[INSTA-REPEAL] Repeal "Cannibalism Act"

[Wrapper]

Repeal "Cannibalism Act"

A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal

Resolution: GA#691

Proposed by: Herby

---

General Assembly Resolution #691 “Cannibalism Act” (Category: Moral Decency; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly, noting that there is no exemption in the target resolution for (1) placentophagy, a culturally important practice that poses no harm to the birthing mother nor the born; nor (2) breast milk, which is scientifically considered a living tissue, thereby requiring a nursing mother to provide notarized written consent both to produce breast milk and to feed her young, hereby repeals GA#691, Cannibalism Act.

Co-author: Wrapper

OOC: Source stating that breast milk is living tissue.

[Herby]

HEY Wad Arthritis! I thought I was the author and you was the coauthor! Anyway ehhhh looks good ta me.

[Honeydewistania]

The repeal would be more persuasive if it elaborated on which specific parts of the target future resolution (lol) cause the listed the problems, and how. In any case, FULL SUPPORT. A resolution which severely harms the rights of zombies and vampires this way passing in October of all months is truly one of the worst travesties to disgrace this institution ever.

-Benji

[Wrapper]

HEY Wad Arthritis! I thought I was the author and you was the coauthor! Anyway ehhhh looks good ta me.

ARI: (waves his hand in Ahume's direction) Ahume. Let the 'Wagen win.

The repeal would be more persuasive if it elaborated on which specific parts of the target future resolution (lol) cause the listed the problems, and how. In any case, FULL SUPPORT. A resolution which severely harms the rights of zombies and vampires this way passing in October of all months is truly one of the worst travesties to disgrace this institution ever.

ARI: We believe the text speaks for itself and-- erm. One moment. Zombies and vampires? Here, in the Assembly?

[Second Sovereignty]

ARI: We believe the text speaks for itself and-- erm. One moment. Zombies and vampires? Here, in the Assembly?

"It's more likely than you think," says Raxes, seemingly having simply appeared behind the Wads, "Not by much, really, but honestly, I seem to recall records stating that a delegation of literal bears once wandered these halls, so I'm not entirely comfortable putting it past this place." He chitters brightly, "Fortunately, I am neither a meaty specimen, nor possessed of blood as the aforementioned meatier species would be familiar with, so I like to think I'm inedible myself. You two though, keep an eye out, hm?"

[Ostrovskiy]

Full support.

[Ostrovskiy]

Full support.

[Outer Sparta]

Very supportive that you decided to do it twice

[The Ice States]

"As helpful as it would have been, Ambassador, if your mission had indeed pointed this out prior to the resolution being submitted, I still do not believe that these flaws indeed exist. Nations do not have to comply with biological definitions of 'tissue'. Indeed, if nations had to comply entirely with biological definitions of terms, it would lead to rather absurd results. As a...let's say infamous delegation in these chambers once did argue, Section 8 of General Assembly Resolution #499 would prohibit the granting of personhood to all sapients that do not engage in the biological process of childbirth, such as artificial intelligence."

"The same applies regarding the placentophagy argument; no organ is removed from the child during the production of placenta meat, to put it that way. The placenta did quite clearly originate from -- as origin is the standard used in the resolution -- the mother, and they are the individual who needs to provide the notarised consent. Biological or genetic origin is irrelevant."

~Robert Desak,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

Ooc: As examples, (this was already cited in the target thread but it may as well be cited here too), USA law -- see Section j5 -- does not consider milk to be tissue. EU law does not explicitly exclude milk from the definition of human tissue, however it is interpreted so as to exclude it, eg [1] (see Section 5, Chapter I). Likewise the definition of tissue used in Irish law (Section 2) clearly does not include breast milk. If lots of real-world nations do not consider breast milk to be tissue, I fail to see why a World Assembly member nation has to.

[Wrapper]

"As helpful as it would have been, Ambassador, if your mission had indeed pointed this out prior to the resolution being submitted, I still do not believe that these flaws indeed exist. Nations do not have to comply with biological definitions of 'tissue'. Indeed, if nations had to comply entirely with biological definitions of terms, it would lead to rather absurd results. As a...let's say infamous delegation in these chambers once did argue, Section 8 of General Assembly Resolution #499 would prohibit the granting of personhood to all sapients that do not engage in the biological process of childbirth, such as artificial intelligence."

ARI: Erm, what? Your proposal, which highlights a biological issue, does not include a definition of "tissue", so whose definition of "tissue" should we follow, if not that of biologists?

"The same applies regarding the placentophagy argument; no organ is removed from the child during the production of placenta meat, to put it that way. The placenta did quite clearly originate from -- as origin is the standard used in the resolution -- the mother, and they are the individual who needs to provide the notarised consent. Biological or genetic origin is irrelevant."

ARI: Mmm hmm. But your proposal defines person sourced meat as "organs or tissues" and not just organs. And, once again, the placental tissue does not originate from the mother, it originates from the fetus post-fertilization as my colleague explained. As far as our delegation not "pointing out" the issue, we had pointed out the need for an exemption while debating other proposals originally written by your co-authors and by others. It isn't our job to ensure that your proposal is done properly and address previously raised issues, it is yours. You needed to make an exception for this, you failed to do so, and this repeal attempt is the result.

[The Ice States]

"As helpful as it would have been, Ambassador, if your mission had indeed pointed this out prior to the resolution being submitted, I still do not believe that these flaws indeed exist. Nations do not have to comply with biological definitions of 'tissue'. Indeed, if nations had to comply entirely with biological definitions of terms, it would lead to rather absurd results. As a...let's say infamous delegation in these chambers once did argue, Section 8 of General Assembly Resolution #499 would prohibit the granting of personhood to all sapients that do not engage in the biological process of childbirth, such as artificial intelligence."

ARI: Erm, what? Your proposal, which highlights a biological issue, does not include a definition of "tissue", so whose definition of "tissue" should we follow, if not that of biologists?

"As I have already implied, a term may certainly apply differently in biological and legal contexts. GA #499 does not ban AI personhood even if biologically AI do not engage in 'birth'. Likewise, the target does not apply to breast milk even if biologically breast milk is tissue. I may not be familiar with the legal system in Wrapper, however the Ice legal system has always distinguished between breast milk and tissue, as it has done across...all three recent regimes."

"The same applies regarding the placentophagy argument; no organ is removed from the child during the production of placenta meat, to put it that way. The placenta did quite clearly originate from -- as origin is the standard used in the resolution -- the mother, and they are the individual who needs to provide the notarised consent. Biological or genetic origin is irrelevant."

ARI: Mmm hmm. But your proposal defines person sourced meat as "organs or tissues" and not just organs. And, once again, the placental tissue does not originate from the mother, it originates from the fetus post-fertilization as my colleague explained.

"A fetus has no personhood as per international law. Whether it originates from a fetus is ultimately irrelevant; even if we accept that the unborn fetus was the placenta's sole origin, that would disqualify the placenta from being person-sourced meat as it did not originate from anything that was at the time a person. Even when birth occurs, and the now-child does gain personhood, the placenta remains in the mother's body for a while before being expelled separately. It can be reasonably argued that at that point, and thus when it leaves the mother's body, it is no longer part of the child's body. Accordingly, the mother is the only person who the placenta can be argued to physically originate from, and we see no reason that a member nation cannot interpret 'originate' as applying to that effect."

As far as our delegation not "pointing out" the issue, we had pointed out the need for an exemption while debating other proposals originally written by your co-authors and by others. It isn't our job to ensure that your proposal is done properly and address previously raised issues, it is yours. You needed to make an exception for this, you failed to do so, and this repeal attempt is the result.

"Ambassador, our mission have read through the gnomes' records of debates on the original resolutions by both co-authors, and did not find your mission comment on this matter during either discussion. Indeed, we were even present for much of the debate on the resolution by the States of Glory WA Office."

~Robert Desak,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

[The Hinterplace]

Section 2 of the target resolution allows people to consent to the use of their body parts or tissues for consumption, so placentophagy would still be allowed, as well as breastfeeding. However, I do disagree that breast milk is living tissue and that there is a scientific consensus that breast milk is such. The source you cite says, "Considering its composition, function, rich biological ingredients and cellular contents, breast milk can be considered a living tissue." Emphasis mine. All they are saying is that it is possible, not that it is. Additionally, if you read the sentences preceding that quote, it says, "Nowadays, we still do not know or understand the relationship between milk microbiota, macronutrients and somatic cell content, and their health implications. Further studies are required to understand the precise nature of breast milk stem/progenitor cells and to explore their potential clinical applications."

I also object to the use of the word "mother". "Birthing parent" would be more appropriate, as it is inclusive to transgender and non-binary people who are able to give birth.

[Herby]

Ehhhh but it does effectively ban placentehhhhh the p word. Unless you got a species where the infant can consent you can’t get consent and without no consent you got no afterbirth dinner. As far as “mother” point taken. I know those guys want to keep this at one sentence for ehhh whatever silly reason but I just sent them a new draft that lays out the argument a little better and uses gender neutral terminology for the birthing parental unit.

[The Hinterplace]

Re placentophagy: Section 2b(ii) of the target resolution states, "...no act of bodily harm or homicide was performed for the purpose of producing such meat." Consent would not be needed in this instance. The placenta is delivered during labor or cesarean section and would otherwise be thrown away in medical waste, as it is an organ used only during pregnancy.

[The Ice States]

Re placentophagy: Section 2b(ii) of the target resolution states, "...no act of bodily harm or homicide was performed for the purpose of producing such meat." Consent would not be needed in this instance. The placenta is delivered during labor or cesarean section and would otherwise be thrown away in medical waste, as it is an organ used only during pregnancy.

While I also oppose this repeal, I would note that Section 2b.ii is not applicable here. That Section only applies where no homicide or bodily harm occurred, and "[immediate] consumption is absolutely necessary to prevent starvation of the consumer in a current or imminent emergency". Eg Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571. The latter condition, and thus that Section, is only applicable in the case of true emergencies.

[Ostrovskiy]

Very supportive that you decided to do it twice

For the record, twas an accident.

[Aenglaland]

I wholeheartedly support this.

[Fishelle]

I support, your points are valid and show a flaw in the dubious cannibalism act.

[Fire Islands]

I propose a change of focus in the discussion away from the definition of "tissue". I think there are less polemic aspects of this conversation that could work well in favor of the effort to repeal the legislation.

Firstly, cannibalism is demonstrably detrimental to the mental health of all parties involved in the practice, be they the would-be source of the meat, the would-be consumer of the meat, or any possible witnesses. Additionally, the practice poses a threat to physical health as well, with the transmission of diseases endemic to humans that could be inadvertently transmitted through the consumption of human-sourced meat, to which the piece of legislation in question has absolutely no provisions in place for and in fact it specifically "disclaims" the authority to do so.

Secondly, the resolution also has no provisions for cases where consent is being forced by circumstances and not people. While it specifically determines that it's wrong for someone to coerce someone else for consent, it doesn't specify any prohibitions for people who are in dire situations and are willing to provide consent because they see no other choice. A parent providing consent to this in exchange for funds to provide food for their family, for example, while technically permissible under the legislation would clearly be considered wrong, and these cases are not contemplated in the legislation.

The reason why these points are not contemplated in the legislation is that the legislation looks to provide legitimization to the practice of cannibalism, probably in the name of giving citizens freedom or whatever. A government should 100% guarantee freedom to its citizens for them to do as they please, but it should also absolutely and decisively stand in the way of such freedoms when their exercise is detrimental to the well-being of the citizenry at large and this is, to me, a textbook definition of that scenario.

So, while the definition of "tissue" is understandably very prone to disagreements, it is frankly secondary to these other, much more well documented cons. Debating the definition of the word "tissue" feels like the dinosaurs not agreeing on whether to call it an asteroid or a comet. If we can reframe the argument in favor of repeal behind these points instead, maybe with mention of the definitions debate as additional concerns to add to an already well-established case, we might have a better shot at convincing more nations to get on board.

[Wallenburg]

OOC: Have you considered "accidentally" submitting this reading "herby repeals GA#691"?

"I would note the inherently life-threatening nature of placing a notary in-between any attempt by a mother to nurse a newborn. That said, I wonder whether such detail would interrupt the cadence of your argument and somehow render it less compelling than it already is. I forever hold you and your judgement in high esteem, you will know what works best for your argument. From how the proposal already is, expect my office's support, Wads and Herby."

[Herby]

OOC We’re out of town so we’ll get back to this on Friday. Yeah yeah I know. Not very “Insta” but whatever.

[Simone Republic]

I know Herby's left the building, but Wrapper any interest in reviving this?