[DRAFT] Repeal Reproductive Education Act

[Sciongrad]

"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?

OOC: No offense, but this is an unfathomably absurd argument. I do not think it's unreasonable for nations to use their noggins and define an appropriate age range during which most girls go through puberty. Just because one child had a baby at 5 1/2 years old does not mean that all girls need to be given comprehensive reproductive education at the age of 4 years and 7 months, nor does it mean that every single girl must be individually screened to determine whether or not she is ready for a comprehensive reproductive education. IC, nations will use common sense. You should too.

[Imperium Anglorum]

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?

OOC: No offense, but this is an unfathomably absurd argument. I do not think it's unreasonable for nations to use their noggins and define an appropriate age range during which most girls go through puberty. Just because one child had a baby at 5 1/2 years old does not mean that all girls need to be given comprehensive reproductive education at the age of 4 years and 7 months, nor does it mean that every single girl must be individually screened to determine whether or not she is ready for a comprehensive reproductive education. IC, nations will use common sense. You should too.

Really? I think it's a fantastically reasonable argument... It's clearly a valid interpretation, it is clearly something which would be interpreted differently by nations, and also something which the World Assembly would require if we believe in this 'perfect compliance' stuff.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: No offense, but this is an unfathomably absurd argument. I do not think it's unreasonable for nations to use their noggins and define an appropriate age range during which most girls go through puberty. Just because one child had a baby at 5 1/2 years old does not mean that all girls need to be given comprehensive reproductive education at the age of 4 years and 7 months, nor does it mean that every single girl must be individually screened to determine whether or not she is ready for a comprehensive reproductive education. IC, nations will use common sense. You should too.

Really? I think it's a fantastically reasonable argument... It's clearly a valid interpretation, it is clearly something which would be interpreted differently by nations, and also something which the World Assembly would require if we believe in this 'perfect compliance' stuff.

OOC:
IA, my respect for you dropped about 37.19 points. Such an interpretation is not valid if reproductive maturation is the requirement. Capability of reproducing does make one mature.

Also, that can't be a reasonable interpretation if one uses Reasonable Nation Theory, because it would be in no one's best interest to interpret it that way.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Really? I think it's a fantastically reasonable argument... It's clearly a valid interpretation, it is clearly something which would be interpreted differently by nations, and also something which the World Assembly would require if we believe in this 'perfect compliance' stuff.

OOC: Such an interpretation is not valid if reproductive maturation is the requirement. Capability of reproducing does make one mature.

The ability to reproduce does imply reproductive maturation. The difference really, is whether that is an individual maturation or a general species-wide maturation. The resolution doesn't make that clear. That is grounds for repeal.

Also, that can't be a reasonable interpretation if one uses Reasonable Nation Theory, because it would be in no one's best interest to interpret it that way.

It's certainly in the repeal author's best interest. But that aside, it is a valid interpretation, not one which that can't be an interpretation.

[Araraukar]

"No ambassador here has held any other resolution to such a high standard and come off as reasonable in any way."

OOC: Well, there's always the NAPA... But yeah, "reasonable" is not the word I'd use either.

IC: Actually, makes you wonder about how their nation treated the father of the child of that child-mother, doesn't it? In most nations there'd be all sorts of laws broken just due to the sexual contact...

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."

It's funny how so many newbie ambassadors keep making that claim for some reason. Wallenburg is one of the - I'm sure you know I don't mean any harm, Ogdenburg - more backwards nations around here, when it comes to being progressive in oh so many areas of life. Calling them libertarian is almost as sane as claiming that Araraukar, despite not being in the WA, obeys all the resolutions¹...

OOC: There's a very good reason my main nation is not a WA nation! Off the top of my head I can think of a dozen or so resolutions that Ara is in violation of, and that's just two shy of the bit over dozen that I can remember...

[Wallenburg]

It's funny how so many newbie ambassadors keep making that claim for some reason. Wallenburg is one of the - I'm sure you know I don't mean any harm, Ogdenburg - more backwards nations around here, when it comes to being progressive in oh so many areas of life. Calling them libertarian is almost as sane as claiming that Araraukar, despite not being in the WA, obeys all the resolutions

"Ambassador, Wallenburg is not backwards. Quite contrary, she is a world leader in progressive policy. However, progress for the sake of progress must be discouraged."

Ogenbond opens up a newspaper on his desk and folds it up so that the ambassadors can see the headline "Wallenburgian Border Patrol Guns Down Refugees".

[Bad Libertopia]

"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."

WA #369 requires a guarantee that "all students who are experiencing reproductive maturation" be educated thusly.

In one society with a large homo sapiens population, there are thousands of live births to mothers under age 15 annually...
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005074.html
...and in 1975 these accounted for 0.4% of the babies born that year, so your lottery/lightening comparison is a false analogy; the prevalence is about 1 in 250 not "1 out of tens of billions."

And these are just the numbers of babies born--far more females at that age (and younger) were "experiencing reproductive maturation" at the time but did not give birth before age 15...some might be mothers multiple times before a class for 14-16 year olds began enrollment.

"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."

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=wall ... /id=447401
"We are a highly libertarian and egalitarian society," and "a socially libertarian, pro-business AND pro-worker welfare state,"

[Wallenburg]

"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."

WA #369 requires a guarantee that "all students who are experiencing reproductive maturation" be educated thusly.

In one society with a large homo sapiens population, there are thousands of live births to mothers under age 15 annually...
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005074.html
...and in 1975 these accounted for 0.4% of the babies born that year, so your lottery/lightening comparison is a false analogy; the prevalence is about 1 in 250 not "1 out of tens of billions."

And these are just the numbers of babies born--far more females at that age (and younger) were "experiencing reproductive maturation" at the time but did not give birth before age 15...some might be mothers multiple times before a class for 14-16 year olds began enrollment.

"Ambassador, you were talking about five-year-olds, not fifteen-year-olds. If you don't intend to be reasonable, we have nothing left to discuss."

"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."

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=wall ... /id=447401
"We are a highly libertarian and egalitarian society," and "a socially libertarian, pro-business AND pro-worker welfare state,"

"I'm not sure who wrote that, but it certainly wasn't me."

OOC: IC=/=OOC.

[Araraukar]

Ogenbond opens up a newspaper on his desk and folds it up so that the ambassadors can see the headline "Wallenburgian Border Patrol Guns Down Refugees".

OOC: Point proven. *tickles Wallenburg*

[Excidium Planetis]

"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."

WA #369 requires a guarantee that "all students who are experiencing reproductive maturation" be educated thusly.

In one society with a large homo sapiens population, there are thousands of live births to mothers under age 15 annually...
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005074.html
...and in 1975 these accounted for 0.4% of the babies born that year, so your lottery/lightening comparison is a false analogy; the prevalence is about 1 in 250 not "1 out of tens of billions."

"1975? Of what calendar system? If we are using the ACR calendar, then 1975 is... in the future!! But I'm sure you don't mean to tell me you brought data on live births from the future?"

And these are just the numbers of babies born--far more females at that age (and younger) were "experiencing reproductive maturation" at the time but did not give birth before age 15...some might be mothers multiple times before a class for 14-16 year olds began enrollment.

"14 is before age 15. Also, Wallenburgians are not homo sapiens, so what are you trying to prove, here? Do you have any data at all that the inhabitants of Wallenburg mature prior to age 14 in any significant number?"

"We are a highly libertarian and egalitarian society," and "a socially libertarian, pro-business AND pro-worker welfare state,"

"Good for you, but that doesn't make Wallenburg one."

[Bad Libertopia]

In one society with a large homo sapiens population, there are thousands of live births to mothers under age 15 annually...
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005074.html
...and in 1975 these accounted for 0.4% of the babies born that year, so your lottery/lightening comparison is a false analogy; the prevalence is about 1 in 250 not "1 out of tens of billions."

"1975? Of what calendar system? If we are using the ACR calendar, then 1975 is... in the future!! But I'm sure you don't mean to tell me you brought data on live births from the future?"

It's "1975" corresponding to the dataset in the provided link, for the society under discussion.

For a nation (again, referencing the dataset above) where thousands of babies each year are born to mothers under 15 (and in a species where the gestation period is 9 months) the courses would need to start 9 months prior to the earliest documented birth for that species.

Likely in this nation, such education would need to start at age 4 (to be certain to be in compliance) and due to the limited cognitive and retentive abilities of children at such an age, they would probably need to be taught this subject to the exclusion of other subjects for several years to ensure the courses "must thoroughly educate all students".

[Blaccakre]

I think it's definitely a flaw in the resolution that it requires sexual education based on when the individual is going through sexual maturity (unless they happen to already have received it). Requiring nations to single out which students are going through puberty at a given time and provide them with sex ed right then is a stupid system. But that is what the law requires when it says:

Requires all general education services in member states to guarantee that all their students who are experiencing reproductive maturation... are educated through a reproductive education course on the nature of their species's reproduction

I also think requiring an education on "sexual activity" (that is, intercourse) is deeply problematic. I'm all for education on sexually transmitted disease and biological reproduction, but there's something about an international law dictating when a nation must teach children the, shall we say, ins-and-outs of sexual congress that seems deeply invasive, unnecessary, and offensive.

[Wallenburg]

I think it's definitely a flaw in the resolution that it requires sexual education based on when the individual is going through sexual maturity (unless they happen to already have received it). Requiring nations to single out which students are going through puberty at a given time and provide them with sex ed right then is a stupid system. But that is what the law requires when it says:

Requires all general education services in member states to guarantee that all their students who are experiencing reproductive maturation... are educated through a reproductive education course on the nature of their species's reproduction

"Ambassador, reproductive development is not a light switch. It is a slow, gradual process. Besides, you can reasonably estimate the median age of total reproductive maturity through observational studies."

[Blaccakre]

I think it's definitely a flaw in the resolution that it requires sexual education based on when the individual is going through sexual maturity (unless they happen to already have received it). Requiring nations to single out which students are going through puberty at a given time and provide them with sex ed right then is a stupid system. But that is what the law requires when it says:

"Ambassador, reproductive development is not a light switch. It is a slow, gradual process. Besides, you can reasonably estimate the median age of total reproductive maturity through observational studies."

That is NOT what your law requires. Your law requires that sex ed be "guaranteed" to "all students who are experiencing reproductive maturation."

[Wallenburg]

"Ambassador, reproductive development is not a light switch. It is a slow, gradual process. Besides, you can reasonably estimate the median age of total reproductive maturity through observational studies."

That is NOT what your law requires. Your law requires that sex ed be "guaranteed" to "all students who are experiencing reproductive maturation."

"Where is the difference between that and what I said?"

[Sciongrad]

"Ambassador, reproductive development is not a light switch. It is a slow, gradual process. Besides, you can reasonably estimate the median age of total reproductive maturity through observational studies."

That is NOT what your law requires. Your law requires that sex ed be "guaranteed" to "all students who are experiencing reproductive maturation."

OOC: Please stop. Unless you're incapable of reading except for in the most literal and nonsensical way possible, you don't actually believe what you're saying. No one actually buys that interpretation. It would be reasonable and absolutely within the bounds of the legislation to define an age range during which the average girl undergoes "sexual maturation." Arguing that this resolution somehow demands that all girls be tested regularly, starting at the age of 4, so that they can receive comprehensive sex education is - and I hope you appreciate the fully gravity of this statement - one of the craziest arguments I've ever heard.

[Blaccakre]

That is NOT what your law requires. Your law requires that sex ed be "guaranteed" to "all students who are experiencing reproductive maturation."

"Where is the difference between that and what I said?"

Do you not understand the difference between someone experiencing something themselves and the "average" age someone experiences something? The "average" age for riding a first rollercoaster is 4. That doesn't mean that's when Jonny is going to experience his first rollercoaster.

You just suggested that member nations can provide sex ed services based on the median age of total reproductive maturity and be complying with the law. That's incorrect. The law says you provide sex ed services to kids based on when they are experiencing it. When someone subjectively experiences something can be and, often, is different from when the hypothetical "average" person does.

[Blaccakre]

That is NOT what your law requires. Your law requires that sex ed be "guaranteed" to "all students who are experiencing reproductive maturation."

OOC: Please stop. Unless you're incapable of reading except for in the most literal and nonsensical way possible, you don't actually believe what you're saying. No one actually buys that interpretation. It would be reasonable and absolutely within the bounds of the legislation to define an age range during which the average girl undergoes "sexual maturation." Arguing that this resolution somehow demands that all girls be tested regularly, starting at the age of 4, so that they can receive comprehensive sex education is - and I hope you appreciate the fully gravity of this statement - one of the craziest arguments I've ever heard.

I'm interpreting the law as it's written. It's not my fault someone used the words "who are experiencing reproductive maturity" to define the principle mandate of the act. I've been gone a while but do laws no longer mean what they say?

Edit: Also, I'm not suggesting that children be regularly tested, though that would be one way to comply with this law. My point is that it was ridiculous to begin with to require sex ed based on when someone is subjectively experiencing sexual maturity. If going based on some average was the intent (and likely a more reasonable thought), why wasn't that said in the language? It would not have been hard to guarantee a sexual education to all individuals "at a reasonable and appropriate time based on the average age of sexual maturity within that nation or community". Again, not my fault dumb language was used.

[Floor 448]

It would be reasonable and absolutely within the bounds of the legislation to define an age range during which the average girl undergoes "sexual maturation."

OOC: Yeah, no.

[Wallenburg]

It would be reasonable and absolutely within the bounds of the legislation to define an age range during which the average girl undergoes "sexual maturation."

OOC: Yeah, no.

OOC: Those links are completely irrelevant to this draft or its target.

[Sciongrad]

It would be reasonable and absolutely within the bounds of the legislation to define an age range during which the average girl undergoes "sexual maturation."

OOC: Yeah, no.

OOC: Umm, excuse me?

[Blaccakre]

It would be reasonable and absolutely within the bounds of the legislation to define an age range during which the average girl undergoes "sexual maturation."

OOC: Yeah, no.

I think we're on the same side, but that made no sense to me either.

[Floor 448]

OOC: Yeah, no.

OOC: Those links are completely irrelevant to this draft or its target.

OOC: Yeah, no.

OOC: Umm, excuse me?

OOC: Yeah, no.

I think we're on the same side, but that made no sense to me either.

Unlike what people think I meant, I was only responding to the quoted section:

It would be reasonable and absolutely within the bounds of the legislation to define an age range during which the average girl undergoes "sexual maturation."

I was arguing with that by linking to a pair of discussions proving that to be impossible.

[Wallenburg]

Unlike what people think I meant, I was only responding to the quoted section:

It would be reasonable and absolutely within the bounds of the legislation to define an age range during which the average girl undergoes "sexual maturation."

I was arguing with that by linking to a pair of discussions proving that to be impossible.

Except they don't...

[Separatist Peoples]

Except they don't...

OOC: They're anecdotal, and therefore not solid arguments, but the implication is both clear and accurate. The WA is not going to pass anything with an age range, or that attempts to back-door one in without using hard numbers.