[DRAFT] Repeal Reproductive Education Act

[SP Rebellion]

Hello. As it appears the resolution up for vote will pass in a few hours, I wanted to draft a proposal for a repeal. Please not that this will not be an insta-repeal, but I will draft it over a month or so atleast before submitting it. If someone more qualified then me does an insta-repeal or just drafts one, I will withdraw my intentions.

Anyways, here we go.

The World Assembly,

APPLAUDING the World Assembly's efforts to give students reproductive education,

REAFFIRMING that this education is nonetheless important for the well-being of students across member nations,

HOWEVER CONCERNED that this resolution, in it's current state has many flaws,

NOTING that this resolution prohibits exemption from the course under all circumstances,

CONCERNED that this education might contravene the religious beliefs of a person, being considered sacrilegious,

UNDERSTANDING that this World Assembly guarantees freedom of religion to citizens,

THEREFORE CONCERNED that this resolution may force religious students into breaching their religious beliefs/followings,

ALSO NOTING that parents/guardians are just as qualified to teach about the matter as a teacher,

NONETHELESS REAFFIRMING a parent/guardian's right to a say in their child(ren)'s education,

THEREFORE OUTRAGED that even a minor say, such as this is taken away from parents/guardians,

FURTHER NOTING that many religious schools, who qualify as a "general education service" as listed under Clause 1, will be forced to teach these potentially sacrilegious materials to students, therefore undermine the entire purpose of such schools,

HOPING that a new resolution, with these issues in mind will be drafted soon,

HEREBY REPEALS Resolution #369, "Reproductive Education Act"

[Separatist Peoples]

"Parent's shouldn't have the right to deprive their children of education, be it for religious or moral reasons. Moreover, teachers are better qualified to educate children than parents. Teachers have to undergo collegiate training to be teachers. The only qualification to be a parent is a working set of genitals. The argumentation selected is terrible."

[Imperium Anglorum]

The winning argumentation, I believe, would be a cultural preservation argument.

[Separatist Peoples]

The winning argumentation, I believe, would be a cultural preservation argument.

"Cultural preservation from what? Extinction though contraceptives? The best argument against this is that it's no business of the World Assembly what students learn in class, but that cat got out of the bag years ago."

[SP Rebellion]

"Parent's shouldn't have the right to deprive their children of education, be it for religious or moral reasons. Moreover, teachers are better qualified to educate children than parents. Teachers have to undergo collegiate training to be teachers. The only qualification to be a parent is a working set of genitals. The argumentation selected is terrible."

"Would you care to elaborate on why you think that way? I do agree with you that education should not be deprived on religious grounds, however many religious parents simply educate their children about this matter. You do have to acknowledge this is a sensitive topic, ambassador, and sensitive topics are best discussed with someone you have practically spent your whole life with, someone who was raised you, versus someone you have probably known for less then a year, and quite potentially feel uncomfortable around."

The winning argumentation, I believe, would be a cultural preservation argument.

"This is true, I do agree with you, however in a nation with over 90% identifying with a religion, this is a major concern in a nation such as mine, and others with religion in it. Therefore I think a 'moral grounds' argument is acceptable. I, and likely countless more would support the current resolution if it had a clause that allowed students to be exempted from the course."

The winning argumentation, I believe, would be a cultural preservation argument.

"Cultural preservation from what? Extinction though contraceptives? The best argument against this is that it's no business of the World Assembly what students learn in class, but that cat got out of the bag years ago."

"I would have to direct you to what I just said, ambassador, about the plea of religious citizens in WA nations."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Parent's shouldn't have the right to deprive their children of education, be it for religious or moral reasons. Moreover, teachers are better qualified to educate children than parents. Teachers have to undergo collegiate training to be teachers. The only qualification to be a parent is a working set of genitals. The argumentation selected is terrible."

"Would you care to elaborate on why you think that way? I do agree with you that education should not be deprived on religious grounds, however many religious parents simply educate their children about this matter. You do have to acknowledge this is a sensitive topic, ambassador, and sensitive topics are best discussed with someone you have practically spent your whole life with, someone who was raised you, versus someone you have probably known for less then a year, and quite potentially feel uncomfortable around."

"Knowing your target audience is not nearly as important as knowing subject material. I could know somebody for fifty years, but if I don't have a solid grasp on calculus, I should not be teaching them high-level physics. That it is sensitive is irrelevant. I'm sure nations teaching about ethnic cleansing in their history also have sensitivity around the topic, but that does not alter the need for concrete, objective education on the subject. In fact, a history of ethnic cleansing authorities is more sensitive, as the details of sexual intercourse and biological reproduction are objective facts."

"This is true, I do agree with you, however in a nation with over 90% identifying with a religion, this is a major concern in a nation such as mine, and others with religion in it. Therefore I think a 'moral grounds' argument is acceptable. I, and likely countless more would support the current resolution if it had a clause that allowed students to be exempted from the course."

"Why should religion interfere with the education of any child? One can have moral opinions separate from objective fact. It makes no sense to stop teaching mathematics to students for fear of offending their religious whackadoodle parents that believe their god especially eschews the number three, why should sexual education be any different?"

[Wallenburg]

Ogenbond pulls forth a transcript from a previous discussion.

"Oh dear. I was just informed if this passes, I will be out of a job until this can be repealed, as this violates SPian culture and religious beliefs, as SP will be resigning from the World Assembly....damn it." the SPian ambassador says with a look of annoyance in his eyes, knowing that it will take him a while to find a job that pays the same as his current.

"Exactly what happened to this, Ambassador? Were you not telling me the truth?"

[The Candy Of Bottles]

"Guaranteed vote against this repeal, no matter the form. We will not be opening any doors for religious oppression."

[SP Rebellion]

"Knowing your target audience is not nearly as important as knowing subject material. I could know somebody for fifty years, but if I don't have a solid grasp on calculus, I should not be teaching them high-level physics. That it is sensitive is irrelevant. I'm sure nations teaching about ethnic cleansing in their history also have sensitivity around the topic, but that does not alter the need for concrete, objective education on the subject. In fact, a history of ethnic cleansing authorities is more sensitive, as the details of sexual intercourse and biological reproduction are objective facts."

"Again, it is a matter of being comfortable with the person who is teaching you the material. The material is sensitive, as it can be considered embarrassing by some, aswell as sacrilegious to religious students. And yes, teachers do have a diploma and such, but parents are well qualified to teach their offspring about this matter. Why? Because they went through the entire process to create the child, and I am pretty sure a parent is capable to instruct a child about how to stay away from underage sex, and the risks should they have a child as again, they went through the process, they know the time and money dedicated to having the child, and should be able to pass that to their offspring."

"Why should religion interfere with the education of any child? One can have moral opinions separate from objective fact. It makes no sense to stop teaching mathematics to students for fear of offending their religious whackadoodle parents that believe their god especially eschews the number three, why should sexual education be any different?"

"I totally disagree with you, and so does rights on religious freedoms. Basically, you can consider it as backwards as you want, but but religious people have a basic duty to their religion to be educated on matters as how their religion dictates. That's why many parents use a religious school system, where the child is educated as curriculum dictates, but not being taught sacrilegious materials as this might be considered."

Ogenbond pulls forth a transcript from a previous discussion.

"Oh dear. I was just informed if this passes, I will be out of a job until this can be repealed, as this violates SPian culture and religious beliefs, as SP will be resigning from the World Assembly....damn it." the SPian ambassador says with a look of annoyance in his eyes, knowing that it will take him a while to find a job that pays the same as his current.

"Exactly what happened to this, Ambassador? Were you not telling me the truth?"

"My crisis negotiations skills saved me from being laid off, as I was told if I can get this to pass all will be dandy."

"Guaranteed vote against this repeal, no matter the form. We will not be opening any doors for religious oppression."

"Your opinion, ambassador, but how does this qualify as 'religious oppression'? A re-write with this clause taken into account would permit those and their parents who wish to receive this education, to receive it, and religious to object to the course. I see nothing wrong with that."

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

If this is based on a religious argument, then the Greater Siriusian Domain has no choice but to oppose it. We do not believe that any system of belief should receive special treatment, beneficial or harmful.

[Cheongji]

I respect the choices of the religious; however, I do not find parents to be more reliable in teaching their children sexual education.
Would the teenagers all try to heed to their parents' wishes? Often times, teachings from a third party aremore effective towards conducting safe, sexual activities, in my opinion.

[SP Rebellion]

If this is based on a religious argument, then the Greater Siriusian Domain has no choice but to oppose it. We do not believe that any system of belief should receive special treatment, beneficial or harmful.

"It is not totally based on religion. Many parents, even non-religious, simply wish to educate the children on the matter themselves, as they want to make sure their points are clearly instilled in the child. That is also a concern for religious people, as their religion dictates that someone close to the child should educate about these matters, not in all essentiality a stranger. And how is allowing people, religious or not to be exempted from a certain part of the sexual curricula be classified as receiving special treatment? As far as I see, not at all, ambassador."

[Wallenburg]

If this is based on a religious argument, then the Greater Siriusian Domain has no choice but to oppose it. We do not believe that any system of belief should receive special treatment, beneficial or harmful.

"It is not totally based on religion. Many parents, even non-religious, simply wish to educate the children on the matter themselves, as they want to make sure their points are clearly instilled in the child. That is also a concern for religious people, as their religion dictates that someone close to the child should educate about these matters, not in all essentiality a stranger.

"Ambassador, my resolution in every way allows parents to educate their own children on reproduction. Do not pretend that it does not."

And how is allowing people, religious or not to be exempted from a certain part of the sexual curricula be classified as receiving special treatment? As far as I see, not at all, ambassador."

"It is special treatment because no other group receives it."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Again, it is a matter of being comfortable with the person who is teaching you the material. The material is sensitive, as it can be considered embarrassing by some, aswell as sacrilegious to religious students. And yes, teachers do have a diploma and such, but parents are well qualified to teach their offspring about this matter. Why? Because they went through the entire process to create the child, and I am pretty sure a parent is capable to instruct a child about how to stay away from underage sex, and the risks should they have a child as again, they went through the process, they know the time and money dedicated to having the child, and should be able to pass that to their offspring."

"I'm sorry, are you actually trying to tell me that, having completed the biological imperative that is reproduction, the lowest common denominator present in any species, an individual is still better qualified than an individual who has been educated specifically in the field of education? Do you realize how incredibly idiotic that sounds, ambassador? What, exactly, is it about changing diapers and warming formula that puts an individual on par with a trained professional? What part about enforcing bed time and making sure children clean up their toys makes an individual understand the biological processes inherent in sex? Having it doesn't make you an expert any more than having a sports car makes me a mechanic, ambassador, or owning a model rocket makes me a rocket scientist. Victims of assault and rape have sensitive topics to talk about, but we direct them to talk to professionals like therapists and psychiatrists, rather than talking it over with mommy and daddy. Sensitivity can be trained. Teaching plans can be accommodated for such issues.

"Sexual education is more than just teaching abstinence until a particular age, ambassador. The biological background is a part of teaching why certain actions are or are not taken, why certain actions are risky and others might not be, or why certain precautions don't actually work. That is why we explain how atoms work in chemistry class. Knowledge without perspective is just trivia. Dismissing sexual education as an opportunity to push the bullshit "abstinence-only" approach is intellectually dishonest, and you should feel bad for trying.

"I totally disagree with you, and so does rights on religious freedoms. Basically, you can consider it as backwards as you want, but but religious people have a basic duty to their religion to be educated on matters as how their religion dictates. That's why many parents use a religious school system, where the child is educated as curriculum dictates, but not being taught sacrilegious materials as this might be considered."

"Your religion is not an excuse to actively harm children. Deliberately withholding information valuable to their life and health is harming them. The freedom of religion is not some magical shield through which all responsibility is blocked. One can still maintain their freedom to believe and practice a religion while attending secular classes. The classes to not require them to change their beliefs, just be educated, in a secular way, as to how one's reproductive system objectively works, and highlighting ways to keep it healthy. What they do with that information is theirs to consider. Yet again, your intellectual dishonesty is appalling, ambassador. As a learned man in charge of representing your entire nation on the international level, I expect you do, in fact, understand the basic principals that underlie freedom of religion, and that you are choosing to deliberately misrepresent them, as opposed to honestly believing that tripe."

[SP Rebellion]

I respect the choices of the religious; however, I do not find parents to be more reliable in teaching their children sexual education.
Would the teenagers all try to heed to their parents' wishes? Often times, teachings from a third party aremore effective towards conducting safe, sexual activities, in my opinion.

"I know I say this a lot, but would you care to elaborate, ambassador? Yes, teenagers may be rebellious, but if a parent simply states your life is down the drain if you have a child, and explains how you will never gave any time with your friends, etc, and how you can die from an STD/STI, I am pretty sure that is a major deterrent. And amongst many religions, unmarried sex is heavily banned, therefore the religious essentially do not even need to know any of this, as it is a simple waste of time. That's why, in a re-write to which I am hopeful of, people who wish to not take it on any grounds they wish, do not, and those who want to, do, and society is happy."

"It is not totally based on religion. Many parents, even non-religious, simply wish to educate the children on the matter themselves, as they want to make sure their points are clearly instilled in the child. That is also a concern for religious people, as their religion dictates that someone close to the child should educate about these matters, not in all essentiality a stranger. And how is allowing people, religious or not to be exempted from a certain part of the sexual curricula be classified as receiving special treatment? As far as I see, not at all, ambassador."

"Ambassador, my resolution in every way allows parents to educate their own children on reproduction. Do not pretend that it does not."

"Excusez-moi? It may not prohibit children to be taught by parents, but even so afterwards this education will be mandatory in the curriculum, and again, returning to my arguments, many parents, religious or not do not wish to have their children talked to by a person who is not close to them on this matter, whether they are educated or not on it."

[Wallenburg]

"Ambassador, my resolution in every way allows parents to educate their own children on reproduction. Do not pretend that it does not."

"Excusez-moi? It may not prohibit children to be taught by parents, but even so afterwards this education will be mandatory in the curriculum,

"No, it wouldn't. You would do well to read the resolution you are trying to repeal."

and again, returning to my arguments, many parents, religious or not do not wish to have their children talked to by a person who is not close to them on this matter, whether they are educated or not on it."

"If they don't want someone else educating their children, they should try educating their children themselves."

[Separatist Peoples]

"I know I say this a lot, but would you care to elaborate, ambassador? Yes, teenagers may be rebellious, but if a parent simply states your life is down the drain if you have a child, and explains how you will never gave any time with your friends, etc, and how you can die from an STD/STI, I am pretty sure that is a major deterrent. And amongst many religions, unmarried sex is heavily banned, therefore the religious essentially do not even need to know any of this, as it is a simple waste of time. That's why, in a re-write to which I am hopeful of, people who wish to not take it on any grounds they wish, do not, and those who want to, do, and society is happy."

"Its also anecdotal and has no academic value whatsoever to just tell your kids that having children puts "your life down the drain". Even if one doesn't have sex outside of marriage, nor has it for any reason but to procreate, there is valuable information involved in reproductive education. Like understanding why a doctor proscribes a particular action when pregnant, or why a complication might matter, or even why there may be issues conceiving or bearing the child. The first time a pregnant woman sees a diagram of a developing fetus should not be when she, herself, is pregnant.

"If you honestly believe that a population should just blindly nod and do as the doctor says without any comprehension, on any level, as to why it is necessary, then you are missing the entire point of education."

[SP Rebellion]

"I'm sorry, are you actually trying to tell me that, having completed the biological imperative that is reproduction, the lowest common denominator present in any species, an individual is still better qualified than an individual who has been educated specifically in the field of education? Do you realize how incredibly idiotic that sounds, ambassador? What, exactly, is it about changing diapers and warming formula that puts an individual on par with a trained professional? What part about enforcing bed time and making sure children clean up their toys makes an individual understand the biological processes inherent in sex? Having it doesn't make you an expert any more than having a sports car makes me a mechanic, ambassador, or owning a model rocket makes me a rocket scientist. Victims of assault and rape have sensitive topics to talk about, but we direct them to talk to professionals like therapists and psychiatrists, rather than talking it over with mommy and daddy. Sensitivity can be trained. Teaching plans can be accommodated for such issues.

"Sexual education is more than just teaching abstinence until a particular age, ambassador. The biological background is a part of teaching why certain actions are or are not taken, why certain actions are risky and others might not be, or why certain precautions don't actually work. That is why we explain how atoms work in chemistry class. Knowledge without perspective is just trivia. Dismissing sexual education as an opportunity to push the bullshit "abstinence-only" approach is intellectually dishonest, and you should feel bad for trying.

"Jesus, calm down ambassador. My argument is that parents can teach students about the matter, and if they do not want to, or are unable, sign them up for this very course. An abstinence-only education is much better then just stating the risks, as then there is no chance of an underage pregnancy or STD in the individual. How you are against this, is beyond me. Anyways, if you are going to keep swearing and insulting me rather then my arguments, the door is to your left, monsieur.

"Your religion is not an excuse to actively harm children. Deliberately withholding information valuable to their life and health is harming them. The freedom of religion is not some magical shield through which all responsibility is blocked. One can still maintain their freedom to believe and practice a religion while attending secular classes. The classes to not require them to change their beliefs, just be educated, in a secular way, as to how one's reproductive system objectively works, and highlighting ways to keep it healthy. What they do with that information is theirs to consider. Yet again, your intellectual dishonesty is appalling, ambassador. As a learned man in charge of representing your entire nation on the international level, I expect you do, in fact, understand the basic principals that underlie freedom of religion, and that you are choosing to deliberately misrepresent them, as opposed to honestly believing that tripe."

"You fail to see the point that this repeal does not bar anyone from teaching about this matter, and a re-write would take into account plea of people who wish to object on moral grounds. It is not harming students by withholding information, at all. Furthermore, we have never had this education in our country since the dawn of history, but yet we have an astoundingly low teen pregnancy rate, and STD rates have fallen dramatically over the years."

[SP Rebellion]

"Excusez-moi? It may not prohibit children to be taught by parents, but even so afterwards this education will be mandatory in the curriculum,

"No, it wouldn't. You would do well to read the resolution you are trying to repeal."

and again, returning to my arguments, many parents, religious or not do not wish to have their children talked to by a person who is not close to them on this matter, whether they are educated or not on it."

"If they don't want someone else educating their children, they should try educating their children themselves."

"I fail to see anywhere in your resolution which allows children who are already educated from an outside source to be exempted from the course."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Jesus, calm down ambassador. My argument is that parents can teach students about the matter, and if they do not want to, or are unable, sign them up for this very course. An abstinence-only education is much better then just stating the risks, as then there is no chance of an underage pregnancy or STD in the individual. How you are against this, is beyond me. Anyways, if you are going to keep swearing and insulting me rather then my arguments, the door is to your left, monsieur.

"I am calm. Do not mistake my use of profanity for emotional agitation, ambassador. It is far closer to contempt. Parents can teach their children anything they'd like. That doesn't mean the students shouldn't receive education from qualified, competent individuals on the same subject in an area that can objectively test for comprehension and retention. Which is what school is. An abstinence only education is proven to have serious flaws. Stating the risk and explaining alternatives is worlds better, because the individual can fully understand why such actions can result in harm. That is why we explain what happens to drivers who ignore stop signs. If you just taught new drivers "DO NOT PASS THIS SIGN WITHOUT STOPPING", they wouldn't have any reason, but your supposed authority, not to test that theory. You can extrapolate why this is a bad idea.

"No. I won't be altering the way I damn well speak, and I won't be leaving. It is my job, as representative of my government, to poke holes in bad idea. This qualifies. Your displeasure in no way compares to my contractual obligation to do my job."

"You fail to see the point that this repeal does not bar anyone from teaching about this matter, and a re-write would take into account plea of people who wish to object on moral grounds. It is not harming students by withholding information, at all. Furthermore, we have never had this education in our country since the dawn of history, but yet we have an astoundingly low teen pregnancy rate, and STD rates have fallen dramatically over the years."

"Which makes you the exception, and not the rule. We do not make a habit of legislating on exceptions in the World Assembly. That is counterproductive.

"The presumption of baring such education in schools is the logical continuation of a repeal. You said yourself you did not have such a curriculum prior to this legislation. If it were repealed, you would not keep such a requirement in your education code. Case and point. Do not insult my intelligence by pretending that this repeal is anything but an attempt to return to your status quo of banning such education."

[Wallenburg]

"No, it wouldn't. You would do well to read the resolution you are trying to repeal."

"If they don't want someone else educating their children, they should try educating their children themselves."

"I fail to see anywhere in your resolution which allows children who are already educated from an outside source to be exempted from the course."

[*]Requires all general education services in member states to guarantee that all their students who are experiencing reproductive maturation, and have not yet received sufficient education, as detailed in clause 3, are educated through a reproductive education course on the nature of their species's reproduction;

"This is why I suggested that you actually read my resolution."

[SP Rebellion]

"I am calm. Do not mistake my use of profanity for emotional agitation, ambassador. It is far closer to contempt. Parents can teach their children anything they'd like. That doesn't mean the students shouldn't receive education from qualified, competent individuals on the same subject in an area that can objectively test for comprehension and retention. Which is what school is. An abstinence only education is proven to have serious flaws. Stating the risk and explaining alternatives is worlds better, because the individual can fully understand why such actions can result in harm. That is why we explain what happens to drivers who ignore stop signs. If you just taught new drivers "DO NOT PASS THIS SIGN WITHOUT STOPPING", they wouldn't have any reason, but your supposed authority, not to test that theory. You can extrapolate why this is a bad idea.

"No. I won't be altering the way I damn well speak, and I won't be leaving. It is my job, as representative of my government, to poke holes in bad idea. This qualifies. Your displeasure in no way compares to my contractual obligation to do my job."

"I must come back to my other arguments, as you still have failed to address them properly. So, you are saying that religious people should be forced into doing sacrilegious things, just because they disagree with one minor thing in the curricula, a thing which very damn well should have an exemption on it, if we are to live in a free society where everyone can practice their beliefs in a non-discriminatory environment And yes, this is discrimination. Now religious people are forced into confining to secular practices, because a bunch of atheists say they must. Yes, this is fine for religious practices or traditions that would normally break the law, and more major stuff such as Abortion and LGBT rights, but for a measly piece of curricula? No."

"Which makes you the exception, and not the rule. We do not make a habit of legislating on exceptions in the World Assembly. That is counterproductive.

"The presumption of baring such education in schools is the logical continuation of a repeal. You said yourself you did not have such a curriculum prior to this legislation. If it were repealed, you would not keep such a requirement in your education code. Case and point. Do not insult my intelligence by pretending that this repeal is anything but an attempt to return to your status quo of banning such education."

"Excuse me, but from what World Assembly are you from? In what world does wanting to repeal a resolution imply wanting to ban such education? This entire debate of this resolution and the last one that got passed has really opened my and the SPian government's eyes to this, and we are thinking of introducing this education, not mandatory, of course. I must refer you to the amendments rule of the World Assembly, where amendments to resolutions cannot be made, and the target resolution must be repealed. All I am implying is that a re-write of this resolution with this taken into account would suit religious people, and not much else would change, really."

"I fail to see anywhere in your resolution which allows children who are already educated from an outside source to be exempted from the course."

[*]Requires all general education services in member states to guarantee that all their students who are experiencing reproductive maturation, and have not yet received sufficient education, as detailed in clause 3, are educated through a reproductive education course on the nature of their species's reproduction;

"This is why I suggested that you actually read my resolution."

"But how would that be enforceable, ambassador? If you ask me, that is almost impossible to prove if someone has or has not received such an education, and will lead to an endless well of loopholes. That on it's own should have been revised before you submitted."

[Wallenburg]

"This is why I suggested that you actually read my resolution."

"But how would that be enforceable, ambassador? If you ask me, that is almost impossible to prove if someone has or has not received such an education, and will lead to an endless well of loopholes. That on it's own should have been revised before you submitted."

"Test them. There goes your 'endless well of loopholes'."

[SP Rebellion]

"But how would that be enforceable, ambassador? If you ask me, that is almost impossible to prove if someone has or has not received such an education, and will lead to an endless well of loopholes. That on it's own should have been revised before you submitted."

"Test them. There goes your 'endless well of loopholes'."

"But it says nothing like that in the resolution, therefore not being written into international law. Therefore, many loopholes and opportunities for lying to get out of the course are still open, and you failed to address them. Hell, our government might aswell even publish a list on how to get out of the course for our citizens to use."

[Sciongrad]

"Test them. There goes your 'endless well of loopholes'."

"But it says nothing like that in the resolution, therefore not being written into international law. Therefore, many loopholes and opportunities for lying to get out of the course are still open, and you failed to address them. Hell, our government might aswell even publish a list on how to get out of the course for our citizens to use."

"You would be in violation of GAR#2, which requires that member nations interpret and execute resolutions in good faith. Nice try, though."