NATION

PASSWORD

[DEFEATED] Ban on Forced Sterilisation

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Lyrrea
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 4
Founded: Aug 26, 2019
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Lyrrea » Thu Sep 12, 2019 2:22 pm

It would seem to me that people are choosing to ignore that the included exemptions are exemptions that would already be required by law-- parents and guardians are allowed to consent in place of their children to medical procedures because of the Patients' Rights Act.

To address the several ambassadors who state that this restricts their ability to punish criminals, particularly criminals convicted of crimes such as sexual assault or child sexual abuse, the People's Republic of Lyrrea is unable to understand why you wouldn't simply execute those criminals.

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2281
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Thu Sep 12, 2019 2:33 pm

Lyrrea wrote:It would seem to me that people are choosing to ignore that the included exemptions are exemptions that would already be required by law-- parents and guardians are allowed to consent in place of their children to medical procedures because of the Patients' Rights Act.

To address the several ambassadors who state that this restricts their ability to punish criminals, particularly criminals convicted of crimes such as sexual assault or child sexual abuse, the People's Republic of Lyrrea is unable to understand why you wouldn't simply execute those criminals.


"Patients' Rights Act only extends to lawful medical procedures. It would be entirely within the remit of this assembly to demand that sterilisation of minors, in the context of the definition of sterilisation presented in this proposal, is only lawful in circumstances where it is entirely necessary for the long term health of the individual concerned. Thereby leaving voluntary sterilisation to adults only.

"No member state may "simply execute" any criminal. See GAR#443, Preventing The Execution Of Innocents."

- Ted
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.

User avatar
Marxist Germany
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1294
Founded: Jun 07, 2018
Corporate Bordello

Postby Marxist Germany » Thu Sep 12, 2019 2:43 pm

Bananaistan wrote:
Lyrrea wrote:It would seem to me that people are choosing to ignore that the included exemptions are exemptions that would already be required by law-- parents and guardians are allowed to consent in place of their children to medical procedures because of the Patients' Rights Act.

To address the several ambassadors who state that this restricts their ability to punish criminals, particularly criminals convicted of crimes such as sexual assault or child sexual abuse, the People's Republic of Lyrrea is unable to understand why you wouldn't simply execute those criminals.


"Patients' Rights Act only extends to lawful medical procedures. It would be entirely within the remit of this assembly to demand that sterilisation of minors, in the context of the definition of sterilisation presented in this proposal, is only lawful in circumstances where it is entirely necessary for the long term health of the individual concerned. Thereby leaving voluntary sterilisation to adults only.

"No member state may "simply execute" any criminal. See GAR#443, Preventing The Execution Of Innocents."

- Ted

"I added the exception because I wanted to avoid contradiction, I should've read PRA more carefully, and remember, ambassador, an exception isn't a mandate."
Country represents RL views mostly. Not Marxist anymore.
Author of GA#461, and GA#470

Ex-delegate of The United Federations; citizen of 10000 Islands | Gaming User#0721(Discord)
RP name: Germany
The National Factbook (WIP)
Ambassador Klaus Schmidt
Political Compass
PolitiStates Result
Pro:Laissez-faire, Nationalism, Guns, Free speech, Christianity, Same-sex marriage, United Ireland.
Anti:Extreme Progressivism, Abortion, Socialism, Interventionism, Mass-migration.
A high school student aged 15 from Ireland, living in Co. Dublin. Interested in politics, gaming, and history.

User avatar
Lyrrea
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 4
Founded: Aug 26, 2019
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Lyrrea » Thu Sep 12, 2019 2:47 pm

Bananaistan wrote:"No member state may "simply execute" any criminal. See GAR#443, Preventing The Execution Of Innocents."


I was not proposing that you should execute any suspected criminal, but rather that once the sufficient evidence is submitted to the Judicial Committee of the Compliance Commission and it is determined that such a crime was actually committed, execution be the punishment instead for such criminals, as a potential alternative to sterilization, which is an ineffective method of punishment for preventing repeat crimes of such a nature, anyway.

User avatar
Lyrrea
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 4
Founded: Aug 26, 2019
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Lyrrea » Thu Sep 12, 2019 2:50 pm

As a matter of fact, I don't, personally, see how the forced sterilization of any suspected innocent is any better, as I don't think those individuals should be punished at all, especially not in such a way as to permanently decrease their quality of life.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5213
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Thu Sep 12, 2019 2:53 pm

Marxist Germany wrote:
Bananaistan wrote:
"Patients' Rights Act only extends to lawful medical procedures. It would be entirely within the remit of this assembly to demand that sterilisation of minors, in the context of the definition of sterilisation presented in this proposal, is only lawful in circumstances where it is entirely necessary for the long term health of the individual concerned. Thereby leaving voluntary sterilisation to adults only.

"No member state may "simply execute" any criminal. See GAR#443, Preventing The Execution Of Innocents."

- Ted

"I added the exception because I wanted to avoid contradiction, I should've read PRA more carefully, and remember, ambassador, an exception isn't a mandate."

(OOC: This does seem to be something that should be implemented in a potential redraft. If not, I’m sure the GA will pass some additional legislation that closes this loophole.)
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Bear Connors Paradiso
Attaché
 
Posts: 91
Founded: Jan 03, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bear Connors Paradiso » Thu Sep 12, 2019 3:11 pm

Are we taking away peoples "No Sex" policy too? Whose right do you have to tell me my AI-planned and created population has less civil rights? How can a puny human brain tell Box he's being less than optimally efficient?

There are 4 issues which give "No Sex" policy, and at least one issue that is contingent on this policy to appear. From this issue even though it's failing, now I want to reinstate it.

User avatar
Lord Dominator
Senator
 
Posts: 4798
Founded: Dec 22, 2016
Corporate Police State

Postby Lord Dominator » Thu Sep 12, 2019 3:14 pm

Bear Connors Paradiso wrote:Are we taking away peoples "No Sex" policy too? Whose right do you have to tell me my AI-planned and created population has less civil rights? How can a puny human brain tell Box he's being less than optimally efficient?

There are 4 issues which give "No Sex" policy, and at least one issue that is contingent on this policy to appear. From this issue even though it's failing, now I want to reinstate it.

OOC: The policies are separate from the GA, and I do not believe the stat effects from this would be enough to change that that way around (Sanct or someone else more in the no can correct me if needs be).
Dee Vytherov-Skollvaldr | Forest | TBH Lieutenant and Council Member | WA Vizier | Ambassador to the WA

User avatar
Ave Gloriana
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 9
Founded: Jul 23, 2019
Democratic Socialists

Postby Ave Gloriana » Thu Sep 12, 2019 3:18 pm

Dirty Americans wrote:
Ave Gloriana wrote:This proposal would make it illegal to castrate rapists and child molesters.


Actually they key word is "permanent elimination"

Chemical castration is castration via anaphrodisiac drugs, whether to reduce libido and sexual activity, to treat cancer, or otherwise. Unlike surgical castration, where the gonads are removed through an incision in the body, chemical castration does not remove organs, nor is it a form of sterilization. Chemical castration is generally considered reversible when treatment is discontinued, although permanent effects in body chemistry can sometimes be seen, as in the case of bone density loss increasing with length of use of DMPA.

In May 2016, The New York Times reported that a number of countries use chemical castration on sex offenders, often in return for reduced sentences.


Physical castration IS permanent.

User avatar
Catsfern
Envoy
 
Posts: 308
Founded: Mar 09, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Catsfern » Thu Sep 12, 2019 3:22 pm

Ave Gloriana wrote:
Dirty Americans wrote:
Actually they key word is "permanent elimination"

Chemical castration is castration via anaphrodisiac drugs, whether to reduce libido and sexual activity, to treat cancer, or otherwise. Unlike surgical castration, where the gonads are removed through an incision in the body, chemical castration does not remove organs, nor is it a form of sterilization. Chemical castration is generally considered reversible when treatment is discontinued, although permanent effects in body chemistry can sometimes be seen, as in the case of bone density loss increasing with length of use of DMPA.

In May 2016, The New York Times reported that a number of countries use chemical castration on sex offenders, often in return for reduced sentences.


Physical castration IS permanent.


you did read the spoiler text correct, because it makes the point clear that the process the describe is chemical, and can in theory be undone.
I use NS stats that applies to everyone no exceptions, for details telegram me or don't and NO we are not a nation of cats
WIP wiki here https://catsfern.fandom.com/wiki/Catsfern_WikiWIKI ALWAYS UPDATING!Most recent page: Map and States
ASK ME ANYTHING HERE https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?ns=1&f=23&t=472606
100 COPIES OF MY OWN NATIONS CARD! https://www.nationstates.net/page=deck/collection=240
Catsfernian Newspaper! (new edition every Monday / edition 8 out now) https://docs.google.com/document/d/15CywWf8K6aSGbr63zhtnrIHsl4Y3X-mLVO2xOiUemro/edit?usp=sharing
My thoughts on NS stats https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1255156

User avatar
Holantrod
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: Sep 07, 2019
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Holantrod » Thu Sep 12, 2019 4:30 pm

The only issue I have with this resolution is the ability of legal guardians to authorize the permanent sterilization of their charges without a health reason. A clause needs to be added to prevent a minor from being permanently sterilized if they do not understand and consent, even if their guardian wants the procedure to be carried out.

User avatar
Kus Sikobietordia
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 4
Founded: Dec 19, 2016
Democratic Socialists

Postby Kus Sikobietordia » Thu Sep 12, 2019 5:36 pm

Is this in reference to abortion

User avatar
Lord Dominator
Senator
 
Posts: 4798
Founded: Dec 22, 2016
Corporate Police State

Postby Lord Dominator » Thu Sep 12, 2019 6:14 pm

Kus Sikobietordia wrote:Is this in reference to abortion

"A basic reading of the proposal, or hel, just the title, would inform you that the proposal is not about abortion ambassador."
Dee Vytherov-Skollvaldr | Forest | TBH Lieutenant and Council Member | WA Vizier | Ambassador to the WA

User avatar
Mundiferrum
Diplomat
 
Posts: 818
Founded: Apr 07, 2011
Democratic Socialists

Postby Mundiferrum » Thu Sep 12, 2019 6:30 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Marxist Germany wrote:
"This is unfortunately out of my control, the Patients Rights Act includes this exception. However, your nation can ban it entirely, since this is merely an exception and not a mandate."


"I am absolutely appalled, ambassador. Eugenics are basically a form of genocide and your nation should be ashamed of using them."

"Not under WA law, which defines genocide as :"any act committed, or measure enacted, with the intent to destroy, in whole or partially, an identifiable group of persons on the basis of belief, ethnicity, nationality, culture, or a perceived innate characteristic, which for the purposes of this resolution shall include sexual orientation."

"Strictly speaking, many genetic defects are not perceived, but actual and identifiable. They are not beliefs, ethnicities, nationalities, or cultures. Thus, a government campaign to limit genetic maladies isn't genocide, except insofar as you use it to curry emotional support.

"The C.D.S.P. is opposed. There are, frankly, compelling government interests in limiting the propagation of certain genetic maladies, and the existing protections for genocide and patient's medical rights are adequate to protect unethical use of this system."


Unfortunately, if the compelling government interest is to limit the propagation of certain genetic maladies, then forced sterilization is far from the appropriate tool. Ignoring, for the moment, how "certain genetic maladies" can, by the more unscrupulous nations, be defined as something that would be exclusionary to otherwise healthy and competent individuals -- say, Marfan's syndrome, or Achondroplasia (and, in OOC cases, "poverty" and "criminality", during the historical periods when genetics was woefully misapplied) -- sterilization, when it discourages the proliferation of one genetic disorder, inevitably encourages another.

Sterilization "works" by decreasing the frequency of a certain gene within a population. The "spread" of genetic conditions is where the genes for those conditions increase in frequency within a population. The issue with sterilization is that it has a larger impact than just decreasing the frequency of a certain gene. We are not just eliminating that gene; we are also decreasing the frequencies of whatever other genes the individuals being sterilized has.

When the frequency of a particular gene decreases, the frequency of different genes of the same allele necessarily increases. That means that when you decrease the frequency of one gene, you increase the frequency of another. Decreasing the frequency of a gene one dislikes through sterilization may very well increase the frequency of a gene from a different allele one dislikes, therefore introducing one, possibly worse, problem to solve another.

And that's if the genetic condition is spread only by one gene, or if the gene's only function is to cause disease. Take sickle-cell anemia, for instance: those whose two chromosomes both have the gene to express sickle-cell anemia receive it, while those who only has one such gene instead receives additional resistance to malaria. Then you have the fact that the expression of a gene causing disease is not always set in stone, with the environment often also having a measurable effect.

One could, hypothetically, tailor the situation such that the sterilization program ends once a certain set of genetic frequencies has been reached. Of course, that is utterly impractical -- one cannot screen every individual for every gene involved in every inheritable genetic disease, not unless one has endless resources (or technology from the distant future) -- so we'll have to assume that it's once a target genetic frequency for the gene expressed into the condition is reached. This more realistic case, however, introduces an element of injustice into the equation. Who gets to be sterilized, then? Those who cannot afford treating their children? Those the state considers less valuable to society? Or perhaps those who are picked by lottery, or those who are simply caught by the state first, though these later alternatives don't seem particularly just, either.

What, then, is the effective solution, if the only tool available to stop the "spread" of these conditions is modification of the germ line? One effective solution is to increase diversity; in other words, immigration. The more sets of genes from a different population, the more "diffuse" the frequency of the gene causing the disease is. Increased genetic counselling is also an effective tool, insomuch as many disease-expressing genes often require both chromosomes involved in the disease to have the same gene, or that some genes may counteract the effect of others. Instead of forcing individuals to outright never reproduce, one could simply encourage individuals of one kind not to reproduce with another.

Either way, forced sterilization is not an effective solution, certainly not for the long term. At the very least, there are other, altogether more just ways of reducing the "spread" of certain genetic conditions. If a genetic disorder becomes so dire that individuals have to be forced to do something, then a state has reached the point where immigration into the state isn't allowed, and resources are woefully limited. Forced sterilization would help with the latter less effectively than outright mass murder; the latter, at least, decreases not only the frequency of a gene, but also the number of mouths to feed. On the other hand, unlike merely stopping individuals of certain genetic makeups to reproduce, both of these most-dire methods decrease the state's gene pool overall, thereby increasing the chances of a different, possibly worse genetic condition to proliferate. But that is, of course, the extreme case.

* - slight edit to the fifth paragraph
Last edited by Mundiferrum on Thu Sep 12, 2019 6:35 pm, edited 3 times in total.
MARCVSGRAVELLIVSCISTERNAEMAGNORATOR-ORATORMVNDIFERRIADCONCILIVMMNDVM
Marcus Gravellius Cisternae Magnorator, Mundiferri Representative to the World Assembly
"Call me Gravey. Only my really close friends call me Marcus, and I don't think we're that close yet. Maybe."
No, we are not a nation of cat people. We're all humans (and a few annoying gnomes) here. The cat's just there because our king is such a genius, he saw that it would be a good military strategy to have a distractingly cute flag, to blind our enemies to (our) victory!
Technological level: FUTURE TECH. We also have MAGICAL TECH, and a lot of the people here still play with MEDIEVAL TECH and PRESENT TECH. We're cool that way.

User avatar
Mundiferrum
Diplomat
 
Posts: 818
Founded: Apr 07, 2011
Democratic Socialists

Postby Mundiferrum » Thu Sep 12, 2019 6:32 pm

PS, we have voted FOR, although we'll keep an eye out for whether the concerns of other ambassadors, which we do share, about parents still having the power to so limit the reproductive capacity of their progeny, are confirmed.
MARCVSGRAVELLIVSCISTERNAEMAGNORATOR-ORATORMVNDIFERRIADCONCILIVMMNDVM
Marcus Gravellius Cisternae Magnorator, Mundiferri Representative to the World Assembly
"Call me Gravey. Only my really close friends call me Marcus, and I don't think we're that close yet. Maybe."
No, we are not a nation of cat people. We're all humans (and a few annoying gnomes) here. The cat's just there because our king is such a genius, he saw that it would be a good military strategy to have a distractingly cute flag, to blind our enemies to (our) victory!
Technological level: FUTURE TECH. We also have MAGICAL TECH, and a lot of the people here still play with MEDIEVAL TECH and PRESENT TECH. We're cool that way.

User avatar
Korazon
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: Sep 12, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Korazon » Thu Sep 12, 2019 6:35 pm

Skin the people who rape children

User avatar
Lord Dominator
Senator
 
Posts: 4798
Founded: Dec 22, 2016
Corporate Police State

Postby Lord Dominator » Thu Sep 12, 2019 6:44 pm

Korazon wrote:Skin the people who rape children

"Much as I enjoy wanton sadism ambassador, that seems a bit overboard either if you desire not to kill them or if you do."
Dee Vytherov-Skollvaldr | Forest | TBH Lieutenant and Council Member | WA Vizier | Ambassador to the WA

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4949
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Thu Sep 12, 2019 7:15 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:"The C.D.S.P. is opposed. There are, frankly, compelling government interests in limiting the propagation of certain genetic maladies...

This is morally repulsive. You should be ashamed.

Separatist Peoples wrote:Neither I nor my government care about moral objections, only ones based on utilitarian policy. Moral objections are little more than appeals to emotion and are summarily ignored, as all appeals to emotion should be."

You do realize that utilitarianism is itself a moral position that relies on a particular definition of "good"? Is your own approach, therefore, nothing more than an "appeal to emotion"?

Bananaistan wrote:"This is undoubtedly an anti-choice piece of writing dressed up as protecting rights when it actually seriously impacts upon the rights of children and teenagers and would permit less scrupulous member nations to allow parents do irreparable harm to their children.

This proposal has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. Nor does this proposal affect the rights of minors in any way, as minors are merely exempted from the prohibition the proposal establishes -- something which is probably required in any event to avoid contradicting PRA.
Catholic Commonwealth of Auralia
Also known as Railana

"Amor sequitur cognitionem."

User avatar
Evil Dictators Happyland
Minister
 
Posts: 3202
Founded: Aug 03, 2016
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Evil Dictators Happyland » Thu Sep 12, 2019 7:50 pm

Bananaistan wrote:"This is undoubtedly an anti-choice piece of writing dressed up as protecting rights when it actually seriously impacts upon the rights of children and teenagers and would permit less scrupulous member nations to allow parents do irreparable harm to their children. I am unsurprised that a delegation from the "won't someone think of the children" brigade which openly and actively flaunts their disregard for international law once again has proposed legislation which could be seriously harmful to children. But then we know that they don't care for children once they're born.

"In summary we commit to continue opposing proposed legislation from nations who do not carry out their obligations under international law in good faith. And even if this were not the case here, this resolution is seriously flawed regarding children's rights."

- Ted

"Ambassador, with all due respect, I fail to see how prohibiting nonconsensual, irreversible castration is in any way anti-choice, nor do I see any part of this proposal that even so much as mentions the rights of children."
Killer Queen has already touched this signature.

User avatar
Ave Gloriana
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 9
Founded: Jul 23, 2019
Democratic Socialists

Postby Ave Gloriana » Thu Sep 12, 2019 8:11 pm

Catsfern wrote:
Ave Gloriana wrote:
Physical castration IS permanent.


you did read the spoiler text correct, because it makes the point clear that the process the describe is chemical, and can in theory be undone.


I was talking about physical castration. You were the one quoting me.

User avatar
Catsfern
Envoy
 
Posts: 308
Founded: Mar 09, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Catsfern » Thu Sep 12, 2019 8:21 pm

Ave Gloriana wrote:
Catsfern wrote:
you did read the spoiler text correct, because it makes the point clear that the process the describe is chemical, and can in theory be undone.


I was talking about physical castration. You were the one quoting me.


in your first post you say
Ave Gloriana wrote:This proposal would make it illegal to castrate rapists and child molesters.

This is not a worthy and pressing issue to be decided at an international level. If you don't like sterilising criminals, don't do it.

But stop trying to tell the rest of us how to deal with criminal scum.


then Dirty Americans replies

Dirty Americans wrote:
Ave Gloriana wrote:This proposal would make it illegal to castrate rapists and child molesters.


Actually they key word is "permanent elimination"

Chemical castration is castration via anaphrodisiac drugs, whether to reduce libido and sexual activity, to treat cancer, or otherwise. Unlike surgical castration, where the gonads are removed through an incision in the body, chemical castration does not remove organs, nor is it a form of sterilization. Chemical castration is generally considered reversible when treatment is discontinued, although permanent effects in body chemistry can sometimes be seen, as in the case of bone density loss increasing with length of use of DMPA.

In May 2016, The New York Times reported that a number of countries use chemical castration on sex offenders, often in return for reduced sentences.


You then respond to that

Ave Gloriana wrote:
Dirty Americans wrote:
Actually they key word is "permanent elimination"

Chemical castration is castration via anaphrodisiac drugs, whether to reduce libido and sexual activity, to treat cancer, or otherwise. Unlike surgical castration, where the gonads are removed through an incision in the body, chemical castration does not remove organs, nor is it a form of sterilization. Chemical castration is generally considered reversible when treatment is discontinued, although permanent effects in body chemistry can sometimes be seen, as in the case of bone density loss increasing with length of use of DMPA.

In May 2016, The New York Times reported that a number of countries use chemical castration on sex offenders, often in return for reduced sentences.


Physical castration IS permanent.


This is where there is a problem, as in Dirty Americans response to your post they describe a chemical method of non permanent castration, yet you respond with a mention of physical castration.
I use NS stats that applies to everyone no exceptions, for details telegram me or don't and NO we are not a nation of cats
WIP wiki here https://catsfern.fandom.com/wiki/Catsfern_WikiWIKI ALWAYS UPDATING!Most recent page: Map and States
ASK ME ANYTHING HERE https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?ns=1&f=23&t=472606
100 COPIES OF MY OWN NATIONS CARD! https://www.nationstates.net/page=deck/collection=240
Catsfernian Newspaper! (new edition every Monday / edition 8 out now) https://docs.google.com/document/d/15CywWf8K6aSGbr63zhtnrIHsl4Y3X-mLVO2xOiUemro/edit?usp=sharing
My thoughts on NS stats https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1255156

User avatar
New Franklin
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 3
Founded: Aug 06, 2019
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby New Franklin » Thu Sep 12, 2019 8:37 pm

New Franklin votes AGAINST this resolution. Pedophiles will be sterilized in New Franklin.

User avatar
Absentia
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 9
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Absentia » Thu Sep 12, 2019 8:45 pm

Absentia votes AGAINST this proposal, because of the confluence of several other issues - which is to say, if the national animal is granted personhood, then this resolution would make criminals of all the people who take the 'have your pet spayed or neutered' advice, and as such is not a trans-national issue, but one rightly addressed at the national level. A malicious regime could remain in compliance with this resolution by declaring that various classes of people are 'subhuman' in the first place and therefore not subject to it's provisions.

User avatar
Lyrrea
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 4
Founded: Aug 26, 2019
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Lyrrea » Thu Sep 12, 2019 10:22 pm

Absentia wrote:Absentia votes AGAINST this proposal, because of the confluence of several other issues - which is to say, if the national animal is granted personhood, then this resolution would make criminals of all the people who take the 'have your pet spayed or neutered' advice, and as such is not a trans-national issue, but one rightly addressed at the national level. A malicious regime could remain in compliance with this resolution by declaring that various classes of people are 'subhuman' in the first place and therefore not subject to it's provisions.


This seems to me like an excuse to take this resolution to its ridiculous extreme. I don't think anyone views any animal, even a national animal, as a person, and even if they did I think they would fall under the exemption of those who are unable to consent. Thus, under clause 2a., the
"parent or guardian" of the animal (i.e. its owner) would be able to consent to spaying or neutering their pet.

To address your latter point, at no point other than in the very base, one sentence summary of the resolution does it even mention the word "human" but rather refers to those victims of forced sterilization as "individuals". Even if you are categorizing the undesirables as "subhuman", they are still guaranteed their right to reproductive choice.

Edit: Re-worded a sentence.
Edit 2: Fixed wording in another sentence.
Last edited by Lyrrea on Thu Sep 12, 2019 10:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Marxist Germany
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1294
Founded: Jun 07, 2018
Corporate Bordello

Postby Marxist Germany » Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:37 pm

Holantrod wrote:The only issue I have with this resolution is the ability of legal guardians to authorize the permanent sterilization of their charges without a health reason. A clause needs to be added to prevent a minor from being permanently sterilized if they do not understand and consent, even if their guardian wants the procedure to be carried out.

"I will refer you to this transcript."
Marxist Germany wrote:
Bananaistan wrote:
"Patients' Rights Act only extends to lawful medical procedures. It would be entirely within the remit of this assembly to demand that sterilisation of minors, in the context of the definition of sterilisation presented in this proposal, is only lawful in circumstances where it is entirely necessary for the long term health of the individual concerned. Thereby leaving voluntary sterilisation to adults only.

"No member state may "simply execute" any criminal. See GAR#443, Preventing The Execution Of Innocents."

- Ted

"I added the exception because I wanted to avoid contradiction, I should've read PRA more carefully, and remember, ambassador, an exception isn't a mandate."
Country represents RL views mostly. Not Marxist anymore.
Author of GA#461, and GA#470

Ex-delegate of The United Federations; citizen of 10000 Islands | Gaming User#0721(Discord)
RP name: Germany
The National Factbook (WIP)
Ambassador Klaus Schmidt
Political Compass
PolitiStates Result
Pro:Laissez-faire, Nationalism, Guns, Free speech, Christianity, Same-sex marriage, United Ireland.
Anti:Extreme Progressivism, Abortion, Socialism, Interventionism, Mass-migration.
A high school student aged 15 from Ireland, living in Co. Dublin. Interested in politics, gaming, and history.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Cornelius brooks, Desmosthenes and Burke

Advertisement

Remove ads