(SUBMITTED) Defense of Life Act

[Christian Democrats]

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.

Touché. I agree completely.

[Unibot]

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.

Bullshit ...

Even if you don't count species as being covered by the COCR (and it is).. this resolution is still illegal under COCR because of this ..

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.

[Urgench]

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.

No in fact these are exactly issues of legality, sex is explicitly mentioned in the CoCR as a grounds upon which it is illegal to unfairly discriminate, forcing women to bear unwanted offspring is unfair since men are not forced to do the same, men have the right to control their own bodies and reproductive self-determination, women under this resolution would not have the same legal right. Therefore the purpose of this resolution is illegal.


Yours,

[Christian Democrats]

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,

It has been pointed out that some nations have species who procreate in extraordinarily unique and weird ways.

Writing a proposal that applies to all of these forms of procreation is quite impossible.

[Christian Democrats]

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,

Quite to the contrary, this proposal would recognize the rights of a certain group (i.e., late-term fetuses).

[Glen-Rhodes]

Bullshit ...

Even if you don't count species as being covered by the COCR (and it is).. this resolution is still illegal under COCR because of this ..

First of all, let's not assume that it is. I am not aware of any ruling say it is, so that is merely conjecture on everybody's part.

Second, your objections are tenuous at best. Could the wording be changed? Yes. Is it really discriminatory? I seriously doubt it. A pre-op man receives medical treatment as if he were still a woman, considering he is still biologically a woman.

[Unibot]

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

No in fact these are exactly issues of legality, sex is explicitly mentioned in the CoCR as a grounds upon which it is illegal to unfairly discriminate, forcing women to bear unwanted offspring is unfair since men are not forced to do the same, men have the right to control their own bodies and reproductive self-determination, women under this resolution would not have the same legal right. Therefore the purpose of this resolution is illegal.


Yours,

Although I morally agree with this statement, I disagree with this statement's legality under CoCR -- the difference between male and female human genitalia, and their capacity to give birth is a biological difference and not arbitrary. If everyone must give birth to babies they don't want to a have -- and nature dictates that this 'everyone' will almost entirely be women, that is politically a good point, but not a legality issue.

[Glen-Rhodes]

No in fact these are exactly issues of legality, sex is explicitly mentioned in the CoCR as a grounds upon which it is illegal to unfairly discriminate, forcing women to bear unwanted offspring is unfair since men are not forced to do the same, men have the right to control their own bodies and reproductive self-determination, women under this resolution would not have the same legal right. Therefore the purpose of this resolution is illegal.

The CoCR doesn't say it's illegal to ban abortion. Manipulating it so that it does say so is an entirely political move, not one grounded in objective adjudication. Urgench may consider abortion bans to be discriminatory, but that doesn't mean any other nation has to, until the World Assembly comes around and clarifies that abortion bans are discriminatory. But we haven't. In fact, we specifically refused to do so the last time we tackled abortion issues.

[Christian Democrats]

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.

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.

Agreed. Good arguement

[Unibot]

Bullshit ...

Even if you don't count species as being covered by the COCR (and it is).. this resolution is still illegal under COCR because of this ..

First of all, let's not assume that it is. I am not aware of any ruling say it is, so that is merely conjecture on everybody's part.

A ruling from the mods would be dually appreciated.

Second, your objections are tenuous at best. Could the wording be changed? Yes. Is it really discriminatory? I seriously doubt it. A pre-op man receives medical treatment as if he were still a woman, considering he is still biologically a woman.

Legal and biological definitions differ -- but that man wants to be treated as a man. The definition should be changed, and the final clause needs to be considered because of its discrimination against species (I say it should be removed).

[Urgench]

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.

Any categorisations of whole groups of people based purely on a single characteristic is reductive and invariably it remove the ability of the law to act fairly and indeed effectively.

Laws which discriminate against whole classes of reductively categorised persons fail to take into account to vast array of variables which may apply to a person or situation, this is at the root of the unfairness of most forms of negative discrimination.

A person may be categorised by a large number of characteristics, but to categorise them on the basis of a single characteristic is both foolish and liable to be unjust.

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

No, again whether or not this proposal conflicts with the CoCR is not a matter for discussion of this proposal's merits, it is a matter for discussion of its legality. Dr Castro is perhaps playing devil's advocate (to what end we cannot understand), but we know of cases in which he has made this exact point himself in the past.


Yours,

[Christian Democrats]

Bullshit

Please refrain from using vernacular language. I don't want this thread locked.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Legal and biological definitions differ -- but that man wants to be treated as a man. The definition should be changed, and the final clause needs to be considered because of its discrimination against species (I say it should be removed).

I understand all the social aspects of trans-sexuality. But to say that a biological female -- especially a pre-op patient -- should be treated medically, not as the gender they biologically are, but rather the gender they prefer, is really a little too far... The author could avoid that by saying 'person,' but I really think that we're becoming nit-pickers here.

[Christian Democrats]

As I've said in another thread:

Aren't "separate but equal" restrooms completely legal?

I.e., men and women.

[Urgench]

It has been pointed out that some nations have species who procreate in extraordinarily unique and weird ways.

Writing a proposal that applies to all of these forms of procreation is quite impossible.

Where have we suggested that such a proposal should, could or would need to be written? We have merely pointed out that this entire proposal could be written without reference to species at all, and that doing so does not make it discriminatory against species which do not gestate in the same way as most humans do. We have offered your Excellency a way to make this resolution slightly less discriminatory.


Yours,

[Glen-Rhodes]

Any categorisations of whole groups of people based purely on a single characteristic is reductive and invariably it remove the ability of the law to act fairly and indeed effectively.

You're really being incredibly extreme. Your broad assertions would make so many laws illegal, it's a wonder that we're able to legislate anything that doesn't treat all people like gender-less, feature-less identical grey blobs.

[Christian Democrats]

AFFIRMS this resolution only applies to tortoises.

Now that would be absurd because turtles make up a negligible part of the NS population.

Regulating human acts is completely different, especially considering that humans are thinking creatures.

Turtles are dumb in comparision.

Oh, wait, no, are you speaking of the Ninja Turtles who talk?

Oops. My bad.

[Mahaj WA Seat]

Any categorisations of whole groups of people based purely on a single characteristic is reductive and invariably it remove the ability of the law to act fairly and indeed effectively.

You're really being incredibly extreme. Your broad assertions would make so many laws illegal, it's a wonder that we're able to legislate anything that doesn't treat all people like gender-less, feature-less identical grey blobs.

thank you.

I'm stunned that the Mods deleted this proposal over an issue that really shouldn't even be there.

[Urgench]

As I've said in another thread:

Aren't "separate but equal" restrooms completely legal?

I.e., men and women.

Sex differentiated toilet facilities are not any form of unfair discrimination are they your Excellency? Please do us all the politeness of treating this debate with the seriousness it deserves.


Yours,

[Mahaj WA Seat]

AFFIRMS this resolution only applies to tortoises.

Now that would be absurd because turtles make up a negligible part of the NS population.

Regulating human acts is completely different, especially considering that humans are thinking creatures.

Turtles are dumb in comparision.

Oh, wait, no, are you speaking of the Ninja Turtles who talk?

Oops. My bad.

Turttallia is not dumb, and they have turtles.

[Christian Democrats]

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.

No it isn't. Provide a quote. Species isn't an arbitrary categorization.

Under this reasoning, are voting ages illegal?

[Mahaj WA Seat]

As I've said in another thread:

Aren't "separate but equal" restrooms completely legal?

I.e., men and women.

Sex differentiated toilet facilities are not any form of unfair discrimination are they your Excellency? Please do us all the politeness of treating this debate with the seriousness it deserves.


Yours,

what we need is gender neutral toilets.

[Urgench]

Any categorisations of whole groups of people based purely on a single characteristic is reductive and invariably it remove the ability of the law to act fairly and indeed effectively.

You're really being incredibly extreme. Your broad assertions would make so many laws illegal, it's a wonder that we're able to legislate anything that doesn't treat all people like gender-less, feature-less identical grey blobs.

Laws should not really address whole groups of persons at all, they should deal with kinds of actions. The state or in this case a group of states does not legislate justly when they fail to legislate for the actions of persons and instead legislate against whole classes of persons differentiated on purely reductive, or even singular characteristics.

Yours,

[Christian Democrats]

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

No in fact these are exactly issues of legality, sex is explicitly mentioned in the CoCR as a grounds upon which it is illegal to unfairly discriminate, forcing women to bear unwanted offspring is unfair since men are not forced to do the same, men have the right to control their own bodies and reproductive self-determination, women under this resolution would not have the same legal right. Therefore the purpose of this resolution is illegal.


Yours,

The definition now says "pregnant person." Is that acceptable? We do occasionally have the all too rare pregnant man.

[Mahaj WA Seat]

You're really being incredibly extreme. Your broad assertions would make so many laws illegal, it's a wonder that we're able to legislate anything that doesn't treat all people like gender-less, feature-less identical grey blobs.

Laws should not really address whole groups of persons at all, they should deal with kinds of actions. The state or in this case a group of states does not legislate justly when they fail to legislate for the actions of persons and instead legislate against whole classes of persons differentiated on purely reductive, or even singular characteristics.

Yours,

okay, fine, this resolution CAN apply to non human species. But can you find proof of other animals that exist that have the exact same biology as a human female? Otherwise, why not scrap the whole resolution, since no other animal is affected?