[Abandoned] Ban on Cannibalism and Necrophilia

[Simone Republic]

Update: I am dropping out of this topic as the discussions on NSWA discord on this topic are making me physically and mentally very uncomfortable.


This is now Draft 1.1 as I am cleaning up some of the language issues raised.

Incorporation

This incorporates two drafts:

1. IA's draft - viewtopic.php?f=9&t=523816
2. Chipoli's draft - viewtopic.php?f=9&t=532006

As both authors have abandoned their drafts, I have decided to put my hands up and take over this.

My draft vs other drafts

1. GAR#440 takes care of the compliance issue at the WACC level.
   
2. The sapient specie provision means a civilization run by a wolf (Magecastle/Ice States/etc) or a bear (my own IC character) cannot eat its own species, so a bear in Simone Republic cannot eat a bear).
   
3. This does not prevent sci-fi scenarios to accommodate sci-fi RP about AI and robots being sapient, on the presumption that robots do not contain meat.
   
4. Eating someone alive is bodily injury and killing someone is murder, so the assumption is both are covered by RNT. (This includes Armin Meiwes).
   
5. There is a clause that "bodily injury with the intent to consume that person's meat" to exclude bodily injury for self-defense etc.
   
6. My tone is more absolutist than either of my two previous co-authors because I take a much stronger view on cannibalism. The General Assembly discussing cannibalism other than an outright ban makes me sick. If this doesn't pass, someone else's turn.
   
   
   
7. I've also banned necrophilia.
   
8. The first operative clause is going from "the manufacture, import, trade, sale, distribution, transportation, and possession of any product derived from or containing person-sourced meat," to just "Eating"
   
9. Changed the title to "Ban on eating a person or sex with a dead body" rather than "Sapient-species meat prohibition" - see what the feedback is first

Wording

1. The title is now "Ban on Cannibalism and Necrophilia" pursuant to a vote on DIscord. The previous titles were "sapient species meat prohibition" and "ban on eating a person or sex with a corpse".
   
2. I personally hate the back-formation of the word "specie" from "species" - "specie" means a gold coin. So there is a definition that "species" is both singular and plural.
   
3. Clause 2(a) only bans "from the same species" so if you have multiple sapient species in your own planet, you can eat another species but not your own.
   
4. War crimes is not explicitly covered as there are plenty of resolutions on war crimes already.

Draft 1.1

The World Assembly (WA),

Dismayed by the practice of eating meat derived from sapient species as well as having sexual intercourse with a dead body for a wide range of reasons such as health and hygiene;

1. Hereby defines:
   
   1. Corpse to mean the dead body of a person;
      
   2. Person(s) to mean all sapient species within that WA state throughout the multiverse;
      
   3. Person-sourced meat to mean any body part(s) derived from a person, including meat, flesh, organs and/tissues obtained from a person, and, for this purpose, excludes:
      
      1. any outgrowth or anything discarded in the process of the life-cycle of the sapient species, such as, merely as examples, alpha-keratin (hair and nails), placentas and shells, if applicable
      2. any excrements from a sapient species;
   4. Species and other terms defined herein as plurals include the singular and vice versa;
2. Hereby requires a WA state to ban any of its sapient species from:
   
   1. Eating any person-sourced meat from its own species including any part of a corpse;
   2. Inflicting bodily injury on a person with the intent to eat any part of that person or their meat;
   3. Any sexual activities involving a corpse from any sapient species;
3. This resolution does not apply to:
   
   1. any use of person-sourced meat or corpse, including any forms of donation of organ(s) or bodily tissue(s), for any medical, scientific, research or any law enforcement purpose(s) that:
      
      1. may be reasonably considered legitimate, subject to due process of law, or
      2. permitted pursuant to WA resolutions and/or the laws of that WA state;
   2. any religious practice(s) and/or rituals(s) that claim to, or simulate the use of, person-sourced meat while not doing so;
   3. any activities and/or practices associated with the culture of death care of that WA state not in contravention with clause 2(a) or clause 2(c);
4. A court in a WA state may consider strict necessity for survival as mitigating circumstances in adjudicating disputes (criminal, civil, or others) regarding clause 2(a) of this resolution;
   
5. No clause may be implemented that would violate this resolution except for any subordinating or excluding clause, including any other similar clause with such effect, or a clause that would postpone the commencement of such a violating clause until a later date or occurrence.

Co-authors: Imperium Anglorum, Chipoli, Kenmoria

[Simone Republic]

Reserved for revisions, if any. (I don't expect many because I am taking an absolutist stance and intend to campaign on GA for an absolutist stance).

Draft 1 below.

Draft 1

The World Assembly (WA),

Recognizing the dignity and worth of all sapient individuals, as well as the significance of respecting their rights to life, liberty, and security,

Concerned about the sourcing and consumption of meat derived from individuals, which constitutes a severe violation of sapient rights and dignity,

Noting the potential health risks associated with consuming person-sourced meats, such as disease and infection transmission,

1. Hereby defines:
   
   1. Corpse to mean the dead body of a person;
      
   2. Person(s) to mean:
      
      1. all humans (also known as homo sapiens); and
      2. all sapient species within a WA state throughout the multiverse where such species legally and functionally participate in the government of a WA state;
      
      
   3. Person-sourced meat to mean any body part(s) derived from a person, including meat, flesh, skin, organs, tissues, and/or bones obtained from a person;
      
   4. Species and other terms defined herein as plurals include the singular and vice versa;
2. Hereby requires:
   
   1. A WA state must deem the following activities an offence under its own laws:
      
      1. The manufacture, import, trade, sale, distribution, transportation, and possession of anything derived from or contains person-sourced meat,
      2. The harvesting of flesh or tissue from a person alive, and/or the infliction of bodily injury on a person with the intent to consume that person's meat;
      3. The desecration of a corpse, including:
         
         1. its dismemberment; and
         2. its scattering; and
         3. committing any act to abet or facilitate the devouring of a corpse;
         4. any sexual activities involving a corpse;
3. This resolution does not apply to:
   
   1. any use of person-sourced meat, including any forms of donation of organ(s) or bodily tissue(s), for any reasonable medical, scientific, research and/or law enforcement purpose(s) that are permitted pursuant to WA resolutions and/or the laws of a WA state;
   2. any religious practice(s) and/or rituals(s) that claim to, or simulate the use of, person-sourced meat while not doing so;
   3. any activities and/or practices conducted in the ordinary course of business of the death care industry.
4. No clause may be implemented that would violate this resolution except for any subordinating or excluding clause, including any other similar clause with such effect, or a clause that would postpone the commencement of such a violating clause until a later date or occurrence.

Co-authors: Imperium Anglorum, Chipoli

[Tinhampton]

Why is Article 4 necessary? It was included in IA's proposal when it proposed a licensing scheme for meat from sapients rather than a full ban. When I challenged him on it at the time, he said that it was meant to "block your common tactic of writing a largely duplicative but contradictory proposal that enacts different policy and then claiming the original proposal is now obsolete and should be repealed." For obvious reasons, it is impossible to write a resolution that tries to supercede a complete ban on something without trying to reduce that ban's scope, like I did with GA#559 (which superceded GA#437's incomplete ban on conversion therapy).

[Simone Republic]

Why is Article 4 necessary? It was included in IA's proposal when it proposed a licensing scheme for meat from sapients rather than a full ban. When I challenged him on it at the time, he said that it was meant to "block your common tactic of writing a largely duplicative but contradictory proposal that enacts different policy and then claiming the original proposal is now obsolete and should be repealed." For obvious reasons, it is impossible to write a resolution that tries to supercede a complete ban on something without trying to reduce that ban's scope, like I did with GA#559 (which superceded GA#437's incomplete ban on conversion therapy).

I'd leave that one for IA as it's from his draft. If IA doesn't comment, I'd axe it.

I really should have done this resolution right after Magecastle repealed GA#430.

And yes as per Discord I amended the resolution to include necrophilia and changed the title.

If we are going to be running a thread that is a grotesque and disgusting house of horrors, do it in one go.

[Kenmoria]

Ambassador Fortier stands to speak. “On behalf of the People’s Republic of Kenmoria, I will have some more comments on this draft. The most crucial is in ensuring that legitimate religious practices are not prohibited. However, I will for the moment confine my suggestions to annotations on the draft.”

The World Assembly (WA),

Recognizing the dignity and worth of all sapient individuals, as well as the significance of respecting their rights to life, liberty, and security, Not all of this clause is relevant, particularly the right to liberty. Since the proposal restricts what actions persons can take for the purposes of health and morality, it is only the rights to life and to security which are pertinent to the proposal.

Concerned about the sourcing and consumption of meat derived from individuals, which constitutes a severe violation of sapient rights and dignity, From a structural standpoint, this clause and the one below it should be swapped. It is both the fact that persons have a right to health, derived from the right to life and security, and the fact that cannibalism carries risks to this health, which leads to the conclusion that there are violations of rights based on governments not restricting this practice. The premises should precede the conclusion.

It is also worth stating, from a more principled view, that I struggle with defining this as a violation of dignity. Certainly, cannibalism of a person who has not consented to such is a violation of dignity, for it implicitly denies that a person has a right to choose what is done to his body, which involves the degradation of that person’s will below that of the consumer. However, I cannot see such a logical step where cannibalism to which the consumed person has consented is considered. It is perhaps objectifying, and therefore a violation of humanity, but not quite of dignity.

Noting the potential health risks associated with consuming person-sourced meats, such as disease and infection transmission, A risk is already potential, so having both “potential” and “risks” in this clause is tautological. I suggest that your Excellency remove “potential”.

1. Hereby defines:
   
   1. Corpse to mean the dead body of a person;
      
   2. Person(s) to mean:
      
      1. all humans (also known as homo sapiens); and I don’t understand why humans are specifically mentioned. Though some earlier resolutions do fall into the trap of humanocentrism, the modern Assembly is far more enlightened. Because humans are sapient, this subclause simply represents a subset of the next one, so there is no purpose in it being here.
      2. all sapient species within a WA state throughout the multiverse where such species legally and functionally participate in the government of a WA state; This is a very poor definition, your Excellency, because it means that a sapient species that has been excluded from participation in government, due to prejudice or otherwise, cannot be protected by this proposal. I absolutely must insist that this is changed.
      
      
   3. Person-sourced meat to mean any body part(s) derived from a person, including meat, flesh, skin, organs, tissues, and/or bones obtained from a person; Skin is an organ, so separating skin from organs is illogical.
      
   4. Species and other terms defined herein as plurals include the singular and vice versa;
2. Hereby requires:
   
   1. A WA state must deem the following activities an offence under its own laws:
      
      1. The manufacture, import, trade, sale, distribution, transportation, and possession of anything derived from or contains person-sourced meat, Possession poses a particular concern here, because police will presumably need to confiscate such items yet hold them as evidence. I am particularly worried also about museums and institutes of research. This clause prohibits any form of urn that contains bones as well as ashes, since bones are defined as being meat according to this proposal. The possession of sarcophagi, in cultures that use these, would also be totally prohibited. This is grossly offensive to religious freedom, not to mention far beyond the scope of the proposal.
      2. The harvesting of flesh or tissue from a person alive, and/or the infliction of bodily injury on a person with the intent to consume that person's meat;
      3. The desecration of a corpse, including:
         
         1. its dismemberment; and
         2. its scattering; and This might include the scattering of ashes following a cremation, depending on how widely a corpse is defined. I am unsure of how one would meaningfully “scatter” an intact, continuous corpse, as opposed to one now made of dust.
         3. committing any act to abet or facilitate the devouring of a corpse;
         4. any sexual activities involving a corpse;
3. This resolution does not apply to:
   
   1. any use of person-sourced meat, including any forms of donation of organ(s) or bodily tissue(s), for any reasonable medical, scientific, research and/or law enforcement purpose(s) that are permitted pursuant to WA resolutions and/or the laws of a WA state;
   2. any religious practice(s) and/or rituals(s) that claim to, or simulate the use of, person-sourced meat while not doing so;
   3. any activities and/or practices conducted in the ordinary course of business of the death care industry. It seems as though this subclause could be combined into the first subclause of this section.
4. No clause may be implemented that would violate this resolution except for any subordinating or excluding clause, including any other similar clause with such effect, or a clause that would postpone the commencement of such a violating clause until a later date or occurrence.

Co-authors: Imperium Anglorum, Chipoli

Ambassador Forties continues. “As a whole, the People’s Republic of Kenmoria stands in support of this measure. Cannibalism is dangerous to the ethical fabric of society, due to encouraging the objectification of persons as means towards ends, rather than ends in themselves. This is antithetical towards any ideology which places its citizens at the heart of its policy.” He is almost about to sit, before thinking of something else. “I have one additional comment, your Excellency. How is placentophagia affected by this proposal?”

(OOC: I personally oppose the prohibition of consensual cannibalism in some cases, but the nation of Kenmoria does not, so one can expect to see some OOC debate from me on this topic further down the line.)

[The Ice States]

"We find it odd that this does not apply to the consumption of person-sourced meats, while addressing their possession and the facilitation of their consumption. Although we are opposed as written, due to the blanket prohibitions on transportation and possession of person-sourced meats. This should at most prohibit only the manufacture, sale, distribution and so on of person-sourced meats, and not their purchase, possession or consumption."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

[Barfleur]

"Respectfully, I would focus this proposal on the consumption of person-sourced meat, and even then focus on the health risks and on the potential for exploitation. I do not believe cremation, sky burial, and similar practices should be prohibited, certainly not by international law. While some of the described practices may 'squick' me out, I cannot endorse this categorical ban."

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville enters the chamber with bucket in hand. Harold follows close behind.

Neville: (places the buckets next to himself) 'We would like to make clear first of all that we find cannibalism and necrophilia to be disgusting practices and have banned them in our own nation. However, the question that we are faced with is not whether or not such practices ought to be banned at a national level, but rather whether or not they ought to be banned at an international level. Here is where we dissent, for although we do not think highly of nations where such practices are legal, we must nonetheless stick by our principles and say that national sovereignty dictates that member states ought to be free to regulate consensual cannibalism and necrophilia however they wish. Any attempt by the World Assembly to criminalise such acts would be an overreach. We are thus opposed to this proposal in its current form. Let us now focus on the specifics.'

Neville is about to reach for the bucket, but he manages to hold it in.

Recognizing the dignity and worth of all sapient individuals, as well as the significance of respecting their rights to life, liberty, and security,

Concerned about the sourcing and consumption of meat derived from individuals, which constitutes a severe violation of sapient rights and dignity,

Neville: 'Ambassador, a nation could very easily argue that prohibiting individuals from consenting to the use of their own body, alive or dead, for consumption is what is truly the 'severe violation of sapient rights and dignity'. Bodily autonomy is regarded as sacrosanct by this Assembly, as you are no doubt well aware, and what greater exercise of bodily autonomy is there than the right to determine what happens with one's body even if others find it disgusting? The faithful will say that our bodies are a gift from God, but it is clear that the World Assembly does not agree, so the ship has already sailed on that particular argument. In some ways, the meat of sapient beings is more humane to consume than the meat of non-sapient animals, as sapient beings can at least consent to being eaten whereas a non-sapient cow does not and cannot consent to being sent to the slaughterhouse. If the dignity of living beings is so important to you then perhaps you ought to propose a resolution enforcing veganism on the entire World Assembly.'

Harold: 'Maybe they can propose one of them resolutions to force people to eats ma cream pies!'

Noting the potential health risks associated with consuming person-sourced meats, such as disease and infection transmission,

Neville: 'Ambassador, many food items have potential health risks yet are left unregulated by the World Assembly. What will you propose next? A ban on hamburgers? A ban on sugar? A ban on all recreational drugs? At least as far as the latter is concerned, the World Assembly has already made it clear in GA #657: "World Psychoactive Drugs Act" that bodily autonomy dictates that private possession and consumption of recreational drugs cannot be criminalised despite the obvious health risks, so why should person-sourced meat be treated any differently?'

Person(s) to mean:

1. all humans (also known as homo sapiens); and
2. all sapient species within a WA state throughout the multiverse where such species legally and functionally participate in the government of a WA state;

Neville: 'This is blatant speciesism, Ambassador. Why are humans singled out? Also, why do sapient species have to participate in the government to be protected? Surely, it is those very same species that require the most protection?'

Person-sourced meat to mean any body part(s) derived from a person, including meat, flesh, skin, organs, tissues, and/or bones obtained from a person;

Neville: 'This would ban the consumption of placentas, Ambassador! The World Assembly has no business prohibiting such a pra-'

Neville is interrupted by a lump of vomit that is coming up through his throat, but he manages to keep it in somehow.

A WA state must deem the following activities an offence under its own laws:

1. The manufacture, import, trade, sale, distribution, transportation, and possession of anything derived from or contains person-sourced meat,
2. The harvesting of flesh or tissue from a person alive, and/or the infliction of bodily injury on a person with the intent to consume that person's meat;

Neville: 'Not only is this is a blatant violation of national sovereignty, as whether or not consensual cannibalism is banned ought to be left to each member state, but this would ban anything that contains particles of human skin, which is impossible to enforce. This would also presumably ban taxidermy and mummification, and for what reason? Because your nation considers cannibalism to be icky? We do not disagree, but that is not a good reason for such overly broad legislation!'

The desecration of a corpse, including:

1. its dismemberment; and
   
2. its scattering; and
3. committing any act to abet or facilitate the devouring of a corpse;
4. any sexual activities involving a corpse;

Neville: (sighs) 'Consumption of corpses and necrophilia are disgusting, disgusting practices. We do not in any way, shape or form condone them, and we have in fact banned them. That being said, if a member state decided that an individual may, if they wish, allow their body to be used for such purposes in their final testament, why is it the business of the World Assembly to prohi-'

Neville cannot take the gruesome discussion anymore and bends down to vomit straight into the bucket while Harold does his best to conceal him from the prying eyes of the other ambassadors. Eventually, Neville stands back up, takes a tissue out of his pocket and wipes the perimeter of his lips.

Neville: 'Apologies you had to see that. Anyway, as I was saying, this proposal would supposedly protect bodily sovereignty, yet it would take away bodily sovereignty by preventing individuals from allowing their body to be used as they wish upon their passing. We cannot endorse such a hypocritical proposal as this.

Consider this a warning, Ambassador: If you wish to persist with the outlawing of consensual cannibalism and necrophilia then we shall draft our own proposal with the intention of blocking off any such legislation. We cannot compromise on the principle of national sovereignty in this case regardless of our own feelings on the topic of cannibalism and necrophilia.'

[Simone Republic]

"Respectfully, I would focus this proposal on the consumption of person-sourced meat, and even then focus on the health risks and on the potential for exploitation. I do not believe cremation, sky burial, and similar practices should be prohibited, certainly not by international law. While some of the described practices may 'squick' me out, I cannot endorse this categorical ban."

That's not the intention but I will change it so that I take out the definition of "bones" and change the desecration bits to make it clearer.

There is already a line that says this regulation does not interfere with "the ordinary course of business" of the death care industry.

[Barfleur]

"Respectfully, I would focus this proposal on the consumption of person-sourced meat, and even then focus on the health risks and on the potential for exploitation. I do not believe cremation, sky burial, and similar practices should be prohibited, certainly not by international law. While some of the described practices may 'squick' me out, I cannot endorse this categorical ban."

That's not the intention but I will change it so that I take out the definition of "bones" and change the desecration bits to make it clearer.

There is already a line that says this regulation does not interfere with "the ordinary course of business" of the death care industry.

"I would imagine that many instances of cremation and sky burial are practiced not by professionals in the normal course of business, but rather by family and friends of the deceased. Surely they don't merit less protection because they are not being paid? We also pause to note that this proposal would ban individuals from chewing on their own nails, as least if some nail fragment ends up being swallowed."

[Simone Republic]

That's not the intention but I will change it so that I take out the definition of "bones" and change the desecration bits to make it clearer.

There is already a line that says this regulation does not interfere with "the ordinary course of business" of the death care industry.

"I would imagine that many instances of cremation and sky burial are practiced not by professionals in the normal course of business, but rather by family and friends of the deceased. Surely they don't merit less protection because they are not being paid? We also pause to note that this proposal would ban individuals from chewing on their own nails, as least if some nail fragment ends up being swallowed."

Out of respect to Hunter S. Thompson, I'd redraft that line.

I was not considering either hair or nails etc to be edible, but OK. It'd be changed in the next draft.

[Herby]

I object to the inclusion of clause one-point-bee-point-eye. Not all humans are Homo sapiens. We’re aware of non-sapient so-called humans in the universe, and the inclusion of the clause is a cause for confusion. Ehhhh what I mean is Homo sapiens is already included in the “all sapient species” clause so why mention them twice? Are they special or somethin’?

[Simone Republic]

I object to the inclusion of clause one-point-bee-point-eye. Not all humans are Homo sapiens. We’re aware of non-sapient so-called humans in the universe, and the inclusion of the clause is a cause for confusion. Ehhhh what I mean is Homo sapiens is already included in the “all sapient species” clause so why mention them twice? Are they special or somethin’?

That was human centric but yeah, I'd fix that in the next draft. A lot of things to fix.

[West Barack and East Obama]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Opposed. Can you provide reasons beyond 'human dignity' to expend efforts to prohibit and prosecute people for desecrating corpses? They're dead, who cares?

[Barfleur]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Opposed. Can you provide reasons beyond 'human dignity' to expend efforts to prohibit and prosecute people for desecrating corpses? They're dead, who cares?

"Furthermore, we remind the Terrifying Bear that if a person gives consent for their body to be consumed postmortem (much in the same manner as an organ donor), giving effect to that wish can hardly be deleterious to human dignity. Arguably it is more of an indignity for one's body to be used or disposed of in a manner contrary to their express wishes..."

OOC: No, I am not suggesting that cannibalism is a fundamental right of any kind; I just take issue with the idea that general conceptions of human dignity take precedence over an individual's control of how their own mortal remains are treated.

[Kenmoria]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Opposed. Can you provide reasons beyond 'human dignity' to expend efforts to prohibit and prosecute people for desecrating corpses? They're dead, who cares?

"Furthermore, we remind the Terrifying Bear that if a person gives consent for their body to be consumed postmortem (much in the same manner as an organ donor), giving effect to that wish can hardly be deleterious to human dignity. Arguably it is more of an indignity for one's body to be used or disposed of in a manner contrary to their express wishes..."

OOC: No, I am not suggesting that cannibalism is a fundamental right of any kind; I just take issue with the idea that general conceptions of human dignity take precedence over an individual's control of how their own mortal remains are treated.

Ambassador Fortier stands to speak. “That rather depends on how dignity is defined. This was why I advocated for the term of ‘common humanity’, or something similar, instead. Dignity can be either subjective or objective, in terms of being respect for how an individual wishes to be treated or respect for how an individual ought to be treated. It is the second meaning which is relevant to this proposal. Common humanity, to me, is more directly referential exclusively to the latter.”

[Simone Republic]

I changed the title to "Ban on eating a person or sex with a dead body" as that seems simpler than "Ban on cannibalism and necrophilia"

"We find it odd that this does not apply to the consumption of person-sourced meats, while addressing their possession and the facilitation of their consumption. Although we are opposed as written, due to the blanket prohibitions on transportation and possession of person-sourced meats. This should at most prohibit only the manufacture, sale, distribution and so on of person-sourced meats, and not their purchase, possession or consumption."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

(IC)

My barbecue at the Strangers Bar is now grilling dinosaurs.

(OOC)

As mentioned on TNP MoWAA, I know you'd oppose and I don't want to change my mind on this. If this draft fails at vote, your turn.

"Furthermore, we remind the Terrifying Bear that if a person gives consent for their body to be consumed postmortem (much in the same manner as an organ donor), giving effect to that wish can hardly be deleterious to human dignity. Arguably it is more of an indignity for one's body to be used or disposed of in a manner contrary to their express wishes..."

OOC: No, I am not suggesting that cannibalism is a fundamental right of any kind; I just take issue with the idea that general conceptions of human dignity take precedence over an individual's control of how their own mortal remains are treated.

(IC)

"I am a friendly Bear, I thought. But Terrifying Bear is also OK, especially if you see my posts in the Diogenes Club".

"Also, the fact that my profile picture shows me about to eat something does not mean I want to eat a human, or another Bear."

"In character, I am still running a barbecue of "endangered species" in the Strangers' Bar."

(OOC)

I am taking out the word "dignity" altogether to avoid a preamble fight.

Anyway, I've long decided I am going to go for the toughest version possible in this resolution proposal and not compromise on the point about eating a dead corpose, ignoring religious or hygiene reasons. If this fails, then we'll see who's next in trying to pass this.

*snip*

Your response is quite long, so I'd answer in bullets as that's probably easier.

1. The preamble is now just "concerned about health and hygiene" (I mean, Simone Republic is officially "The Lunatic Asylum of Simone Republic" so not sure if I can preach morality, so I won't bother)

2. Person now just means "any sapient species within that WA state" - simpler

3. Clause 3(a) should give enough leeway for any scientific or research purpose, especially as I said "reasonable" which is a pretty low bar

4. Clause 3(c) is now "any activities and/or practices associated with the culture of death care of that WA state" so should take care of Hunter S. Thompson wanting to shoot ashes upt to the sky, or embalming, or Egyptian burial techniques, especially as I changed the wording

"Respectfully, I would focus this proposal on the consumption of person-sourced meat, and even then focus on the health risks and on the potential for exploitation. I do not believe cremation, sky burial, and similar practices should be prohibited, certainly not by international law. While some of the described practices may 'squick' me out, I cannot endorse this categorical ban."

Ditto answer 4 to Kenmoria above

Neville enters the chamber with bucket in hand. Harold follows close behind.

Neville: (places the buckets next to himself) 'We would like to make clear first of all that we find cannibalism and necrophilia to be disgusting practices and have banned them in our own nation. However, the question that we are faced with is not whether or not such practices ought to be banned at a national level, but rather whether or not they ought to be banned at an international level. Here is where we dissent, for although we do not think highly of nations where such practices are legal, we must nonetheless stick by our principles and say that national sovereignty dictates that member states ought to be free to regulate consensual cannibalism and necrophilia however they wish. Any attempt by the World Assembly to criminalise such acts would be an overreach.

I am going to try to ban it anyway and see if I can get the vote through. If not, someone else's turn to try something.

[Simone Republic]

Bodily autonomy is regarded as sacrosanct by this Assembly, as you are no doubt well aware, and what greater exercise of bodily autonomy is there than the right to determine what happens with one's body even if others find it disgusting? The faithful will say that our bodies are a gift from God, but it is clear that the World Assembly does not agree, so the ship has already sailed on that particular argument. In some ways, the meat of sapient beings is more humane to consume than the meat of non-sapient animals, as sapient beings can at least consent to being eaten whereas a non-sapient cow does not and cannot consent to being sent to the slaughterhouse. If the dignity of living beings is so important to you then perhaps you ought to propose a resolution enforcing veganism on the entire World Assembly.'

I can't bring myself to accept the bodily autonomy argument as regards to eating a person or having sex with a person. I see where you are coming from, but still no. I don't want to compromise on it. If I fail, someone else's turn.

Harold: 'Maybe they can propose one of them resolutions to force people to eats ma cream pies!'

(IC)

Thanks but no thanks. I don't like cream.

Noting the potential health risks associated with consuming person-sourced meats, such as disease and infection transmission,

Neville: 'Ambassador, many food items have potential health risks yet are left unregulated by the World Assembly. What will you propose next?
GA #657: "World Psychoactive Drugs Act"[/url] that bodily autonomy dictates that private possession and consumption of recreational drugs cannot be criminalised despite the obvious health risks, so why should person-sourced meat be treated any differently?'

(OOC)

The tricky thing is of course that someone that is harmful to a particular sapient species (say you have sapient bats in your multiverse) may not be harmful to another species (Covid-19 doesn't seem to harm bats much).

I slightly regret not opposing GAR#657 but I agreed not to oppose it after pretty passionate arguments within TNP about the harm from fentanyl etc.

Neville is interrupted by a lump of vomit that is coming up through his throat, but he manages to keep it in somehow.

*snip*

Neville cannot take the gruesome discussion anymore and bends down to vomit straight into the bucket while Harold does his best to conceal him from the prying eyes of the other ambassadors. Eventually, Neville stands back up, takes a tissue out of his pocket and wipes the perimeter of his lips.

(IC)

Here's a WA-branded bucket made by Simone Republic as I continue to sell as much WA merchandise as possible before they repeal my beloved resolution.

(OOC)

Note that I changed the wording to "having sex with any part of a corpse" just to stop all the sickening hentai that may turn up.

[Tinhampton]

Title should read "Ban on eating or having sex with a corpse." As it stands people are going to think you want to ban sex altogether

[Simone Republic]

Title should read "Ban on eating or having sex with a corpse." As it stands people are going to think you want to ban sex altogether

It's now "ban on eating a person or sex with a corpse"

I cut all the stuff about "manufacturing" etc and just say "no eating"

[Wrapper]

ARI: Two issues. One, we still note that a strict reading of this still outlaws....

(He snaps his fingers three times in thought, then gestures toward Wad Ahume with his thumb.)

AHUME: Placentophagy.

ARI: What he said. As we've stated in a previous debate, consumption of placentae should not be banned. Secondly, there should be an exemption to allow cannibalism in extremis -- that is, if authorities determine there's an extreme hardship or life-threatening circumstance, wherein someone can only survive via consumption of the dead. Unless both changes are made, we will remain opposed to this legislation.


OOC: If you disagree with the in extremis exception, you should probably educate yourself on the Old Christians Club rugby team's plane crash in the Andes (the story of which was made into an excellent book and a fine film, both entitled "Alive"). In the ten weeks following the crash, many who survived the initial impact died, and the remainder were barely able to survive the elements, and would not have made it if they had not resorted to cannibalism toward the end of their ordeal. It would have made no sense to make them criminals once they were rescued.

[Simone Republic]

ARI: Two issues. One, we still note that a strict reading of this still outlaws....

(He snaps his fingers three times in thought, then gestures toward Wad Ahume with his thumb.)

AHUME: Placentophagy.

ARI: What he said. As we've stated in a previous debate, consumption of placentae should not be banned. Secondly, there should be an exemption to allow cannibalism in extremis -- that is, if authorities determine there's an extreme hardship or life-threatening circumstance, wherein someone can only survive via consumption of the dead. Unless both changes are made, we will remain opposed to this legislation.


OOC: If you disagree with the in extremis exception, you should probably educate yourself on the Old Christians Club rugby team's plane crash in the Andes (the story of which was made into an excellent book and a fine film, both entitled "Alive"). In the ten weeks following the crash, many who survived the initial impact died, and the remainder were barely able to survive the elements, and would not have made it if they had not resorted to cannibalism toward the end of their ordeal. It would have made no sense to make them criminals once they were rescued.

Ok I've added placentas an exception. Originally I did have an in extremis exception in case someone wants to eat me (IC) food, it got cut but I'd put it back on.

It now says "a court in a WA state may consider extreme conditions and strict necessity for survival as mitigating circumstances in adjudicating disputes (criminal, civil, or others) regarding clause 2(a) of this resolution;"

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: My NatSov objections aside, I really hope that this isn't the finalised title. It might get the point across (perhaps a little too well!), but it's not really 'law-like' as a title. The original title at least had that going for it.

[Kenmoria]

OOC: My NatSov objections aside, I really hope that this isn't the finalised title. It might get the point across (perhaps a little too well!), but it's not really 'law-like' as a title. The original title at least had that going for it.

(OOC: The Don’t Kill the Poor Act would like to have a word with you.)

[Simone Republic]

OOC: My NatSov objections aside, I really hope that this isn't the finalised title. It might get the point across (perhaps a little too well!), but it's not really 'law-like' as a title. The original title at least had that going for it.

The current resolution is "Securities Issuers Governance and Disclosures" which is mine. The next resolution at vote is "in-ovo sexing of chicks" which is also mine, mind you. So I've done titles that are both law-like and slogan like.