NationStates Jolt Archive

UPDATED PROPOSAL

Right to Life Act

Category: Human Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Aligned Planets

1. Everyone residing in a Nation within the UN has the right to life, in so far as their lives shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally by another save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

(a) This resolution shall not alter in any way Resolution #61, which states that 'all women shall have the right to choose whether to have an abortion or not'. This Resolution will be upheld. Life with regards to conception is to be defined by each individual Nation within the confines of Resolution #61.

2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection;
(d) during a state of war, when lives are lost due to military activities.

Cool! No more war, disease, pestilence, starvation, or murder! Driving race cars and sport parachuting will become illegal, due to the likelihood of fatal injury! In fact, all driving, smoking, overeating, and other potentially fatal habits will be mandated as illegal under this new law.

Sign me up!

PS: can we add something making pi=3 while we're at it? That's always bugged me.

Excuse me while I laugh for a bit.

There, done.

Where do people get this "right to life" bull from? The only unalienable right you have is the right to die. It's the only thing that cannot be taken from you. About the only people with an unalienable right to life are immortals, and I don't exactly see that many around.

Life is not a right, just a luxury most people enjoy.

The Government of New Tyrollia considers this a noble, and well-intentioned proposal, and one we fully intend to support.
Perhaps one adjustment could be made though, the alteration of:
'No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally'
to
'No one shall be intentionally deprived of their life by another'
Semantics, really, but it would remove the validity of the honored delegate from Frisbeeteria's objections - which seem to be the only arguable flaw in this proposal at this time.

'No one shall be intentionally deprived of their life by another'
Semantics, really, but it would remove the validity of the honored delegate from Frisbeeteria's objections - which seem to be the only arguable flaw in this proposal at this time.
Beg pardon? Don't drag me into this idiocy- I only got into it to make fun of an utterly silly concept.

The UN didn't give me life, nor does it have a big box of "life" to hand out at will. Neither the UN nor my nation nor any other governmental entity is in a position to grant or guarantee "life" in any sense. They may have the power to take it away, but they most certainly do not have the power to declare it a 'right'.

DemonLordEnigma's summary was entirely correct. "Life is not a right."

I move that the sun be banned, and removed immediately... All salt is to be confiscated from the planet and sent to some remote corner of the uncharted universe, burning anything is to be banned, since it produces CO and CO2, both of which can be fatal to humans... Infact, we will ban all flamable objects, including trees (all of which are to be removed immediately).... Also, gravity is to be banned immediately, anyone following the laws of that killer is to be arrested. And all high places are to be removed, since people could kill themselves, so demolition and grading of the entire planetary landscape is to start imediately.... Also the removal of all bodies of water deeper than 5cm. All diseases are to be made illegal; if you catch one, you will be arrested for violating the law, of possession of an illegal bacti or viri. Anything with sharp or blunt edges is to be banned, all weapons of any sort, and pens and pencils, since they too can be used to kill..... If I forgot anything, I'll bring it up later...

Please note that this resolution in no way calls for the removal of all potentially harmful objects and effects. It's two clauses merely state that:

1) No person may take the life of another. (Unless a country has capital punishment, which shall be exempted)

and

2) This shall not apply in cases of 'self-defence' or to members of law-enforcement when carrying out their assigned role as protectors of the peace.

All this is, more or less, is a proposal that makes the act of murder illegal in all UN member nations. Really what you seem to be up in arms about is the terminology 'right to life', and in that case I agree with you: no one does have the 'right' to life, as DemonLordEnigma pointed out, almost all we can *really* gaurentee is that a person will die. But as I stated, the 'right to life' isn't really what this proposal is about. If the title were to be changed, and the first sentence stricken from Clause I, would you still have an objection?

We will fully support this proposal. We shall send our recomendation to our regional deligate as well.

Actually, I do have a problem with it. I can't enforce it.

Even with the removal of that clause, it is still vague enough that Tekania's interpretation is valid. He can justify all of that using this proposal.

All this is, more or less, is a proposal that makes the act of murder illegal in all UN member nations.
That may be what the author intended, but that's not what got posted.
If the title were to be changed, and the first sentence stricken from Clause I, would you still have an objection?
Strike all of Clause 1 and Clause 2, including parts a), b), and c) along with the title, and we might agree with parts of it. Actually, you'd have to get rid of the Category and Strength too.

I respectfully disagree. I feel that

'no one shall be intentionally deprived of their life by another'

indicates that one must prove that someone is deliberitly attempting to take the life of another, to which such cases as 'burning wood', 'gravity', and 'water over 5cm' would hardly apply. If you feel this is to vague allow me to propose a clearer form:

No person shall inexcusably and intentionally extinguish the life of another. This action shall be considered excusable if
a) if it is the result of an accident that occurred during a lawful act and that did not amount to criminal negligence.
b) it is done in accordance with legal obligation, or in circumstances where the law recognizes no wrong. This may include any of the following three situations, at the discresion of the individual nation:
i. the execution of criminals
ii. killings necessary to prevent a felony or to arrest a suspected felon
iii. killings commited in self-defense.

You do realize this is still a ban on war, don't you? If I invade you and my soldiers shoot some of your soldiers, it's not necessarily "a lawful act" in either my nation or yours. If a non-UN nation invades mine, does this mean I can't shoot back?

Look, if you want to make murder illegal, why don't you start by saying "This proposal makes murder illegal." All this linguistic sneaking-around isn't helping you.

Protection of Life Act
Category: Human Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Strength: Medium
Proposed by: Aligned Planets

1. No person shall inexcusably and intentionally extinguish the life of another. This action shall be considered excusable if

if it is the result of an accident that occurred during a lawful act and that did not amount to criminal negligence.
if it is done in accordance with legal obligation, or in circumstances where the law recognizes no wrong. This may include any of the following three situations, at the discresion of the individual nation
-the execution of criminals
-killings necessary to prevent a felony or to arrest a suspected felon
-killings commited in self-defense.

Actually, since protecting your nation from invasion would be considered an act of 'self-defence', you would be legally justified to repel the invaders. The invading nation, however, would be in violation of the law.

(And this isn't my resolution, I'm just defending it.)

Where do people get this "right to life" bull from? The only unalienable right you have is the right to die.

What is meant is a Right for your Life to be protected by the UN

Cool! No more war, disease, pestilence, starvation, or murder! Driving race cars and sport parachuting will become illegal, due to the likelihood of fatal injury! In fact, all driving, smoking, overeating, and other potentially fatal habits will be mandated as illegal under this new law.

Sign me up!

PS: can we add something making pi=3 while we're at it? That's always bugged me.

I accept war is not clearly defined, I will do so now

Disease is not intentional

Pestilence is not intentional

Starvation is not intentional

Murder will be made illegal (or reinforced as illegal) by this Resolution

The rest of your reasons aren't really valid - as they are not outlawed under this Resolution...

UPDATED PROPOSAL

Right to Life Act

Category: Human Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Aligned Planets

1. Everyone residing in a Nation within the UN has the right to life, in so far as their lives shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally by another save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection;
(d) during a state of war, when lives are lost due to military activities.

Depending on your perspective this could outlaw abortion, in contravention of the resolution that made it legal.

Just saying :}

Depending on your perspective this could outlaw abortion, in contravention of the resolution that made it legal.
I'm pretty sure that's what they've been trying to sneak through all along.

"If you can't blind them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."

I'm pretty sure that's what they've been trying to sneak through all along.

"If you can't blind them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."

Not trying to outlaw abortion - will make appropriate clause in Proposal

UPDATED PROPOSAL

Right to Life Act

Category: Human Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Aligned Planets

1. Everyone residing in a Nation within the UN has the right to life, in so far as their lives shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally by another save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

(a) This resolution shall not alter in any way Resolution #61, which states that 'all women shall have the right to choose whether to have an abortion or not'. This Resolution will be upheld.

2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection;
(d) during a state of war, when lives are lost due to military activities.

Is the above proposal more acceptable?

It really will depend on what you define as life. There are some nations that do not accept life as starting until the baby leaves the mother (or whatever is the equivalent for other races/species) etc, and some who define life starting at the moment of conception.

Depending on where you stand on the above situation will depend whether this proposal is legal or not. Because if anyone defines life as starting at the moment of conception, then regardless of the above clause, Abortion Rights (61) will be in conflict with this.

And generally speaking the existing resolutions tend to win the conflict, unless you can show a good reaosn why the conflict doesn't exist.

(Note - I am not a lawyer, but I do sometimes dress up in a funny wig)

Excuse me while I laugh for a bit.

There, done.

Where do people get this "right to life" bull from? The only unalienable right you have is the right to die. It's the only thing that cannot be taken from you. About the only people with an unalienable right to life are immortals, and I don't exactly see that many around.

Life is not a right, just a luxury most people enjoy.


I completely agree. Infact I don't think it could have been said better.

I completely agree. Infact I don't think it could have been said better.

I'm not advocating a Right to Life!!!

I'm suggesting a Right for your Life to be protected!!

Read the revised edition...

UPDATED PROPOSAL

Right to Life Act

Category: Human Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Aligned Planets

1. Everyone residing in a Nation within the UN has the right to life, in so far as their lives shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally by another save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

(a) This resolution shall not alter in any way Resolution #61, which states that 'all women shall have the right to choose whether to have an abortion or not'. This Resolution will be upheld. Life with regards to conception is to be defined by each individual Nation within the confines of Resolution #61.

2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection;
(d) during a state of war, when lives are lost due to military activities.

I'm not advocating a Right to Life!!!
Then you need to change your proposal title ( "Right to Life Act"), and your first article which reads 1. Everyone residing in a Nation within the UN has the right to life. Somehow that sounds exactly like you are advocating a Right to Life.

(a) This resolution shall not alter in any way Resolution #61, which states that 'all women shall have the right to choose whether to have an abortion or not'. This Resolution will be upheld. Life with regards to conception is to be defined by each individual Nation within the confines of Resolution #61.


Simply saying 'this resolution shall not alter' may not be enough. After all, I could put forth a resolution in complete opposition to a previous one without 'altering' the former in any way. It still creates conflict though.

Especially when you add the phrase:

'Life with regards to conception is to be defined by each individual Nation within the confines of Resolution #61'

This pretty much gives any Nation carte blanche to define life at whatever
point after conception they choose. Resolution #61 doesn't make any attempt to 'define' life, so it would in no way restrict this. This means that this particular phrasing actually gives nations the ability to create a conflict between these two resolutions by defining life as beginning at some point in the womb - which is the exact kind of conflict we want to avoid.

You were on the right track with the middle bit of this clause though, why not just expand it to say:
-In all matters concerning percieved conflict between this Resolution and Resolution #61, Resolution #61 shall be upheld. Furthermore, this Resolution does not apply to the circumstance of abortion, and it's laws and effects shall not be recognized in said circumstances.

Unless anyone else has suggestions for a clearer way to put it?

Please can a mod lock this topic?

The new Proposed Resolution, now entitled Right to Protection of Life Act can be found here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7705138#post7705138)

Please comment there

Thank you