GA Resolution #369 Reproductive Education Act

[The United Federation of Chasetopia]

1. Recognizing that the authoring of G.A. Resolution #369 had no malicious intents.

2. Understanding that sexual education is pertinent in a successful and moral society.

3. However requiring all general education services to provide such a course would attempt to micromanage and cause more harm than good.

4. Requiring the World Assembly to allocate funding and subsidize nations who cannot pay for this course would drain the WA's coffers as well as give nations an excuse not to pay for the course.

5. Realizing that the education of sexual activity should always be left to the parents and or guardians of the "sapient species."

6. Commending the intention of this resolution, however its requirements are infringing upon the rights of member nations.

7. Hereby repeals G.A. Resolution #369

[Tinfect]

However requiring all general education services to provide such a course would attempt to micromanage and cause more harm than good.

"Do you intent to support this claim? There is absolutely no evidence for it."

Requiring the World Assembly to allocate funding and subsidize nations who cannot pay for this course would drain the WA's coffers as well as give nations an excuse not to pay for the course.

"The General Fund is not lacking in funds. In any case, your second claim here might qualify as a violation of the Secretariat's rulings on 'honest mistakes'.

Realizing that the education of sexual activity should always be left to the parents and or guardians of the "sapient species."

"Absolutely not.

In short, the Imperium is opposed. Far better delegations than yours have written far better repeals, and the Secretariat has rejected them. This draft is neither of quality, or, perhaps arguably, legality. We recommend it be scrapped."

[Wallenburg]

If you can't even get the name of the resolution right, I see no reason to even give this draft any thought.

[The Sheika]

I must agree with my counterparts. You should either come up with a completely new draft or abandon this idea.

[Excidium Planetis]

If you can't even get the name of the resolution right, I see no reason to even give this draft any thought.

"Ogenbond is correct. What is this 'Sexual Education Act' you speak of? There is no such resolution."

[The United Federation of Chasetopia]

However requiring all general education services to provide such a course would attempt to micromanage and cause more harm than good.

"Do you intent to support this claim? There is absolutely no evidence for it."

Requiring the World Assembly to allocate funding and subsidize nations who cannot pay for this course would drain the WA's coffers as well as give nations an excuse not to pay for the course.

"The General Fund is not lacking in funds. In any case, your second claim here might qualify as a violation of the Secretariat's rulings on 'honest mistakes'.

Realizing that the education of sexual activity should always be left to the parents and or guardians of the "sapient species."

"Absolutely not.

In short, the Imperium is opposed. Far better delegations than yours have written far better repeals, and the Secretariat has rejected them. This draft is neither of quality, or, perhaps arguably, legality. We recommend it be scrapped."

1. "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" is a direct line from the bill, which requires they be educated.

2. I never said that the WA is lacking in funds. What if a country were to cut funding for education and force (in the figurative since, because the bill requires the WA to pay of those who can't) then the WA would be paying for worthless things like sex ed instead of fixing the world.

3. "Absolutley not" provides no insight into what must be changed. The WA has no right to tell me how MY education system is established. Mine happens to function on moral grounds of abstinence. The education of reproduction belongs solely to the right of thr guardian of the "sapient being" and the government has no right to intrude upon the rights of my governement or my people.

Now maybe the draft the doesnt fit the rules but that doesn't change the fact that the bill needs to be fixed or removed.

The WA is two wolves and sheep voting on what to eat for lunch.

[Araraukar]

then the WA would be paying for worthless things like sex ed instead of fixing the world.

Considering how sex ed can lead to fewer unintended pregnancies, I'd say it's a great first step in fixing the world. Unless you meant "fixing" in the way it's used of animals, which means spaying or neutering, then I think that'd require quite a few repeals, but would also be a great first step to slow/prevent overpopulation, from which so many other problems arise...

Now maybe the draft the doesnt fit the rules but that doesn't change the fact that the bill needs to be fixed or removed.

Any draft that's against the rules is not worth much to debate, as its merits would still run into "this is illegal".

The WA is two wolves and sheep voting on what to eat for lunch.

More like a committee of fifty sheep, who starve because they can't argee on which side of the fence the grass is greener.

[Separatist Peoples]

The WA is two wolves and sheep voting on what to eat for lunch.

"So resign. You knew it was a direct democracy when you joined. Nothing prevents you from leaving. Of you don't like how it works, and cannot change the mechanism, you can always choose to resign."

[Wallenburg]

"Do you intent to support this claim? There is absolutely no evidence for it."



"The General Fund is not lacking in funds. In any case, your second claim here might qualify as a violation of the Secretariat's rulings on 'honest mistakes'.



"Absolutely not.

In short, the Imperium is opposed. Far better delegations than yours have written far better repeals, and the Secretariat has rejected them. This draft is neither of quality, or, perhaps arguably, legality. We recommend it be scrapped."

1. "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" is a direct line from the bill, which requires they be educated.

"That fails to demonstrate how the requirements of my resolution 'micromanage and cause more harm than good'."

2. I never said that the WA is lacking in funds. What if a country were to cut funding for education and force (in the figurative since, because the bill requires the WA to pay of those who can't) then the WA would be paying for worthless things like sex ed instead of fixing the world.

"First,the World Assembly would not pay for sexual education under such circumstances, as the clause offering financial aid only covers nations unable to fund a compliant reproductive education program, not those that simply choose not to. Second, sexual education is far from worthless, and saying that it is demonstrates just how backwards your nation is."

3. "Absolutley not" provides no insight into what must be changed. The WA has no right to tell me how MY education system is established.

"Actually, it has every right to do so. Otherwise the Secretariat would have ruled my bill illegal."

Mine happens to function on moral grounds of abstinence. The education of reproduction belongs solely to the right of thr guardian of the "sapient being" and the government has no right to intrude upon the rights of my governement or my people.

"The target resolution in no way impedes on the right of parents to educate their children."

Now maybe the draft the doesnt fit the rules but that doesn't change the fact that the bill needs to be fixed or removed.

"Amendments are illegal, and illegal repeal resolutions are still illegal."

The WA is two wolves and sheep voting on what to eat for lunch.

"What a random, inaccurate metaphor. Ambassador, the World Assembly is a great herd of sheep that bleats the howl of wolves. I'm not sure what two wolves and one sheep would demonstrate, beyond the clear reality that the wolves have something to eat, and the sheep will die of starvation anyway."

[The United Federation of Chasetopia]

then the WA would be paying for worthless things like sex ed instead of fixing the world.

Considering how sex ed can lead to fewer unintended pregnancies, I'd say it's a great first step in fixing the world. Unless you meant "fixing" in the way it's used of animals, which means spaying or neutering, then I think that'd require quite a few repeals, but would also be a great first step to slow/prevent overpopulation, from which so many other problems arise...

Now maybe the draft the doesnt fit the rules but that doesn't change the fact that the bill needs to be fixed or removed.

Any draft that's against the rules is not worth much to debate, as its merits would still run into "this is illegal".

The WA is two wolves and sheep voting on what to eat for lunch.

More like a committee of fifty sheep, who starve because they can't argee on which side of the fence the grass is greener.

Thank you all for your input. I am still trying to figure out all the rules and bureaucracy. It may not seem so but it is appreciated, even though it pains me I will just sit this one out. I wish you all endless victories and happy ruling. I will not resign the WA because I cant make a change if all I do is complain. Thank you all once again. Godspeed.

[Unified Heartless States]

The WA is two wolves and sheep voting on what to eat for lunch.

More like a committee of fifty sheep, who starve because they can't agree on which side of the fence the grass is greener.

50 Communists. . . But yes.

[Wallenburg]

More like a committee of fifty sheep, who starve because they can't agree on which side of the fence the grass is greener.

50 Communists. . . But yes.

Ogenbond snickers.

"Sure, sure it is."

[Araraukar]

More like a committee of fifty sheep, who starve because they can't agree on which side of the fence the grass is greener.

50 Communists. . . But yes.

If you count yourself to be one, then sure.

[Unified Heartless States]

Fine, I will throw my hat into this pony race then:

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;

Wording akin to, "the average starting age of Puberty" should have been used instead of "reproductive maturation" as it would also target adults. Granted, this bill does address this wit the statement "and have not yet received sufficient education," but depending on the term "sufficient education" quite a few higher education students (20, 30, 40, 50, and beyond) would require (re)education.

Also, and somewhat hilarious, any pet placed through training courses or similar academies for pets may also have to give pets these courses.
I feel this is further cemented in point 4:

Highly encourages member nations to provide separate reproductive education courses for each sapient species;

Though I use 'may" with caution above as it may not apply depending on the definition:

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, a "general education service" as any service or collection of services in which one or more students are educated on all subjects considered necessary for basic education, such as mathematics, the sciences, and language skills;

Since you can't really teach (most) animals mathematics or the sciences, it might not apply. . . But, "one or more students are educated on all subjects considered necessary for basic education" education standards don't necessarily have to be the same for every species if your state deems it "not part of that animals basic education". Though it would only apply to animals already getting some some of education. . . I think. . . Though, I guess you could argue that this bill would indeed force wildlife into the school system.

Strange bill, didn't we just overturn the police education bill?
I doubt this one will last long.

[Wallenburg]

Fine, I will throw my hat into this pony race then:

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;

Wording akin to, "the average starting age of Puberty" should have been used instead of "reproductive maturation" as it would also target adults. Granted, this bill does address this wit the statement "and have not yet received sufficient education," but depending on the term "sufficient education" quite a few higher education students (20, 30, 40, 50, and beyond) would require (re)education.

Also, and somewhat hilarious, any pet placed through training courses or similar academies for pets may also have to give pets these courses.
I feel this is further cemented in point 4:

Highly encourages member nations to provide separate reproductive education courses for each sapient species;

Though I use 'may" with caution above as it may not apply depending on the definition:

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, a "general education service" as any service or collection of services in which one or more students are educated on all subjects considered necessary for basic education, such as mathematics, the sciences, and language skills;

Since you can't really teach (most) animals mathematics or the sciences, it might not apply. . . But, "one or more students are educated on all subjects considered necessary for basic education" education standards don't necessarily have to be the same for every species if your state deems it "not part of that animals basic education". Though it would only apply to animals already getting some some of education. . . I think. . . Though, I guess you could argue that this bill would indeed force wildlife into the school system.

Strange bill, didn't we just overturn the police education bill?
I doubt this one will last long.

1) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... sh/student
"Student", by every accepted definition, refers to a person. Non-sapient animals are not people. Therefore, the target doesn't have anything to do with them.
2) 50 year old humans are not experiencing reproductive maturation. They have been mature in this way for decades. Puberty literally is the process of human sexual maturation.

I'm really not sure where these arguments came from, nor how anyone could possibly argue that they are a reasonable, good faith interpretation.

[Unified Heartless States]

1) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... sh/student
"Student", by every accepted definition, refers to a person. Non-sapient animals are not people. Therefore, the target doesn't have anything to do with them.

2) 50 year old humans are not experiencing reproductive maturation. They have been mature in this way for decades. Puberty literally is the process of human sexual maturation.

I'm really not sure where these arguments came from, nor how anyone could possibly argue that they are a reasonable, good faith interpretation.

1- True, though this bill does not use "person" as it specifically use "species" on multiple occasions.
Also, 1 of the 4 definitions given could also apply: "A school pupil"

2- I fell under the impression that the term, "reproductive maturation" implied something broader like the aging of sexual organs; so as to even include menopause.

They (my arguments) could have been better formulated, in all honesty. It's clear that the reason "species" was used is because several nations are comprised of space-faring races will other races are comprised of dinosaurs, bacteria, and potatoes. . . And not sapient potatoes. . . Just a field of regular potatoes. . . "Species" is the only term broad enough to encompass just about every state within' the world assembly (without also breaking roleplay rules). So if this bill was made specifically broad, so as to also apply to a nation of rats (New Rat City), then how am I being disingenuous in suggesting that this bill would force school attendance in my country to explode after every wild animal was given an education?

[Araraukar]

It's clear that the reason "species" was is because several nations are comprised of space-faring races species will while other races species are comprised of dinosaurs, bacteria, and potatoes. . . And not sapient potatoes. . . Just a field of regular potatoes. . . Species is the only term broad enough to encompass just about every state within' the world assembly. Though if this bill was made specifically broad so as to also apply to a nation of rats (New Rat City), then how am I being disingenuous to suggest that this bill would force school attendance in my country to explode after every wild animal was given an education?

I fixed your wording. And also you identified the issue yourself. It doesn't refer to non-sapient animals, but people. And I'm using "people" in the broadest of terms. (OOC: My WA puppet is a plant hivemind. )