NationStates Jolt Archive

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: The Eternal Kawaii

The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING that the nations of the world are composed of diverse kinds of people;

ACKNOWLEDGING that people of one kind might not consider people of another kind as "persons" due to differences in their substance or behavior;

REALIZING that for a rational debate on personal rights to take place, a commonly accepted definition of "person" is needed;

DECLARES that there exists a universal and self-evident concept, referred to here as "personhood", that is independent of the substance or behavior of the being that possesses it;

DEFINES a "person" to be an individual being that reasonably asserts its possession of personhood or a member of a people who assert the individual's possession of personhood on its behalf;

DEFINES a "people" as any group of individual beings that is distinct in substance or behavior from other groups and whose members normally meet the above definition of person;

DECLARES that the above definitions shall not be construed to define when personhood begins or ends;

REQUIRES the WA to maintain a record of all known peoples within its member nations;

REQUIRES every WA member nation to submit an accurate accounting of the peoples within it for this record;

REQUIRES the WA to accept any reasonable assertations of personhood from beings not recognized as persons by WA member states, and to add these beings to its record;

REQUIRES all WA member nations to recognize the members of every people in this record as persons, and to extend to them all personal rights, freedoms, privileges and entitlements guaranteed under international law.


[The Nuncia of the Diaspora Church of the Eternal Kawaii takes the podium]

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

Esteemed delegates, representatives, dignitaries. It is with a great sense of honor that I introduce this, our nation's first legislative proposal for this august body's consideration. It addresses a subject matter that has long been a source of contentious debate within these halls, leading to harsh words, thrown brickbats and even defenestrations. It is our fervent hope that this proposed resolution will finally put an end to this acrimony and allow the many peoples of the World Assembly to live together in harmony.

[A collection of Kawaiian secretarial nekomusume, all wearing traditional cat-ears and tails, work their way through the hall, handing out leaflets. The Nuncia continues.]

Because of the somewhat esoteric nature of this legislation, we have prepared a convenient FAQ sheet that we hope will eliminate confusion and promote more a healthy, reasonable debate. Our philosophers, theologians and sages have worked long and hard to draft this proposal, and we feel it is ready for a formal vote. However, we value your input, and await any further questions you may have.





FAQ



Q: You're trying to legalize furries and talking toasters here, aren't you?

A: The purpose of this legislation is to establish the principle that people are people regardless of the way they look or act--their "substance or behavior" as our sages have termed it. They may have fur and tails, or they may be machines, Artificial Intelligences, or sentient shades of the color blue. As long as they can reasonably claim to be a person (and the operative word here is "reasonably"), we have a moral obligation to respect that claim.



Q: I don't believe in non-human intelligence. Why should I care about this resolution?

A: Even in a purely human context, this resolution establishes a fundamental right: That a person cannot be denied their personhood, their "humanity" if you will, just because they look or act differently from others. The right to be acknowledged as a human being is the most basic human right of all.



Q: You don't define "personhood" here. Does this resolution actually do anything?

A: Defining "personhood" is a job for philosophers, not statesmen. We believe that previous attempts at legislation on this topic failed because they tried unsuccessfully to define personhood. For the practical work of the WA, it's more important that people be recognized as persons worthy of rights rather than debating what being a person means. By accepting personhood a priori, we can go ahead with that work.



Q: What if I created a talking doll that says, "I am a person!"? Would we have to accept that?

A: No. Such a creature would not be making a "reasonable assertation" of personhood, as any real person could plainly see. On the other hand, if someone were to provide the doll with a more sophisticated programming and speech ability, to the point, for example, that it could pass a Turing test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test), then we would have to consider its claim to be reasonable.

We believe that personhood is usually obvious. Only in the rarest of occasions would we expect a serious challenge to a being's assertation of it.



Q: What is a "reasonable assertation"?

A: We're invoking "reasonable nation theory" here, the principle that WA nations are rational actors or they wouldn't be part of the WA to begin with. A reasonable assertation is one that you would consider yourself, as a rational being, making.



Q: What "people" get to assert for individuals who can't assert for themselves?

A: We're defining "people" in the resolution very broadly. It can be, but isn't limited to, species, nationality, culture, or social/familial groups. This is done so that different nations with different societies can have flexibility when interpreting the resolution.

Kawaiian society, for example, places great emphasis on the unity of our culture--we see ourselves as a single people. Other, more culturally diverse nations may see themselves as composed of many peoples. A truly anarchic society may view each of its citizens as sui generis, a people unto him- or herself.

This flexibility of interpretation allows all such views to be respected, while retaining the principle that it is the people, not the State, who decide what a "people" consist of.



Q: Is this a backdoor way of outlawing abortion by declaring fetuses "persons"?

A: No. The intent of this resolution is to recognize the personhood of people here today, not to start a debate on when an individual becomes a person or ceases to be one. This is why it states explicitly that the definitions of "person" and "people" shall not be construed to define such beginnings or endings. That way, it cannot interfere with national laws on topics such as abortion or euthanasia, or serve to block future WA legislation on these topics should a member nation propose any such.



Q: Won't this resolution require the WA to make a census of all WA nations?

A: No. The resolution requires the WA to keep a record of "peoples", not "persons". A nation merely has to submit an statement to the WA that all of its citizens, subjects, and other beings the state considers persons are "persons". If a nation refuses to acknowledge an individual or group as "persons", however, that individual or group will have the right to petition the WA to be recognized and placed on the record. The WA will have the obligation to accept that petition--if it is reasonable--and the authority to overrule the nation's self-assessment.

Forgive us most highly respected Ambassador, and may the Cute One be praised, but is an "assertation" the same thing as an "assertion" ?


yours e.t.c. ,

dude, non humans with human rights? Those are fightin' words.

Forgive us most highly respected Ambassador, and may the Cute One be praised, but is an "assertation" the same thing as an "assertion" ?

Our philosophers, theologians and sages do need to check their dictionaries more carefully, it seems. This is why we kept this in draft for the moment. Thank you for noticing that--it'll be corrected in the formal version.

Forgive me ambassador Kawaii, but without defining "personhood", I feel that this resolution can mean anything to anyone.. thus this resolution is without any meaning..

Our philosophers, theologians and sages do need to check their dictionaries more carefully, it seems. This is why we kept this in draft for the moment. Thank you for noticing that--it'll be corrected in the formal version.



Think nothing of it esteemed and venerated Ambassador, there is nothing to thank us for. We were in fact concerned that our knowledge was defficient, it is we who must thank you for reassuring us that it is not.

yours sincerely,

This is a brave and well-intentioned proposal, Nuncia. I've let you know my reservations elsewhere; it'll be interesting to see if anyone else feels the same way.

MapleLeafss;14039929']Forgive me ambassador Kawaii, but without defining "personhood", I feel that this resolution can mean anything to anyone.. thus this resolution is without any meaning..

The fact that the esteemed representative from MapleLeafss can make the assertion, "I feel that this resolution can mean anything to anyone..." demonstrates his personhood. Thus the meaning of this resolution is made plain.

I know I'm not yet a WA member, but...

Problem: A common parrot starts asserting that it is a person. In order to disprove this, a person has to go through a very complicated, and quite costly, series of tests to prove the claim false. This resolution's only provided test for attempting to prove it true is the mere act of proclaiming oneself to be a person, even if oneself actually isn't.

Now, imagine it's not one parrot, but several hundred...

Problem: A common parrot starts asserting that it is a person. In order to disprove this, a person has to go through a very complicated, and quite costly, series of tests to prove the claim false. This resolution's only provided test for attempting to prove it true is the mere act of proclaiming oneself to be a person, even if oneself actually isn't.

Now, imagine it's not one parrot, but several hundred...

We refer the observing representative from Forensatha to our FAQ question 4. It should be neither a difficult nor costly effort to demonstrate that one, or even several hundred, ordinary "talking" parrots are merely repeating behaviors learned by rote and not demonstrating the level of communication considered unique to people.

Now, if these same parrots were offering a dramatic critique of Monty Python's petshop sketch, we would--and should--be making the effort to see if we have a truly intelligent species of parrot on our hands.

Is the FAQ going to be part of the text of the actual law itself? If not, then I do not see how it applies where actual law is concerned.

REQUIRES the WA to maintain a record of all known peoples within its member nations;

REQUIRES every WA member nation to submit an accurate accounting of the peoples within it for this record;

Isn't this 2 sentences just a census law.

Is the FAQ going to be part of the text of the actual law itself? If not, then I do not see how it applies where actual law is concerned.

The FAQ is merely intended as a discussion aid, and is not part of the resolution itself.

MapleLeafss;14040235']Isn't this 2 sentences just a census law.

We refer the esteemed representative to our FAQ question 8. It is unnecessary to for member states to list every individual as a person, only to state that they recognize their citizens and other subjects are people.

The last two sentences in the resolution are there to guarantee that no state can deny personhood, and the rights associated with it, to any segment of their population that asserts it.

Let me see if I have this correct...

This resolution attempts to protect people and personhood, without defining them, from government regulation while allowing for the possibility of people to express it without actually defining how they would express it.

Let me see if I have this correct...

This resolution attempts to protect people and personhood, without defining them, from government regulation while allowing for the possibility of people to express it without actually defining how they would express it.

The resolution will protect people from being denied their personhood by the State. For that purpose, we don't need to decide what personhood is, only to recognize that it is.

As for how it is expressed: that is self-evident. All of us assembled here are persons by our own assertion. If another being wishes to make that same assertion, we can understand it in terms of our own assertion.

What's stopping a government from simply defining "reasonable" as "incredibly rich or able to combine chewing gum, punching self in jaw, kicking own rear, and juggling running chainsaws" and then deny it to people who don't meet their definition?

What's stopping a government from simply defining "reasonable" as "incredibly rich or able to combine chewing gum, punching self in jaw, kicking own rear, and juggling running chainsaws" and then deny it to people who don't meet their definition?

This resolution takes the decision of "what is a reasonable assertion?" out of the hands of national governments entirely. Any individual wishing to be recognized as a person may appeal directly to the WA. And we trust in the good judgment of this assembly to not apply absurd definitions--after all, would not our own personhoods be called into question then?

This resolution takes the decision of "what is a reasonable assertion?" out of the hands of national governments entirely. Any individual wishing to be recognized as a person may appeal directly to the WA. And we trust in the good judgment of this assembly to not apply absurd definitions--after all, would our own personhoods not be called into question then?

But if humans already have personhood, why would they need to apeal it?

But if humans already have personhood, why would they need to apeal it?

If, for example, those humans lived in a nation ruled by chimpanzees, organutans and gorillas, who have decided that Man is a beast and should not be allowed to breed in great numbers, lest he make a desert of his home and theirs, then those humans would need to appeal to the WA to be recognized as people, would they not?

In a more familiar context, suppose that nation was populated soley by humans, but the ruling class were blue-eyed, and brown-eyed members of the species were not considered "people" at all. Under this resolution, the brown-eyed could appeal to the WA and force their blue-eyed rulers to recognize them as people.

This resolution takes the decision of "what is a reasonable assertion?" out of the hands of national governments entirely. Any individual wishing to be recognized as a person may appeal directly to the WA. And we trust in the good judgment of this assembly to not apply absurd definitions--after all, would not our own personhoods be called into question then?

Our own personhoods are called into question already by this. After some consideration, I've come to the conclusion that this proposal seeks to do the impossible: Enforce the intangible in law while having the very law make it impossible to measure the intangible.

The problem with it is that it removes the ability to decide what is considered reasonable from the local government, all the while leaving no definition that the international community can rely upon. Obviously you cannot also rely on the local community level, since they have no guidelines to go upon and you would end up with definitions even more arbitrary and discriminatory than at the national level. This leaves the personal level. And, since all living beings will automatically use themselves as the reference point for what they consider a person, we have an argument that either all of life qualified for personhood or none of it does. And the results of both are the same, since being a person becomes meaningless. And while you can provide me examples galore to try to argue that there is a true set of reasonable standards, the problem is that your reasonable standards are based purely upon your concept of a person and that the set of standards are not actually established by law.

Thus, this proposal is, by its very nature, self-defeating.

We suspect that this resolution never intended to be instructive on the matter of foetal personhood, but despite it not claiming the authority to mark the begining of personhood what is to stop the inhabitants of member states from claiming the a foetus simply is a person, regardless of the starting point of this personhood, that its personhood is innate and immutable, unchanged by prenatal status, and overturning national laws on the right to choose?

yours e.t.c. ,

We are a very young nation so I hope you will forgive us if our inexperience shows.

The Empress of Yummy Chow feels that without definition of key terms in this proposal, application of such a law would be needlessly complicated and impossible to do without prejudice.

If one believes that a parrot saying "I'm a person" is not a reasonable assertion of its personhood, what is to stop, say a Human from saying that a Furry saying "I'm a person" is not also behavior learned through prolonged contact with Humans? What seems like an "obvious" proof of personhood to Kawaiians will not necessarily be so to other nations and standardised tests would not make it any easier to judge personhood as they are based on another people's views on what is sentient.

Our own personhoods are called into question already by this. After some consideration, I've come to the conclusion that this proposal seeks to do the impossible: Enforce the intangible in law while having the very law make it impossible to measure the intangible.

The intangible, by its very nature, cannot be measured, but that doesn't mean that we aren't aware of its existence. Surely the good people of Forensatha, if asked, would say they are persons, would they not? And their word on the subject ought to be sufficient for this assembly. If not, then this assembly has ceased to become a rational actor and serves no further purpose.

The problem with it is that it removes the ability to decide what is considered reasonable from the local government, all the while leaving no definition that the international community can rely upon. Obviously you cannot also rely on the local community level, since they have no guidelines to go upon and you would end up with definitions even more arbitrary and discriminatory than at the national level. This leaves the personal level. And, since all living beings will automatically use themselves as the reference point for what they consider a person, we have an argument that either all of life qualified for personhood or none of it does. And the results of both are the same, since being a person becomes meaningless. And while you can provide me examples galore to try to argue that there is a true set of reasonable standards, the problem is that your reasonable standards are based purely upon your concept of a person and that the set of standards are not actually established by law.

Thus, this proposal is, by its very nature, self-defeating.

The "reasonable standards" called for in this resolution are to be set by this assembly, using its members' own best judgment in the matter. It is not up to a single individual or nation to set those standards for all people.

We call upon this assembly to put faith in themselves. Any rational person has the ability to determine who else is a person and who is not. We, as the representatives of the peoples of the world, have an obligation to make sure no sub-set of people have the authority to deny others that personhood that we can see exists.



We suspect that this resolution never intended to be instructive on the matter of foetal personhood, but despite it not claiming the authority to mark the begining of personhood what is to stop the inhabitants of member states from claiming the a foetus simply is a person, regardless of the starting point of this personhood, that its personhood is innate and immutable, unchanged by prenatal status, and overturning national laws on the right to choose?

The esteemed Khan raises a very good concern, one which we would like to address. We call the assembly's attention to this point: National laws on the subjects of abortion and euthanasia are not necessarily dependent on peoples' opinions of when a fetus becomes a person or when the dying individual ceases to be one. An opponent of the practice of abortion or euthanasia may claim that it is homicide, but we point out that "homicide" is not, in itself, illegal or even immoral--it is merely the term for the act of putting a person to death.

Nations that are forced into war, and nations that practice capital punishment, commit homicide with perfectly legal reasons, reasons that their people have judged to be moral and correct. Likewise, nations that legalize the practice of abortion or euthanasia, though some would argue are thus legalizing homicide, still maintain the legal right to do so, unless mandated otherwise by the WA. We have drafted this resolution so as not to interfere with those legal rights, nor to block future WA legislation affecting them.



The Empress of Yummy Chow feels that without definition of key terms in this proposal, application of such a law would be needlessly complicated and impossible to do without prejudice.

If one believes that a parrot saying "I'm a person" is not a reasonable assertion of its personhood, what is to stop, say a Human from saying that a Furry saying "I'm a person" is not also behavior learned through prolonged contact with Humans? What seems like an "obvious" proof of personhood to Kawaiians will not necessarily be so to other nations and standardised tests would not make it any easier to judge personhood as they are based on another people's views on what is sentient.

We direct the esteemed Empress's attention to our response to the observer-representative from Forensatha earlier. It is not up to the Kawaiians, or any individual nation, to declare what is "obvious proof" of personhood. In cases where national governments refuse to accept such proofs, this resolution gives the WA itself, using its best collective judgment, the authority to set such standards.

The esteemed Khan raises a very good concern, one which we would like to address. We call the assembly's attention to this point: National laws on the subjects of abortion and euthanasia are not necessarily dependent on peoples' opinions of when a fetus becomes a person or when the dying individual ceases to be one. An opponent of the practice of abortion or euthanasia may claim that it is homicide, but we point out that "homicide" is not, in itself, illegal or even immoral--it is merely the term for the act of putting a person to death.

Nations that are forced into war, and nations that practice capital punishment, commit homicide with perfectly legal reasons, reasons that their people have judged to be moral and correct. Likewise, nations that legalize the practice of abortion or euthanasia, though some would argue are thus legalizing homicide, still maintain the legal right to do so, unless mandated otherwise by the WA. We have drafted this resolution so as not to interfere with those legal rights, nor to block future WA legislation affecting them.



We thank the honoured Ambassador for their reply. So this resolution defines the right to the legal status of "personhood" , without defining the criteria for it, and it also does not delimit the rights pertaining to personhood, is that the gist of it?

Would that not cause the problem of future resolutions on matters pertaining to personhood having to specify which classes of person or in which specific situations this personhood was effected by it?

Resolutions on the rights of the child, or Anti-torture statutes or healthcare provision statutes to name just a few might run into this problem, would they not?

yours e.t.c.,

We thank the honoured Ambassador for their reply. So this resolution defines the right to the legal status of "personhood" , without defining the criteria for it, and it also does not delimit the rights pertaining to personhood, is that the gist of it?

The resolution declares that "personhood" is self-evident; it needs no defining criteria for it to be recognized. As the saying goes: "I know it when I see it." The "I", in this case, being this assembly. As the representative of the peoples of the world, it is our duty to ensure that nations do not deny personhood to individuals whom the people--whom we represent--see as possessing it.

As for the delimitation of rights--the resolution calls for member nations to respect all "rights, freedoms, privileges and entitlements guaranteed under international law." This assembly, as the guarantor of such rights, sets the limits of what we may guarantee.

Would that not cause the problem of future resolutions on matters pertaining to personhood having to specify which classes of person or in which specific situations this personhood was effected by it?

Resolutions on the rights of the child, or Anti-torture statutes or healthcare provision statutes to name just a few might run into this problem, would they not?

We do not foresee such problems under this resolution. We would expect that any future legislation dealing with classes of person would have those classes explicitly stated to begin with. By declaring that personhood is a universal concept, we are not limiting how future resolutions may distinguish between different persons.

The resolution declares that "personhood" is self-evident; it needs no defining criteria for it to be recognized. As the saying goes: "I know it when I see it." The "I", in this case, being this assembly. As the representative of the peoples of the world, it is our duty to ensure that nations do not deny personhood to individuals whom the people--whom we represent--see as possessing it.

As for the delimitation of rights--the resolution calls for member nations to respect all "rights, freedoms, privileges and entitlements guaranteed under international law." This assembly, as the guarantor of such rights, sets the limits of what we may guarantee.



We do not foresee such problems under this resolution. We would expect that any future legislation dealing with classes of person would have those classes explicitly stated to begin with. By declaring that personhood is a universal concept, we are not limiting how future resolutions may distinguish between different persons.



So theoretically ,Ambassador, if a statute were passed which contained the words " No person shall have their life taken" this would directly effect the status of a foetus in the minds of those who choose to believe it has personhood. This would lead to the possibility of the situation we have outlined before.

Of course this is entirely hypothetical but one can see how other similar situations may arrise if personhood may be assayed so arbitrarily.

yours e.t.c. ,

So theoretically ,Ambassador, if a statute were passed which contained the words " No person shall have their life taken" this would directly effect the status of a foetus in the minds of those who choose to believe it has personhood. This would lead to the possibility of the situation we have outlined before.

In theory, yes, such a situaion could arise. In effect, the WA would be equating feticide with homicide. However, nothing in this resolution requires that nations make that act a criminal offense or for that matter, guarantee its legality. The WA may, in future, rule on such things, but the resolution as written would not interfere with that.

In theory, yes, such a situaion could arise. In effect, we would be equating feticide with homicide. However, nothing in this resolution requires that nations make that act a criminal offense or for that matter, guarantee its legality. The WA may, in future, rule on such things, but the resolution as written would not interfere with that.


The possible avenue of legal precedent created by this resolution is one we are concerned by, and the possible effect on future national and international laws is somewhat erratic and eccentric. We understand the motive of the Authors of this resolution and we applaud it but we will find it hard to support this resolution unless it can be made non-contaminant of other areas of the law.


yours e.t.c. ,

Hypothetical situation: Suppose this proposal were to pass, and a group froma nation appeals to the WA for personhood status. Since this group was not considered a group of "persons" previously, the group's members would not be counted in the country's population. Once personhood was gratned by the WA, they would then add to the country's population count, would they not?

If so, I do believe this would constitute metagaming.

Hypothetical situation: Suppose this proposal were to pass, and a group froma nation appeals to the WA for personhood status. Since this group was not considered a group of "persons" previously, the group's members would not be counted in the country's population. Once personhood was gratned by the WA, they would then add to the country's population count, would they not?

If so, I do believe this would constitute metagaming.

OOC: I defer to the mods on this, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be metagaming. Population stats are hard-wired into the game and aren't affected by WA resolutions, as far as I know. RP'ing the discovery of a hitherto-unknown population within a country would not increase its listed population according to the game mechanics.

The intangible, by its very nature, cannot be measured, but that doesn't mean that we aren't aware of its existence. Surely the good people of Forensatha, if asked, would say they are persons, would they not? And their word on the subject ought to be sufficient for this assembly. If not, then this assembly has ceased to become a rational actor and serves no further purpose.

The good people of Forensatha would say that, but they would put a condition on what they believe a person is and why they are people. As would many nations. And I am sure that a certain cultural practice of our nation would have some nations arguing that we are not people, but monsters, for continuing the practice and even openly defending the use of it. As such, this assembly might have a reason to argue that we are not, in fact, people.

Also, secondary, let us point out that energy is intangible, and yet we have a number of ways of measuring it and an equation for figuring out exactly how much energy there is in matter. So, is it really hard to measure one intangible when we already measure another?

The "reasonable standards" called for in this resolution are to be set by this assembly, using its members' own best judgment in the matter. It is not up to a single individual or nation to set those standards for all people.

We call upon this assembly to put faith in themselves. Any rational person has the ability to determine who else is a person and who is not. We, as the representatives of the peoples of the world, have an obligation to make sure no sub-set of people have the authority to deny others that personhood that we can see exists.

But do you also have the right to deny a sub-set of people personhood just because the majority doesn't like a particular practice of them? You will have to excuse me if I do not have faith in relying upon the vote of an assembly when the body that preceeded this one outright outlawed what for us is a part of our society. And let us not forget that, even now, some members of this organization will not stop until it is outright outlawed without even investigating a society that openly practices it to see if their conceptions are accurate.

In addition, what guidelines does this organization have by which to make the determination? Any determination they make, based upon your own proposal, is as arbitrary as what any individual nation would make. And considering the job of your proposal is to prevent them from denying personhood to those who are people, it would make sense if your own proposal would define what a person is instead of relying upon arbitrary standards decided by a committee of people.

In addition, nothing in the proposal, given the intangible nature of what we are talking about and the people expected to make the decision, actually changes anything. Nothing prevents any individual person or even this assembly from creating standards to define personhood and nothing in your proposal forces them to create those standards if they do not want to, which is also something that can be done now anyway. Given that, we must ask again: What does your proposal actually do?

With best wishes and no hostile intent,
Diplomat Xen Felgras

The good people of Forensatha would say that, but they would put a condition on what they believe a person is and why they are people. As would many nations. And I am sure that a certain cultural practice of our nation would have some nations arguing that we are not people, but monsters, for continuing the practice and even openly defending the use of it. As such, this assembly might have a reason to argue that we are not, in fact, people.

It is our hope that the good people of Forensatha would not be worried that the WA sees them as monsters. And even if such were true, the point of this resolution is that even monsters are people, if they ask to be considered so. Forensathans have no more to fear on that acount than any other nation.

And we find nothing within the article that guarantees that there is nothing to worry about for any particular nation or person in regards to that area.

And we find nothing within the article that guarantees that there is nothing to worry about for any particular nation or person in regards to that area.

We refer the esteemed representative to our FAQ question 5. The esteemed representative's concerns really are groundless here, for the simple fact that there is no reason for the WA to act in the way he fears.

We refer the esteemed representative to our FAQ question 5. The esteemed representative's concerns really are groundless here, for the simple fact that there is no reason for the WA to act in the way he fears.

We would like to point out to the delegate from the Eternal Kawaii that the particular item pointed to requires the person to use their own individual judgement, which is actually the source of the problem of arbitrary definitions.

We would like to point out to the delegate from the Eternal Kawaii that the particular item pointed to requires the person to use their own individual judgement, which is actually the source of the problem of arbitrary definitions.

True, but in the circumstances the esteemed representative from Forensatha discusses, we're talking about the WA using their collective judgment. Since we believe individual WA members are rational actors, it stands to reason that the WA's collective judgment, too, will be rational.

ACKNOWLEDGING that people of one kind might not consider people of another kind as "persons" due to differences in their substance or behavior;

REQUIRES all WA member nations to recognize the members of every people in this record as persons, and to extend to them all personal rights, freedoms, privileges and entitlements guaranteed under international law.

How would "behavior" be defined? There are people who believe that pedophiles and homosexuals should not be given certain rights due to various circumstances. Yes, they are human beings, but a man should not be given the right to marry a child or another man (or woman+woman/ woman+child), as wanted by NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association). Yes they should have the right to vote, right to assemble, right to join military, e.t.c., but a large group of individuls that behaves in a certain way that calls themselves a "people" should not be given the right to a marital union.

Also what about mental and/or physical handicapped people? Are they considered people? They should be. Human life is sacred in every meaning of the word.

Thank you for your time and please help me to understand this proposal.

I don't think the 'foetus fudge' works. Maybe, instead of saying the proposal doesn't concern itself with when life begins, you specifically say that, for the purposes of WA legislation, the foetus will not be considered a person.

True, but in the circumstances the esteemed representative from Forensatha discusses, we're talking about the WA using their collective judgment. Since we believe individual WA members are rational actors, it stands to reason that the WA's collective judgment, too, will be rational.

Let us not forget how many rejections our proposal related to slavery got not because of rational judgements, but emotional ones. It is unfortunate, but we have evidence that even rational people will not necessarily act rationally. In addition, none of that addresses the inherent flaws within this proposal.

In the end, we cannot see any way this proposal actually changes anything at current, any way it can be realistically enforced, or any way it actually can be said to do something. And the text of the law itself, due to its lack of definition of person and due to the very nature of how it is written, essentially supports any definition of "person" that an individual, small collection of individuals, nation, international group, religion, or anything else can come up with and internally agree upon. As such, this does not actually change any part of how things currently are and is, to us, a waste of this assembly's time to consider if it goes up for vote.

I don't think the 'foetus fudge' works. Maybe, instead of saying the proposal doesn't concern itself with when life begins, you specifically say that, for the purposes of WA legislation, the foetus will not be considered a person.



Were this the disposition of the resolution we could support it.

yours e.t.c. ,

I don't think the 'foetus fudge' works. Maybe, instead of saying the proposal doesn't concern itself with when life begins, you specifically say that, for the purposes of WA legislation, the foetus will not be considered a person.

I'd go with that, and I wish I'd thought of it earlier. You probably want to add words to the effect of this shall not be construed as preventing any future legislation concerning fetuses, just to keep both sides of the abortion argument pacified.

How would "behavior" be defined? There are people who believe that pedophiles and homosexuals should not be given certain rights due to various circumstances. Yes, they are human beings, but a man should not be given the right to marry a child or another man (or woman+woman/ woman+child), as wanted by NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association). Yes they should have the right to vote, right to assemble, right to join military, e.t.c., but a large group of individuls that behaves in a certain way that calls themselves a "people" should not be given the right to a marital union.

We expect "behavior" to have its commonly accepted definition: the way a being acts. We acknowledge the concern that the esteemed representative from Veritatas has about the behavior we have witnessed in some individuals. As truly vile as this behavior is, however, such individuals can still claim personhood.

Indeed, it is important that personhood be established in cases such as these, for with personhood comes moral responsibility for personal actions. This resolution does not establish special protections or entitlements for such persons. It does establish the principle that they, regardless of their behavior, are persons and thus personally responsible for their behavior. As persons, they are legitimately subject to the Law, whether national or decreed by this assembly. The fact that their behavior is different from other beings is no excuse.

Also what about mental and/or physical handicapped people? Are they considered people? They should be. Human life is sacred in every meaning of the word.

We agree with the esteemed representatives concerns here, which is why the phrase, "or a member of a people who assert the individual's possession of personhood on its behalf" is included in the resolution. Not all persons are able to assert their personhood, but we have a moral obligation to respect that personhood nonetheless. It is therefore necessary to have a mechanism where other persons can assert for them.


I don't think the 'foetus fudge' works. Maybe, instead of saying the proposal doesn't concern itself with when life begins, you specifically say that, for the purposes of WA legislation, the foetus will not be considered a person.

I'd go with that, and I wish I'd thought of it earlier. You probably want to add words to the effect of this shall not be construed as preventing any future legislation concerning fetuses, just to keep both sides of the abortion argument pacified.

We agree with the concerns raised by the representatives--it is not our intent for this resolution to cause a debate on topics like abortion or euthanasia. Such a debate is not germane to this resolution.

However, because the question of non-human personhood is germane, we need to keep our terms as general as meaningfully possible here. The question, "whether the fetus is a person" is not really applicable, for example, to a species that lays eggs or has metamorphic stages of development.

Since we cannot predict what sort of physical mechanisms other species may have, it would be inappropriate to discuss them in this resolution. If the esteemed representatives can come up with a wording that is independent of such physical mechanisms, we'd be glad to see how it could be worked into this proposal.

What about 'prepartum entities' instead of 'foetuses'?

The Peoples of Sasquatchewain cannot see the fuss regarding abortion in this proposal. Due to the lack of international legislation regarding abortion, a nation which desires to prohibit abortion can simply do so. There is no need to resort to the personhood loop-hole.

Though, indeed, should abortion legislation be passed in the future, a legal paradox could be created.

Huh...

The Peoples of Sasquatchewain cannot see the fuss regarding abortion in this proposal. Due to the lack of international legislation regarding abortion, a nation which desires to prohibit abortion can simply do so. There is no need to resort to the personhood loop-hole.

Though, indeed, should abortion legislation be passed in the future, a legal paradox could be created.

Huh...



And indeed Ambassador our concern ( and we make bold to say the concern of some others here) is more that citizens on a non-majority basis might be able to overturn national policy positions on abortion through the statutory implements of this resolution.

A far more invidious position we are sure the honoured Ambassador would agree?

yours e.t.c.,

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

After listening to the concerns raised by the members of this assembly, we have consulted with our sages on how to better word this resolution with these concerns in mind. They have recommended a few changes, which we present below, in this revised draft:

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: The Eternal Kawaii

The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING that the nations of the world are composed of diverse kinds of people;

ACKNOWLEDGING that people of one kind might not consider people of another kind as "persons" due to differences in their substance or behavior;

REALIZING that for a rational debate on personal rights to take place, a commonly accepted definition of "person" is needed;

DECLARES that there exists a universal and self-evident concept, referred to here as "personhood", that is independent of the substance or behavior of the being that possesses it;

DEFINES a "person" to be an individual being that reasonably asserts its possession of personhood, or is normally considered a member of a recognized people;

DEFINES a "people" as any group of individual beings that is distinct in substance or behavior from other groups and whose members normally meet the above definition of person;

REQUIRES the WA to maintain a record of all known peoples within its member nations;

REQUIRES every WA member nation to submit an accurate accounting of the peoples within it for this record;

REQUIRES the WA to accept any reasonable assertions of personhood from beings not recognized as persons by WA member states, and to add these beings to its record;

REQUIRES all WA member nations to recognize the members of every people in this record as persons, and to extend to them all personal rights, freedoms, privileges and entitlements guaranteed under international law.

As you can see, we've removed the formula, "a member of a people who assert the individual's possession of personhood on its behalf", and replaced it with the formula, "normally considered a member of a recognized people". In this way we avoid the concern that a small minority of people might force the recognition of personhood for invidividuals whom the great majority of people would agree are not, in fact, persons.

The passage referring to the question of the beginning and ending of personhood becomes implied in the term "normally" used in the previous passages, and thus has also been removed as redundant.

We must respectfully ask in what way this resolution could conceivably be anything other than "mild" in strength at best, with the possibility its strength would actually require the creation of the special category "essentially nonexistant." All this resolution essentially does is create a special department in the WA that keeps track of census records for the member nations. The part about extending rights to people is essentially a part of how the WA works, under the way it is designed, while the majority of the rest of the resolution simply exists to tell member nations that their people are, indeed, people. Very little of the proposal actually does anything other than create legal problems for people to argue about.

Secondly, we note that the resolution fails to address the concerns of the delegate from Urgench, specifically in that the WA is requiring all members to recognize as people what one nation recognizes as people, thus allowing one nation to attempt to ban abortion in all nations by recognizing fetuses as people.

Thirdly, this does not address the issue of what counts as reasonable for determining what people are. A "reasonable assertion" is so ill-defined that we can still argue that an assertion from a common parrot counts. It also does not address the issue that some creatures may be people, but unable to assert such in a way that most delegates would actually understand.

In short, we conclude that this latest draft of the proposal realistically does little in action, uses loose definitions that create legal loopholes, and does not address all except one of the concerns raised in this discussion of it. And, given the path of editting done, we do not see any particular reason why the WA should waste its time even considering this proposal for vote. Maybe in future drafts it will shape up to be different.

Diplomat Xen Felgras

I must thank the Nuncia of the Diaspora Church of the Eternal Kawaii and their philosophers, theologians and sages for this proposal on personhood.

I do not think the revised proposal is an improvement.

However I have listen to the concerns regarding abortion. I think the argument goes - a people as defined by the proposal asserts on behalf of fetuses that fetuses are persons. However I think it has to be the fetuses that assert they are people and if they can do that I think we will have to recognise them as persons. I am not even sure that a nation could assert that a fetuses is a person.

I really liked


DECLARES that the above definitions shall not be construed to define when personhood begins or ends;


and would like to see it restored.

The Republic of Macwick’s Ambassador to the WA

After some consideration, I decided to give this an edit to make it more palatable.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: The Eternal Kawaii

The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING that the nations of the world are composed of diverse kinds of people;

ACKNOWLEDGING that people of one kind might not consider people of another kind as "persons" due to differences in their substance or behavior;

REALIZING that for a rational debate on personal rights to take place, a commonly accepted definition of "person" is needed;

DECLARES that there exists a universal and self-evident concept, referred to here as "personhood", that is independent of the substance or behavior of the being that possesses it;

DEFINES a "person" as any individual with independent capacity for wisdom, judgment, the formation of rational, abstract or logical thoughts, and the ability to communicate these thoughts with others;

DEFINES a "people" as any group of individual beings that is distinct in substance or behavior from other groups and whose members normally meet the above definition of person;

REQUIRES the WA to maintain a record of all known peoples within its member nations;

REQUIRES every WA member nation to submit an accurate accounting of the peoples within it for this record;

REQUIRES the WA to accept any reasonable assertions of personhood from beings not recognized as persons by WA member states as long as the assertions come from individuals who meet the requirements of personhood, and to add these beings to its record;

REQUIRES all WA member nations to recognize the members of every people in this record as persons.

It removes part of the proposal that was redundant, due to how the WA is set up, and gives a far better definition for "person." And it should be noted that this cannot be used to apply to parrots to make them considered persons or to ban abortion.

Macwick;14050320']I must thank the Nuncia of the Diaspora Church of the Eternal Kawaii and their philosophers, theologians and sages for this proposal on personhood.

I do not think the revised proposal is an improvement.

However I have listen to the concerns regarding abortion. I think the argument goes - a people as defined by the proposal asserts on behalf of fetuses that fetuses are persons. However I think it has to be the fetuses that assert they are people and if they can do that I think we will have to recognise them as persons. I am not even sure that a nation could assert that a fetuses is a person.

The issue isn't just that. It's also the "member of a recognized people" part, which happens to include fetuses by definition.

As you can see, we've removed the formula, "a member of a people who assert the individual's possession of personhood on its behalf", and replaced it with the formula, "normally considered a member of a recognized people". In this way we avoid the concern that a small minority of people might force the recognition of personhood for invidividuals whom the great majority of people would agree are not, in fact, persons.
Unfortunately at the same time I think you reintroduce the possibility of the mentally incompetant being declared "non-people". You can get around that by defining "people" a little more tightly, I think, though you may also have to be more rigorous about what "normally" means.

The passage referring to the question of the beginning and ending of personhood becomes implied in the term "normally" used in the previous passages, and thus has also been removed as redundant.
Like Diplomat Felgras, I'm not entirely sure that's true.

We would hope that esteemed representative Coch would not consider mental incompetence a "normal" status for a person. However, we recognize that the wording here requires finesse, particularly when applied to "borderline" cases, such as the fetus, the mentally incompetent, or the dying. It is necessary to both protect the people's right not to have the State dictate the issue of "who is a person?", while also protecting the individual's right not to be forced to follow a given people's definition of personhood that that individual may not share.

We've passed the esteemed representative's suggestions along to our Council of Sages, who've recommended the following language:


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: The Eternal Kawaii

The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING that the nations of the world are composed of diverse kinds of people;

ACKNOWLEDGING that people of one kind might not consider people of another kind as "persons" due to differences in their substance or behavior;

REALIZING that for a rational debate on personal rights to take place, a commonly accepted definition of "person" is needed;

DECLARES that there exists a universal and self-evident concept, referred to here as "personhood", that is independent of the substance or behavior of the being that possesses it;

DEFINES a "person" to be an individual being that reasonably asserts its possession of personhood, or whose personhood is asserted for it by the members of its people;

DEFINES a "people" as any group of individual beings that possess substance and behaviors commonly shared between them that distingish them from other groups, and whose members normally meet the above definition of person;

DECLARES that no person may be required to accept inclusion within a people without said person's consent;

REQUIRES the WA to maintain a record of all known peoples within its member nations;

REQUIRES every WA member nation to submit an accurate accounting of the peoples within it for this record;

REQUIRES the WA to accept any reasonable assertions of personhood from beings not recognized as persons by WA member states, and to add these beings to its record;

REQUIRES all WA member nations to recognize the members of every people in this record as persons, and to extend to them all personal rights, freedoms, privileges and entitlements guaranteed under international law.


As you can see, we're returning to the original formulation allowing for assertion of personhood on behalf of another, but have tightened our definitions:

For an individual to have its personhood asserted by proxy, the asserting persons must be members of its people. Assertions by members of another people would not be acceptable.
The definition of "people" is restricted to include substance AND behavior.
Most imporantly, the right of an individual not to be included within a people without the individual's consent is included.

Honoured Ambassador how does this actually change the possible secondary outcomes of this bill in relation to claims of prenatal personhood?

yours sincerely,

Honoured Ambassador how does this actually change the possible secondary outcomes of this bill in relation to claims of prenatal personhood?

We're not sure what possible outcomes the respected Khan is concerned about. However, we can state now that by making membership in a people explicitly voluntary, we can guarantee that the only person who can legitimately claim personhood for a fetus is the one person whose membership in its people cannot be denied--the expectant mother.

This should answer concerns about "freedom of choice" issues, along with an additional positive effect: a woman claiming personhood for her unborn child will have that right respected by her nation's government. This may require some changes in national laws, but we don't foresee this as controversial. Many nations have similar laws on the books already.

RECOGNIZING that the nations of the world are composed of diverse kinds of people;

ACKNOWLEDGING that people of one kind might not consider people of another kind as "persons" due to differences in their substance or behavior;

Well, I like this part so far.

REALIZING that for a rational debate on personal rights to take place, a commonly accepted definition of "person" is needed;

DECLARES that there exists a universal and self-evident concept, referred to here as "personhood", that is independent of the substance or behavior of the being that possesses it;

DEFINES a "person" to be an individual being that reasonably asserts its possession of personhood, or whose personhood is asserted for it by the members of its people;

Um, this includes fetuses still. I believe Xen submitted a suggested change to this to deal with it when he was still the ambassador.

DEFINES a "people" as any group of individual beings that possess substance and behaviors commonly shared between them that distingish them from other groups, and whose members normally meet the above definition of person;

I like a lot!

DECLARES that no person may be required to accept inclusion within a people without said person's consent;

This contradicts the definition. Why does the definition allow for someone to be a person as asserted by others, yet this one require they have to accept it? And what stops a nation from saying a fetus is a person and accepts personhood by merely existing? That would, in a way, be giving consent. Also, what about those not menta... mint... capable of giving consent to anything?

REQUIRES the WA to maintain a record of all known peoples within its member nations;

REQUIRES every WA member nation to submit an accurate accounting of the peoples within it for this record;

REQUIRES the WA to accept any reasonable assertions of personhood from beings not recognized as persons by WA member states, and to add these beings to its record;

REQUIRES all WA member nations to recognize the members of every people in this record as persons, and to extend to them all personal rights, freedoms, privileges and entitlements guaranteed under international law.

This still allows abortion to be outlawed for all member nations by one group declaring fetuses to be people.

Temporary Diplomat Asuka Felna

So in order to retain her right to choose a woman would have to disavow her own "people" if those people maintained the personhood of the foetus or the opposite?

Would this not lead to some "peoples" defining certain among them as persons and others not and in this case some peoples feeling perfectly intitled to do what they wished with those others believed to be persons and therefore deserving of certain rights?

Indeed this could lead to individual groups of "peoples" within nations denying each others personhood while the international community was bound to accept any and all claims of personhood in line with the basic criteria of this resolution?


We have also been considering another minor concern for some time which is with this declaration- "DECLARES that there exists a universal and self-evident concept, referred to here as "personhood", that is independent of the substance or behavior of the being that possesses it;"

In essence our concern is that a "universal concept" of personhood may not exist at all and that one which is not related to observable facts is one which does not relate to a legal status of personhood unless that status is predicated on an abstract concept. And yet the legal status outlined in the resolution is based on observable facts such as an individual or a peoples declaration of another individual or peoples personhood.

we know this may seem a minor concern but which is to be the defining characteristic of personhood, the universal and abstract ( and pre-existent) personhood or the more mundane declaration of a self or group generated and recognised personhood?

some courts might make this distinction to the advantage or disadvantage of those before them in cases where personhood was in question.

Of course we accept the possibility that this resolution seeks to combine both of these concepts of personhood in one definition but it does not necessarily make this clear enough.

yours sincerely,

So in order to retain her right to choose a woman would have to disavow her own "people" if those people maintained the personhood of the foetus or the opposite?

Would this not lead to some "peoples" defining certain among them as persons and others not and in this case some peoples feeling perfectly intitled to do what they wished with those others believed to be persons and therefore deserving of certain rights?

Indeed this could lead to individual groups of "peoples" within nations denying each others personhood while the international community was bound to accept any and all claims of personhood in line with the basic criteria of this resolution?

We note that this situation the respected Khan describes is commonplace. We cannot legislate peoples' opinions. We can only legislate what limits the State may have to enforce them. It is the intent of this legislation to eliminate the State's power to declare who may or may not be a person.

We have also been considering another minor concern for some time which is with this declaration- "DECLARES that there exists a universal and self-evident concept, referred to here as "personhood", that is independent of the substance or behavior of the being that possesses it;"

In essence our concern is that a "universal concept" of personhood may not exist at all and that one which is not related to observable facts is one which does not relate to a legal status of personhood unless that status is predicated on an abstract concept. And yet the legal status outlined in the resolution is based on observable facts such as an individual or a peoples declaration of another individual or peoples personhood.

we know this may seem a minor concern but which is to be the defining characteristic of personhood, the universal and abstract ( and pre-existent) personhood or the more mundane declaration of a self or group generated and recognised personhood?

It is possible that "universal" is not the best term to describe what we mean here. Our intent is to establish that personhood exists as an established fact, as real as our own existences, even if our only way of understanding this fact is to accept that another's assertion of personhood is as valid as our own.

We note that this situation the respected Khan describes is commonplace. We cannot legislate peoples' opinions. We can only legislate what limits the State may have to enforce them. It is the intent of this legislation to eliminate the State's power to declare who may or may not be a person.



It is possible that "universal" is not the best term to describe what we mean here. Our intent is to establish that personhood exists as an established fact, as real as our own existences, even if our only way of understanding this fact is to accept that another's assertion of personhood is as valid as our own.



So in that case can we suggest that personhood be allowed the right of corporeal autonomy meaning the right to do with its physical person what it wishes without interference of state or others, based on adult or consenting ability to make such determinations ? This would at least balance the other possible side effects of this resolution.


Yours e.t.c. ,

But wouldn't a 'corporeal autonomy' article bring up the issue of euthanasia, a subject some might consider even more touchy than abortion?

But wouldn't a 'corporeal autonomy' article bring up the issue of euthanasia, a subject some might consider even more touchy than abortion?


Indeed that is possible respected Ambassador, but that is because this resolution has already opened the door to the debate on this issue by giving the right to groups of persons ( which are not national governments ) to declare the personhood of others. This personhood should therefore not be conditional on terms set by these groups but should be self determining and free from control by these groups. Or otherwise what is the point in having this personhood?

yours e.t.c. ,

Indeed that is possible respected Ambassador, but that is because this resolution has already opened the door to the debate on this issue by giving the right to groups of persons ( which are not national governments ) to declare the personhood of others. This personhood should therefore not be conditional on terms set by these groups but should be self determining and free from control by these groups. Or otherwise what is the point in having this personhood?

There is an old Kawaiian saying, "you pays your money and you takes your chances." Under this proposal, a being capable of asserting its personhood is not bound to be part of any people. This is the guarantee of "corporeal autonomy" the respected Khan mentioned earlier. However, should a person be concerned that their personhood will at some point no longer be respected by their people, they are free to choose acceptance in any people that will recognize them as a fellow person, even if they're no longer capable of making that assertion on their own.

It may sound like we're requiring individuals to obtain the consent of others to be seen as persons, and in a practical sense, that is correct. As social beings, we place our faith in each other: I see you as a person because I can see myself in you. By denying you, I deny myself. We make this judgment reasonably, because we wish our own personhood to be reasonably judged. It is this collective pact of mutual recognition that is the visible presence of the transcendental property of personhood. Since the WA is not in the business of legislating the transcendent, we can only legislate the visible as best we can.

We agree with the our fellow representatives that "borderline" issues such as abortion, euthanasia, and treatment of the mentally impaired are serious subjects, and grant that they may be considered worthy topics of future WA legislation. For the present, however, we first must guarantee the right of the individual to have their asserted personhood respected. There will be time enough to decide what we, as the collective will of these persons, consider to be (or not to be) the limits on that personhood.

We thank the respected representatives for their valuable input in this drafting process. You have pointed out serious concerns and helped us understand how the wording could be improved. We feel now that the proposal is ready for submission.

Very well, on the basis of the really rather persuasive argument "It is this collective pact of mutual recognition that is the visible presence of the transcendental property of personhood" the government of the emperor of Urgench is willing to support this measure in whatever way may seem most usefull.

yours sincerely ,

If this passes, we shall enjoy watching as parrots around the world gain the same rights as sentients.

DEFINES a "person" to be an individual being that reasonably asserts its possession of personhood, or is normally considered a member of a recognized people;


I doubt a parrot would pass this part, unless the parrots in your part of the planet do more that just..well parrot what they learn. "reasonably asserts" does not mean just says it, to reasonably assert requiers a more than that and I think you mean sapiens not sentients.

I doubt a parrot would pass this part, unless the parrots in your part of the planet do more that just..well parrot what they learn. "reasonably asserts" does not mean just says it, to reasonably assert requiers a more than that and I think you mean sapiens not sentients.

We've had some luck with teaching parrots basic toddler reasoning skills. Plus, we note the proposal does not say how the life-form is to assert such.

I would say more, but that would be revealing classified information and, as such, treason.

Diplomat Asuka Telna

If this passes, we shall enjoy watching as parrots around the world gain the same rights as sentients.

In all honest seriousness I can't think of a single reason why a parrot would want the same "rights as sentients." This is the most important part that people don't really appreciate. The "rights of sentients" typically don't mean anything unless you are sentient in the first place. In fact, with rights also come responsibilities.

We find that drawing a black|white distinction between 'persons' and 'non-persons' based on a "universal and self-evident concept" verges on legislating the existence of the soul. Our atheist citizenry are quite concerned about this.

We agree that there is a "universal and self-evident concept" of autonomous consciousness, but that comparative measurement of autonomous consciousness is a spectrum of values without a distinct divider between conscious and non-conscious.

In all honest seriousness I can't think of a single reason why a parrot would want the same "rights as sentients." This is the most important part that people don't really appreciate. The "rights of sentients" typically don't mean anything unless you are sentient in the first place. In fact, with rights also come responsibilities.

Um... excuse me if I seem confused, but was that supposed to be an argument against what I'm saying or an argument against this proposal?

Now, the question you shouldn't ask is why a parrot would want it. The question you should ask is why a human would want it. Unfortunately, further discussion of that point is, again, classified.

Diplomat Asuka Telna

We find that drawing a black|white distinction between 'persons' and 'non-persons' based on a "universal and self-evident concept" verges on legislating the existence of the soul. Our atheist citizenry are quite concerned about this.

We agree that there is a "universal and self-evident concept" of autonomous consciousness, but that comparative measurement of autonomous consciousness is a spectrum of values without a distinct divider between conscious and non-conscious.




The government of the Emperor of Urgench represents an overwhelmingly atheist and secularist population, which would be horrified at any attempt to legislate for the "soul". But we do accept that sapient beings are capable of conceiving of transcendent concepts such as person-hood. This concept is something which helps us see the sapience in others and allows us to comprehend the autonomous consciousness in others.

This resolution will be as applicable in a totally atheist state as one which is motivated by more supernatural concerns.

We would not support it if this was not the case.

yours sincerely,

OOC: Mods, could you please lock this thread? I've submitted the proposal, and since it's a bit different from the original draft, I'd like the discussion thread to start on it afresh.

OOC: You may have to ask on the moderation forum. However, are you sure they'll grant it? And all you'll do is get the same challenges raised on that one.