[DRAFT] Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Families

[Kenmoria]

"In clause 1a, I do not see why this is the case - what is wrong with adoptive parentage or communal raising of a child?"

[Auralia]

Why grant them in the first place?

Due process. In general, biological parents have guardianship rights. (I wouldn't even see it as the state as "granting" them, merely recognizing a natural reality.) They should be removed in some cases, but the state should have to justify removing them.

Section 5 allows for removal under Section 4, which does not provide a mechanism for such removal in these specific cases.

I've added language to make it clear that removing guardianship can be justified in order to preserve the health and safety of other guardians.

"In clause 1a, I do not see why this is the case - what is wrong with adoptive parentage or communal raising of a child?"

The proposal does not claim that there is something "wrong" with adoptive parentage or communal raising.

Do you believe it is justified to take a child away from loving, supportive, biological parents in favour of adoptive parentage or communal raising? If not, then it is clear that it is ideal for a child to be raised by loving, supportive, biological parents, even if this ideal cannot be met in many cases.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Kenmoria]

"In clause 1a, I do not see why this is the case - what is wrong with adoptive parentage or communal raising of a child?"

The proposal does not claim that there is something "wrong" with adoptive parentage or communal raising.

Do you believe it is justified to take a child away from loving, supportive, biological parents in favour of adoptive parentage or communal raising? If not, then it is clear that it is ideal for a child to be raised by loving, supportive, biological parents, even if this ideal cannot be met in many cases.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

"The ideal scenario is one with loving parents, irrespective of number or blood relation. If the parents cannot afford a child and therefore give it up for adoption, and if the adoptive parents love the child and nurture and protect it, that is not any worse than loving and caring biological parents. Adaptive parentage is not any worse than the biological version, and neither is closer than the other to an ideal family model. Communal raising on the other hand often occurs with the biological parents involved and with their full consent, doing this because they think communal raising is better for the child. To many cultures, this is an ideal, rather than having just two parents."

[Auralia]

"The ideal scenario is one with loving parents, irrespective of number or blood relation.

I notice that you didn't answer my question. Do you believe it is justified to take a child away from loving, supportive, biological parents in favour of adoptive parentage or communal raising?

Communal raising on the other hand often occurs with the biological parents involved and with their full consent, doing this because they think communal raising is better for the child. To many cultures, this is an ideal, rather than having just two parents."

1(a) already references "appropriate involvement from others related by blood, affinity, or similar criteria".

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Wallenburg]

Why grant them in the first place?

Due process. In general, biological parents have guardianship rights. (I wouldn't even see it as the state as "granting" them, merely recognizing a natural reality.) They should be removed in some cases, but the state should have to justify removing them.

Yes, but why grant them at all? Due process only enters into how those rights are removed, not why they are granted.

[Auralia]

Yes, but why grant them at all? Due process only enters into how those rights are removed, not why they are granted.

The state should not be understood as "granting" a biological parent guardianship. A biological parent does not have to justify to the state why they should be permitted to be recognized as the guardian of a child. It is the natural state of affairs.

Of course, guardianship can and should be terminated in some circumstances; for example, because a guardian has been convicted of rape and is therefore a threat to the health and safety of the child or other guardians.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[The Unfounded]

“We stand fundamentally opposed to this legislation. Communal child rearing goes to the very heart of our culture, and we shall stand against any declaration that one system is better than the other.”

[United Massachusetts]

“We stand fundamentally opposed to this legislation. Communal child rearing goes to the very heart of our culture, and we shall stand against any declaration that one system is better than the other.”

"We stand fundamentally opposed to Reproductive Freedoms. The pro-life ethic goes to the very heart of our culture , and we shall stand against any declaration that one system is better than the other.”

[Terra Novae Libero]

[snip

"This is an excellent proposal. It is about time the World Assembly started protecting important institutions like the nuclear family."

[Auralia]

Communal child rearing goes to the very heart of our culture, and we shall stand against any declaration that one system is better than the other.”

This proposal does not assert that communal child rearing is inherently better or worse than other family structures. It merely asserts the primacy of loving, supportive, biological parents in child rearing, whether in a communal or other context. In fact, the proposal acknowledges "appropriate involvement from [persons other than loving, supportive, biological parents] related by blood, affinity, or similar criteria" as part of the ideal it sets forth.

Now, if your culture values the practice of deliberately separating children from loving, supportive, biological parents for the purposes of raising them in a separate communal environment, that is a different story altogether. One of the primary purposes of this proposal is to forbid this practice.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Auralia]

[snip

"This is an excellent proposal. It is about time the World Assembly started protecting important institutions like the nuclear family."

This proposal does not provide special protections for the nuclear family, per se, but for families in general -- headed by loving, supportive, biological parents where possible.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[The First German Order]

“I have a question. What if a member state’s population reproduces asexually or by cloning and doesn’t have “families” in the tradition sense?” Amelia asks after reading over the proposal.

[Wallenburg]

“I have a question. What if a member state’s population reproduces asexually or by cloning and doesn’t have “families” in the tradition sense?” Amelia asks after reading over the proposal.

*stares at all the robot nations out there*

[Kenmoria]

"In clause 2a, what is a 'natural person'? Is this intended to bar robots or AIs from raising children? If so, this seems very discriminatory and unfair."

[Uan aa Boa]

It is ideal for a child to be raised by loving, supportive, biological parents, with appropriate involvement from others related by blood, affinity, or similar criteria. Member states shall respect and support this ideal.

As others have said, the innate superiority of biological parents for no other reason than biology is far from self evident.

Now, if your culture values the practice of deliberately separating children from loving, supportive, biological parents for the purposes of raising them in a separate communal environment, that is a different story altogether. One of the primary purposes of this proposal is to forbid this practice.

Is this not straightforward cultural imperialism? Why should this Assembly assist you in asserting the superiority of your own cultural practices over those of others?

"In clause 2a, what is a 'natural person'? Is this intended to bar robots or AIs from raising children? If so, this seems very discriminatory and unfair."

In most usage a natural person means an individual as opposed to a corporate entity such as an organisation or the state. I believe the choice as to whether to recognise artificial beings as persons is left to individual nations.

[The Sakhalinsk Empire]

"The ideal scenario is one with loving parents, irrespective of number or blood relation.

I notice that you didn't answer my question. Do you believe it is justified to take a child away from loving, supportive, biological parents in favour of adoptive parentage or communal raising?

Communal raising on the other hand often occurs with the biological parents involved and with their full consent, doing this because they think communal raising is better for the child. To many cultures, this is an ideal, rather than having just two parents."

1(a) already references "appropriate involvement from others related by blood, affinity, or similar criteria".

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

OOC: Adoption usually does not occur when the child's biological parents are "loving and supportive". Adoption occurs when parents cannot care for the child, which may occur due to unwanted pregnancy (e.g. banned contraceptives or rape), lack of sufficient funds (to take care of the child's needs such as food), or their death. Other relatives may want to take in the child, but in the case that they do not wish to, then willing adoptive parents may be needed. If you force the relatives of the unwanting biological parents to take in the child even if they don't want to, then they might abuse the child, kick him/her out, etc.

[Auralia]

“I have a question. What if a member state’s population reproduces asexually or by cloning and doesn’t have “families” in the tradition sense?” Amelia asks after reading over the proposal.

A child created through asexual reproduction arguably has a biological parent. In any event, this draft does not assume that children necessarily have biological parents in the first place.

Nonetheless, the draft presents child rearing by biological parents as ideal, so the use of reproductive mechanisms that deliberately deprive a child of unambiguous biological parents should be avoided where possible.

"In clause 2a, what is a 'natural person'? Is this intended to bar robots or AIs from raising children? If so, this seems very discriminatory and unfair."

Uan aa Boa's response to this query is correct. (EDIT: This statement is with respect to the distinction between natural persons and legal persons.)

As others have said, the innate superiority of biological parents for no other reason than biology is far from self evident.

Fortunately, the proposal makes no such claim.

Is this not straightforward cultural imperialism? Why should this Assembly assist you in asserting the superiority of your own cultural practices over those of others?

No more than any other guarantee of human rights by this Assembly. It is not "cultural imperialism" to take a stand against social engineering by oppressive states, nor to defend the right of children to love and be cared for by their parents.

If you force the relatives of the unwanting biological parents to take in the child even if they don't want to, then they might abuse the child, kick him/her out, etc.

((OOC: Yes. What does this have to do with "tak[ing] a child away from loving, supportive, biological parents in favour of adoptive parentage or communal raising"?))

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Uan aa Boa]

As others have said, the innate superiority of biological parents for no other reason than biology is far from self evident.

Fortunately, the proposal makes no such claim.

Then in what sense is it "ideal for a child to be raised by loving, supportive, biological parents"? Assuming that the ideal situation is superior to all others, this clearly implies that it would be worse for a child to be raised by loving and supportive people who are not their biological parents. And what is the difference between the two situations other than biology?

[Christian Democrats]

Fortunately, the proposal makes no such claim.

Then in what sense is it "ideal for a child to be raised by loving, supportive, biological parents"? Assuming that the ideal situation is superior to all others, this clearly implies that it would be worse for a child to be raised by loving and supportive people who are not their biological parents. And what is the difference between the two situations other than biology?

Biology is important. It promotes bonding between parents and children, and it promotes an affinity of interests.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC:

"In clause 2a, what is a 'natural person'? Is this intended to bar robots or AIs from raising children? If so, this seems very discriminatory and unfair."

In most usage a natural person means an individual as opposed to a corporate entity such as an organisation or the state.

True.

I believe the choice as to whether to recognise artificial beings as persons is left to individual nations.

False.

[The Unfounded]

Communal child rearing goes to the very heart of our culture, and we shall stand against any declaration that one system is better than the other.”

This proposal does not assert that communal child rearing is inherently better or worse than other family structures. It merely asserts the primacy of loving, supportive, biological parents in child rearing, whether in a communal or other context. In fact, the proposal acknowledges "appropriate involvement from [persons other than loving, supportive, biological parents] related by blood, affinity, or similar criteria" as part of the ideal it sets forth.

Now, if your culture values the practice of deliberately separating children from loving, supportive, biological parents for the purposes of raising them in a separate communal environment, that is a different story altogether. One of the primary purposes of this proposal is to forbid this practice.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

“FUNDAMENTALLY. OPPOSED. And yes it does.”

[Kenmoria]

“I have a question. What if a member state’s population reproduces asexually or by cloning and doesn’t have “families” in the tradition sense?” Amelia asks after reading over the proposal.

A child created through asexual reproduction arguably has a biological parent. In any event, this draft does not assume that children necessarily have biological parents in the first place.

(OOC: Most asexual reproduction is something splitting into two halves and those are the two children, there are no parents.)

[Aclion]

A child's guardians shall have the authority and responsibility to:
maintain exclusive control over the moral and religious education of the child.

I'm curious, have we banned state religious schooling yet?

(OOC: Most asexual reproduction is something splitting into two halves and those are the two children, there are no parents.)

OOC: I doubt very much that there are any people in the WA that reproduce via fission or mitosis, it being limited to the most simple of organisms. anyway it's all academic, since there are also no children, so nothing in this proposal applies. If you want to try this line of argument you've be better off with crustaceans. fish , insects, or amphibians, species in which adults may be biologically unable to provide care for their offspring, due to wildly different physiology, or because they die after mating.

Also inb4 objections by Araraukar's single celled throwaway nation.

[Auralia]

Fortunately, the proposal makes no such claim.

Then in what sense is it "ideal for a child to be raised by loving, supportive, biological parents"? Assuming that the ideal situation is superior to all others, this clearly implies that it would be worse for a child to be raised by loving and supportive people who are not their biological parents. And what is the difference between the two situations other than biology?

I agree with CD that a biological connection between a parent and a child can be beneficial, but this is not necessary. Adoptive parents can be just as loving and supportive as biological parents, perhaps even more so in particular circumstances.

Nonetheless, it is ideal for children to be raised by loving, supportive biological parents because parents have a natural right to raise their biological children, and children have a natural right to be raised by their biological parents.

I will ask you the same question I have asked others: do you believe it is justified to take a child away from loving, supportive, biological parents in favour of adoptive parentage or communal raising?

I'm curious, have we banned state religious schooling yet?

This is not a ban on state religious schooling, though such schooling would have to be optional.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[The First German Order]

“I have a question. What if a member state’s population reproduces asexually or by cloning and doesn’t have “families” in the tradition sense?” Amelia asks after reading over the proposal.

A child created through asexual reproduction arguably has a biological parent. In any event, this draft does not assume that children necessarily have biological parents in the first place.

Nonetheless, the draft presents child rearing by biological parents as ideal, so the use of reproductive mechanisms that deliberately deprive a child of unambiguous biological parents should be avoided where possible.

"In clause 2a, what is a 'natural person'? Is this intended to bar robots or AIs from raising children? If so, this seems very discriminatory and unfair."

Uan aa Boa's response to this query is correct. (EDIT: This statement is with respect to the distinction between natural persons and legal persons.)

As others have said, the innate superiority of biological parents for no other reason than biology is far from self evident.

Fortunately, the proposal makes no such claim.

Is this not straightforward cultural imperialism? Why should this Assembly assist you in asserting the superiority of your own cultural practices over those of others?

No more than any other guarantee of human rights by this Assembly. It is not "cultural imperialism" to take a stand against social engineering by oppressive states, nor to defend the right of children to love and be cared for by their parents.

If you force the relatives of the unwanting biological parents to take in the child even if they don't want to, then they might abuse the child, kick him/her out, etc.

((OOC: Yes. What does this have to do with "tak[ing] a child away from loving, supportive, biological parents in favour of adoptive parentage or communal raising"?))

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

"Well then this brings about the question; what if a nation can only use cloning to create more of a population? And what if a nation is a nation of robots?" Amelia asks.