NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes I am against it, and here's why. There are 2 specific lines in there. One is "All living beings no matter who or what they may be, have the inherent right of existence" and also "That they may live as they see fit as long as they do not cause harm to another." With these lines, the proposal is to vague. It implies we are not to even eat meat. Some might be vegetarians, but who are we to say what we can and can't eat in terms of animals w/o rational capacity.

Equality is to be held to humans and other beings with clearly rational capacity.

Not eating living things will cause you harm via starvation, therefore it is ok.

But it refers to self-defense, protection from agression not helping oneself survive by eating.

No it doesn't. You might think it does, but it is worded in clear English to include any sort of harm imaginable.