[SUBMITTED] On Parental Emancipation

[Green Pacifica]

Believing that GAR#128, On Abortion, at least violates the spirit of Articles 1a and 1c of GAR#35, The Charter of Civil Rights, by not taking steps to protect the rights of non-carrier parents, the People's Republic of Green Pacifica proposes the following resolution:

GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION #

On Parental Emancipation
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights Strength: Mild Proposed by: Green Pacifica

The General Assembly,

REAFFIRMING this body's commitment to sapient rights and basic equality;

CONCERNED that this body has not paid equal attention to the rights of parents who do not carry children (hereafter referred to as non-carriers) as to the rights of parents who carry children (hereafter referred to as carriers), particularly the right of non-carriers to parental emancipation;

Therefore:

1. DEFINES "parental emancipation" as emancipation from all legal responsibilities of parenthood;

2. REQUIRES member nations to legalize parental emancipation for non-carriers in cases in which pregnancy results from involuntary sexual activity and/or sexual activity in which the non-carrier party could not legally give consent;

3. DECLARES that it is neither a criminal offense nor a cause for civil suit to have obtained parental emancipation for reasons stated in Section 2 and that no inhabitant of a member nation shall be subject to prosecution for having done so, nor otherwise subjected to harassment or persecution in law or at the instigation of the state in consequence;

4. CLARIFIES that all member nations retain the ability to legalize or prohibit parental emancipation for purposes not covered in this resolution.

[Flibbleites]

Where's clause #3?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Beautiful formatting!!

... but the Cowardly Pacifists are nonetheless opposed.

We sympathize with your commitment to your nation's conception of equality, and we really do understand what your getting at. But we see no reason to force this kind of legal framework on other nations. Abortion and a woman's right to choose are issues derived in large part from biology. As such, it is perfectly reasonable to have different rules on the matter for different sexes.

We may agree with you that it's not right for a non-consenting man to be sued for child support by his rapist. We think that this is probably a red herring, since we cannot recall the last time a raped man being sued by his attacker was reported on the evening news. We also understand that (maybe) a man should not be compelled to raise a terminally ill child based on the decision of the mother. We don't think "petitioning" a woman to have an abortion is appropriate, but we understand your principle at least.

But we also understand those nations who say abortion is partly a biological issue that must give some deference to the will of the mother over the will of the father - it's her body after all. And we also understand those nations who will say that regardless of the circumstances that lead to fatherhood, there should not be a mandatory international law allowing fathers to disavow the duties to their children.

Suffice to say, there are those who will say that a man's "lack-of-consent" will not automatically be a bar to his interest in visiting the child, or his obligation to help support that child in some way. We think this is a legitimate position. There are also those who will say that a man's apprehension at raising a sick or disabled child is quite irrelevant to whether that child deserves to be supported by her father. We think this is also a legitimate position.

Accordingly, we oppose this draft. The state of the law - without this resolution - allows those who share your beliefs about equality to enact this sort of legislation in their own nations, while also allowing others to recognize that in certain areas, biological differences must lead to different legal rights. We do not often say this, but we don't see any way that this could be rewritten to meet our approval.

[Green Pacifica]

Where's clause #3?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Sorry, fixing.

[Mousebumples]

I'm not sure if this is something I can support or not - additional consideration is needed on behalf of my delegation. HOWEVER, I would appreciate the amendment of the following clause, as follows:

4. INSISTS that all member nations retain the ability to legalize or prohibit non-carrier parental emancipation for purposes not covered in this resolution either unilaterally within their own jurisdictions or collectively through World Assembly resolution.

I don't believe that further mandates of non-carrier parental emancipation are necessary, and I'd appreciate it if this proposal could block further proposals on the subject. (Of course, I don't view such a clause as preventing non-carrier parents from giving up the child for adoption after his/her birth.) Also, a better verb choice for such a clause might be "CLARIFIES," but insists works well enough.

Best of luck,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Green Pacifica]

I'm not sure if this is something I can support or not - additional consideration is needed on behalf of my delegation. HOWEVER, I would appreciate the amendment of the following clause, as follows:

4. INSISTS that all member nations retain the ability to legalize or prohibit non-carrier parental emancipation for purposes not covered in this resolution either unilaterally within their own jurisdictions or collectively through World Assembly resolution.

I don't believe that further mandates of non-carrier parental emancipation are necessary, and I'd appreciate it if this proposal could block further proposals on the subject. (Of course, I don't view such a clause as preventing non-carrier parents from giving up the child for adoption after his/her birth.) Also, a better verb choice for such a clause might be "CLARIFIES," but insists works well enough.

Best of luck,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

We thank the ambassador from Mousebumples for his suggestions. Our government believes that the proposed revision to Section 4 is a reasonable one and we will edit our proposal accordingly. Regarding the suggestion that we revise our proposal to block further proposals on the subject, it's our understanding that it is illegal to prevent future proposals on a subject.

[Green Pacifica]

We may agree with you that it's not right for a non-consenting man to be sued for child support by his rapist. We think that this is probably a red herring, since we cannot recall the last time a raped man being sued by his attacker was reported on the evening news. We also understand that (maybe) a man should not be compelled to raise a terminally ill child based on the decision of the mother. We don't think "petitioning" a woman to have an abortion is appropriate, but we understand your principle at least. . . .

Suffice to say, there are those who will say that a man's "lack-of-consent" will not automatically be a bar to his interest in visiting the child, or his obligation to help support that child in some way. We think this is a legitimate position. There are also those who will say that a man's apprehension at raising a sick or disabled child is quite irrelevant to whether that child deserves to be supported by her father. We think this is also a legitimate position.

Our government wishes to point out to the delegation from Cowardly Pacifists that men who are raped often do not report the crime. Just because something doesn't appear on the evening news doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Our delegation is also perplexed by the Cowardly Pacifist reasoning regarding lack of consent and the use of scare quotes, which suggests a belief that non-carrier rape doesn't occur. We don't understand how rape isn't a bar to a non-carrier's interest in visiting his/her child or his/her obligation to help support the child in some way, but rape is a sufficient bar to a carrier's obligation to carry the child to term. We understand the trauma that carrying the child of one's rapist can cause. Does the delegation from Cowardly Pacifists not understand the trauma that being forced to support the child of one's rapist until the age of majority can cause?

If a carrier chooses to carry the child of his/her rapist, he/she can put the child up for adoption and have no further exposure to it after nine months. On the other hand, if a non-carrier impregnates a carrier against his/her will, he/she has no say in whether or not the child is aborted, no say in whether or not it is given up for adoption, and could be forced to be exposed to and to support that child for years after its birth -- all based on the decisions made by his/her rapist. That is not a situation that this body should tolerate, especially given the passage of General Assembly Resolution #128, On Abortion.

[Ardchoille]

<snip>Regarding the suggestion that we revise our proposal to block further proposals on the subject, it's our understanding that it is illegal to prevent future proposals on a subject.

It's illegal to write "FORBIDS the WA from making further laws on (TOPIC)", but it's not illegal to write, "PRESERVES the right of member nations to (do something about TOPIC)". This effectively snarls, "Keep yer mitts orf this, WA, from now on this one's MY government's decision."

A "blocker"resolution must also contain some active legislation other than the blocking.

Check out WA#10, Nuclear Arms Possession Act. If anyone wanted to make all WA nations ban the use of nuclear weapons, they'd first have to repeal #10. But all it does, other than block such a ban, is require that nuclear nations be vewwy, vewwy careful.

AFTERTHOUGHT: Also, a proposal that blocks the WA from a whole category of legislation, even if it looks as legal as all get-out, is not gonna fly.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Sigh... Every time I try to get out, they pull me back in... Okay, lets get fiesty

Our government wishes to point out to the delegation from Cowardly Pacifists that men who are raped often do not report the crime. Just because something doesn't appear on the evening news doesn't mean it isn't happening.

I was being rhetorical, in order to be kind to the argument your nation is making. Now I'll be blunt: I think you're manufacturing an issue where one does not exist.

Show me the antecedent impression on which you base your assertion. Show me these scores of men who are being sued for child support - or are having a child thrust upon them - by their rapists. You're talking about more than rape, which (sadly) does happen and is under-reported. You're talking about raped men being forced to take part in the rearing of the child they share with their rapist. That's just a bit unusual right? Would you at least be so kind to admit that it's more unusual than a raped woman being forced to rear the child of her attacker?

To the extent that your nation is littered with men who are being forced against their will to ferry the child of their rapist back and forth to preschool (or whatever), it's right that you implement some law to protect such a vulnerable class of people. But I simply don't consider this a real problem - certainly not one meriting an international law.

Our delegation is also perplexed by the Cowardly Pacifist reasoning regarding lack of consent and the use of scare quotes, which suggests a belief that non-carrier rape doesn't occur.

I put the term in quotes to signify that I was referring to the part of your Act dealing with consent/age of majority. I also used hyphens to link the words into a single concept, again in reference to the Act. And earlier in my post I said that I "agree with you that it's not right for a non-consenting man to be sued for child support by his rapist," without any "scare quotes" or equivocation. So your accusation that I hold "a belief that non-carrier rape doesn't occur" is ridiculous and in bad faith. Though I must admit I enjoy seeing such attacks, since they let me know my argument hit home...

We don't understand how rape isn't a bar to a non-carrier's interest in visiting his/her child or his/her obligation to help support the child in some way, but rape is a sufficient bar to a carrier's obligation to carry the child to term. We understand the trauma that carrying the child of one's rapist can cause. Does the delegation from Cowardly Pacifists not understand the trauma that being forced to support the child of one's rapist until the age of majority can cause?

It's clear that the Green Pacifican delegation doesn't understand the trauma that carrying the child of one's rapist can cause. To the extent that you acknowledge that there is some difference - that the raped mother has to deal with a certain trauma that the raped father does not - I think you've made my point.

As far as the trauma of being forced to support the child of one's rapist until the age of majority, I'll say again that I deny your premise. I don't consider this a real problem. To the extent that its an interesting hypothetical, I see nothing wrong with letting individual nations handle this matter for themselves.

If a carrier chooses to carry the child of his/her rapist, he/she can put the child up for adoption and have no further exposure to it after nine months. On the other hand, if a non-carrier impregnates a carrier against his/her will, he/she has no say in whether or not the child is aborted, no say in whether or not it is given up for adoption, and could be forced to be exposed to and to support that child for years after its birth -- all based on the decisions made by his/her rapist. That is not a situation that this body should tolerate, especially given the passage of General Assembly Resolution #128, On Abortion.

"If a carrier chooses to carry the child of his/her rapist..."? I think the problem here might be a lack of biology textbooks in the Green Pacifican education system.

I've already tried to explain how biology requires different results in this case and that it's perfectly rational to differentiate the rights of the sexes based on their different roles in procreation. I'm not talking about the disavowal of children, I'm talking about a woman's right (and a narrow one at that) to determine what goes on within her own body. It's a right to privacy, not a right to get rid of unwanted babies. You may not distinguish the two, but I can.

I get that you're unconvinced by that argument, and I don't know what else I can say to convince you that this issue (abortion) requires we treat the rights of men and women differently. All I can say is good luck convincing this Assembly that you've actually discovered an important natural right to disclaim children that requires the protection of international law. I'll be right here, trying to remind folks to be sensible.

[Mousebumples]

<snip>Regarding the suggestion that we revise our proposal to block further proposals on the subject, it's our understanding that it is illegal to prevent future proposals on a subject.

It's illegal to write "FORBIDS the WA from making further laws on (TOPIC)", but it's not illegal to write, "PRESERVES the right of member nations to (do something about TOPIC)". This effectively snarls, "Keep yer mitts orf this, WA, from now on this one's MY government's decision."

A "blocker"resolution must also contain some active legislation other than the blocking.

Check out WA#10, Nuclear Arms Possession Act. If anyone wanted to make all WA nations ban the use of nuclear weapons, they'd first have to repeal #10. But all it does, other than block such a ban, is require that nuclear nations be vewwy, vewwy careful.

AFTERTHOUGHT: Also, a proposal that blocks the WA from a whole category of legislation, even if it looks as legal as all get-out, is not gonna fly.

Not that Ard needs her posts parroted because I think they're probably all accepted as WA Law (as they should be), but I just wanted to confirm that that's what my previous comment was aiming for. There are many topics - potentially this one - on which I could understand and possibly support limited WA involvement. However, I would like it to be made clear in such proposals that WA interference will be limited and that this will not merely be the jumping off point for a slipperly slope-theory of future proposals on such a subject. (I'd like to think that other ambassadors will agree that the scope of this proposal is sufficient on the subject, but I've long since learned not to make assumptions in the arena of WA ambassadors and the amount of common sense they possess.)

Your consideration in this matter is, as always, greatly appreciated.

Yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Green Pacifica]

Our government has submitted a version of this proposal that has been modified to address some of the concerns expressed by the delegation from Cowardly Pacifists. We have removed the clause that would require member nations to legalize parental emancipation for non-carriers in cases of fetal abnormality. Our proposal now requires legalization of parental emancipation for non-carriers only in cases of rape and statutory rape. However rare these cases might be, our government feels that the General Assembly should take the necessary steps to protect the rights of all rape victims without regard to their sex, gender, or other characteristics.

We humbly and respectfully ask for the support of other delegations. Our submitted proposal may be found here.

[Flibbleites]

A wise man once said, "Writing a resolution is a marathon, not a sprint."

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Moronist Decisions]

The idea looks fine to us.

[Alqania]

Check out WA#10, Nuclear Arms Possession Act. If anyone wanted to make all WA nations ban the use of nuclear weapons, they'd first have to repeal #10. But all it does, other than block such a ban, is require that nuclear nations be vewwy, vewwy careful.

OOC: Surely, NAPA is blocking a ban on the possession of nuclear weapons, but says nothing about their use?

IC:

Lord Raekevik read the proposal carefully before taking the floor. "It would seem that this proposal would require member states to legalize parental emancipation in some cases, but nowhere does it require us to actually emancipate any parent. Legalization does not mean that anyone gets a right to anything. A member state could make it legal for its courts to give parental emancipation but also allow the courts to deny any request for parental emancipation in these same cases - that would not mean parental emancipation was illegal and so the member state would be in compliance with this proposal. As such, the Queendom feels that this proposal does not actually award anyone any rights and is therefore illegal for a category violation. I would suggest that the author contact the Secretariat and ask for the submitted proposal to be removed, so that the wording can be changed."

[Green Pacifica]

Lord Raekevik read the proposal carefully before taking the floor. "It would seem that this proposal would require member states to legalize parental emancipation in some cases, but nowhere does it require us to actually emancipate any parent. Legalization does not mean that anyone gets a right to anything. A member state could make it legal for its courts to give parental emancipation but also allow the courts to deny any request for parental emancipation in these same cases - that would not mean parental emancipation was illegal and so the member state would be in compliance with this proposal. As such, the Queendom feels that this proposal does not actually award anyone any rights and is therefore illegal for a category violation. I would suggest that the author contact the Secretariat and ask for the submitted proposal to be removed, so that the wording can be changed."

Our delegation thanks the ambassador from Alqania for his thoughtful reading of our proposal and for his suggestion. However, we disagree. The wording for our proposal was copied verbatim from GAR#128, On Abortion, which was passed by the General Assembly under the exact same category and strength.

Again, though, we very much appreciate the ambassador's assistance in trying to prevent our proposal from being rejected.

[Flibbleites]

Lord Raekevik read the proposal carefully before taking the floor. "It would seem that this proposal would require member states to legalize parental emancipation in some cases, but nowhere does it require us to actually emancipate any parent. Legalization does not mean that anyone gets a right to anything. A member state could make it legal for its courts to give parental emancipation but also allow the courts to deny any request for parental emancipation in these same cases - that would not mean parental emancipation was illegal and so the member state would be in compliance with this proposal. As such, the Queendom feels that this proposal does not actually award anyone any rights and is therefore illegal for a category violation. I would suggest that the author contact the Secretariat and ask for the submitted proposal to be removed, so that the wording can be changed."

Our delegation thanks the ambassador from Alqania for his thoughtful reading of our proposal and for his suggestion. However, we disagree. The wording for our proposal was copied verbatim from GAR#128, On Abortion, which was passed by the General Assembly under the exact same category and strength.

In other words, you're admitting that you plagiarized?

[Green Pacifica]

In other words, you're admitting that you plagiarized?

OOC: Well, yes and no. Yes, in the sense that much of the language is identical to On Abortion. That was deliberate because the subject matter is so similar -- but not identical, so this isn't duplicative. But no, I don't believe I plagiarized in the sense of a rules violation. The rules only forbid plagiarizing "real world laws and UN resolutions," not WA resolutions. And because I made no specific mention of On Abortion in my proposal, I don't believe there is a House of Cards violation here either.

[Alqania]

Lord Raekevik read the proposal carefully before taking the floor. "It would seem that this proposal would require member states to legalize parental emancipation in some cases, but nowhere does it require us to actually emancipate any parent. Legalization does not mean that anyone gets a right to anything. A member state could make it legal for its courts to give parental emancipation but also allow the courts to deny any request for parental emancipation in these same cases - that would not mean parental emancipation was illegal and so the member state would be in compliance with this proposal. As such, the Queendom feels that this proposal does not actually award anyone any rights and is therefore illegal for a category violation. I would suggest that the author contact the Secretariat and ask for the submitted proposal to be removed, so that the wording can be changed."

Our delegation thanks the ambassador from Alqania for his thoughtful reading of our proposal and for his suggestion. However, we disagree. The wording for our proposal was copied verbatim from GAR#128, On Abortion, which was passed by the General Assembly under the exact same category and strength.

Again, though, we very much appreciate the ambassador's assistance in trying to prevent our proposal from being rejected.

"It was obviously not copied verbatim - that would have been proposal stealing, another illegality. But anyway, abortion and parental emancipation are not the same thing. Legalisation of abortion means that neither anyone having one or anyone performing one is committing a crime and in cases where abortion is not legalised a doctor performing one may be prosecuted. Parental emancipation is not something a doctor does, presumably it is done by a court. Parental emancipation cannot be a crime, because that would make the court a criminal. Wrongful court actions are not prosecuted, they are overturned. By copying the language of On Abortion, Your Excellency has written a rather nonsensical proposal."

[Paper Flowers]

In other words, you're admitting that you plagiarized?

OOC: Well, yes and no. Yes, in the sense that much of the language is identical to On Abortion. That was deliberate because the subject matter is so similar -- but not identical, so this isn't duplicative. But no, I don't believe I plagiarized in the sense of a rules violation. The rules only forbid plagiarizing "real world laws and UN resolutions," not WA resolutions. And because I made no specific mention of On Abortion in my proposal, I don't believe there is a House of Cards violation here either.

OOC: It might be worth checking out the OSRS in Moderation

Plagiarism: Nations that plagiarise proposals will be expelled from the WA. This includes reviving other players' proposals from the Body That Is Nameless, using others' proposals as a line-by-line model for yours, or copying from any other existing document, such as RW UN resolutions or the US Constitution. You may present another delegate's proposal with their permission, provided they confirm their agreement and are acknowledged as author on the proposal and you may revive your own.This applies to both the General Assembly and the Security Council.

[Green Pacifica]

OOC: Ugh, someone just take the proposal down then. Just to be clear, though, I think the moderators are manipulating the rules to prevent proposals they don't like from being voted on. That makes it very discouraging to continue playing this game.

[Green Pacifica]

OOC: Well, yes and no. Yes, in the sense that much of the language is identical to On Abortion. That was deliberate because the subject matter is so similar -- but not identical, so this isn't duplicative. But no, I don't believe I plagiarized in the sense of a rules violation. The rules only forbid plagiarizing "real world laws and UN resolutions," not WA resolutions. And because I made no specific mention of On Abortion in my proposal, I don't believe there is a House of Cards violation here either.

OOC: It might be worth checking out the OSRS in Moderation

Plagiarism: Nations that plagiarise proposals will be expelled from the WA. This includes reviving other players' proposals from the Body That Is Nameless, using others' proposals as a line-by-line model for yours, or copying from any other existing document, such as RW UN resolutions or the US Constitution. You may present another delegate's proposal with their permission, provided they confirm their agreement and are acknowledged as author on the proposal and you may revive your own.This applies to both the General Assembly and the Security Council.

OOC: It might also be worth the moderators posting that rule in their Compendium of Rules at the top of this forum. That was the set of rules I was referred to previously. I wasn't even aware the other set existed.

[Alqania]

OOC: It might be worth checking out the OSRS in Moderation

OOC: It might also be worth the moderators posting that rule in their Compendium of Rules at the top of this forum. That was the set of rules I was referred to previously. I wasn't even aware the other set existed.

OOC:

Well, this is posted in the Compendium:

Proposal Stealing

If it can be proven that you've simply copy and pasted somebody else's Proposal and submitted it as your own, it'll be deleted, and you will be ejected from the WA as well.

I'd presume that "Proposal" here also applies to passed resolutions.

[Green Pacifica]

As a matter of fact, could one of the moderators just delete my nation? I attempted to participate in the World Assembly because this game is absurdly boring otherwise; now I find that it's virtually impossible to actually participate in the WA because you literally have more rules than the actual United Nations. This sucks, it's a waste of my time, and you should really all get lives.

[Flibbleites]

As a matter of fact, could one of the moderators just delete my nation?

No, we do not delete nations on request.

[Green Pacifica]

As a matter of fact, could one of the moderators just delete my nation?

No, we do not delete nations on request.

Whatever. It will be deleted after about a month of not logging in, right? Did I read that somewhere? Or is there a separate rule elsewhere that says something else?