[DRAFT] Repeal Reproductive Education Act

[Wallenburg]

"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.

"Member states must comply with and enforce the mandates of all World Assembly resolutions. Trying to avoid compliance by not enforcing resolutions violates the oath your nation has sworn by accepting membership."

Therefore, many loopholes and opportunities for lying to get out of the course are still open, and you failed to address them.

"No, there are not. Test your citizens, or find some other way to enforce the resolution. Otherwise, you are noncompliant."

Hell, our government might aswell even publish a list on how to get out of the course for our citizens to use."

"If that list follows the lines of:
'1. Learn everything my resolution requires.
2. Prove I have done so.'
Then that is fine and dandy. Otherwise, I don't see how you could pretend to comply with the law."

[SP Rebellion]

"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."

"How funny, I knew someone would bring up the GAR #2 argument, and I already came up with a loophole. We will simply have our biggest privately owned broadcaster maintain and publish the list, with hefty donations to the company in general for advertising to get people to read the article. And under SPian practices of free-speech, we cannot even touch the article or it will be considered government censorship. "

[Wallenburg]

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

"How funny, I knew someone would bring up the GAR #2 argument, and I already came up with a loophole. We will simply have our biggest privately owned broadcaster maintain and publish the list, with hefty donations to the company in general for advertising to get people to read the article. And under SPian practices of free-speech, we cannot even touch the article or it will be considered government censorship. "

"Your 'list', however, has nothing to do with the reality that you still must enforce all of the mandates of my resolution."

[Sciongrad]

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

"How funny, I knew someone would bring up the GAR #2 argument, and I already came up with a loophole. We will simply have our biggest privately owned broadcaster maintain and publish the list, with hefty donations to the company in general for advertising to get people to read the article. And under SPian practices of free-speech, we cannot even touch the article or it will be considered government censorship. "

"Evacuating responsibility for publishing the list to a third party does not extricate you from the responsibilities placed on you by GAR#2. By consciously allowing a third party to undermine your nation's compliance with a World Assembly resolution, you are not complying in good faith. Furthermore, GAR#2 states explicitly that 'Every WA Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, including this World Assembly, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.' In other words, GAR#2 legally requires you to change your laws so that your government is able to maintain good faith compliance. Your loophole still has your nation violating GAR#2."

[SP Rebellion]

"How funny, I knew someone would bring up the GAR #2 argument, and I already came up with a loophole. We will simply have our biggest privately owned broadcaster maintain and publish the list, with hefty donations to the company in general for advertising to get people to read the article. And under SPian practices of free-speech, we cannot even touch the article or it will be considered government censorship. "

"Your 'list', however, has nothing to do with the reality that you still must enforce all of the mandates of my resolution."

"But yet your resolution still fails to state as to how TO enforce that part of it. And by not executing a piece of invisible resolution does not put us out of compliance, as the very thing you wish for us to enforce does not exist as far as what you have submitted."

"How funny, I knew someone would bring up the GAR #2 argument, and I already came up with a loophole. We will simply have our biggest privately owned broadcaster maintain and publish the list, with hefty donations to the company in general for advertising to get people to read the article. And under SPian practices of free-speech, we cannot even touch the article or it will be considered government censorship. "

"Evacuating responsibility for publishing the list to a third party does not extricate you from the responsibilities placed on you by GAR#2. By consciously allowing a third party to undermine your nation's compliance with a World Assembly resolution, you are not complying in good faith. Furthermore, GAR#2 states explicitly that 'Every WA Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, including this World Assembly, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.' In other words, GAR#2 legally requires you to change your laws so that your government is able to maintain good faith compliance. Your loophole still has your nation violating GAR#2."

"Please do go over what I just said."

[Separatist Peoples]

"I must come back to my other arguments, as you still have failed to address them properly.

"That would have been relevant had you not tried to scold me on my fucking language first."

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

"Religious people are not forced to do anything sacreligious. They are not forced to renounce their faith. They are not forced to have premaritial sex. They are not forced to use contraceptives. They are required to learn the objective facts behind reproductive health. Stop conflating the two."

And yes, this is discrimination.

"How? In what manner is your religion being actively hindered? In what manner is being educated against any religion? Is it the fact that it is secular? If it is, how on earth do any of your citizens become experts in fields requiring objective, secular consideration? Mathematics are awfully difficult if one isn't allowed to learn anything secular, after all. Or is it merely on the topic of sex? What was it you said, 90% of your citizenry was highly religious in such a manner that the target resolution offends them? So, does that mean the remaining 10% of your people make up the entirety of medical personnel? Discrimination can't be decided based on that, or your nation would have an effective professional caste system. So what is it? What specifically prevents you from practicing your religion when you are required to learn the medical background behind your reproductive system that isn't present in one hundred other educational disciplines?"

Now religious people are forced into confining to secular practices, because a bunch of atheists say they must.

"Nobody is requiring religious individuals act upon the education they receive. They are required to sit through it in the first place. You may be educated on how to cook, but that doesn't mean you are required to do so at every meal."

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."

"This involves the education of a demographic of their health in a manner that you have already admitted has been denied in your own nation. Denying individuals education critical to their well-being is just as much an affront as discrimination against a demographic for an arbitrary reason. Enforced ignorance is a tool of oppression, and the World Assembly has a vested interest in ensuring individuals are not oppressed."

"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?

"You have admitted that your nation had no such reproductive education prior to this legislation."

Furthermore, we have never had this education in our country since the dawn of history,

"If you had no such law prior to this law, it stands to reason that, without the law, you would immediately revert to having no such education. You would not deliberately retain it. If you do not retain it, and return to the previous state, then, by repealing the target legislation, you are looking to remove such education. That is the logical progression. If you want, I can reduce it into IF/THEN formal logic, but, as a man of the law, I assume you are clever enough to understand my point without reverting to sophomoric methods, ambassador."

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'm well aware of the rules regarding this Assembly, ambassador. I've personally authored nine resolutions. That would be nine more than you. While that is no bearing whatsoever on your ability or mine, it is an excellent indicator that I don't need you to regurgitate General Assembly rules at me. Any religious exemption would gut such a resolution. As such, the inclusion of one such exemption would make that resolution automatically not worth the time of the Assembly to legislate on. If it does nothing, it is worthless. Ergo, I would preempt it entirely."

[Sciongrad]

"Please do go over what I just said."

"I am going to assume you simply don't know what good faith compliance means. Willful non-compliance, even if it is carried out by a third party, is not good faith compliance. If your government is not actively seeking to implement the provisions of the resolution according to the spirit of the resolution, you are not complying in good faith. The resolution may not require 'tests,' but it does require that your government make a good faith effort to implement the provisions laid out in the text of the resolution."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Oh, you can also argue it from the other side: that this isn't enough and that a more serious set of requirements ought be passed.

The WA could be concerned about how this legislation doesn't do enough and would easily be worked around by simply promoting abstinence only courses (naturally, our nation has already passed legislation that deals with these issues and has done so for quite some time. In fact, our health education courses are very effective. Adolescent pregnancy rates fell when they were passed a few decades ago and have remained low ever since). There is also the costs argument from clause 6.

You can also nitpick about how the second prefatory clause sets a bad precedent in that the World Assembly wants nations to be 'educating youth on safe and responsible means of ... reproduction' and how this would lead to a Malthusian catastrophe...

You can also always complain about how clauses like § 7, which do literally nothing, are horribly things in resolutions.

[SP Rebellion]

The SPian ambassador would have a look of calmness through out the debate, but not before the Separatist People's ambassador's most recent comment. His eyes would fill with rage, and the sheer amount of rage in him would boil over.

"That would have been relevant had you not tried to scold me on my fucking language first."

"That's it. Piss the fuck out from my office. I don't give a shit that you are representing your nation, I am not standing for your blatant disrespect.

You have thirty seconds to get the fuck out of my office before I....-" he would get cut off as a female aide would drag him towards another room, shutting the door behind him.

He would come out half an hour later, simply refusing to make eye-contact with the ambassador, and addressing others points.

"Please do go over what I just said."

"I am going to assume you simply don't know what good faith compliance means. Willful non-compliance, even if it is carried out by a third party, is not good faith compliance. If your government is not actively seeking to implement the provisions of the resolution according to the spirit of the resolution, you are not complying in good faith. The resolution may not require 'tests,' but it does require that your government make a good faith effort to implement the provisions laid out in the text of the resolution."

"We are making a good-faith to implement this. Allowing use of a loophole is not a compliance issue, it should have been taken care of in the first draft."

He would then simply write on a piece of paper, before chucking it at the Separatist People's ambassador.

"Religious people are not forced to do anything sacreligious. They are not forced to renounce their faith. They are not forced to have premaritial sex. They are not forced to use contraceptives. They are required to learn the objective facts behind reproductive health. Stop conflating the two."

"You just contravened yourself. 'Religious people are not forced to do anything sacrilegious', then in 3 sentences, you say they must learn the facts, whilst those facts might be considered sacrilegious according to one's religion, depending on who it is taught by."

"How? In what manner is your religion being actively hindered? In what manner is being educated against any religion? Is it the fact that it is secular? If it is, how on earth do any of your citizens become experts in fields requiring objective, secular consideration? Mathematics are awfully difficult if one isn't allowed to learn anything secular, after all. Or is it merely on the topic of sex? What was it you said, 90% of your citizenry was highly religious in such a manner that the target resolution offends them? So, does that mean the remaining 10% of your people make up the entirety of medical personnel? Discrimination can't be decided based on that, or your nation would have an effective professional caste system. So what is it? What specifically prevents you from practicing your religion when you are required to learn the medical background behind your reproductive system that isn't present in one hundred other educational disciplines?"

"Our religion, and countless others dictates that these matters should be taught by someone who has close relation to the person in question. And by complying with this resolution, we would be breaching our teachings."

"Nobody is requiring religious individuals act upon the education they receive. They are required to sit through it in the first place. You may be educated on how to cook, but that doesn't mean you are required to do so at every meal."

"But simply sitting through it is sacrilegious."

"You have admitted that your nation had no such reproductive education prior to this legislation."

"So? I fail to see how that is relevant."

"If you had no such law prior to this law, it stands to reason that, without the law, you would immediately revert to having no such education. You would not deliberately retain it. If you do not retain it, and return to the previous state, then, by repealing the target legislation, you are looking to remove such education. That is the logical progression. If you want, I can reduce it into IF/THEN formal logic, but, as a man of the law, I assume you are clever enough to understand my point without reverting to sophomoric methods, ambassador."

"And what proof do you have of that? I know you obviously don't know about SPian legislative practices, and I will forgive you on that one, but we currently have a piece of legislation to introduce this education passed, but we are holding it pending this resolution."

"I'm well aware of the rules regarding this Assembly, ambassador. I've personally authored nine resolutions. That would be nine more than you. While that is no bearing whatsoever on your ability or mine, it is an excellent indicator that I don't need you to regurgitate General Assembly rules at me. Any religious exemption would gut such a resolution. As such, the inclusion of one such exemption would make that resolution automatically not worth the time of the Assembly to legislate on. If it does nothing, it is worthless. Ergo, I would preempt it entirely."

"Your argument makes no sense, something that could affect the lives of millions of religious is something the Assembly should consider."

[SP Rebellion]

Oh, you can also argue it from the other side: that this isn't enough and that a more serious set of requirements ought be passed.

The WA could be concerned about how this legislation doesn't do enough and would easily be worked around by simply promoting abstinence only courses (naturally, our nation has already passed legislation that deals with these issues and has done so for quite some time. In fact, our health education courses are very effective. Adolescent pregnancy rates fell when they were passed a few decades ago and have remained low ever since). There is also the costs argument from clause 6.

You can also nitpick about how the second prefatory clause sets a bad precedent in that the World Assembly wants nations to be 'educating youth on safe and responsible means of ... reproduction' and how this would lead to a Malthusian catastrophe...

You can also always complain about how clauses like § 7, which do literally nothing, are horribly things in resolutions.

"That's some very good advice, ambassador, thank you. I will be working on a second draft with that in mind."

[Wallenburg]

The SPian ambassador would have a look of calmness through out the debate, but not before the Separatist People's ambassador's most recent comment. His eyes would fill with rage, and the sheer amount of rage in him would boil over.

"That would have been relevant had you not tried to scold me on my fucking language first."

"That's it. Piss the fuck out from my office. I don't give a shit that you are representing your nation, I am not standing for your blatant disrespect.

You have thirty seconds to get the fuck out of my office before I....-" he would get cut off as a female aide would drag him towards another room, shutting the door behind him.

He would come out half an hour later, simply refusing to make eye-contact with the ambassador, and addressing others points.

"You are, perhaps, the most immature ambassador to disgrace these halls. And my delegation has observed the antics of Ambassadors Thomas Branson II and III."

"I am going to assume you simply don't know what good faith compliance means. Willful non-compliance, even if it is carried out by a third party, is not good faith compliance. If your government is not actively seeking to implement the provisions of the resolution according to the spirit of the resolution, you are not complying in good faith. The resolution may not require 'tests,' but it does require that your government make a good faith effort to implement the provisions laid out in the text of the resolution."

"We are making a good-faith to implement this. Allowing use of a loophole is not a compliance issue, it should have been taken care of in the first draft."

"There is no such loophole, and you have indicated your nation will consciously violate World Assembly law just to keep your children ignorant and at risk of life-threatening diseases. Just so you know, some member nations see noncompliance as a de facto resignation from the World Assembly, and consider all laws protecting member nations from other member nations non-applicable to them."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"You are, perhaps, the most immature ambassador to disgrace these halls. And my delegation has observed the antics of Ambassadors Thomas Branson II and III."

Parsons quips, 'I wouldn't go that far just yet'.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

APPLAUDING[/i] 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,

"Glad you agree."

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

"We disagree, but go on..."

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

"Circumstances justifying the state abrogating its solemn duty to educate its citizens are so rare that I doubt it bears mentioning in this narrowly-targeted a law. We don't think this is a concern."

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

"The state has an absolutely compelling interest in ensuring facts are known; especially when said facts contradict religious or ideological beliefs. Parents do not have a right to inflict ignorance on their children; only to present counter-arguments."

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,

"Sorry, but any religion that believes it's a sacred duty not to even listen to anything that conflicts with its teachings, counts as a dangerous cult. The state has a compelling interest in ensuring its citizens are not in thrall to batshit sorcerer-priests who forbid contact with factual information. It's a slander against legitimate faiths to accuse them of thinking factual education could be 'sacrilegious,' and both they and secular governments will reject this argument out of hand."

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,

"Sounds all good and aboveboard... sense a 'but' coming, Ambassador?"

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

"No it wasn't. If parents want to expostulate ad nauseam on the evils of premarital sex, they're perfectly welcome to do so. What they're not welcome to do is force their children to remain ignorant of basic facts about their bodies and how to master them. Deprivation of information counts as child abuse just as surely as deprivation of food, shelter, or love."

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,

"No. The purpose of such schools is to instill a religious philosophy in the fundamental psychology of the next generation. If a religious philosophy depends upon total ignorance of this or that set of facts about the world, it ceases to be 'religious philosophy' and becomes a cult credo. Freedom of religion is one thing; it does not encompass the 'freedom' to deprive others of the ability to make informed decisions. Failing to teach comprehensive sex education is exactly this kind of deprivation."

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

"I prefer my resolutions with a spine, thanks very much."

"Both the believer and the infidel will despise the foundation you've chosen to build this repeal on; only the cynic and the isolationist could support it. Completely opposed."

[Wallenburg]

"You are, perhaps, the most immature ambassador to disgrace these halls. And my delegation has observed the antics of Ambassadors Thomas Branson II and III."

Parsons quips, 'I wouldn't go that far just yet'.

"Parsons, he made us wait half an hour. Half an hour. I have never known a grown man to take that long to calm down."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Parsons quips, 'I wouldn't go that far just yet'.

"Parsons, he made us wait half an hour. Half an hour. I have never known a grown man to take that long to calm down."

Parsons looks at the Wallenburger/Wallenburgian (whatever the demonym is) and says, 'still not as bad as abducting people'.

[Tinfect]

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

"Something that the Imperium considered an unequivocal good. Education is of far greater importance than any possible objections to it. If the parents feel their beliefs threatened by it, let them, progress waits for no one, least of all those that attempt to stand in front of it."

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

"If such education is contrary to the parent's theology, the Imperium has no sympathy for them. Their belief does not constitute any reason to deny the student an Education. If the Student believes the education contrary, then perhaps that belief would be best challenged."

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,

"The Secretariat does not agree, or this Resolution would have never reached vote. In any case, if their religious beliefs mandate ignorance, perhaps it is best that this resolution makes such classes mandatory."

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

"Hardly. The Imperium is of the belief that Parents are uniquely unqualified to teach this subject in particular. We have seen no evidence to the contrary, certainly the state of reproductive education in the Imperium is far greater a far greater state, than prior to our predecessor's educational mandates, when such teaching was left to the parents."

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

"Of which they have none."

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

"The removal of a nonexistent right does not constitute an actual infringement upon rights."

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,

"Good. Their theology has no right to stand in the way of education. Perhaps the institution will choose to close, rather than continue operation. Then its students can enter a facility focused towards education, rather than indoctrination. In either case, the outcome is acceptable to the Imperium.

It is the position of the Imperium that this draft is built upon a premise of nonsense, and seeking to protect those primitives that would rather see proper education and health denied, than allow their precious mythologies to be infringed. Further, that this draft constitutes no substantive arguments. Thus, we are entirely unable to support this draft, and suggest placing it within an Incinerator, at the nearest available opportunity."

[Wallenburg]

"Parsons, he made us wait half an hour. Half an hour. I have never known a grown man to take that long to calm down."

Parsons looks at the Wallenburger/Wallenburgian (whatever the demonym is) and says, 'still not as bad as abducting people'.

"Well, I'll have to ask Trevanyika about the Stellonian ambassador, but for now I'll stand by what I said."

He turns to the ambassador drafting the repeal. "I doubt it will surprise you that we oppose this draft, and will not stand for it should you submit it. I suggest you listen to those criticizing your draft. They may very well actually help you to create something half-decent."

OOC: Hehe. Didn't see my sig, did you IA?

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Hehe. Didn't see my sig, did you IA?

OOC: It's fine. I eat Wallenburgers for breakfast.

[Araraukar]

So, you are saying that religious people should be forced into doing sacrilegious things

They would be sacrilegious only to them, and they could always change their religion's rules, if it was that difficult. Or, you know, leave the WA.

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

OOC: Do we actually have freedom of religion in the resolutions? I can't remember... possibly in the Freedom of Expression one? Even so, one person's right to practice their religion doesn't extend to the other person.

And yes, this is discrimination.

So treating everyone the same is discrimination. Riiiight. Now why should I take anything you say seriously anymore?

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.

Well, the WA resolutions are the law for WA nations, going above their own laws. So if your religious practice or tradition breaks WA law, it fits your "this is ok" category and thus you have nothing to whine about.

OOC: Also, what the hell does reproductive biology teaching have to do with your nation's religion? Does it state that all babies come from their god or something? I honestly don't understand the objection you present in IC.

In what world does wanting to repeal a resolution imply wanting to ban such education?

Well, why else would you want it 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.

OOC: Care to put your money where your mouth is, and write up a replacement draft?

OOC NOTE: I look at the author's name and can't help but wonder how SP pissed off the person prior to them making that account...

OOC: Hehe. Didn't see my sig, did you IA?

OOC: It's fine. I eat Wallenburgers for breakfast.

OOC: I told Wallenburg a while back that his siggy made me want to have Janis make up a special hamburger at the Bar and name it Wallenburger...

[Bears Armed]

Furthermore, GAR#2 states explicitly that 'Every WA Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, including this World Assembly, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.' In other words, GAR#2 legally requires you to change your laws so that your government is able to maintain good faith compliance.

OOC: Unfortunately, by incorporating that rule into GAR#2, Fris effectively implied that it derives only from GAR#2 rather than being one of the basic, underlying rules of WA membership anyhows... and so when GAR#2 was passed a member nation would arguably have been able, quite legally, to decide that it would refrain from complying "in good faith" with that resolution...

[Bad Libertopia]

"Your 'list', however, has nothing to do with the reality that you still must enforce all of the mandates of my resolution."

Since a child as young as 5-1/2 has been documented giving birth, these classes in reproductive education are effectively mandated to start in preschool to functionally "guarantee that all their students who are experiencing reproductive maturation" receive the sufficient training...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_y ... th_mothers

[Wallenburg]

"Your 'list', however, has nothing to do with the reality that you still must enforce all of the mandates of my resolution."

Since a child as young as 5-1/2 has been documented giving birth, these classes in reproductive education are effectively mandated to start in preschool to functionally "guarantee that all their students who are experiencing reproductive maturation" receive the sufficient training...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_y ... th_mothers

"If your species experiences reproductive maturation at that age, I see no reason to oppose such measures. Furthermore, it is education, not training."

[Kasear]

"The points related to religious exemption are the primary reasons the Unified Meerkats have elected to oppose this repeal. We feel that while religion most certainly might be important to an individual, the fact that a precedent for religious exemption being used to pass a resolution can set a dangerous precedent where any matter of international health and safety can be subverted by asserting religious dogma is a dangerous one."

"The Unified Meerkats suffered under enforced religious views before the revolution. We still have a ways to go before we are truly a secular nation of meerkats. We do not wish to see the World Assembly enable any nation to assert that their traditions are more important than progress and health. Religious exemption should never be a permissible means to bypass regulations or law."

"Likewise, we announce our intention to oppose any resolution that offers preferential treatment to those who practice religion. If a freedom can only be offered to someone who practices a faith, even if unspecified, we feel it is a violation of both religious freedom and secular society. If you cannot offer an equivalent form of 'exemption' for non-believers then perhaps you should reconsider a religious exemption and focus instead on an evidence-based approach."

[Bad Libertopia]

"If your species experiences reproductive maturation at that age, I see no reason to oppose such measures. Furthermore, it is education, not training."

Your personal opposition of measures is irrelevant; what is important is implementation of the WA resolution which the assembly voted upon.

The homo sapiens species attains reproductive maturation at various ages depending upon the individual, the female of the species becomes fertile starting at ages 4 years 7 months (or later, depending on the individual), as evidenced at by a documented birth mother at age 5-1/2.

I would be curious how different nations demonstrate compliance with GA #369 if they don't have reproductive education classes for their 4-year-old homo sapiens.

Do they, alternatively, require all children to have monthly gynecological exams to make sure the child is not fertile, to be exempt from such a course? What testing is done on the males, and how often?

How, pray tell, is compliance demonstrated in the "highly libertarian" Republic of Wallenburg, for example?

[Wallenburg]

"If your species experiences reproductive maturation at that age, I see no reason to oppose such measures. Furthermore, it is education, not training."

Your personal opposition of measures is irrelevant; what is important is implementation of the WA resolution which the assembly voted upon.

"If my opinion on my own resolution is irrelevant to this discussion, I have no reason to listen to yours. However, I am a generous individual, and will do so anyway."

The homo sapiens species attains reproductive maturation at various ages depending upon the individual, the female of the species becomes fertile starting at ages 4 years 7 months (or later, depending on the individual), as evidenced at by a documented birth mother at age 5-1/2.

"And the chances of a child even beginning sexual maturation at such an age, among your species, reaches into the ranges of one out of tens of billions. I am sorry, Ambassador, but I will not accommodate for scenarios less likely than winning the lottery while being struck by lightning. No ambassador here has held any other resolution to such a high standard and come off as reasonable in any way."

I would be curious how different nations demonstrate compliance with GA #369 if they don't have reproductive education classes for their 4-year-old homo sapiens.

"Most likely because most do not have any four-year-old homo sapiens who have already completed reproductive maturation."

Do they, alternatively, require all children to have monthly gynecological exams to make sure the child is not fertile, to be exempt from such a course? What testing is done on the males, and how often?

"That is up to your nation to decide, but I would not suggest such a thorough process. It would be ridiculously and needlessly expensive."

How, pray tell, is compliance demonstrated in the "highly libertarian" Republic of Wallenburg, for example?

"We enroll students between the ages of 14 and 16 in our courses, and that is that. I am somewhat confused though, what do you mean by 'highly libertarian'? I have never claimed Wallenburg to be libertarian at all."