|
Post by commiczar on Jun 3, 2009 5:05:17 GMT 10
Greetings to All !! Does your MicroGovt have any laws on the books, with regards to the following topics; of which, many may be considered as taboo to talk about in certain circles of society. ( i.e. "know it's there, don't want to confront it, maybe it will just go away" ) - Same -sex marriage ?
- Abortion ?
- Euthansia ?
Regards to All !! _____________
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on Jun 3, 2009 7:21:47 GMT 10
Those are not, and should not be taboo subjects; they're fundamental human rights.
Article X of the current Provisional Constitution of Atlantium states:
"All Citizens have the right to freedom of choice in all respects that pertain to their physical person, including the right to pregnancy termination and the right to assisted suicide."
The Provisional Constitution makes no reference to marriage, however the new Constitution will.
Our position on the issue is that "marriage" is a religious institution, having no validity or special status under the secular laws of the state. Churches and religious institutions may thus "marry" - or decline to marry - whomsoever they choose.
However, the formalisation of a close personal relationship between two individuals for legal purposes (ie property ownership/inheritance and child bearing/adoption/rearing/support) DOES most certainly require validation by the state.
In Atlantium such a legal contract between two individuals will, under the new Constitution, be referred to as a "civil union" - and it will apply to two persons of any gender or sexual orientation.
|
|
|
Post by J on Jun 3, 2009 9:04:46 GMT 10
Agreed insofar as they are not taboo and in fact are fundamental human rights.
Naturally, selecting a position such as Atlantium's is also pragmatic. There is no way to enforce rules against Abortion or assisted Suicide other then revocation of citizenship.
I suppose in the former, if someone jumps off a bridge or is aided in doing so there is no real recourse against the person having taken their own life.
Personally, I dislike Abortion and so I won't ever plan on having one. Easy said because I'm male. Ditto, I'm not up on Suicide. As for Marriage, I believe it is a purely private affair.
If adults consent to call themselves Married. So be it. Whether it is a man and a woman or a man and a man. Or even a woman and two other men.
If I ruled over territory would Abortion be permitted. Honestly, no because I believe an unborn child is a human being and the primary duty of a state is to protect life not take it or support the taking of it.
What about when the life of the mother is endangered? I suppose one could say it's a matter of self-defense.
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on Jun 3, 2009 9:50:39 GMT 10
Naturally, selecting a position such as Atlantium's is also pragmatic. There is no way to enforce rules against Abortion or assisted Suicide other then revocation of citizenship. Actually, the current Administration has considered actively challenging current Australian law on the subject of assisted suicide by inviting those wishing to end their lives by their own free choice to do so at Aurora. Obviously this would have the outcome of drawing us into a very emotive, high-profile public debate, so for now the matter remains very much an open question. I believe an unborn child is a human being and the primary duty of a state is to protect life not take it or support the taking of it. I personally broadly adhere to the philosophical position outlined by Peter Singer: every human life is NOT of equal value, NOR of equal potential. The life of a 10 year-old is worth significantly more than that of an unborn child, and the life of Barrack Obama is worth significantly more than that of Paris Hilton. This is not to say that human life has no value, and that people should not be treated with fundamental dignity, respect and sensitivity, and afforded the means of realising their potential - but humanity simply cannot function or survive long-term unless there is some sort of acceptance of the fact that we are not all "equal" in every respect - nor will we ever be.
|
|
|
Post by J on Jun 4, 2009 12:14:42 GMT 10
I do not disagree with you on the subject of equality. I purposely didn't even introduce it into the mix. But how can we know what value an unborn child has unless he or she is permitted to actually be born?
Back to assisted suicide. Personally, I find it deplorable but if I am to subscribe to the philosophy that individuals own their own flesh and bones. Then who am I to tell them they can't dispose of their own bodies or lives?
This is why I can't support Abortion because since I do consider an unborn child a human being. While I recognize the right of a mother to her body, what about the child's right to his or her own body? Note, I am using the term "right" very loosely here.
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on Jun 4, 2009 13:01:04 GMT 10
how can we know what value an unborn child has unless he or she is permitted to actually be born? We can only make decisions based on current information. We should not, in my opinion, make judgements that affect the lives of people living in the world today based on what unborn potential people may (or may not) become at some unspecified time in the future. One might just as well argue for the criminalisation of male masturbation because it results in the "murder" of billions of potential people. I can't support Abortion since I do consider an unborn child a human being. [...] Whie I recognize the right of a mother to her body, what about the child's right to his or her own body? I do not consider an unborn child to be anything more than a potential human being - whereas the mother is an actual human being. A mother's rights therefore always outweigh those of an unborn child.
|
|
|
Post by J on Jun 5, 2009 3:15:48 GMT 10
One might just as well argue for the criminalisation of male masturbation because it results in the "murder" of billions of potential people. The argument is an old one. The counter is: no sperm and egg have united. It's pre-embryonic. I do not consider an unborn child to be anything more than a potential human being - whereas the mother is an actual human being. A mother's rights therefore always outweigh those of an unborn child.
A mother's rights do outweight those of an unborn child in cases where the unborn child threatens the existence of the mother. We can only make decisions based on current information. We should not, in my opinion, make judgements that affect the lives of people living in the world today based on what unborn potential people may (or may not) become at some unspecified time in the future. This is where I come to believe in redemption and second chances. Today's loser and deadbeat can potentially become tomorrow's success story. The reverse is also true.
|
|
|
Post by commiczar on Jun 5, 2009 3:27:03 GMT 10
As you said.....the argument is as old as.... ??....... And will most likely never be settled, at least not to everyone's complete satisfaction; which is due to the fact that one's own religious ( or personal ) convictions will always be at odds with another's views. The main thing is to support and defends one's own convictions, and in a lawful and respectful manner; for as long as one's views remain the same. ( i.e. don't wear blinders, be open to learning )
|
|
|
Post by Bokonton on Jun 5, 2009 3:31:56 GMT 10
Same -sex marriage: 'Marriage' with it's religious connotations, is not related to the State in any way in Bokonton.We too, believe that various religions may decline or assent to marry whomever they choose in whichever fashion. However,State/Legal unions are, again, a completely different kettle of fish. Pre-nuptials are drawn up between 2 (or more ) parties, and as long as they are deemed to be fair, the marriage may go ahead. That said, there is a limit for how old you must be to marry, at least 18, with or without your parental consent.
Abortion: Yes. Human live are definitely notequal, and although the baby is a human life, it is a potential life, the mother is already a full, human life. Abortion is not so different than choosing not to get pregnant rather than waste eggs, but the issue is closer because unborn babies 'have a face', and our instinct to nurture is triggered. A woman has the complete right to her own body, and by forcing her to have an unwanted child, she could die or it could destroy her, mentally of physically, or the same could happen to the child.
Euthanasia : No, but 'assisted suicide is'. What is the difference, you ask? In Switzerland ,"Euthanasia" is illegal, but "assisted suicide" is not. Allowing Euthanasia could lead to doctors taking unforgivable liberties with our lives. But each person must convince us they are of sound mind and have a consistent wish to die.
|
|
|
Post by Bokonton on Jun 5, 2009 3:32:46 GMT 10
Bokonton is still drawing up our constitution though, so this is not officially documented as yet.
|
|
|
Post by Bokonton on Jun 5, 2009 3:34:27 GMT 10
how can we know what value an unborn child has unless he or she is permitted to actually be born? We can only make decisions based on current information. We should not, in my opinion, make judgements that affect the lives of people living in the world today based on what unborn potential people may (or may not) become at some unspecified time in the future. One might just as well argue for the criminalisation of male masturbation because it results in the "murder" of billions of potential people. I can't support Abortion since I do consider an unborn child a human being. [...] Whie I recognize the right of a mother to her body, what about the child's right to his or her own body? I do not consider an unborn child to be anything more than a potential human being - whereas the mother is an actual human being. A mother's rights therefore always outweigh those of an unborn child. Bokonton completely agrees, and the ''mudrer of billions'' is exactly the point we were getting at.
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on Jun 5, 2009 7:32:57 GMT 10
Abortion is not so different than choosing not to get pregnant rather than waste eggs, but the issue is closer because unborn babies 'have a face', and our instinct to nurture is triggered. I think you've touched on the crux of the abortion controversy. People are instinctively hard-wired to nurture babies because they look like us. However, babies (unborn or otherwise) are not fully-formed people.
|
|
Chas Jago
Full Member
Prime Minister
Posts: 137
|
Post by Chas Jago on Jun 5, 2009 7:55:41 GMT 10
As far as I'm concerned Abortion, is not a right of the government to interfere, While I haven't looked into this in any detail, Abortion should be between the female, her Family and the doctor only.
Same sex marriage and Euthansia I have no opinion on at present.
|
|
|
Post by J on Jun 6, 2009 4:12:37 GMT 10
I say give the unborn baby the benefit of the doubt. I'm a firm believer in the presumption of innocence.
|
|
|
Post by C Carlüs Xheráltsëfiglheu on Jun 8, 2009 5:40:46 GMT 10
I would agrree with that... However I don't think the State should intervene in any case, it is against human rights (that isn't to say I support it, because I don't).
|
|
claudre
Administrator
Rei de Samba
Posts: 128
|
Post by claudre on Jun 9, 2009 13:45:41 GMT 10
Greetings to All !! Does your MicroGovt have any laws on the books, with regards to the following topics; of which, many may be considered as taboo to talk about in certain circles of society. ( i.e. "know it's there, don't want to confront it, maybe it will just go away" ) - Same -sex marriage ?
- Abortion ?
- Euthansia ?
Regards to All !! _____________ In Réunion to have such laws would be considered a tad too virtualistic. However, as we do have laws concerning what we call "micro-families" (micronational families, that is, there is a possibility for any noble couple to adopt other réunians as their sons or daughters), we could, in fact, have legislation concerning same-sex marriages. There are no "micronational abortions" so Réunion does not deal with that, and the same with Euthanasia. But currently I can say that same-sex marriages are not valid in Réunion, because the law says only "a couple" can adopt. Yours, Claudio de Castro
|
|
|
Post by J on Jun 10, 2009 2:51:57 GMT 10
The Emperor is right. When we're online it's difficult to deal with the subject of Abortion.
Calvin, what about the human rights of the unborn child? When should the State intervene to protect life?
|
|
|
Post by C Carlüs Xheráltsëfiglheu on Jun 11, 2009 2:10:39 GMT 10
The State should never intervene when ethics are in the question... Whilst I am a firm believer of pro-life, I am also a liberal. Everyone has a right to decide, but then abortion itself is the infringement of the unborn child's rights... Whether or not s/he is entitled to those rights are of course, another matter to discuss.
|
|
|
Post by J on Jun 11, 2009 12:25:01 GMT 10
Look I do not deny a mother's rights. But I do not believe just because you're a mother you have the right to kill or murder. Just because you are a conduit for reproduction doesn't mean you get endowed with the right of termination.
Shouldn't mothers be able to smother their 3 month old baby with a pillow? How about a 9 month old? A one year old. An eight year old. A seven year old doesn't really have much of a track record. He/She might not really be paying much if any thing in taxes.
Granted, a seven year old is a lot further along than a 7 week old or an unborn child. It's all about drawing a line. My concern is for the innocent, is for those unable to defend themselves and for whom no choice is even given, it's all about the mother. Not the father, not the unborn child or any other party.
|
|
|
Post by Rex TorHavn on Jun 14, 2009 5:45:35 GMT 10
[... on behalf of the Lykoshan people]
This is not the opinion of TorHavn, but since I realize that this subject was broached for the purposes of debate and education, then I thought the laws of Lykosha might be interesting to relate:
Lykosha’s laws are written to mimic the behavior of the wolf pack. The leader of the pack literally has the authority of life and death for his packmates. At the stage of development where there are enough people to span a large geographical area, where there are subgroups of Lykosha, which they will call clans, the Pack will be divided into these clans, and each “subpack” will have an “alpha leader,” who will, see to the care and benefit of the clanmembers under his or her jurisdiction.
Always, for every decision and/or judgement, a challenge may always be issued, if the packmember desires to; in the absence of any such challenge, it will be presumed that the packmember agrees with the decision of a) the clanleader, or b) the Jarl/Packleader of Lykosha Note: the Guardian of the Law does not issue decisions per se; he or she only makes certain that no one, not even the Packleader, violates or dishonors the already written laws of the Pack (it is hoped that, one day, such Guardianship will no longer be necessary).
In essence, any Lykoshan may do whatever s/he wishes, so long as it does not violate or offend the already written laws of the Pack. In addition, any packmember may obtain a ruling on any subject or law from the Packleader or Guardian of the Law, by approaching hir in any public arena or forum. There will [almost] always be present a scribe or Recorder attending the public presence of any clanleader, Packleader, or Guardian of the Law, to officially record such judgements, so that, hereafter, such Judgement may apply forthwith.
Essentially,a clanleader has the authority to make decisions for the clan, for the purposes of caring for the clan and its members. The clanleader has the following authorities over the members of her clan: right of choice regarding marriage, children, redress of wrongs done, and life & death, but may only act for the good of the Pack. When arguing with the decision of the clanleader, a clanmember may appeal openly to the following representatives: the clanleader's spouse, the clanleader's heir, the Pack Leader, and the Guardian of the Law. All members of Lykosha have the indisputable right to life in direct proportion to the danger that person presents to the continued survival & benefit of the clan and country. When possible, instead of death, a clanleader or Pack Leader may choose exile and/or banishment, instead: a sort of death, for the worst fate a Lykoshan can receive is to be cast out as a lone wolf from Lykosha.
Right of Marriage: The clan leader may decide, at need, which of her members may marry. All prospective parents must be married or partnered legally, according to the laws of Lykosha. If there is no need for the Clanleader to make such a decision, then the clanmember may make hir own decision, subject to the approval of the Clanleader. If the Clanleader does not step in, then the decision is deemed approved (by default, like most laws of Lykosha).
Prospective parents must be licensed to do so, and must pass a physical examination and psychological test to determine physical and mental fitness, so that children may not suffer at the hands of their own parents. Such fitness shall only apply to medical & psychological testing, and may not include opinions, fiction or conjecture, not even on the part of theClanleader hirself.
Those who would like to marry, but who are not fit to bear children may do so, providing they agree, in sworn affidavits, to take birth control of some sort which is reliable. Unlicensed children will be removed from the offending couple, and given to another properly licensed couple. Unmarried couples, may live together, but may not bear children unless they agree to marry. discretion and decorum shall prevail in the public affairs of the clan. Same-gender marriage partners may adopt, so long as they are officially adjudged fit to do so, and in this case, shall be the official caregivers for the child(ren), sworn to in the presence of the a) clanleader, b) the Packleader, or c) Guardian of the Law. In all cases, for the good of the clan, the clan remains the primary caregiver for each nonadult child, until such time as the child attains their majority, and swears fealty to the clan in their own name.
In times of need, and especially in a case of rape or other such abuse, the registered couple involved may appeal to the clanleader for the permission to induce an abortion on the mother. The clanleader will weigh the situation fairly, and may grant the couple permission to do so, especially if or when the fetus endangers the life of the mother. The mother, as an established clanmember, has the right to defend herself at the cost of another, no matter the age of that other.
If abortion is not granted, the couple has the option of leaving Lykosha, or may elect to have that child adopted, at which point, they lose all rights to the care and upbringing of that child, and that child will then belong to the couple adopting her. If the couple leaves, and the child desires to return to Lykosha, they may do so, in the fashion of the "law of return" prevalent in other nations.
For the purposes of euthanasia, and for abortion, the law shall read thusly:
No one person has the right to live if at the expense of the entire country, or her entire clan, not even the clanleader. The needs of the clan outweigh the needs of a single individual. The needs of established clanmembers outweigh the needs of newly incoming clanmembers. Also: any individual may challenge another if they have been harmed, offended, or dishonoured by another, no matter their age or ability, in a fair fight if possible.
If such is not possible, then the individual so challenged must agree to the judgement of the clanleader, the Pack Leader, or the Guardian of the Law, but only in accordance with the established laws of Lykosha, and only for the good of the Whole.
Abortion requested only for the purpose of [the couple] ridding themselves of a hastily wrought “mistake” (on the part of a legally married couple) may or may not be granted, on the decision of the clanleader, but – in either case – will most likely result in penalties being visited on the couple making the request; abortion requested for the purpose of the health & safety of the mother shall not.
In terms of a fatally ill clanmember, in honour and as painlessly as possible, the clanleader may elect to end the clanmember's life, but only if that person is unable to function independently, without outside assistance or intervention (the determination of such to be adjudged by an independent medical professional). The clanleader, or Pack Leader, or Guardian, may choose compassionate banishment to another competent caregiver outside Lykosha instead of euthanasia, providing this may be done without unreasonable delay.
Finally, please note that the average Lykoshan citizen is adjudged to be intelligent, sensitive to the needs of the group, and without deception, lies or dishonour in most cases.
|
|
|
Post by wrkgov on Jun 14, 2009 7:12:16 GMT 10
'Marriage' is a religious institution, and the thing is that the state has no say in whether or not religion allows same sex couples to marry. Its merely a fluke that almost no religions will, and depends entirely on the religious scripture and what that says about it. Whilst that state can, and should, give same sex couples the right to attain the same sort of rights as heterosexual couples the fact remains simple that civil union =/= marriage, even though it may be called as such.
My opinion on abortion is that it is a bloody silly thing to go and do, but at the end of the day I still dont agree on the whole 'potential argument'. I think George's description is quite apt to sum up my opinion on that one. My opinion is more one of 'its your own bloody fault'. If you dont want to go and get pregnant, then bloody dont. There are plenty of ways of stopping pregnancy, if you chose to use them. If you dont, then its tough. You've made your bed, now lie in it.
Finally, you have to seperate assisted suicide from euthanasia. Ending the life of a woman crippled by a terminal illness is not the same as somebody killing themselves because they are depressed. If somebody is having a poor quality of life because of an illness, they have the right to die should they wish to. But that doesnt mean we should allow people who have nothing wrong with them to be euthanised. I know that legally this would open up a can of worms in itself, but I believe firmly that euthanasia should be legal if the person has a serious terminal illness which impinges on their ability to live their lives fully. But even then there should be regulations on who has to give their consent first. Its a sticky issue, and I dont think its one that can be solved easily.
But this raises one simple question for me. Why would a micronation need to legislate on these sorts of issues in the first place, if it legislates to begin with?
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on Jun 14, 2009 7:21:50 GMT 10
Why would a micronation need to legislate on these sorts of issues in the first place, if it legislates to begin with? That depends on the purpose of the micronation. From the perspective of Atlantium, we think it essential to stake out policy positions on matters of importance to people around the world because we are essentially a hybrid global sovereignty / political advocacy / humanitarian advocacy group, and attempting to influence public opinion on a range of issues that could feasibly be implemented by a future world government is the purpose of our existence.
|
|
|
Post by Bokonton on Jun 14, 2009 23:36:41 GMT 10
You must have these laws, or 'principals' in place and set out clearly from the start if possible. For example, if one of these micronations *did* become 'macro', with all the trappings of a 2nd,3rd or 1st World Nation, then the fact that they have these laws in place saves them a lot of legal bother.
The 'a stitch in time saves nine' phrase isn't just good for seamstresses, folks.
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on Jun 15, 2009 0:08:58 GMT 10
I agree with you on that score.
I also think that - depending on how complex a micronation is intended to be (irrespective of its actual purpose) - outlining policy and setting out legislative programmes is a good way to get people interested, involved and active in an organisation.
The Kingdom of Strathclyde is one excellent example; they've produced a seemingly-neverending stream of legislation in recent years - much of it incredibly detailed, and beautifully articulated - on a whole range of topics.
In so doing they've established the progressive character and foundation principles of their micronation in a way that many other micronations would do well to emulate.
|
|
|
Post by J on Jun 15, 2009 0:51:03 GMT 10
The Kingdom of Strathclyde is one excellent example; they've produced a seemingly-neverending stream of legislation in recent years - much of it incredibly detailed, and beautifully articulated - on a whole range of topics. Agreed. What ever became of Strathclyde?
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on Jun 15, 2009 8:58:45 GMT 10
Nothing... they're still quite active, from what I saw when I last visited their website back in March.
Look on the list for the link...
|
|
|
Post by C Carlüs Xheráltsëfiglheu on Jun 16, 2009 5:31:09 GMT 10
Look I do not deny a mother's rights. But I do not believe just because you're a mother you have the right to kill or murder. Just because you are a conduit for reproduction doesn't mean you get endowed with the right of termination. Shouldn't mothers be able to smother their 3 month old baby with a pillow? How about a 9 month old? A one year old. An eight year old. A seven year old doesn't really have much of a track record. He/She might not really be paying much if any thing in taxes. Granted, a seven year old is a lot further along than a 7 week old or an unborn child. It's all about drawing a line. My concern is for the innocent, is for those unable to defend themselves and for whom no choice is even given, it's all about the mother. Not the father, not the unborn child or any other party. Don't worry, I personally am pro-life, but it was very nice discussing the topic with you.
|
|
|
Post by indigo on Jun 16, 2009 13:58:50 GMT 10
The life of a 10 year-old is worth significantly more than that of an unborn child... Not necessarily, all things being equal. When the 10-year-old retires, guess who will be paying for his pension? ;D ...and the life of Barrack Obama is worth significantly more than that of Paris Hilton. That too is debatable. Guess who pays for Obama's salary, at least in part? I also prefer Paris Hilton, even though she's probably a dumb bimbo, because at least she isn't part of the political process bankrupting Americans, so at least she's not part of the problem (although not necessarily part of the solution either, I'll admit).
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on Jun 16, 2009 14:23:15 GMT 10
Guess who pays for Obama's salary, at least in part? I also prefer Paris Hilton, even though she's probably a dumb bimbo, because at least she isn't part of the political process bankrupting Americans, so at least she's not part of the problem (although not necessarily part of the solution either, I'll admit). I don't think Paris Hilton is as dumb as she appears - but I'd still rather have Obama running the US. After 8 years of idiot-ocracy under President Shrub, it's nice to see TV news soundbites from someone who can actually speak English. As far as bankrupting America is concerned, Wall St and the auto industry seem to be making a good job of that.
|
|
|
Post by indigo on Jun 16, 2009 14:42:57 GMT 10
Greetings to All !! Does your MicroGovt have any laws on the books, with regards to the following topics... [/li][li] Same-sex marriage ? [/li][li] Abortion ? [/li][li] Euthansia (sic)? [/quote] In Independent Long Island and the United Micronations Multi-Oceanic Archipelago we have no law in place except Cesidian law. I like to think we are not a nation of laws, but a nation of law-abiding people, because a nation of laws is ultimately a nation that creates two categories of people: those that make (and break) the law, and those that have no choice but to follow it. Under Cesidian law there is only one category of people. More about that below. One of the Cesidian 14 Commandments states, "You shall love your God with all your heart, and all your mind." I don't think this means you shall marry your God even if he/she is of your same sex. Love and marriage aren't necessarily the same thing, but we shouldn't be denied love (and/or respect, appreciation, etc.). Another of the 14 Commandments states, "You shall not deprive a Family of Gods of their right to life." This means that it is FAMILIES, not singular husbands, not singular wives, not singular parents, who are supposed to make these decisions. Under Cesidian law a FAMILY has jurisdiction over these matters, not individuals or governments. Individuals and governments have jurisdiction over other things. This makes sense with the issue of abortion, because it takes more than one to tango, and also more than one to have babies. I would also like to add that I most certainly had nothing to do with the bringing into this world of my nephew and nieces, yet I still have responsibility for them, because they have an irresponsible mother, so " FAMILY" is not necessarily just husband and wife either. This also makes sense with the issue of euthanasia. By the way, in case you don't know what a 'God' is to a Cesidian, I will tell you. We call men and women 14 years or older who have acquired rights or privileges under Cesidian law 'Gods', and we use this term because they are neither citizens nor subjects before our eyes. So I am indeed a God, not the God(s) that made Man.
|
|