Advertisement
by Lyrrea » Thu Sep 12, 2019 2:22 pm
by 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.
by 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
by 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."
by Lyrrea » Thu Sep 12, 2019 2:50 pm
by 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."
by Bear Connors Paradiso » Thu Sep 12, 2019 3:11 pm
by 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.
by Ave Gloriana » Thu Sep 12, 2019 3:18 pm
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.
by 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.
by Holantrod » Thu Sep 12, 2019 4:30 pm
by Kus Sikobietordia » Thu Sep 12, 2019 5:36 pm
by Lord Dominator » Thu Sep 12, 2019 6:14 pm
Kus Sikobietordia wrote:Is this in reference to abortion
by 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."
by Mundiferrum » Thu Sep 12, 2019 6:32 pm
by Lord Dominator » Thu Sep 12, 2019 6:44 pm
Korazon wrote:Skin the people who rape children
by 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...
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."
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.
by 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
by Ave Gloriana » Thu Sep 12, 2019 8:11 pm
by Catsfern » Thu Sep 12, 2019 8:21 pm
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.
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.
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.
by New Franklin » Thu Sep 12, 2019 8:37 pm
by Absentia » Thu Sep 12, 2019 8:45 pm
by 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.
by 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.
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."
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement