General Assembly : Bodily Sovereignty Guarantee (VOTE)

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Should the WA General Assembly Resolution: "Bodily Sovereignty" pass?

0% 0% 
[ 0 ]
100% 100% 
[ 2 ]
 
Total Votes : 2

General Assembly : Bodily Sovereignty Guarantee (VOTE)

Post  Cool Egg Sandwich on Tue Jan 25, 2011 4:47 pm

Currently being debated in the WA General Assembly is the resolution entitled, "Bodily Sovereignty Guarantee". It is a resolution dedicated to improving worldwide human and civil rights. A link to the resolution can be found HERE.

We, as a region, will debate this resolution within this forum. Attached is a poll question which will serve as your official vote on this resolution.

At the deadline (which will most likely be a few hours before the end of the Resolution's voting period in the World Assembly), the regional delegate will cast his/her vote according to the results of the aforementioned vote.

With that, I will cede the floor to your arguments for/against this resolution.

Cool Egg Sandwich
Admin

Posts: 506
Join date: 2011-01-25
Age: 26
Location: City of Champs

View user profile

Back to top Go down

debate

Post  Cool Egg Sandwich on Tue Jan 25, 2011 4:56 pm

Personally, I would vote Against this current resolution in the WA General Assembly. While I am generally in support of the principle of promoting bodily sovereignty, or a related principle, in WA member countries, I am alarmed at the "murkiness" of the current resolution at vote. Mainly, the resolution is lacking in its definition of a "mentally competent person". Furthermore, it would appear that according to Section 4, Article 1 of the resolution that WA member nations can restrict the bodily sovereignty of an individual given testimony from a medical professional denouncing their "mental competence".

I am worried that this resolution, if passed, could achieve a contrary goal than is actually intended. I believe that the murky language / definitions in the resolution, combined with the fact that the resolution is open for abuses, particularly in Section 4, I believe this resolution must be voted down.

Sincerely,
Cool Egg Sandwich (WA Delegate)

Cool Egg Sandwich
Admin

Posts: 506
Join date: 2011-01-25
Age: 26
Location: City of Champs

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: General Assembly : Bodily Sovereignty Guarantee (VOTE)

Post  Lolzy Threads on Wed Jan 26, 2011 4:17 pm

I was concerned with the lack of definition for a mentally competent person. There is still much subjectivity involved in "person who possesses a level of mental faculty..." Some people consider any kind of body manipulation (tattoos, piercings, carvings, etc) to be a gateway to addiction of such activities.

On a different angle who can account and measure for the the mental and/or emotional damage someone could potentially sustain based on actions of a loved of. For example my sister is a closet smoker yet everyone in the family knows she smokes. Although it concerns me greatly that my sister is damaging her lungs and potentially opening herself to harmful and even life threatening disease I feel that I can rationally separate my feelings as well as my mental and emotional well-being from her personal choices (she would love to quit and understands the risk she is putting herself at, but addictions are addictions right?). However, my grandmother shows greats signs of distress and emotional anxiety because of my sister's actions. How would something like this be "governed" under the Bodily Sovereignty Guarantee taking into consideration the following portion of the proposal:

ii. DECLARES that this right extends to:
a. acts that a mentally competent person does, voluntarily and without coercion, to or with himself or herself, so long as said acts do not result in non-consensual harm to others...


Non-consensual harm would need to take on a very clear definition. Using the example above my Grandmother (age 78) shows large signs of unhealthy anxiety anytime the subject crosses her mind or is brought to her attention.

Much love,

L.T.

------------------------
This has been a hasty post based on only having read through the proposal one time yesterday so my thoughts aren't as well put together as I had hoped. I like to be an open book so any holes in my logic and/or thoughts you would share to add or take away from what I have said are and will always be accepted for consideration.

Lolzy Threads

Posts: 3
Join date: 2011-01-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Concurrence

Post  Architektonikon on Wed Jan 26, 2011 8:17 pm

First off, I do not know how to actually vote. My vote, nevertheless, is no. The one objection to the above concerns posted is that this same vague and ambiguous language is used in contemporary American/Canadian legislature and constitutions. This, I agree, does not make it right or apt in the piece in question. Although, the writer's intention seems clear, i.e., he intended something as simple as the capacity or faculty of 'rational deliberation' (in Aristotle's words). In any case, I completely concur that this act was poorly written. In fact, I am surprised that it made it this far. I, accordingly, agree that it could be abused. Shoot it down like that black hawk I have been hearing about. (Someone please explain how to vote.)

PS. Sorry I have nothing too awful interesting to contribute, but I am a little busy this week.

Regards,
RB

Architektonikon

Posts: 58
Join date: 2011-01-26
Location: Canada

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: General Assembly : Bodily Sovereignty Guarantee (VOTE)

Post  Cool Egg Sandwich on Wed Jan 26, 2011 8:31 pm

There is a poll attached to this thread. It is possible that the poll has expired since I have them set to go off a couple hours before the actual voting period expires. I appreciate your input, both of you, and I think each of you bring up some interesting concerns. As you all know, I have already voiced my concerns about this resolution, particularly its potential for severe abuses on the part of national governments and/or other individuals.

While this resolution is clearly a step in the right direction, in terms of purpose, I would argue that in its current state the resolution would do more harm than good through its passing. I do, however, agree with "the Hoff" that the author of the bill has, for the most part, pretty clear intentions regarding the idea of mental competence. I feel that with a better understanding of the definition of "mental competence" as well as minor clarifications and re-drafts which prohibit severe abuses of bodily sovereignty, this resolution should have no problem passing in the General Assembly.

Thanks for your opinions, I look forward to discussing these resolutions with many of you on a regular basis.

P.S. As per L.T.'s request, there will be an upcoming forum(s) dedicated to General Chat / Current Events so there should be a place where we can discuss "lighter" news, have a little fun, and pretty much do whatever. I hope you all enjoy.

Cool Egg Sandwich
Admin

Posts: 506
Join date: 2011-01-25
Age: 26
Location: City of Champs

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum