NationStates

Posted: **Sat Jul 27, 2019 11:45 am**

Vivolkha wrote:OOC: Since its use as a punishment for sex offenders has been brought up, perhaps elaborate further and more explicitly on why it should not be used as punishment in these cases?

OOC: I'm guessing because it doesn't actually achieve anything. Removing the ability to breed does not equal removing genitals. EDIT: And even then, removing genitals does not make one unable to rape.

Posted: **Sat Jul 27, 2019 12:26 pm**

Marxist Germany wrote:"This is exactly what we're trying to stop, also, contraceptives should help with this issue, instead of sterilising people why can't the government give out free contraceptives and give sex ed to its children?"

Because we're Catholic.

Posted: **Sat Jul 27, 2019 1:23 pm**

Marxist Germany wrote:Recognising that forced sterilisation can have detrimental effects on the individual;

OOC: No shit. However, you shouldn't leave it that vague. I really suggest looking up first-hand stories of people who were sterilized against their will, and how that affected them. Can't direct you to the documentary I saw on the subject as it was in Finnish and wouldn't help you much, but I'm sure there's stuff in English somewhere on the Net. (Try Native American resources.)

Noting that sterilisation against an individual's will continues to be used as a method of reducing population in some member-states;

If you're going for civil rights, leave the population control out entirely. Go for individual level.

Acknowledging that each individual should have the right to choose reproduce or not;

With the addition of "as long as it does not violate another individual's right to choose" that would be good, because you don't want to end up in the situation where a spouse is forced to have a child against their will just because the other spouse wanted one. Because that would be used as a counter argument for this justification, trust me.

Seeking to ban this form of population control and genocide of minorities;

No. You're being too vague. Remember that you're going up against people who think its a good idea to sterilize people like pedophiles and whatnot, so they don't pollute the genepool. And again, leave the population control aspect out entirely. And remember that genocide has already been banned, so you need to go for something like "has been, in the past, used to get rid of people the society has considered to be unwanted members, whether they were sexual or ethnic minorities or people with specific disabilities".

Defines, for the purpose of this resolution; "sterilisation" as the elimination of an individual's ability to reproduce, permanently or temporarily; by removing or altering their reproductive organs;

You realize that this wouldn't catch at least one if not two existing sterilization methods? Also, why "temporarily" is included? Go for the proper normally understood meaning of "sterilization" which is meant to be permanent.

Prohibits member-states from sterilising any individual without their consent, unless the parent or guardian of a minor consents on their behalf;

I'd change that to "unless a parent or guardian is legally able to consent on their behalf", because there are cases where someone over the age of maturity might not have the mental capacity to understand these things, and in some such cases it might actually be for the good of the individual for them to be sterilized but they would not have the mental capacity to consent and might have a court-appointed guardian managing their healthcare.

Requires that member states criminalise the act of sterilising another individual against their will unless it falls under an exception mentioned in the previous clauses.

There's only one previous clause with an exception, not several.

Posted: **Sun Jul 28, 2019 3:05 am**

OOC:
I strongly recommend requiring Governments to issue reparations to groups affected by forced sterilization, both prior and up to the passage of this legislation. The amount of damage that these genocidal practices result in necessitates some measure of restitution, at least. Further, I highly recommend a requirement that ensures that Member-States that use the practice, or have done so, engage in full and complete investigations of their criminal and medical services to ensure that no forced sterilizations are taking place beneath notice. Many governments, in reality no less, are very happy to allow these things to continue in a legal grey-area while sweeping up all the praise of not doing them anymore on a strictly legal basis. Requiring harsh criminal penalty for those personnel engaging in illegal forced sterilization would also be ideal.

Posted: **Sun Jul 28, 2019 3:36 am**

“I suggest also barring member nations from extraditing criminals to places where they are likely to receive forced sterilisation as punishment.”

Posted: **Sun Jul 28, 2019 3:52 am**

Araraukar wrote:
Vivolkha wrote:OOC: Since its use as a punishment for sex offenders has been brought up, perhaps elaborate further and more explicitly on why it should not be used as punishment in these cases?

OOC: I'm guessing because it doesn't actually achieve anything. Removing the ability to breed does not equal removing genitals. EDIT: And even then, removing genitals does not make one unable to rape.

OOC: The reason why is because it is an unnecessarily cruel and irreversible punishment, among other reasons. I was actually suggesting that a clause condemning/explaining why it should not be used be included in the resolution.

EDIT:

Kenmoria wrote:“I suggest also barring member nations from extraditing criminals to places where they are likely to receive forced sterilisation as punishment.”

This too is a nice suggestion and ties with the above.

Posted: **Sun Jul 28, 2019 7:06 am**

Vivolkha wrote:OOC: The reason why is because it is an unnecessarily cruel and irreversible punishment, among other reasons.

OOC: Except it might not be done as a punishment, even in genocidal sense. And the proposal currently still talks of sterilization as possibly also being a temporary measure, not merely irreversible.

Posted: **Sun Jul 28, 2019 9:39 am**

Araraukar wrote:
Vivolkha wrote:OOC: The reason why is because it is an unnecessarily cruel and irreversible punishment, among other reasons.

OOC: Except it might not be done as a punishment, even in genocidal sense. And the proposal currently still talks of sterilization as possibly also being a temporary measure, not merely irreversible.

OOC: I know the resolution bans its use as a punishment, I was suggesting (simply suggesting) that the reasons be made more explicit after other nations brought up its use as a punishment for sexual offenses.

EDIT: Regardless, support.

Posted: **Tue Jul 30, 2019 7:49 am**

OOC:All concerns have hopefully been addressed excluding:

Tinfect wrote:OOC:
I strongly recommend requiring Governments to issue reparations to groups affected by forced sterilization, both prior and up to the passage of this legislation. The amount of damage that these genocidal practices result in necessitates some measure of restitution, at least.

I believe that demanding reparations may not be very popular among members of the world assembly.

Posted: **Tue Jul 30, 2019 11:58 am**

Marxist Germany wrote:OOC: I believe that demanding reparations may not be very popular among members of the world assembly.

OOC: When is it ever? Still, perhaps an urge or encouragement clause about providing previous victims (as would count for crime under the mandates here) of forced sterilization check-ups to see if their reproductive capabilities can be restored. Especially if you keep the "temporarily" in the definition.

Posted: **Tue Jul 30, 2019 1:18 pm**

“In clause 3c, the ‘reasonably’ could possibly be put at the beginning rather than end of the clause, to clarify that you demanding that the punishments themselves be reasonable, rather than be for people who do illegal sterilisation in a reasonable fashion.”

Posted: **Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:53 pm**

Araraukar wrote:
Marxist Germany wrote:OOC: I believe that demanding reparations may not be very popular among members of the world assembly.

OOC: When is it ever? Still, perhaps an urge or encouragement clause about providing previous victims (as would count for crime under the mandates here) of forced sterilization check-ups to see if their reproductive capabilities can be restored. Especially if you keep the "temporarily" in the definition.

OOC:I'll add an urging clause, the temporarily has been removed.

Kenmoria wrote:“In clause 3c, the ‘reasonably’ could possibly be put at the beginning rather than end of the clause, to clarify that you demanding that the punishments themselves be reasonable, rather than be for people who do illegal sterilisation in a reasonable fashion.”

"That has been fixed."

Posted: **Tue Jul 30, 2019 8:02 pm**

Sterilising any individual without their consent, unless a parent or guardian is legally able to consent on their behalf;

"As soon as we start writing in caveats to bans, the backflips to circumvent them begin. What might be a beneficial reason for a parent sterilising their incapable child and what makes it so vital that they be able to do so to necessitate the exception? What is the definition of incapable? If the nature of this resolution is to target nations that are actually carrying out forced sterilisations and not just to virtue signal before nations that don't, you need to be mindful of the ways in which the rules you're drafting can be ducked under."

Urges member states to provide reperations for victims of forced sterilisation.

"I would imagine that the nations which would be moved by such a recommendation would also be the ones to not need it in the first place. Watering down the concept of reparation requirements does more damage to your votes than it helps. Until this resolution grows some teeth to achieve its aims, the Refuge can't support it."

Posted: **Wed Jul 31, 2019 4:44 am**

“There should be a comma after ‘organs’ in clause 1.”

Posted: **Wed Jul 31, 2019 5:01 am**

Refuge Isle wrote:What might be a beneficial reason for a parent sterilising their incapable child and what makes it so vital that they be able to do so to necessitate the exception?

OOC: Without wanting to be offensive, there are individuals born who will never have the mental capability to understand that the sex can result in children, not to mention the capability to take care of any resulting children. Also, the exception is there to be in compliance with a previous resolution.

Posted: **Thu Aug 01, 2019 7:10 am**

While we have objections on permitting a parent or guardian having permission to sterilize their children or minors in their care, we do recognize that this clause is in the bill to maintain its legal status under previous WA resolutions.

As such we support this bill as currently written, with the above reservations.

Posted: **Thu Aug 01, 2019 8:37 am**

"Given that the author has elsewhere stated being against allowing people to regulate their own procreation, one has to wonder why they are so adamant that in this particular instance that should be of utmost importance?"

Posted: **Thu Aug 01, 2019 8:59 am**

Araraukar wrote:"Given that the author has elsewhere stated being against allowing people to regulate their own procreation, one has to wonder why they are so adamant that in this particular instance that should be of utmost importance?"

"I believe that life begins at conception, not that one should not regulate their procreation, since there are a couple of ways to regulate one's ability to procreate besides abortion."

Posted: **Thu Aug 01, 2019 9:16 am**

Marxist Germany wrote:"I believe that life begins at conception, not that one should not regulate their procreation, since there are a couple of ways to regulate one's ability to procreate besides abortion."

"Given that in most species you need two individuals for there to be conception, why not concentrate on the other half? Especially as they can be, surprise surprise, sterilized, to prevent unwanted life-starting. Oh but that would get too close to you personally, now wouldn't it, ambassador? You prefer restricting other people's rights instead of your own."

Posted: **Thu Aug 01, 2019 9:18 am**

Araraukar wrote:
Marxist Germany wrote:"I believe that life begins at conception, not that one should not regulate their procreation, since there are a couple of ways to regulate one's ability to procreate besides abortion."

"Given that in most species you need two individuals for there to be conception, why not concentrate on the other half? Especially as they can be, surprise surprise, sterilized, to prevent unwanted life-starting. Oh but that would get too close to you personally, now wouldn't it, ambassador? You prefer restricting other people's rights instead of your own."

" You're treading on thin ice, ambassador, I believe that the "other half" can indeed sterilise themselves as long as they're fine with it."

Posted: **Thu Aug 01, 2019 9:21 am**

Marxist Germany wrote:" You're treading on thin ice, ambassador, I believe that the "other half" can indeed sterilise themselves as long as they're fine with it."

"But you're fine taking away the power to decide from the half of the population that you do not belong to? That sounds more than a little hypocritical. Do you know what "double standard" means?"

Posted: **Thu Aug 01, 2019 9:23 am**

Araraukar wrote:
Marxist Germany wrote:" You're treading on thin ice, ambassador, I believe that the "other half" can indeed sterilise themselves as long as they're fine with it."

"But you're fine taking away the power to decide from the half of the population that you do not belong to? That sounds more than a little hypocritical. Do you know what "double standard" means?"

"The half of the population that I do not belong to, can take every measure to control their procreation, including sterilisation."

Posted: **Thu Aug 01, 2019 9:59 am**

Marxist Germany wrote:"The half of the population that I do not belong to, can take every measure to control their procreation, including sterilisation."

IC: "But yours isn't in any way responsible for procreation? Got it. Though you might want to ask your mommy where children come, since you seem to have failed basic biology."

OOC: For the record, I don't OOCly think you don't understand reproduction.

Posted: **Thu Aug 01, 2019 10:04 am**

Araraukar wrote:
Marxist Germany wrote:"The half of the population that I do not belong to, can take every measure to control their procreation, including sterilisation."

IC: "But yours isn't in any way responsible for procreation? Got it. Though you might want to ask your mommy where children come, since you seem to have failed basic biology."

"Ambassador, I fully understand how reproduction occurs, you also may have learnt in sexual education class (if you even have that in your country), males can also control procreation through the use of contraceptives. As my teacher never used to say, better safe than sorry."

Posted: **Thu Aug 01, 2019 10:06 am**

Marxist Germany wrote:
Araraukar wrote:"But you're fine taking away the power to decide from the half of the population that you do not belong to? That sounds more than a little hypocritical. Do you know what "double standard" means?"

"The half of the population that I do not belong to, can take every measure to control their procreation, including sterilisation."

I have and continue to disagree with Marxist Germany and others view on abortion in most aspects, However, I do not see why this bill should be punished because you disagree with his position on that issue. I also do not see how it is a double standard, from Marxist Germany's perspective. If I remember my Catacisim correctly it is about the sanctity of the person, which is what is being applied in both this bill and his views of abortion. (OOC: Sorry Marxist, Don't mean to put words in your mouth second hand) Mr/s. Ararukar, I believe your position to be without merit and would request you direct any criticism to the bill its self not the person writing it.

NationStates

[DEFEATED] Ban on Forced Sterilisation