NationStates Jolt Archive

Greetings,
I would greatly appreciate reasoned comments on the following draft proposal. The name is, of course, negotiable. I have considered modifying the second point of the proposal to state that each nation could define sentience but would ask each member nation to respect the decisions of their fellow members.

Respectfully,
Commander Kreft

The Wachovian Sentience Resolution
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Whereas the vast majority of UN proposals are written in speciest terms with reference to humans as the sole sentient beings of concern and in recognition that many nations are inhabited and sometimes ruled by sentient beings other than humans, we affirm the spirit of the Freedom of Humor resolution. In turn we also call upon member nations to formalize their commitment to the rights of all sentient beings, as defined by a majority of UN member states.

1. Affirming that all instances of “human” in past, present and future resolutions are applicable to all “sentient beings,” unless otherwise noted.

2. Calling for a specially convened UN Council on Sentience upon the discovery of potentially sentient life forms.

3. Encouraging writers of future resolutions will be encouraged through said resolution to reference all sentient species when composing new resolutions as to better respect all life.

QUESTION OF: Human Rights
STRENGTH: Significant
SUBMITTED BY: The Allied States of the Wachovia Coalition

I don't see anything wrong with this proposal, but the 'Legally Human' proposal has been around longer and does the same thing.

Problem: Most people consider "human" to be much a much better and more easily defined term than "sentient being." Any proposal aiming to establish or change definitions is more likely to gain support if it contains the definitions it is aiming to change.

I like the proposal, but your problem may lie in defining sentientce. What is your definition, how far are you willing to go? After you have a specific definition, it will make it easier for people to understand and vote on. Other than that, I like the propsal and would vote for it. I'm sure my delegate would agree.

If Rep. BLARGistania could convince their delegate to approve such a proposal, I recommend you search the proposal page for the string "legally human" and approve my proposal. (My proposal is also currently on page 13)
Whether by accident or intent, this proposal lifts the basic premise of my own, but it lacks the specifics contained in mine.

aight.

This whole debate is why I used the term 'person' rather than 'human' in my Habeas Corpus* proposal.

*which is now submitted!

Rep. Enn, I'm sure that any Nation that contains non-human citizens appreciates your concerns. And the Holy Empire of Gethamane also thanks you, despite our all-human population.

I greatly appreciate the many responses. My draft was composed long before the "Legally Human" proposal was made public in this format so though I do also recognize similarities it is purely due to mutual goals.

Elsewhere it has been suggested that "intelligent" be used in place of sentient, though of course that presents similar problems of definition.

I would be happy to engage in debate on the Legally Human proposal in a more appropriate thread. After my first reading I have to admit I was somewhat disappointed by the many loopholes that would allow nations to deny rights to beings, so at present I could not recommend that proposal to my regional delegate in my role of acting UN Liaison to the East Pacific.

Commander Kreft

The "Legally Human" proposal has a thread... though, most of the posts are my bumps, because you're the first person to show any interest since the first draft.

I'd be more than happy to continue this there, or even in a new thread. And I would very much like to hear your opinions regarding my proposal.

Sentient, noun: having the power of sensation; conscious. This would certainly apply to most of the great apes, but we don't expect them to pay their taxes. Similarly, this wording would explicitly acknowledge that the foetus isn't legally human until relatively late in its development, which would really piss off some pro-life nations.

Which is one of the many reasons "Legally Human" is so verbose and defines "sapient species" instead of letting a standard (and often vague) dictionary definition open up a loophole.

In "Legally Human," we allow nations to define what can and cannot be a citizen of their nation... and if Pro-Life nations can make the fetus a citizen in some sense, then they can grant it "human" rights as defined in several Resolutions.

In "Legally Human," we allow nations to define what can and cannot be a citizen of their nation... and if Pro-Life nations can make the fetus a citizen in some sense, then they can grant it "human" rights as defined in several Resolutions.

We believe this is a run-on sentience.