[DRAFT] WA Resolution Proposition

[Araraukar]

OOC: This is one of the few cases where I'm ICly and OOCly of the same opinion; that this should be a no-brainer and that certain crimes (rape and child molesting coming to mind) should make you lose the right to have any contribution to the next generation of people. But I don't really like humans as a species in general and think we should do what's best for the planet and voluntarily extinct ourselves simply by refusing to create new generations, so I'm probably going to be in the very small minority of those in support of the idea.

IC: "Support, but you are unlikely to be able to pass this, even if it was legal to propose it, because the majority of the people around here don't really give a fuck about children if they're not their own."

[Bananaistan]

As outlined in our original document, we stand firmly in the belief that procreation should be viewed as more of a privilege than a right. The moral vastness of bringing another consciousness into the world that otherwise wouldn't have existed is too great to believe otherwise.

Every developed country has stringent regulations regarding the adoption of children. To do otherwise would be morally bankrupt. A child's care should be vested in someone who isn't going to physically harm them, sexually abuse them, or otherwise impinge on their moral rights. Should this process be vastly different from reproduction? The ideological status quo says yes, and in doing so, values an individual's right to fuck without a condom over every child's right not to be raped, beaten, and tortured.

If current regulation was enough to address this issue, then not only would child abuse not be such a widely-known phenomenon, it wouldn't be in our vocabulary.

It should go without saying that just because a lot of us have passed from that stage of life without experiencing those atrocities, this does not make the category of "child" separate from that of "human". To protect children's rights is to protect human rights.

OOC: This is a horrendous misinterpretation of RL laws and is actually offensive. A child's care should be vested in their parents unless the parents show themselves unable to adequately care for the child. Public health nurses visiting expectant and new mothers is a thing for a reason.

[Sothoth Shub]

From GAR#383:
"urges member states to legalise such materials or artefacts where it would not cause harm to non-participating individuals"

We are not using this line as some sort of loophole for proposing unrelated legislation. In fact, our legislation explicitly assumes that the case mentioned above is DIRECTLY applicable to procreation by an abuser. From a moral perspective, the creation of a previously non-existent consciousness is a very large consequence of procreation and should be treated as such.

We will be working to address the more legitimate concerns of:

a lack of possibility for rehabilitation within the current legislation and

a lack of address of psychological abuse.

OOC: I don't get this point at all. Clause 5 of GAR#383 is clear. This contradicts it.

There is an exception in GAR#383 which states that regulation of sexual activity can occur in cases in which that activity poses a threat to a non-participating party. We address cases in which the civil rights of children are at stake, and there is thus a direct adverse consequence characterized by protracted physical harm that ensues from known abusers procreating. 383 leaves room for regulation such as ours due precisely to this reason; the exceptions are intended to allow for the solvency of issues that may arise as a result of sexual intercourse. We prove that rights are being violated, and that regulation can lead to the cessation of abuse. The proposal is in line with existing legislation and we would be happy to field any other criticism or questions about the law

[Sothoth Shub]

OOC: This is one of the few cases where I'm ICly and OOCly of the same opinion; that this should be a no-brainer and that certain crimes (rape and child molesting coming to mind) should make you lose the right to have any contribution to the next generation of people. But I don't really like humans as a species in general and think we should do what's best for the planet and voluntarily extinct ourselves simply by refusing to create new generations, so I'm probably going to be in the very small minority of those in support of the idea.

IC: "Support, but you are unlikely to be able to pass this, even if it was legal to propose it, because the majority of the people around here don't really give a fuck about children if they're not their own."

Thanks for your support! Glad you see the value in the abolition of this assumption that procreation is a universal right in spite of all its adverse ramifications for children. We're certainly trying our best.

[Leishmania]

As outlined in our original document, we stand firmly in the belief that procreation should be viewed as more of a privilege than a right. The moral vastness of bringing another consciousness into the world that otherwise wouldn't have existed is too great to believe otherwise.

Every developed country has stringent regulations regarding the adoption of children. To do otherwise would be morally bankrupt. A child's care should be vested in someone who isn't going to physically harm them, sexually abuse them, or otherwise impinge on their moral rights. Should this process be vastly different from reproduction? The ideological status quo says yes, and in doing so, values an individual's right to fuck without a condom over every child's right not to be raped, beaten, and tortured.

If current regulation was enough to address this issue, then not only would child abuse not be such a widely-known phenomenon, it wouldn't be in our vocabulary.

It should go without saying that just because a lot of us have passed from that stage of life without experiencing those atrocities, this does not make the category of "child" separate from that of "human". To protect children's rights is to protect human rights.

OOC: This is a horrendous misinterpretation of RL laws and is actually offensive. A child's care should be vested in their parents unless the parents show themselves unable to adequately care for the child. Public health nurses visiting expectant and new mothers is a thing for a reason.

The widespread mistreatment of children demands a greater attention than the status quo provides. As I've stated, if it didn't, then "widespread child abuse" would not even be an idea that you knew how to interact with. If your proposal is for increased visitation of expectant mothers by public health nurses for purposes of preventing child abuse(hardly their main purpose under the status quo), then I appreciate your feedback. If, however, you're proposing that I stop attacking a status quo that supports horrendous child abuse because it's "offensive", then I suggest you search for sturdier moral footing.

[Leishmania]

It seems reasonable that, barring a great emotional revolution of the abuser that has lead to his/her rehabilitation (which we will address later), allowing that abuser to have more children, or to procreate (procreation: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/procreate), would almost certainly lead to the abuse of any new child or children, a moral travesty that cannot be allowed.

OOC: This is in no way or form 'almost certain'. Also, other ways could be used to prevent this than stripping convicts of their rights.

Also, no need to bring the dictionary to the discussion, nobody here is in doubt about the meaning of procreation.

If you'll notice, I said, "barring great emotional revolution of the abuser". Would you mind giving me a reason why an abuser would not continue abuse without such a revolution? Without such a reason inaction seems deplorable.

As for the severity of the proposed legislation, I would argue that just because child abuse exists under the status quo does not make it any less severe than our proposal. Please see the privilege/right argumentation posted in this thread.

Also, sorry for my pedantic dictionary link, just wanted to make absolutely certain we were on the same page so I could effectively argue my point. I always appreciate the feedback.

[Araraukar]

The widespread mistreatment of children demands a greater attention than the status quo provides. As I've stated, if it didn't, then "widespread child abuse" would not even be an idea that you knew how to interact with. If your proposal is for increased visitation of expectant mothers by public health nurses for purposes of preventing child abuse(hardly their main purpose under the status quo), then I appreciate your feedback. If, however, you're proposing that I stop attacking a status quo that supports horrendous child abuse because it's "offensive", then I suggest you search for sturdier moral footing.

OOC: Are you aware that this is an IC forum where out-of-character posts should be marked as OOC? And that in IC there exists the Child Abuse Ban resolution? If your nation still has widespread child abuse despite that resolution having been passed quite some time ago, then your nation has much bigger issues than letting pedophiles reproduce.

If you're talking of RL and not bothering to talk in the frame of the GA, then this is the entirely wrong forum for you to be in.

[Tinhampton]

As outlined in our original document, we stand firmly in the belief that procreation should be viewed as more of a privilege than a right. The moral vastness of bringing another consciousness into the world that otherwise wouldn't have existed is too great to believe otherwise.

By that logic, abortion is a privilege because "the moral vastness of exterminating a consciousness that otherwise would have existed" is... vast.

OOC: This is a horrendous misinterpretation of RL laws and is actually offensive. A child's care should be vested in their parents unless the parents show themselves unable to adequately care for the child. Public health nurses visiting expectant and new mothers is a thing for a reason.

The widespread mistreatment of children demands a greater attention than the status quo provides. As I've stated, if it didn't, then "widespread child abuse" would not even be an idea that you knew how to interact with.

A bad thing does not suddenly vanish off the face of the multiverse simply because there is a rule against it. Non-compliance can happen... and can be acknowledged in resolutions, as per the Secretariat's ruling in Gruenberg vs. Compliance Commission... and must be punished under GA#440. Besides, I find your fixation on this "mythical status quo," a la Jocospor's fight against the "WA Elite," to be... somewhat disconcerting.

If your proposal is for increased visitation of expectant mothers by public health nurses for purposes of preventing child abuse(hardly their main purpose under the status quo), then I appreciate your feedback.

Nurses are only mentioned once in GA legis... fuck, I mean the Big Book of Status Quoishness; namely in a repealed resolution on medical blockades including them in a definition of "medical personnel."

If, however, you're proposing that I stop attacking a status quo that supports horrendous child abuse because it's "offensive", then I suggest you search for sturdier moral footing.

Simply because the only argument that can be made in favour of parental licensing is a moral argument does not mean that moral arguments are the only sort of argument that can be used in any GA-related discussion.

---

OOC: I don't get this point at all. Clause 5 of GAR#383 is clear. This contradicts it.

There is an exception in GAR#383 which states that regulation of sexual activity can occur in cases in which that activity poses a threat to a non-participating party. We address cases in which the civil rights of children are at stake, and there is thus a direct adverse consequence characterized by protracted physical harm that ensues from known abusers procreating. 383 leaves room for regulation such as ours due precisely to this reason; the exceptions are intended to allow for the solvency of issues that may arise as a result of sexual intercourse. We prove that rights are being violated, and that regulation can lead to the cessation of abuse. The proposal is in line with existing legislation and we would be happy to field any other criticism or questions about the law

The "materials and artifacts" clause? That's targetted at vibrators and dildos, not foetuses.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: I don't get this point at all. Clause 5 of GAR#383 is clear. This contradicts it.

There is an exception in GAR#383 which states that regulation of sexual activity can occur in cases in which that activity poses a threat to a non-participating party. We address cases in which the civil rights of children are at stake, and there is thus a direct adverse consequence characterized by protracted physical harm that ensues from known abusers procreating. 383 leaves room for regulation such as ours due precisely to this reason; the exceptions are intended to allow for the solvency of issues that may arise as a result of sexual intercourse. We prove that rights are being violated, and that regulation can lead to the cessation of abuse. The proposal is in line with existing legislation and we would be happy to field any other criticism or questions about the law

OOC: It's not clause 8 you are looking for then.

The exception in clause 5 is in respect of activity which "directly [causes] physical harm to any non-participant". You propose a blanket prohibition where there might be indirect harm to some innocent bystander who doesn't even exist yet. This is not direct physical harm to any non-participant. My 1/6 of GenSec is that your proposal is illegal.

[The New Nordic Union]

If you'll notice, I said, "barring great emotional revolution of the abuser". Would you mind giving me a reason why an abuser would not continue abuse without such a revolution? Without such a reason inaction seems deplorable.

OOC: The reasons for abuse are manifold. Just because someone has abused some child in the past does not mean they'll abuse every child they come across. Maybe the child is of a different gender. Maybe they do draw the line at blood relatives. Maybe they have undergone this great revolution you mention. Maybe therapy was successful.
I am not advocating for inaction. But the way you propose does not seem to be the right one for me.

[Leishmania]

The widespread mistreatment of children demands a greater attention than the status quo provides. As I've stated, if it didn't, then "widespread child abuse" would not even be an idea that you knew how to interact with. If your proposal is for increased visitation of expectant mothers by public health nurses for purposes of preventing child abuse(hardly their main purpose under the status quo), then I appreciate your feedback. If, however, you're proposing that I stop attacking a status quo that supports horrendous child abuse because it's "offensive", then I suggest you search for sturdier moral footing.

OOC: Are you aware that this is an IC forum where out-of-character posts should be marked as OOC? And that in IC there exists the Child Abuse Ban resolution? If your nation still has widespread child abuse despite that resolution having been passed quite some time ago, then your nation has much bigger issues than letting pedophiles reproduce.

If you're talking of RL and not bothering to talk in the frame of the GA, then this is the entirely wrong forum for you to be in.

As I've stated, NS is used as a fun simulacrum of the real world in all its facets. I am not going to mark all my posts with OOC or IC because, as of yet, I have made no delineation between my OOC and IC ideology, something that is perfectly within the bounds of NS. I'll direct you to several of the other legislative battles occurring within this forum. Even in-game, the "Child Abuse Ban resolution", or any other international ban should not be used as an excuse to shut down any other debate on the topic. This is, at its core, a make-believe game that can be used for any number of purposes. Having this debate is mine.

EDIT: IGNORANT IDIOCY. THANKS FOR THE EDUCATION

[Sothoth Shub]

There is an exception in GAR#383 which states that regulation of sexual activity can occur in cases in which that activity poses a threat to a non-participating party. We address cases in which the civil rights of children are at stake, and there is thus a direct adverse consequence characterized by protracted physical harm that ensues from known abusers procreating. 383 leaves room for regulation such as ours due precisely to this reason; the exceptions are intended to allow for the solvency of issues that may arise as a result of sexual intercourse. We prove that rights are being violated, and that regulation can lead to the cessation of abuse. The proposal is in line with existing legislation and we would be happy to field any other criticism or questions about the law

OOC: It's not clause 8 you are looking for then.

The exception in clause 5 is in respect of activity which "directly [causes] physical harm to any non-participant". You propose a blanket prohibition where there might be indirect harm to some innocent bystander who doesn't even exist yet. This is not direct physical harm to any non-participant. My 1/6 of GenSec is that your proposal is illegal.

There is no intrinsic harm in legislative measures whose purpose is to prevent adverse consequence. Many laws are aimed at getting ahead of happenings which are particularly horrible, and we believe that child abuse certainly justifies such precaution, especially since the proposal already targets known abusers. As for adherence to clause 5, the harm is in fact direct. We believe that the passage of the proposal will lower child abuse, and the presence of that effect and the abatement of that issue means signals that child abuse is a direct result of the status quo, in which there are no limitations on procreation for certain individuals with egregious histories.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Are you aware that this is an IC forum where out-of-character posts should be marked as OOC? And that in IC there exists the Child Abuse Ban resolution? If your nation still has widespread child abuse despite that resolution having been passed quite some time ago, then your nation has much bigger issues than letting pedophiles reproduce.

If you're talking of RL and not bothering to talk in the frame of the GA, then this is the entirely wrong forum for you to be in.

As I've stated, NS is used as a fun simulacrum of the real world in all its facets. I am not going to mark all my posts with OOC or IC because, as of yet, I have made no delineation between my OOC and IC ideology, something that is perfectly within the bounds of NS. I'll direct you to several of the other legislative battles occurring within this forum. Even in-game, the "Child Abuse Ban resolution", or any other international ban should not be used as an excuse to shut down any other debate on the topic. This is, at its core, a make-believe game that can be used for any number of purposes. Having this debate is mine.

OOC: This is an IC forum. If you want to discuss real world issues, go to General, and god save your soul.

IC: "This proposal proposes what is, in effect, an administrative public health restriction and appears to conflate it with a criminal punishment. Insofar as public health is a concern, less invasive efforts are just as effective. Insofar as criminal punishment is a goal, reproduction, while linked to sex, has little to do with sexual violence, and ceding one's reproductive rights as a punishment is too alienated from the crime. We are opposed."

[Leishmania]

If you'll notice, I said, "barring great emotional revolution of the abuser". Would you mind giving me a reason why an abuser would not continue abuse without such a revolution? Without such a reason inaction seems deplorable.

OOC: The reasons for abuse are manifold. Just because someone has abused some child in the past does not mean they'll abuse every child they come across. Maybe the child is of a different gender. Maybe they do draw the line at blood relatives. Maybe they have undergone this great revolution you mention. Maybe therapy was successful.
I am not advocating for inaction. But the way you propose does not seem to be the right one for me.

Again, the huge imbalance of importance between an individual's right to procreate and a child's right to not be abused underlined in our right/privilege entry means that we should always err on the side of caution for the child.

As I've said, I have yet to address the possibility of rehabilitation. However, behavioral psychology shows a very large human tendency to continue on one path of action without significant changes in mentality, and this makes quite a bit of common sense as well. This means that barring rehabilitation, continued abuse seems likely.

I don't wish to shut down this line of criticism, in fact, I'm greatly enjoying this discussion. However, I would like to make sure that we are starting from a common base and working together to find the truth, instead of just butting heads. You say that you are not advocating for inaction. Would you mind discussing with me where you lie on the discussion of procreation being a natural right and/or what action you would be comfortable with? I would like to establish a base there before continuing with the "probability of further abuse" discussion if that's alright with you.

[Leishmania]

As I've stated, NS is used as a fun simulacrum of the real world in all its facets. I am not going to mark all my posts with OOC or IC because, as of yet, I have made no delineation between my OOC and IC ideology, something that is perfectly within the bounds of NS. I'll direct you to several of the other legislative battles occurring within this forum. Even in-game, the "Child Abuse Ban resolution", or any other international ban should not be used as an excuse to shut down any other debate on the topic. This is, at its core, a make-believe game that can be used for any number of purposes. Having this debate is mine.

OOC: This is an IC forum. If you want to discuss real world issues, go to General, and god save your soul.

IC: "This proposal proposes what is, in effect, an administrative public health restriction and appears to conflate it with a criminal punishment. Insofar as public health is a concern, less invasive efforts are just as effective. Insofar as criminal punishment is a goal, reproduction, while linked to sex, has little to do with sexual violence, and ceding one's reproductive rights as a punishment is too alienated from the crime. We are opposed."

Are the other legislative works being discussed here not just as applicable to the real world? If you need Leishmania's words to come from a character, then allow my words to be the face of that character. However, as I've stated, I have not made any IC/OOC delineation as of yet, which is perfectly in the bounds of NS and this forum. If this is a strictly IC forum then so-be-it, my character is the speaker of the words I write.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: This is an IC forum. If you want to discuss real world issues, go to General, and god save your soul.

IC: "This proposal proposes what is, in effect, an administrative public health restriction and appears to conflate it with a criminal punishment. Insofar as public health is a concern, less invasive efforts are just as effective. Insofar as criminal punishment is a goal, reproduction, while linked to sex, has little to do with sexual violence, and ceding one's reproductive rights as a punishment is too alienated from the crime. We are opposed."

Are the other legislative works being discussed here not just as applicable to the real world? If you need Leishmania's words to come from a character, then allow my words to be the face of that character. However, as I've stated, I have not made any IC/OOC delineation as of yet, which is perfectly in the bounds of NS and this forum. If this is a strictly IC forum then so-be-it, my character is the speaker of the words I write.

OOC: Cool, then lets not reference the game or the forum in our IC posts as if its OOC.

[The New Sicilian State]

As outlined in our original document, we stand firmly in the belief that procreation should be viewed as more of a privilege than a right. The moral vastness of bringing another consciousness into the world that otherwise wouldn't have existed is too great to believe otherwise.

Every developed country has stringent regulations regarding the adoption of children. To do otherwise would be morally bankrupt. A child's care should be vested in someone who isn't going to physically harm them, sexually abuse them, or otherwise impinge on their moral rights. Should this process be vastly different from reproduction? The ideological status quo says yes, and in doing so, values an individual's right to fuck without a condom over every child's right not to be raped, beaten, and tortured.

If current regulation was enough to address this issue, then not only would child abuse not be such a widely-known phenomenon, it wouldn't be in our vocabulary.

It should go without saying that just because a lot of us have passed from that stage of life without experiencing those atrocities, this does not make the category of "child" separate from that of "human". To protect children's rights is to protect human rights.

"Unfortunately, you will not find too many individuals who share your belief, Ambassador. For a policymaker so keen on the protection of children, you surely speak with no regard to the ears of my nineteen year old assistant, I ask that you watch your language. As it stands, regardless of my growing dislike for your attitude towards my fellow policymakers, this legislation is still illegal for contradiction of clause 5 of GAR #383. Your 'exception' is invalid, considering this feasible innocent bystander doesn't actually exist yet, there is absolutely no way to gauge certainty that the accused in question would not change their ways or mindsets upon setting their eyes upon their own flesh and blood, and that this procreation does not directly hurt this child. To answer your question before, my administration is opposed simply on the grounds that we do not believe that an international council should choose who is or isn't permitted to procreate."

[Grays Harbor]

... but it was my understanding that NS is whatever we make it.

OOC: For your nation, yes. However, it is not up to you to determine what 23000+ other nations do. Not all nations, in fact most nations, are not on earth. Not all people are human. That is an accepted part of IC participation in the GA. And has been stated, this is primarily an IC forum, one which also writes the legislation of the General Assembly. And that is not an issue up for debate.

[Leishmania]

As outlined in our original document, we stand firmly in the belief that procreation should be viewed as more of a privilege than a right. The moral vastness of bringing another consciousness into the world that otherwise wouldn't have existed is too great to believe otherwise.

By that logic, abortion is a privilege because "the moral vastness of exterminating a consciousness that otherwise would have existed" is... vast.

Immoral action does not stem from a lack of positive deeds. It stems from actively negative deeds done to an extant consciousness.

The widespread mistreatment of children demands a greater attention than the status quo provides. As I've stated, if it didn't, then "widespread child abuse" would not even be an idea that you knew how to interact with.

A bad thing does not suddenly vanish off the face of the multiverse simply because there is a rule against it. Non-compliance can happen... and can be acknowledged in resolutions, as per the Secretariat's ruling in Gruenberg vs. Compliance Commission... and must be punished under GA#440. Besides, I find your fixation on this "mythical status quo," a la Jocospor's fight against the "WA Elite," to be... somewhat disconcerting.

We agree, and when we see legislation that is less effective than it can be, it is incumbent on this body to address those issues.
The ability to create common myth is the power of this game. Perhaps you could elaborate on our "fixation on this 'mythical status quo'"? I mean if all debate and legislation in the GA were based on previous legislation, new ground could never be covered. Isn't it necessary at some point to appeal to the real world for inspiration in our NS world?

If your proposal is for increased visitation of expectant mothers by public health nurses for purposes of preventing child abuse(hardly their main purpose under the status quo), then I appreciate your feedback.

Nurses are only mentioned once in GA legis... fuck, I mean the Big Book of Status Quoishness; namely in a repealed resolution on medical blockades including them in a definition of "medical personnel."

Please note that it was not I who brought public health nurses into the debate. I merely addressed a point someone else made. However, please see my previous questions. I'm earnestly curious if I'm operating under some great misapprehension about NS as a whole.

There is an exception in GAR#383 which states that regulation of sexual activity can occur in cases in which that activity poses a threat to a non-participating party. We address cases in which the civil rights of children are at stake, and there is thus a direct adverse consequence characterized by protracted physical harm that ensues from known abusers procreating. 383 leaves room for regulation such as ours due precisely to this reason; the exceptions are intended to allow for the solvency of issues that may arise as a result of sexual intercourse. We prove that rights are being violated, and that regulation can lead to the cessation of abuse. The proposal is in line with existing legislation and we would be happy to field any other criticism or questions about the law

The "materials and artifacts" clause? That's targetted at vibrators and dildos, not foetuses.[/quote][/quote]

Lol, my citing of section eight was quite the error. Please though, see section five: "where it does not directly cause physical harm to any non-participant", and allow my point to stand. It cannot be stated that allowing someone with a high likelihood of future child abuse access to children, whether that access is given through reproduction or otherwise, does not cause physical harm to a non-participant.

[Sothoth Shub]

As outlined in our original document, we stand firmly in the belief that procreation should be viewed as more of a privilege than a right. The moral vastness of bringing another consciousness into the world that otherwise wouldn't have existed is too great to believe otherwise.

Every developed country has stringent regulations regarding the adoption of children. To do otherwise would be morally bankrupt. A child's care should be vested in someone who isn't going to physically harm them, sexually abuse them, or otherwise impinge on their moral rights. Should this process be vastly different from reproduction? The ideological status quo says yes, and in doing so, values an individual's right to fuck without a condom over every child's right not to be raped, beaten, and tortured.

If current regulation was enough to address this issue, then not only would child abuse not be such a widely-known phenomenon, it wouldn't be in our vocabulary.

It should go without saying that just because a lot of us have passed from that stage of life without experiencing those atrocities, this does not make the category of "child" separate from that of "human". To protect children's rights is to protect human rights.

"Unfortunately, you will not find too many individuals who share your belief, Ambassador. For a policymaker so keen on the protection of children, you surely speak with no regard to the ears of my nineteen year old assistant, I ask that you watch your language. As it stands, regardless of my growing dislike for your attitude towards my fellow policymakers, this legislation is still illegal for contradiction of clause 5 of GAR #383. Your 'exception' is invalid, considering this feasible innocent bystander doesn't actually exist yet, there is absolutely no way to gauge certainty that the accused in question would not change their ways or mindsets upon setting their eyes upon their own flesh and blood, and that this procreation does not directly hurt this child. To answer your question before, my administration is opposed simply on the grounds that we do not believe that an international council should choose who is or isn't permitted to procreate."

Apologies for the language; though there was no ill intent behind it, it will not recur. As for your objection, we respect it, but most point out that the exception in GAR #383 does in fact apply. We believe that the passage of this proposal will surely decrease the rate of child abuse and that, therefore, the effect imposed on children is clear enough to be considered a direct harm. We need to examine the negligent and reprehensible practice of known abusers procreating, think about the inevitable consequences, and then consider action. When deconstructing the situation in such a manner, we are sure that you will find no moral value in propagating the behavior of abusers.

[The New Sicilian State]

Lol, my citing of section eight was quite the error. Please though, see section five: "where it does not directly cause physical harm to any non-participant", and allow my point to stand. It cannot be stated that allowing someone with a high likelihood of future child abuse access to children, whether that access is given through reproduction or otherwise, does not cause physical harm to a non-participant.

"Ah, this is where things get tricky. Interpretation is key, and frankly at the end of the day, it's up to GenSec. In my opinion, the possible harm towards an individual that does not yet exist cannot possibly qualify as direct physical harm to a non-participant. Unless the abuser conjures up a fetus or an infant and body slams it during or directly following procreation, I cannot see how this could qualify as an exception. Your heart is in the right place, but the deliberate barring of procreation as punishment for crimes yet to be committed is immoral by itself."

[Leishmania]

Lol, my citing of section eight was quite the error. Please though, see section five: "where it does not directly cause physical harm to any non-participant", and allow my point to stand. It cannot be stated that allowing someone with a high likelihood of future child abuse access to children, whether that access is given through reproduction or otherwise, does not cause physical harm to a non-participant.

"Ah, this is where things get tricky. Interpretation is key, and frankly at the end of the day, it's up to GenSec. In my opinion, the possible harm towards an individual that does not yet exist cannot possibly qualify as direct physical harm to a non-participant. Unless the abuser conjures up a fetus or an infant and body slams it during or directly following procreation, I cannot see how this could qualify as an exception. Your heart is in the right place, but the deliberate barring of procreation as punishment for crimes yet to be committed is immoral by itself."

Procreation is the creation of new life, not the sexual process. There is no need to imagine "conjur[ing] up" anything, as the process of procreation, the thing we are proposing to criminalize, by definition, creates a child. The part of our proposition that is under attack as being inconsistent with previous legislation is the sexual process part of procreation. If sex occurs without procreation, it is entirely out of the scope of our legislation. Therefore, if it is a pertinent sexual act, then it must create a child and has a high likelihood of causing harm to that child, being that one or more of the parents has a history of child abuse.

[Leishmania]

Are the other legislative works being discussed here not just as applicable to the real world? If you need Leishmania's words to come from a character, then allow my words to be the face of that character. However, as I've stated, I have not made any IC/OOC delineation as of yet, which is perfectly in the bounds of NS and this forum. If this is a strictly IC forum then so-be-it, my character is the speaker of the words I write.

OOC: Cool, then lets not reference the game or the forum in our IC posts as if its OOC.

Ah, thank you. Quite new to this.

[Leishmania]

There is an exception in GAR#383 which states that regulation of sexual activity can occur in cases in which that activity poses a threat to a non-participating party. We address cases in which the civil rights of children are at stake, and there is thus a direct adverse consequence characterized by protracted physical harm that ensues from known abusers procreating. 383 leaves room for regulation such as ours due precisely to this reason; the exceptions are intended to allow for the solvency of issues that may arise as a result of sexual intercourse. We prove that rights are being violated, and that regulation can lead to the cessation of abuse. The proposal is in line with existing legislation and we would be happy to field any other criticism or questions about the law

OOC: It's not clause 8 you are looking for then.

The exception in clause 5 is in respect of activity which "directly [causes] physical harm to any non-participant". You propose a blanket prohibition where there might be indirect harm to some innocent bystander who doesn't even exist yet. This is not direct physical harm to any non-participant. My 1/6 of GenSec is that your proposal is illegal.

Please see my latest post about the argument for direct harm. If this does not suffice, would you propose the drafting of a replacement resolution that does not contradict our legislation?

[Leishmania]

... but it was my understanding that NS is whatever we make it.

OOC: For your nation, yes. However, it is not up to you to determine what 23000+ other nations do. Not all nations, in fact most nations, are not on earth. Not all people are human. That is an accepted part of IC participation in the GA. And has been stated, this is primarily an IC forum, one which also writes the legislation of the General Assembly. And that is not an issue up for debate.

Yet in none of my posts have I tried to regulate the action of others, only tried to excuse my own. Nor have I stated that I am insisting on being OOC, only that my character is based on my OOC ideology. Please, tell me, what am I to do? What of the legislation that explicitly mentions humans that has already been passed? I am not arguing in favor of a lack of role-playing, only for the validity of my own action within a role-playing community.

I think Separatist Peoples may have clarified this. I will not be mentioning the game or IC/OOC again, but it was not I who originally brought those up.

EDIT: IGNORANT IDIOCY. THANKS FOR THE EDUCATION