NationStates

Posted: **Tue Jul 23, 2019 5:40 am**

Ban on Forced Sterilisation
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Germany

The World Assembly,

Lauding the previous efforts of this assembly to protect civil rights,

Recognising that forced sterilisation can have detrimental effects on the individual, including depression and long term psychological effects,

Noting that sterilisation against an individual's will continues to be used as a method of reducing the population of minorities in some member-states and as a punishment for sexual offenders,

Acknowledging that each individual should have the right to choose to reproduce or not as long as it does not violate another individual's right to choose,

Seeking to ban this method that has been, in the past, used to get rid of people that society has considered to be unwanted members, whether they were sexual or ethnic minorities or people with specific disabilities,

Hereby,

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, "sterilisation" as the permanent elimination of an individual's ability to reproduce through the removal or alteration of their reproductive organs or the physiological processes that enable reproduction, through chemical or physical means;

Prohibits:

The sterilisation of any individual without their informed consent, unless a parent or guardian is legally able to and does consent on their behalf;
The extradition of any criminal to places where they may be subject to forced sterilisation as a form of punishment;
Requires that member states:

Carry out thorough investigations into all sterilisation services within their borders, to ensure no illegal sterilisation is taking place;
Reasonably punish people who carry out illegal sterilisation;
Urges member states to provide reparations for victims of forced sterilisation.

Posted: **Tue Jul 23, 2019 5:43 am**

OMG. I was literally writing this up as we speak. Do you want to work together?

Posted: **Tue Jul 23, 2019 5:45 am**

It's a medical procedure correct? PRA.

Posted: **Tue Jul 23, 2019 5:47 am**

United Massachusetts wrote:OMG. I was literally writing this up as we speak. Do you want to work together?

OOC:Of course!

Imperium Anglorum wrote:It's a medical procedure correct? PRA.

OOC:That's quite different, medical procedures are consensual.

Posted: **Tue Jul 23, 2019 5:53 am**

@ IA

(IV) Patients may refuse treatment, provided that such refusal does not endanger the health of others. In non-emergency circumstances, treatment may be given without the patient's consent only in the presence of a legal instrument issued by a court of jurisdiction stating that the patient is not competent to make decisions.

I can imagine the argument around this:

a.) Well, you have this hereditary disease. If you have a child who carries that disease, they endanger the health of others.

OR, the court could pull a:

b.) Court issues a ruling: "You are a member of the third generation of imbeciles. You are not competent to make decisions."

There are too many ways around PRA mandates in this specific case.

Marxist Germany wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:It's a medical procedure correct? PRA.

OOC:That's quite different, medical procedures are consensual.

This is not correct. PRA requires medical procedures to be (mostly) consensual. Why would it have to do that if medical procedures were consensual by nature?

Posted: **Tue Jul 23, 2019 6:04 am**

United Massachusetts wrote:
Marxist Germany wrote:
OOC:That's quite different, medical procedures are consensual.

This is not correct. PRA requires medical procedures to be (mostly) consensual. Why would it have to do that if medical procedures were consensual by nature?

OOC:After a look through PRA, some changes may need to be made.

Posted: **Tue Jul 23, 2019 6:07 am**

Marxist Germany wrote:
United Massachusetts wrote:
This is not correct. PRA requires medical procedures to be (mostly) consensual. Why would it have to do that if medical procedures were consensual by nature?

OOC:After a look through PRA, some changes may need to be made.

Not really

Posted: **Tue Jul 23, 2019 7:04 am**

United Massachusetts wrote:b.) Court issues a ruling: "You are a member of the third generation of imbeciles. You are not competent to make decisions."

OOC
I refer you to GA Resolution #299 'Legal Competence'. Even if the court is considered an appropriate source of rulings on competence under that resolution's terms, or obtains a good enough opinion from a suitable expert, they would still need the consent of that person's legal guardian.
That reminds me, I need to dig out my notes for a follow-up proposal on guardians and wards which -- in addition to balancing the relative rights of those two categories -- would place reasonable limits on governments' power to over-ride familial decisions about choice of guardians...

Posted: **Thu Jul 25, 2019 7:58 am**

OOC: PRA allows parents to make medical decisions/consent on behalf of their children. If they decided that it was in the child's best interests to be sterilized - and found a doctor agreeing to perform the operation - then I don't think there's much that anyone can do about it.

Posted: **Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:27 am**

Araraukar wrote:OOC: PRA allows parents to make medical decisions/consent on behalf of their children. If they decided that it was in the child's best interests to be sterilized - and found a doctor agreeing to perform the operation - then I don't think there's much that anyone can do about it.

OOC:Going to make an exception for minors.

Posted: **Fri Jul 26, 2019 12:36 pm**

“Your preamble seems to jump between forced sterilisation as a form of population control, and as a form of torture. I recommend trying to improve the flow so that it forms one line of thought, rather than multiple distinct ideas.”

Posted: **Fri Jul 26, 2019 2:07 pm**

OOC: Consider adding cruel and unusual language to the preamble. That's the legal debate in the US over this issue, so you might win a lot of support by reframing it in that way thay people already understand to be antithetical to their own values.

I'm not implying that that the US constitution is relevant to NS, but rather that voters would underatand those terms, and they're a succinct way of describing why sterilization is morally wrong.

Posted: **Fri Jul 26, 2019 2:18 pm**

The Great Boom wrote:OOC: Consider adding cruel and unusual language to the preamble. That's the legal debate in the US over this issue, so you might win a lot of support by reframing it in that way thay people already understand to be antithetical to their own values.

I'm not implying that that the US constitution is relevant to NS, but rather that voters would underatand those terms, and they're a succinct way of describing why sterilization is morally wrong.

OOC:Do you have any suggestions?

Posted: **Fri Jul 26, 2019 8:53 pm**

What about people who can't stop having kids and are a burden to the state, particularly out of wedlock?

It creates a viscous cycle of poverty to allow such people to reproduce. Such behaviour contributes to the destruction of society. The family is the foundation of society. Destroy it, and society goes with it.

Posted: **Fri Jul 26, 2019 9:15 pm**

Ave Gloriana wrote:What about people who can't stop having kids and are a burden to the state, particularly out of wedlock?

It creates a viscous cycle of poverty to allow such people to reproduce. Such behaviour contributes to the destruction of society. The family is the foundation of society. Destroy it, and society goes with it.

A horrified look on Darin Perise's face, he's at a loss for words.

"That's - uh - that's not uh... Yeah, that's - uh - not really a good reason. You're still, y'know, forcefully sterilizing people. I can't speak for everyone else, but that seems to be a big no-no. Like, holy shit dude. What?"

Posted: **Sat Jul 27, 2019 12:05 am**

Ave Gloriana wrote:What about people who can't stop having kids and are a burden to the state, particularly out of wedlock?

It creates a viscous cycle of poverty to allow such people to reproduce. Such behaviour contributes to the destruction of society. The family is the foundation of society. Destroy it, and society goes with it.

"Comprehensive, repeated, non-threatening sexual education from when the kids are 9 years old and forward, until they graduate. Make them aware of the consequencies if they have unprotected sex, then provide free preventative methods and abortions that are easily available and do not need parents' consent. Make societal attitude towards sex something that's just a part of human nature rather than something forbidden and thus exciting. Also make being childless by choice not a taboo, but rather just one choice among many. Optionally also institute parental licencing programs, wherein the future child's or children's well-being is at the center of it, and if unfit parents do end up having a child and refuse to have an abortion, the child will be adopted out to someone who has the licence but has been or is unable to reproduce biologically. It's really a simple as that. No forced sterilizations are required, as quite a few people do that voluntarily."

OOC: That's a fairly good description of what was instituted in Araraukar in the past couple of generations.

Posted: **Sat Jul 27, 2019 12:46 am**

“Could you put line breaks between the active clauses, please. Also, in clause two, ‘the minor’ should be ‘a minor’.”

Posted: **Sat Jul 27, 2019 12:51 am**

Marxist Germany wrote:Seeking to ban this form of population control and torture;

I would suggest there is room for an exemption on sterilisation for judicial reasons. Some nations issue this as a punishment and a potentially preventative measure for serial rapists, pedophiles etc.

Otherwise very good, if Drongonia was in the WA we would likely vote for it regardless since we don't do that here.

Posted: **Sat Jul 27, 2019 2:36 am**

Drongonia wrote:
Marxist Germany wrote:Seeking to ban this form of population control and torture;

I would suggest there is room for an exemption on sterilisation for judicial reasons. Some nations issue this as a punishment and a potentially preventative measure for serial rapists, pedophiles etc.

Otherwise very good, if Drongonia was in the WA we would likely vote for it regardless since we don't do that here.

"Forced sterilisation is a bad punishment for rapists and paedophiles, it should not be used."

Kenmoria wrote:“Could you put line breaks between the active clauses, please. Also, in clause two, ‘the minor’ should be ‘a minor’.”

"This has been fixed."

Ave Gloriana wrote:What about people who can't stop having kids and are a burden to the state, particularly out of wedlock?

It creates a viscous cycle of poverty to allow such people to reproduce. Such behaviour contributes to the destruction of society. The family is the foundation of society. Destroy it, and society goes with it.

"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?"

Posted: **Sat Jul 27, 2019 4:14 am**

1- eliminationiof is not a word
2- the words "for any reason" are superfluous

Marxist Germany wrote:"Forced sterilisation is a bad punishment for rapists and paedophiles, it should not be used."

Why is it a bad punishment?

Posted: **Sat Jul 27, 2019 5:38 am**

Marxist Germany wrote:"Forced sterilisation is a bad punishment for rapists and paedophiles, it should not be used."

“I fully agree. Having a punishment that offers no reversibility yet allows the criminal to walk freely is simply cruel. Given that one cannot have children in prison, sterilisation serves to punish somebody only after they are apparently not dangerous enough to be imprisoned. It is nothing more than mindless.

On another note, are you aiming to target solely permanent, or both permanent and temporary forms of sterilisation? Tying the Fallopian tubes is reversible, but would fall under your definition of sterilisation.”

Posted: **Sat Jul 27, 2019 6:49 am**

Marxist Germany wrote:Seeking to ban this form of population control and torture;

OOC: It can't really be torture when done as a medical procedure (otherwise snipping off baby boys' foreskins would be too), so you might want to tone that down. Maybe go for the "how it's used to oppress minorities/try to wipe minorities out by stopping them from breeding" angle instead?

Posted: **Sat Jul 27, 2019 7:03 am**

Kenmoria wrote:Given that one cannot have children in prison

OOC
There have been cases in RL, whether through authorised 'conjugal visits' or otherwise.
And does any GA legislation actually mandate separation of the sexes in member-nations' prisons? if not, then some nations might allow them to mix for one reason or another (economizing by not having two separate sets of jails, presumed rehabilitative effects, extreme views about "equal treatment", or whatever)...

Posted: **Sat Jul 27, 2019 10:23 am**

Kenmoria wrote:
Marxist Germany wrote:"Forced sterilisation is a bad punishment for rapists and paedophiles, it should not be used."

“I fully agree. Having a punishment that offers no reversibility yet allows the criminal to walk freely is simply cruel. Given that one cannot have children in prison, sterilisation serves to punish somebody only after they are apparently not dangerous enough to be imprisoned. It is nothing more than mindless.

On another note, are you aiming to target solely permanent, or both permanent and temporary forms of sterilisation? Tying the Fallopian tubes is reversible, but would fall under your definition of sterilisation.”

"I am banning both as any method of sterilisation can still hurt the person being sterilised, i.e. Tying the fallopian tubes will still temporarily impair a woman's ability to reproduce."

Araraukar wrote:
Marxist Germany wrote:Seeking to ban this form of population control and torture;

OOC: It can't really be torture when done as a medical procedure (otherwise snipping off baby boys' foreskins would be too), so you might want to tone that down. Maybe go for the "how it's used to oppress minorities/try to wipe minorities out by stopping them from breeding" angle instead?

OOC:Done.

Fecaw wrote:1- eliminationiof is not a word
2- the words "for any reason" are superfluous

Marxist Germany wrote:"Forced sterilisation is a bad punishment for rapists and paedophiles, it should not be used."

Why is it a bad punishment?

OOC:
1)Typo fixed
2)Removed

Posted: **Sat Jul 27, 2019 10:55 am**

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?

NationStates

[DEFEATED] Ban on Forced Sterilisation

[DEFEATED] Ban on Forced Sterilisation