[SHELVED]Repeal GA Resolution #16

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I actually gave a rational argument.

No you didn't. You said nations can make an incestuous pregnancy "a crime" (which is also a form of "eugenics," if you want to call it that), but that basing a repeal on the objection that such a pregnancy can even occur is "eugenics." I would call that self-contradiction. And pardon me for thinking that evoking a common Nazi-era philosophy to counter an argument against incest is demagogic to the extreme.

[Defwa]

OOC: Isn't that exactly the logic that opponents of the Sexual Privacy Act would also use? Supporting minority rights because minority rights are irrelevant is certainly a daring rhetorical gambit.

We can't disagree on that. To an extent. We do not believe a repeal is necessary because there is a minute chance that a tiny segment of any population could engage in incestuous relations, and an even slighter chance of reproduction resulting in offspring. Why should the sexual privacy rights of consenting individuals (including those in incestuous unions/relationships) be compromised because a infinitesimal segment of the population wants to engage in incestuous relation that may (or may not) produce genetically compromised offspring. It seems there's an equal or greater chance that non-related individuals could produce genetically compromised offspring. To us, there is no difference the cause of the disability. In the end, it's still the same disability.

A small population endangering anyone is reason enough. First cousins that reproduce double the risk of having a child with a major defect. Thats from 1 in 30 to 1 in 15. Sibling and parent/child incest are far more dangerous. [OOC: I could not find a specific study but observing Patrick Stübing and Susan Karolewski, three of their four children have severe mental and physical disabilities.] There is a clear and easily preventable problem here.
Now Defwa has always been a supporter of the idea that consenting adults may do anything with each other that does not directly harm another individual- from incest to euthanasia. But the idea of creating a life that will only suffer is unacceptable. We need some ability to handle this early instead of forcing a child to endure through torture costing millions on what can only end unhappily.

[Rapallo]

I actually gave a rational argument.

No you didn't. You said nations can make an incestuous pregnancy "a crime" (which is also a form of "eugenics," if you want to call it that), but that basing a repeal on the objection that such a pregnancy can even occur is "eugenics." I would call that self-contradiction. And pardon me for thinking that evoking a common Nazi-era philosophy to counter an argument against incest is demagogic to the extreme.

I wasn't even thinking of the nazi-era version. Eugenics is much more then just nazis, it has many different branches and varients and existed well before the creation of Prussia let alone Germany. I am not nor have I ever pulled a "nazi" card. I just extremely disagree with attempting to apply eugenics to relationships and sex that have a high chance of not even leading to offspring.

My argument is about how we should not attempt to impose eugenics to sex and relationships and was NOT about pregnancy. I was proposing a "fix" to the nations that are worried about a massive wave of geneticly mutated offspring.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Why should the sexual privacy rights of consenting individuals (including those in incestuous unions/relationships) be compromised

OOC: I'm fairly sure most of those willing to back a repeal would be willing to back a suitable replacement. It seems very unlikely given the WA's position on Reproductive Freedoms that it would not swiftly pass a resolution reinstating sexual freedom. They might even favour a resolution that permitted homosexual incest (which obviously carries no reproductive risk).

To us, there is no difference the cause of the disability. In the end, it's still the same disability.

But there is a difference. Stopping someone with a genetic defect from reproducing means restricting their freedom with everyone. Stopping related individuals from reproducing means only restricting their freedom to reproduce with each other: they could still have active sex lives, and have children, just with someone - anyone - they're not related to.

[Three Weasels]

But there is a difference. Stopping someone with a genetic defect from reproducing means restricting their freedom with everyone. Stopping related individuals from reproducing means only restricting their freedom to reproduce with each other: they could still have active sex lives, and have children, just with someone - anyone - they're not related to.

We understand what you're saying and don't disagree. However, it leads us to wonder about the stop-measures to prevent the concerns raised in the repeal. In fact, we wonder if this cause would not be better served with a sexual education mandate - a new proposal instead of a repeal n' replace combo. A sexual education mandate would cover two birds with one stone. It would cover the void left by the repeal of GAR#44 and serve as a platform to encourage/require education on "some of the various health problems from which people can suffer have a genetic basis" to "to reduce the incidence of such health problems" - to borrow wording from the repeal.

[The Flood]

"The Flood will support this repeal, on the grounds that every nation ought to have the right to legislate against sexual immorality, such as incest or casual sex.

Which I'm sure means Defwa will now vote against this repeal."

[Normlpeople]

"The Flood will support this repeal, on the grounds that every nation ought to have the right to legislate against sexual immorality, such as incest or casual sex.

Which I'm sure means Defwa will now vote against this repeal."

Clover smiled "We will as well, should it get to vote. We feel the threat of allowing governments to pass restrictive laws regarding sexual intercourse between two consenting parties in private is far greater than some flimsy argument regarding incestuous pregnancy. As such, we cannot support this repeal."

[Defwa]

"The Flood will support this repeal, on the grounds that every nation ought to have the right to legislate against sexual immorality, such as incest or casual sex.

Which I'm sure means Defwa will now vote against this repeal."

What makes you think I care enough about you to change my position...

Knowing full well the political alignment of the WA, if this manages to scrape by in vote, a superior replacement is only a few days away.

[Bears Armed Mission]

My thanks to the delegates who approved this proposal.
Considering the level of support that it received during that run, and comments in this thread, I have decided to shelve the idea... at least for now.