NationStates

The adopted nations of the World Assembly,

NOTING that the World Assembly has both a large historical precedent of, and a vested interest in, valuing the longevity of its institutions;

BELIEVING that immoral institutions naturally promote their own disintegration by failing to account for human intelligence and competence, as those immutable qualities will eventually be utilized in seeking individual moral respect, and thus the dissolution of the immoral institution;

BELIEVING thus that resolutions with an inherent moral logic are best conducive to the fruition of the value of longevity;

FURTHER NOTING that the legislative status quo regarding the issue of mitigating child abuse is horribly lacking in moral cohesion and efficacy;

FURTHER BELIEVING that, having established the fundamental value of longevity, any objection to the aforementioned mitigation made from a place of political or logistical concern cannot stand soundly as an argument against action, as such concerns pale in comparison to the moral importance of the issue at hand;

FURTHER BELIEVING that the assumption that procreation is a natural right, even for those with a history of sexual and physical child abuse, is a poorly conceived ideology functioning within a status quo that enables tragic and immoral subjugation on a global scale in the form of intentional child abuse under the guise of protecting individual autonomy;

FURTHER NOTING that this assumption necessarily entails the violation of the rights of children; namely, the right to not be abused, and that this right is inherently more valuable than that of a known abuser’s to procreate;

FURTHER NOTING that, therefore, this assumption ought to be abandoned.

CLARIFYING that:

a. No legislation proposed in this resolution is an attempt at trivializing issues not mentioned;

b. Even in the scope of the specified topic, the legislation may not address certain important facets of the issue at hand, thus leading to the allowance of further immoral action;

c. In the event of the aforementioned possibility, the proposed legislation should not be viewed as a hindrance to further action, but as a necessary foundation upon which to commence said action;

d. If any “known abuser” is exonerated or proven not guilty, the following legislation obviously does not apply.

HEREBY:

1. RENDERS it illegal for individuals convicted of the sexual or physical abuse of and violence against minors to continue or commence procreation.

Co-authored by Sothoth Shub

GAR#222 already covers this topic.

Morover wrote:GAR#222 already covers this topic.

OOC: The topic, yes. The specific provision? Not so, I believe.

Leishmania wrote:FURTHER NOTING that this assumption necessarily entails the violation of the rights of children; namely, the right to not be abused, and that this right is inherently more valuable than that of a known abuser’s to procreate;

How does this make sense? How does a convicted abuser procreating violate the rights of children not to be abused when it is not happening while abusing a child (which, by the way, might be impossible to begin with, because usually children are unable to procreate)?

Also, opposed.

Morover wrote:GAR#222 already covers this topic.

We understand a very general similarity in aim, but we deduce through thorough moral logic the reasons why it does not go far enough. Child abuse legislation inevitably creates a grey line- that which lies between appropriate discipline and outright abuse. Furthermore, opponents of child abuse legislation will often point to the trauma of having a child removed from a home as a reasonable objection. Our proposal, through bringing about more stringent action, is far better suited to redress the pervasive and unacceptable reality of the situation.

OOC:

Yes, you both are right. I misread the proposed legislation.

Opposed on moral grounds. It is not the government's place to decide who can and can't procreate. If someone has been convicted of child abuse has access to a child, whether it be their own biological child, an adopted child, or some other child without familial relations to the abuser, then relevant authorities will protect the child if they seem to be at risk. Reformed individuals have a right to continue their lineage, and it's an unfair assumption to assume that all convicted abusers are repeat-offenders.

Hell, under your current provisions, someone who was convicted but later discovered to be innocent would be unable to further procreate, which is an even more ridiculous concept.

The New Nordic Union wrote:

Morover wrote:GAR#222 already covers this topic.

OOC: The topic, yes. The specific provision? Not so, I believe.

Leishmania wrote:FURTHER NOTING that this assumption necessarily entails the violation of the rights of children; namely, the right to not be abused, and that this right is inherently more valuable than that of a known abuser’s to procreate;

How does this make sense? How does a convicted abuser procreating violate the rights of children not to be abused when it is not happening while abusing a child (which, by the way, might be impossible to begin with, because usually children are unable to procreate)?

Also, opposed.

This resolution is intended to bar the ability of known abusers to procreate, that is, to have children. There already exists a legislative base dealing with pedophilia. We are focused on protecting the rights of children through barring abusers from procreating, and that includes procreation with other consenting adults. We understand the radical nature of our position, but we believe our moral logic is sound, and we will happily receive any criticism or discussion of it.

Sothoth Shub wrote:

Leishmania wrote:FURTHER NOTING that this assumption necessarily entails the violation of the rights of children; namely, the right to not be abused, and that this right is inherently more valuable than that of a known abuser’s to procreate;

How does this make sense? How does a convicted abuser procreating violate the rights of children not to be abused when it is not happening while abusing a child (which, by the way, might be impossible to begin with, because usually children are unable to procreate)?

This resolution is intended to bar the ability of known abusers to procreate, that is, to have children. There already exists a legislative base dealing with pedophilia. We are focused on protecting the rights of children through barring abusers from procreating, and that includes procreation with other consenting adults. We understand the radical nature of our position, but we believe our moral logic is sound, and we will happily receive any criticism or discussion of it.

OOC:

I understand the sentiment, I just disagree with it. I agree with the concept that repeated offenders may have their right revoked, but somebody who fucked up once (or, again, who is falsely convicted) should not have that right taken away. Maybe it's naive for me to say, but I genuinely believe that proper rehabilitation (as is mandatory in my nation, as opposed to proper prisons, and should be instituted in all civilized nations) will adequately prevent reoffenders.

Additionally, this doesn't take into consideration emotional or psychological abuse. I don't know if this was intentional.

I could theoretically support a draft on the subject, but it would take some drastic changes that I'm not entirely sure are possible at the present time.

Morover wrote:OOC:

Yes, you both are right. I misread the proposed legislation.

Opposed on moral grounds. It is not the government's place to decide who can and can't procreate. If someone has been convicted of child abuse has access to a child, whether it be their own biological child, an adopted child, or some other child without familial relations to the abuser, then relevant authorities will protect the child if they seem to be at risk. Reformed individuals have a right to continue their lineage, and it's an unfair assumption to assume that all convicted abusers are repeat-offenders.

Hell, under your current provisions, someone who was convicted but later discovered to be innocent would be unable to further procreate, which is an even more ridiculous concept.

Our legislation is aimed at challenging this notion of the intrinsic right to continue one's lineage. Due to the gravity of this capability, parents will all too often have an undue latitude in dealing with their children, and the issue can often not be solved through typical abuse legislation. For example, there will always be legal wavering and ambiguity surrounding what constitutes "abuse", as there is substantial support of physical discipline, which may be used to justify poor treatment of one's children. As for morality, we have faith in our process of weighing the moral value of an abuser's right to procreate against that of a child not to be abused quite clearly. We first need to accept that current law surrounding child abuse has never been able to penetrate certain grey areas, and then that the ability to continue one's lineage should be considered more of a privilege than a right. Our moral argument is sound in its ability to cover these bases and ultimately prove an effective means of redressing this issue

Morover wrote:

Sothoth Shub wrote:
How does this make sense? How does a convicted abuser procreating violate the rights of children not to be abused when it is not happening while abusing a child (which, by the way, might be impossible to begin with, because usually children are unable to procreate)?

This resolution is intended to bar the ability of known abusers to procreate, that is, to have children. There already exists a legislative base dealing with pedophilia. We are focused on protecting the rights of children through barring abusers from procreating, and that includes procreation with other consenting adults. We understand the radical nature of our position, but we believe our moral logic is sound, and we will happily receive any criticism or discussion of it.

OOC:

I understand the sentiment, I just disagree with it. I agree with the concept that repeated offenders may have their right revoked, but somebody who fucked up once (or, again, who is falsely convicted) should not have that right taken away. Maybe it's naive for me to say, but I genuinely believe that proper rehabilitation (as is mandatory in my nation, as opposed to proper prisons, and should be instituted in all civilized nations) will adequately prevent reoffenders.

Additionally, this doesn't take into consideration emotional or psychological abuse. I don't know if this was intentional.

I could theoretically support a draft on the subject, but it would take some drastic changes that I'm not entirely sure are possible at the present time.

Thank you! We recognize the potential problems surrounding repeat offenders and are considering additions that will make the legislation more rehabilitative in nature

How on Terra does this not contradict GA#383 "Right to Sexual Privacy," Articles 2 and 5?

Tinhampton wrote:How on Terra does this not contradict GA#383 "Right to Sexual Privacy," Articles 2 and 5?

OOC:

I could see how the argument could be made that this harms the child as a result of the procreation, but I think it's really stretching it and I'd agree with this argument.

"I would have to run alongside Tin on this one, chap, it does contradict GAR #383, Article 5 bars members states from prohibiting and criminalizing procreation as long as they've reached the age of consent. Regardless, opposed."

Lydia Anderson, interim Delegate-Ambassador: There is more than one nation starting with "Tin..." in this Assembly and you'll have to be complaining about Mrs Anderson for the next few weeks, Crawford.
To whoever proposed this, I'm also not a fan but I do have one suggestion... cut out the RECOGNISING clause and replace it with a second operative clause. Copy this down and make a note: "CLARIFIES that this resolution does not prohibit the enactment of further legislation on any issue not mentioned."

Morover wrote:

Tinhampton wrote:How on Terra does this not contradict GA#383 "Right to Sexual Privacy," Articles 2 and 5?

OOC:

I could see how the argument could be made that this harms the child as a result of the procreation, but I think it's really stretching it and I'd agree with this argument.

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.

Tinhampton wrote:Lydia Anderson, interim Delegate-Ambassador: There is more than one nation starting with "Tin..." in this Assembly and you'll have to be complaining about Mrs Anderson for the next few weeks, Crawford.
To whoever proposed this, I'm also not a fan but I do have one suggestion... cut out the RECOGNISING clause and replace it with a second operative clause. Copy this down and make a note: "CLARIFIES that this resolution does not prohibit the enactment of further legislation on any issue not mentioned."

Thank you. I appreciate the feedback.

Tinhampton wrote:Lydia Anderson, interim Delegate-Ambassador: There is more than one nation starting with "Tin..." in this Assembly and you'll have to be complaining about Mrs Anderson for the next few weeks, Crawford.
To whoever proposed this, I'm also not a fan but I do have one suggestion... cut out the RECOGNISING clause and replace it with a second operative clause. Copy this down and make a note: "CLARIFIES that this resolution does not prohibit the enactment of further legislation on any issue not mentioned."

"My mistake, Mrs. Anderson. I was at a loss for your name."

The New Sicilian State wrote:"I would have to run alongside Tin on this one, chap, it does contradict GAR #383, Article 5 bars members states from prohibiting and criminalizing procreation as long as they've reached the age of consent. Regardless, opposed."

May I ask, if not on grounds of legislative contradiction, which I've addressed, then on what grounds are you opposed?

OOC: let’s see ...
1.) No category. I can’t fathom what this could be shoehorned into, either.
2.) A whole lotta bloviating involved for a single sentence mandate. I appreciate your trying to do this so it don’t sound like a twitter post, but I do believe it could be significantly condensed and still convey your meaning.
3.) Understand you will get considerable pushback on this as the idea of, in effect, licensing people to have kids is highly unpopular.
4.) Stop being so human-centric. NS is not earth.

Grays Harbor wrote:OOC: let’s see ...
1.) No category. I can’t fathom what this could be shoehorned into, either.
2.) A whole lotta bloviating involved for a single sentence mandate. I appreciate your trying to do this so it don’t sound like a twitter post, but I do believe it could be significantly condensed and still convey your meaning.
3.) Understand you will get considerable pushback on this as the idea of, in effect, licensing people to have kids is highly unpopular.
4.) Stop being so human-centric. NS is not earth.

Thanks for your feedback.
Does the existence of previous child-abuse legislation on NS not invalidate issues 1 and 4 (usually under the category of civil rights)? Furthermore, on 4., I am quite new to this so I could very well be mistaken, but it was my understanding that NS is whatever we make it. A fun simulation of international, global interaction. I see no reason why postulating on morality would violate this precedent, especially since, as I've mentioned, child abuse legislation has already been passed on NS. As for 3., I am fully aware of the way this legislation will be perceived, yet I earnestly believe in its moral and logical soundness and am willing to debate either.

2. Again, thanks for the feedback. We will be working to address this.

Leishmania wrote:This resolution is intended to bar the ability of known abusers to procreate, that is, to have children. There already exists a legislative base dealing with pedophilia. We are focused on protecting the rights of children through barring abusers from procreating, and that includes procreation with other consenting adults. We understand the radical nature of our position, but we believe our moral logic is sound, and we will happily receive any criticism or discussion of it.

OOC: You still did not answer in what way allowing convicted abusers constitutes child abuse in itself.

The New Nordic Union wrote:

Leishmania wrote:This resolution is intended to bar the ability of known abusers to procreate, that is, to have children. There already exists a legislative base dealing with pedophilia. We are focused on protecting the rights of children through barring abusers from procreating, and that includes procreation with other consenting adults. We understand the radical nature of our position, but we believe our moral logic is sound, and we will happily receive any criticism or discussion of it.

OOC: You still did not answer in what way allowing convicted abusers constitutes child abuse in itself.

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.

Leishmania wrote:

Morover wrote:OOC:

I could see how the argument could be made that this harms the child as a result of the procreation, but I think it's really stretching it and I'd agree with this argument.

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.

Leishmania wrote:

The New Nordic Union wrote:
OOC: You still did not answer in what way allowing convicted abusers constitutes child abuse in itself.

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.

Z is defined in World Assembly law as being an illegal action.
A person (A) subjects a minor (M1) to Z in a particular member state.
That member then punishes A for carrying out Z against M1.
A then enters into a sexual relationship with another person, B.
A and B have a baby (M2).
Simply because A has committed the crime of Z against M1 is not an indicator that they will commit Z against M2.

The only sapient beings that reside on the planet of Omicron Convenience VII reproduce asexually. Even if A is punished on that planet for carrying out Z against M1, how are you going to prevent A from cloning themselves in asexual reproduction?

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.

Leishmania wrote: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.