erroneous postulation, you may wish to review the entire draft."

"You may be able to find, as you later refer to, groups without firm grasps on morality who think otherwise, but we conveniently discard insane people when checking the boxes for scientific or moral consensus." By this, I assume you mean Catholics. I would hardly say Catholics lack a firm grasp on morality.

Ambassador Marcie Elizabeth 'MacBeth' Illum stops reading at the first line.
"Uh, Ambassador, I think there's a problem with your base premise here. There's scientific and moral consensus that embryos are not living persons. You may be able to find, as you later refer to, groups without firm grasps on morality who think otherwise, but we conveniently discard insane people when checking the boxes for scientific or moral consensus."
"Any definition of personhood that would apply equally to my skincells, myself and my offspring, is simply ludicrous. When your first premise is an erroneous postulation, you may wish to review the entire draft."

A quote from the BBC: "Unfortunately there's no agreement in medicine, philosophy or theology as to what stage of foetal development should be associated with the right to life." You can read the whole article here.

You respond to an ingame argument with two OOC comments. Why?
Oh well. First, I would say Catholics lack a firm grasp on morality - there's nothing in Catholicism that allows you to arrive at moral choices, and plenty to force you to arrive at immoral ones, so it's not just irrelevant to morality, it's actually counterproductive - and furthermore that the degree to which Catholics can make moral choices, is the degree to which they've left bronze age superstition behind them. This, however, is a personal, RL evaluation of RL Catholicism, and so is not really relevant in a NationStates setting. If you want to argue this, start a thread in General and PM me the link.
Second, the only knowledge theologians can give us concerns works of fiction and the history of people believing in it. That's hardly qualified input in this debate.
The problem with a medical, or biological, definition is that personhood is essentially a legal and social construct. A simplistic definition, such as "human cells/DNA", would give skin cells personhood as well, which is patently absurd. A medical standard, like "able to live outside the womb", is always dependent on medical technology available, support structures and individual health, which would result in foetuses becoming human at different times in different countries and different periods. There's no real way out of this. Science and philosophy should inform laws, also to a larger degree than currently, but you can't take a legal and social term and ask medical researchers to get to a consensus on what it is. They will have to ground their definition in something outside their field.
However, regarding philosphy, personhood is better defined as sentience (In gradients). It is also neat in the more abstract sense that we should care about the experiences (In a sense, the pain and pleasure to the degree they experience it) of animals currently living, potential future generations, potential future species or even aliens if they exist. It also means that we can ask what person deserves more consideration, the few cells that aren't sentient and can't experience, or the mother? I realise that RL philosophy isn't settled on this yet, but I think it's clear which way the wind is blowing. The best way to avoid that, for you, is to give IC responses to a claim like that.
Using sentience as a criterion also works in other discussions, such as euthanasia, and is easier transferable to medicine and other fields of science. It will mean that, as we deepen our exploration into animal sentience, we can discover that we have been acting monstrous in the present, and need to reevaluate our future stances towards other humans and other species. Personally, I look forward to that.