NationStates

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:13 pm**

I completely disagree with that ruling, for what it's worth.

Hack wrote:The opinionality ban refers to when language such as "Nations can ignore this Resolution if they want," which is right out.

No nation with humans in it can ignore this resolution. Just because a nation happens not to have human inhabitants doesn't mean that is a way out of it, anymore than it would be if the terms in the proposal had simply referred to 'humans'. It'd be like arguing a resolution about desertification was 'optional' because not all nations have deserts.

Unless this is a new ruling that a resolution specifically cannot reference humans, which is (a) quite a departure and (b) fucking ridiculous.

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:20 pm**

Quintessence of Dust wrote:I completely disagree with that ruling, for what it's worth.
Hack wrote:The opinionality ban refers to when language such as "Nations can ignore this Resolution if they want," which is right out.
No nation with humans in it can ignore this resolution. Just because a nation happens not to have human inhabitants doesn't mean that is a way out of it, anymore than it would be if the terms in the proposal had simply referred to 'humans'. It'd be like arguing a resolution about desertification was 'optional' because not all nations have deserts.

Unless this is a new ruling that a resolution specifically cannot reference humans, which is (a) quite a departure and (b) fucking ridiculous.

Actually, all a nation has to do is say "we're not technically human", and they can thereby opt out. Basically, all he had to do was not say "this resolution only applies to humans", because you can't have a clause saying only nations with green houses have to follow your rules. If it just happens that the stuff talked about isn't capable of applying to non-green houses, that's legal. You just can't come right out and admit it.

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:31 pm**

Intellect and the Arts wrote:Actually, all a nation has to do is say "we're not technically human", and they can thereby opt out.

Well, no, the proposal is fairly specific. I can declare myself not technically a human but I remain a member of Homo sapiens [sapiens]. Otherwise I am going to declare my nuclear weapons 'not technically nuclear weapons', my greenhouse gases 'not technically greenhouse gases' and my rolling meth lab 'not technically a rolling meth lab'.

(This notwithstanding the fairly substantial implications of turning a nation's entire population into non-humans overnight?)

Basically, all he had to do was not say "this resolution only applies to humans", because you can't have a clause saying only nations with green houses have to follow your rules. If it just happens that the stuff talked about isn't capable of applying to non-green houses, that's legal. You just can't come right out and admit it.

Firstly, you know that's false: he originally did talk about something that only applies to humans (human pregnancy), and got badgered into adding the language by others in this thread.

Secondly, you are adding a distinction that is not present in the proposal's language: applying to nations. He doesn't mention nations. Thus he doesn't 'have a clause saying only nations with green houses have to follow your rules' in the first place!

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:49 pm**

Quintessence of Dust wrote:I completely disagree with that ruling, for what it's worth.
Hack wrote:The opinionality ban refers to when language such as "Nations can ignore this Resolution if they want," which is right out.
No nation with humans in it can ignore this resolution. Just because a nation happens not to have human inhabitants doesn't mean that is a way out of it, anymore than it would be if the terms in the proposal had simply referred to 'humans'. It'd be like arguing a resolution about desertification was 'optional' because not all nations have deserts.

Unless this is a new ruling that a resolution specifically cannot reference humans, which is (a) quite a departure and (b) fucking ridiculous.

Agreed

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:55 pm**

Quintessence of Dust wrote:Well, no, the proposal is fairly specific. I can declare myself not technically a human but I remain a member of Homo sapiens [sapiens]. Otherwise I am going to declare my nuclear weapons 'not technically nuclear weapons', my greenhouse gases 'not technically greenhouse gases' and my rolling meth lab 'not technically a rolling meth lab'.

(This notwithstanding the fairly substantial implications of turning a nation's entire population into non-humans overnight?)

This could be a valid point were it not for the fact that many non-human races that may appear human do not qualify as Homo sapiens even as much as others might want to classify them as such. It would be far too easy for a nation full of Homo sapiens to classify themselves as one of those non-human races that appear human in order to get out of this.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas and Swarming Cute Kittens Ambassador

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:11 pm**

I'm not going to respond to that for two reasons: (i) it should be perfectly apparent that, as we were discussing proposal rules, my comments were OOC; (ii) your character's comments don't appear to have anything to do with optionality, but rather with this fanciful notion that if we classify ourselves as cucumbers we can exempt ourselves from the law.

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:16 pm**

Quintessence of Dust wrote:I'm not going to respond to that for two reasons: (i) it should be perfectly apparent that, as we were discussing proposal rules, my comments were OOC;

OOC. Proposal rules can be discussed IC. But the terms and manner you use when discussing proposal rules give the real steer as to which mode you're using I suppose.

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:24 pm**

(OOC: If it don't have OOC before it, I assume it's IC.)

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:39 pm**

Urgench wrote:
Quintessence of Dust wrote:I'm not going to respond to that for two reasons: (i) it should be perfectly apparent that, as we were discussing proposal rules, my comments were OOC;

OOC. Proposal rules can be discussed IC. But the terms and manner you use when discussing proposal rules give the real steer as to which mode you're using I suppose.

That's...absurd. When did this change come about? I remember Fris once giving someone an actual warning because they wouldn't stop using their IC character to debate proposal rules.

Well, anyway, that's off topic; suffice it to say, all of my comments were OOC, and I fail to see how they couldn't have been.

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 5:55 pm**

The Cat-Tribe wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:

Prenatal life is life, though, I guess all judicial opinions can be left up to interpretation.

I don't feel it necessary to read the majority opinion of Roe v. Wade to find a direct quote since this debate is not about how to interpret this landmark case. The purpose of this thread is to debate my proposal.

You cited the SCOTUS case as supporting your proposal. It isn't relevant, but you were wrong regardless.

Wilkipedia is NOT a SCOTUS case, AND not even the Wikipedia summary says anything about a fetus/unborn being a person.

Just admit you made an error and move on.

OCC: Just to be absolutely clear, here is what SCOTUS said on the subject in Roe, 410 U.S. 157-158 (emphasis added, footnotes omitted):

[N]o case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, 2, cl. 2, and 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, 2, cl. 3; 53 in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.

All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. This is in accord with the results reached in those few cases where the issue has been squarely presented. McGarvey v. Magee-Womens Hospital, 340 F. Supp. 751 (WD Pa. 1972); Byrn v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 31 N. Y. 2d 194, 286 N. E. 2d 887 (1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-434; Abele v. Markle, 351 F. Supp. 224 (Conn. 1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-730. Cf. Cheaney v. State, ___ Ind., at ___, 285 N. E. 2d, at 270; Montana v. Rogers, 278 F.2d 68, 72 (CA7 1960), aff'd sub nom. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961); Keeler v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. 3d 619, 470 P.2d 617 (1970); State v. Dickinson, 28 [410 U.S. 113, 159] Ohio St. 2d 65, 275 N. E. 2d 599 (1971). Indeed, our decision in United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62 (1971), inferentially is to the same effect ...

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 5:59 pm**

Christian Democrats wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:
Again, you aren't responding to most of what I post.

Particularly telling is you completely ignore the copious evidence that abortion bans don't actually reduce abortions, but do kill women through unsafe abortions.

On the on thing you do address, U.S. statistics, your response is laughable. I give you reputable figures from the Centers for Disease Control from 1973 to 2008. You give ... no actual numbers.

You cherry-pick imaginary statitics for "immediately after Roe v. Wade" (whatever that means), after the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, and "since the recession began."

You give no reason why these alleged numbers for temporary periods would be relevant, let alone more relevant than my long-term statistics OR my worldwide studies.

This is just sad.

There aren't any reliable statistics for illegal abortions, and I don't want to cite unreliable sources or cite guesses.

Non-responsive. My sources do give reliable statistics for illegal abortions, btw -- but I can only presume you didn't even look at them.

Almost all of the points I have raised about your proposal have been flatly ignored. The one's that have been "answered" have been replied to in an absurd or clearly false manner.

I can only conclude you are deliberately wasting the WA's time. Please stop.

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:40 pm**

Quintessence of Dust wrote:I'm not going to respond to that for two reasons: (i) it should be perfectly apparent that, as we were discussing proposal rules, my comments were OOC; (ii) your character's comments don't appear to have anything to do with optionality, but rather with this fanciful notion that if we classify ourselves as cucumbers we can exempt ourselves from the law.

Finally . . . someone who also is sane

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:41 pm**

Christian Democrats wrote:
Quintessence of Dust wrote:I'm not going to respond to that for two reasons: (i) it should be perfectly apparent that, as we were discussing proposal rules, my comments were OOC; (ii) your character's comments don't appear to have anything to do with optionality, but rather with this fanciful notion that if we classify ourselves as cucumbers we can exempt ourselves from the law.

Finally . . . someone who also is sane

If you are sane, I am quite happy to not be sane.

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:47 pm**

I've reworded the proposal. Please read the revised draft before posting further comments.

May Moderator Kryozerkia, who said this proposal violates "optionality," please clarify?

Thank you

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:56 pm**

Kryozerkia shouldn't need to clarify. If you read the rules on GA Proposals, it states that you cannot pass a resolution that WA nations don't necessarily have to follow. The humanocentrism of your proposal means that non-human nations don't have to follow the resolution, therefore, it is an optional proposal and, therefore, illegal.

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:59 pm**

This resolution now violates the CoCR by discriminating against Humans.

Your Excellency will have to do better. By which we mean give up this revolting immoral endeavour.

Yours,

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:12 pm**

Christian Democrats wrote:Finally . . . someone who also is sane

For the record, I disagree entirely and absolutely with your proposal; I just happen to also disagree with Kryo's justification for her ruling.

Ossitania wrote:Kryozerkia shouldn't need to clarify. If you read the rules on GA Proposals, it states that you cannot pass a resolution that WA nations don't necessarily have to follow. The humanocentrism of your proposal means that non-human nations don't have to follow the resolution, therefore, it is an optional proposal and, therefore, illegal.

To be clear: has there been a ruling on that point in the last year or so? Because it certainly wasn't required before then.

Edit: Hmm...: "so your phrasing has to avoid being obviously attuned to human physiology or current technology". Well, apparently, I'm wrong. That's a fairly enormous change; I'm a little surprised it isn't spelled out in the rules, actually.

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:44 pm**

Quintessence of Dust wrote:Edit: Hmm...: "so your phrasing has to avoid being obviously attuned to human physiology or current technology". Well, apparently, I'm wrong. That's a fairly enormous change; I'm a little surprised it isn't spelled out in the rules, actually.

If that's a ruling and not just advice, then it's just as misguided as Kyro's, in my opinion. There's absolutely no reason why any proposal author needs to make their proposal applicable to every imagined species anybody can come up with. (I still personally don't write with anything other than humans and the modern world in mind...)

I agree that this proposal isn't illegal for optionality. No resolution has an effect on every single member nation. There really is no requirement that they do. The optionality rule is only about making a proposal optional, not writing a proposal that may not apply to certain nations by virtue of the subject matter.

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:37 pm**

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?

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:43 pm**

Quintessence of Dust wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:Finally . . . someone who also is sane
For the record, I disagree entirely and absolutely with your proposal; I just happen to also disagree with Kryo's justification for her ruling.
Ossitania wrote:Kryozerkia shouldn't need to clarify. If you read the rules on GA Proposals, it states that you cannot pass a resolution that WA nations don't necessarily have to follow. The humanocentrism of your proposal means that non-human nations don't have to follow the resolution, therefore, it is an optional proposal and, therefore, illegal.
To be clear: has there been a ruling on that point in the last year or so? Because it certainly wasn't required before then.

Edit: Hmm...: "so your phrasing has to avoid being obviously attuned to human physiology or current technology". Well, apparently, I'm wrong. That's a fairly enormous change; I'm a little surprised it isn't spelled out in the rules, actually.

Kryozerkia never specified what aspect of my proposal violates the optionality clause, so let's not jump to conclusions; though, I must say the only potential violation of "optionality" I can think of is that my resolution applies only to humans, and, as I continue to say, I do not believe this makes my proposal illegal.

Intellect and the Arts first postulated that the human restriction is what violates optionality.

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:47 pm**

Charlotte Ryberg wrote: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.

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.

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).

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:08 pm**

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!

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:15 pm**

Sionis Prioratus wrote: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!

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

B) Is it necessary (or even legal) that I can specify that this proposal should be interpreted for its original intent? Or do the compliance gnomes consider legislative intent?

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:20 pm**

Christian Democrats wrote:
Sionis Prioratus wrote: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!

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.

Posted: **Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:33 pm**

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.

NationStates

(SUBMITTED) Defense of Life Act

Deliberately wasting the WA's time