NationStates Jolt Archive

Greetings,

The Animal Protection resolution had been discussed here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=433032) and submitted (as noticed here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=434788)). However, after conferencing with the UN Delegate of my region, we came to the conclusion that the low support could be mainly due to the vacation period. On this line of thought, I hereby resubmit the proposal for your appreciation. This may be a good time to improve the resolution or change some points that some Delegates may disagree with.

The text is as follows:



-------------------------------- Animal Protection ----------------------------------


KEEPING IN MIND that the majority of the human kind consumes meat and requires certain species of animals for medical experimentation.

CONVINCED that it is possible and acceptable to consume animal products required for human subsistence, without putting animals through unnecessary pain.

NOTING WITH REGRET that, all around the World, animals are injured, mistreated, tortured and randomly murdered with no intent of defense or survival.


This proposal:

1) DESIGNATES "mistreatment of animals" as:

1a) the infliction of corporal or psychological damage on an animal, when the animal poses no relevant threat to an animal of another kind (humans included), namely to it's health or life.
1b) The deliberate destruction of animals' habitat, when the animal poses no relevant threat to an animal of another kind (humans included), namely to it's health or life.
1c) Abandoning animals that were treated as pets


2) PROCLAIMS that the mistreatment of animals, regarding the exceptions mentioned in points 3 and 4, is hereby outlawed and is to be punished by UN member nations.


3) APPROVES that animals are killed for food, by humans, as long as:

3a) The animals aren't put through unnecessary pain, aren't subject to aggression and have the best life conditions possible
3b) They are executed using a painless method. Science and mechanics have evolved enough for nations to consider swift and painless execution techniques.


4) APPROVES that animals are used in medical research (cosmetics are not included) and/or study if, and only if:

4a) The animals aren't put through unnecessary pain, aren't subject to aggression and have the best life conditions possible
4b) The research has the purpose of solving problems related to human health (cure diseases, discover treatments)
4c) If their life is to end, the animals have to be executed using a painless method.



Thank you for your attention,
Fair Progress

-------------------------------- Animal Protection ----------------------------------

Which category are you going to put this in? I suggest Moral Decency, significant. It seems to be the only one it will work in.

KEEPING IN MIND that the majority of the human kind consumes meat and requires certain species of animals for medical experimentation.

CONVINCED that it is possible and acceptable to consume animal products required for human subsistence, without putting animals through unnecessary pain.

NOTING WITH REGRET that, all around the World, animals are injured, mistreated, tortured and randomly murdered with no intent of defense or survival.

Good preamble :)

This proposal:

1) DESIGNATES "mistreatment of animals" as:

1a) the infliction of corporal or psychological damage on an animal, when the animal poses no relevant threat to an animal of another kind (humans included), namely to it's health or life.
1b) The deliberate destruction of animals' habitat, when the animal poses no relevant threat to an animal of another kind (humans included), namely to it's health or life.
1c) Abandoning animals that were treated as pets

Good. Nice definitions.

2) PROCLAIMS that the mistreatment of animals, regarding the exceptions mentioned in points 3 and 4, is hereby outlawed and is to be punished by UN member nations.

Good bold statement.

3) APPROVES that animals are killed for food, by humans, as long as:

This sentence sounds really weird to me. I think if it was reworded, it would sound cleaner and better. I suggest rewording it to say:

APPROVES killing animals for food, so long as

3a) The animals aren't put through unnecessary pain, aren't subject to aggression and have the best life conditions possible
3b) They are executed using a painless method. Science and mechanics have evolved enough for nations to consider swift and painless execution techniques.

The bolded part does not belong in this area. This is where you proclaim to the World (or to a bunch of cyber friends) what you want to do. This sentence supports your argument, which is great, but belongs with the other arguments at the top of the proposal. I suggest moving it to the top, and create a line for it.

4) APPROVES that animals are used in medical research (cosmetics are not included) and/or study if, and only if:

This is a two part complaint. The first part is the grammer and fluff. Fluff is when you add words that are not needed (which is present here) and prevents you from stating your point effectivly I suggest rewording this sentence to say:

APPROVES the use of animals in medical research and study if:

Now, you notice I took out the cosmetics brakets. This is a wonderful sentence, until I read this braket. I predict this will cause some contraversy, and spark debate. I think you need to

a) Make your position known about cosmetic testing, and ban it

b) Exclude it from your proposal, and maybe pass another resolution later

The second option is kind of dumb, because this is what your resolution is trying to stop: needless testing. Hence, I think you need to ban it through its own clause, saying:

5) BANS animal testing for commercial use, including cosmetics, (etc etc)

The (etc etc) is if you want to specifically ban any other commercial testing.

4a) The animals aren't put through unnecessary pain, aren't subject to aggression and have the best life conditions possible
4b) The research has the purpose of solving problems related to human health (cure diseases, discover treatments)
4c) If their life is to end, the animals have to be executed using a painless method.

I think proposal is very well written, it just needs a little tweaking. Good luck in passing it.

This sentence sounds really weird to me. I think if it was reworded, it would sound cleaner and better. I suggest rewording it to say:

APPROVES killing animals for food, so long as
This actualy raised an issue on the previous discussions, which introduced the "by humans" words. What would you suggest? "APPROVES killing animals for food, by humans, so long as"? Or "APPROVES that humans kill animals for food, so long as"?


The bolded part does not belong in this area. This is where you proclaim to the World (or to a bunch of cyber friends) what you want to do. This sentence supports your argument, which is great, but belongs with the other arguments at the top of the proposal. I suggest moving it to the top, and create a line for it.
Done, thanks :)


This is a two part complaint. The first part is the grammer and fluff. Fluff is when you add words that are not needed (which is present here) and prevents you from stating your point effectivly I suggest rewording this sentence to say:

APPROVES the use of animals in medical research and study if:

Now, you notice I took out the cosmetics brakets.
Done.


The second option is kind of dumb, because this is what your resolution is trying to stop: needless testing.
I don't understand why you say that. Are you talking about 4b?

Here's the revised text, hope it's better now:


--------------------------------- Animal Protection ---------------------------------

KEEPING IN MIND that the majority of the human kind consumes meat and requires certain species of animals for medical experimentation.

CONVINCED that it is possible and acceptable to consume animal products required for human subsistence, without putting animals through unnecessary pain.

NOTING WITH REGRET that, all around the World, animals are injured, mistreated, tortured and randomly murdered with no intent of defense or survival.

NOTING FURTHER that science and mechanics have evolved enough for nations to consider swift and painless execution techniques.


This proposal:

1) DESIGNATES "mistreatment of animals" as:

1a) the infliction of corporal or psychological damage on an animal, when the animal poses no relevant threat to an animal of another kind (humans included), namely to it's health or life.
1b) The deliberate destruction of animals' habitat, when the animal poses no relevant threat to an animal of another kind (humans included), namely to it's health or life.
1c) Abandoning animals that were treated as pets


2) PROCLAIMS that the mistreatment of animals, regarding the exceptions mentioned in points 3 and 4, is hereby outlawed and is to be punished by UN member nations.


3) APPROVES that animals are killed for food, by humans, so long as:

3a) The animals aren't put through unnecessary pain, aren't subject to aggression and have the best life conditions possible
3b) They are executed using a painless method.


4) APPROVES that animals are used in medical research if, and only if:

4a) The animals aren't put through unnecessary pain, aren't subject to aggression and have the best life conditions possible
4b) The research has the purpose of solving problems related to human health (cure diseases, discover treatments)
4c) If their life is to end, the animals have to be executed using a painless method.

--------------------------------- End of draft ---------------------------------



I think proposal is very well written, it just needs a little tweaking. Good luck in passing it.
Thanks for the help, keep the suggestions coming :)

It has passed a few days and this draft hasn't got any other comments; we are preparing to submit this proposal, does any delegate have any thing to add/improve on the draft?


Thank you,
Fair Progress

The good people of Discordinia believe that the proposal must include some provision respecting and recognizing the religious rights and freedoms of others.

From The Atlantic Monthly, May 2005

Perhaps more surprising, certification rules seldom concern the conditions under which animals are raised, though the Torah does advocate the humane treatment of animals. Factory-farm veal, inhumane by almost anyone's standards, is officially kosher, although many rabbis recommend against consuming it or any other animal raised inhumanely. The Talmud does spell out the rules of slaughter. Shochets, trained slaughterers, must slit animals' throats cleanly and without hesitation, using a well-honed, nick-free blade. At the beginning of a slaughtering session the shochet blesses the process as commanded by God; the blessing is not for the animal or its life. Contrary to many people's belief, food certified kosher is not blessed by rabbis.

This is not to say, of course, that Kosher slaughter cannot be accomplished under objectively humane conditions ... but only that your proposal could be read to condemn such practices entirely.

The good people of Discordinia respect our Orthodox Jewish brethren, and consider their meats to be quite tasty.

All Hail Eris!

- Cookie I, El Jefe

The Free Land of Kapellen will, of course, vote for this proposal. As the representative of Fair Progress already knows, we think that Discordinia has a point, and that many votes can be lost if no provision about religious rites is included...

The Adnarian Democratic Republic will support the idea.The animals also have rights that we must give them.Adnaria thinks that we need to save the animals from unnecessary pain.
William Jacques,
Prime Minister,
Democratic Republic of Adnaria

As much as I tend to be against this sought of resolution, I really cannot say anything bad about it, bar three complaints.
1)

4) APPROVES that animals are used in medical research if, and only if:
Where does the line between medical research and cosmetic research come?
To use an extreme example, if a shampoo was tested on an animal and was found to cause leprosy, would the original testing be considered medical or cosmetic?

2)
NOTING FURTHER that science and mechanics have evolved enough for nations to consider swift and painless execution techniques.
The problem with this is that it doesn't take into account the NS problem that is the variety of technology levels of nations. Certainly, most nations can perform swift and painless executions, however there are, no doubt, some NS nations where their technology is such that this is not possible; S
such as they may only have just discovered the stick or something...

3) Sorry, but I really don't think this is a issue that transcends national boundaries.

4) APPROVES that animals are used in medical research if, and only if:
Where does the line between medical research and cosmetic research come?
To use an extreme example, if a shampoo was tested on an animal and was found to cause leprosy, would the original testing be considered medical or cosmetic?
You're describing the testing of cosmetics (shampoo) on an animal, something prohibited by this resolution and easily avoidable. The proposal only opens an exception on medical research, with the usual purposes of medical research (cure diseases, research treatments). There was originally a clause that specified the cosmetics issue, but it was dropped by request of some delegates (check the links on the first post of this thread).


Thanks for the input,
Fair Progress

But surely the prevention of the spread of leprosy would be considered medical?

But surely the prevention of the spread of leprosy would be considered medical?
The prevention of the spread of a disease is indeed a medical issue, that's why the resolution allows medical research. However, testing the cosmetic on animals is forbidden. So if a shampoo or other cosmetic is causing leprosy the vendor should take it off the market and further test it (using approriate methods other than animals; and there are a lot, proof of this is the growing number of companies that are abandoning animal testing) to solve the problem.
On the other hand, if there's an outbreak of bird flu, scientists are allowed to use the animals required to find a cure or a prevention method.


Thank you,
Fair Progress