Calladan wrote:Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. If you feel strongly enough to help someone end their life, then (I would argue) there are good odds you would most likely be willing to accept whatever comes next. And most people who do assist someone do not try to hide the fact - it isn't a case of not getting caught, it is a case of believing they were justified and did the right thing in doing what they did and that THAT is what should make it not a crime (which, I know, is a very badly phrased sentence but it was the best I could do).
And even if this repeal goes through, we are still going to keep the resolution in place (so to speak).
"If you can enforce your own laws worth a damn, it would. Jail in the C.D.S.P. is unpleasant. Nobody is willing to put up with that. Most of our citizens don't commit murder as a result. In fact, the overwhelming majority of our crime comes from transnational organized crime, such as smuggling, and not citizens subject to our laws. If we turned around and enforced an assisted suicide ban, then personal beliefs would likely go by the wayside. The same is likely true of any nation with a robust criminal justice system."
Excidium Planetis wrote:OOC
Strawman. I never said men don't get raped, I said that a justification for excluding females was that female prisoners of war are more likely to be raped than male prisoners of war. This is especially true when you consider who is taking the prisoners of war. Countries with strong anti-sodomy laws are not likely to have many soldiers willing to rape male prisoners of war. This justification for preventing females serving in combat roles was used by the IDF (and no wonder, Israel's enemies aren't known for their tolerance of homosexuality) originally to exclude female soldiers from combat roles (it has since changed it's position, of course).
At any rate, it would be arbitrary and reductive under CoCR to make that distinction based on what might happen rather on what does happen.
Look, I'm not saying that's the case, I'm saying it is used as a justification of compelling practical purposes. Would you say that a nation which excluded women from the draft on those grounds was no complying with CoCR in good faith?
OOC: Based on the facts presented, yes, I would make that assertion. Those contentions are generally not supported by facts, and I believe that a good faith interpretation would require reasonable alternatives to excluding women before taking that step. You'd have to use an example other than humans to succeed on the merits of that argument, to my mind.
That's just me, though. Your mileage may vary.
