[DEFEATED] Ban on Forced Sterilisation

[Lyrrea]

It would seem to me that people are choosing to ignore that the included exemptions are exemptions that would already be required by law-- parents and guardians are allowed to consent in place of their children to medical procedures because of the Patients' Rights Act.

To address the several ambassadors who state that this restricts their ability to punish criminals, particularly criminals convicted of crimes such as sexual assault or child sexual abuse, the People's Republic of Lyrrea is unable to understand why you wouldn't simply execute those criminals.

[Bananaistan]

It would seem to me that people are choosing to ignore that the included exemptions are exemptions that would already be required by law-- parents and guardians are allowed to consent in place of their children to medical procedures because of the Patients' Rights Act.

To address the several ambassadors who state that this restricts their ability to punish criminals, particularly criminals convicted of crimes such as sexual assault or child sexual abuse, the People's Republic of Lyrrea is unable to understand why you wouldn't simply execute those criminals.

"Patients' Rights Act only extends to lawful medical procedures. It would be entirely within the remit of this assembly to demand that sterilisation of minors, in the context of the definition of sterilisation presented in this proposal, is only lawful in circumstances where it is entirely necessary for the long term health of the individual concerned. Thereby leaving voluntary sterilisation to adults only.

"No member state may "simply execute" any criminal. See GAR#443, Preventing The Execution Of Innocents."

- Ted

[Marxist Germany]

It would seem to me that people are choosing to ignore that the included exemptions are exemptions that would already be required by law-- parents and guardians are allowed to consent in place of their children to medical procedures because of the Patients' Rights Act.

To address the several ambassadors who state that this restricts their ability to punish criminals, particularly criminals convicted of crimes such as sexual assault or child sexual abuse, the People's Republic of Lyrrea is unable to understand why you wouldn't simply execute those criminals.

"Patients' Rights Act only extends to lawful medical procedures. It would be entirely within the remit of this assembly to demand that sterilisation of minors, in the context of the definition of sterilisation presented in this proposal, is only lawful in circumstances where it is entirely necessary for the long term health of the individual concerned. Thereby leaving voluntary sterilisation to adults only.

"No member state may "simply execute" any criminal. See GAR#443, Preventing The Execution Of Innocents."

- Ted

"I added the exception because I wanted to avoid contradiction, I should've read PRA more carefully, and remember, ambassador, an exception isn't a mandate."

[Lyrrea]

"No member state may "simply execute" any criminal. See GAR#443, Preventing The Execution Of Innocents."

I was not proposing that you should execute any suspected criminal, but rather that once the sufficient evidence is submitted to the Judicial Committee of the Compliance Commission and it is determined that such a crime was actually committed, execution be the punishment instead for such criminals, as a potential alternative to sterilization, which is an ineffective method of punishment for preventing repeat crimes of such a nature, anyway.

[Lyrrea]

As a matter of fact, I don't, personally, see how the forced sterilization of any suspected innocent is any better, as I don't think those individuals should be punished at all, especially not in such a way as to permanently decrease their quality of life.

[Kenmoria]

"Patients' Rights Act only extends to lawful medical procedures. It would be entirely within the remit of this assembly to demand that sterilisation of minors, in the context of the definition of sterilisation presented in this proposal, is only lawful in circumstances where it is entirely necessary for the long term health of the individual concerned. Thereby leaving voluntary sterilisation to adults only.

"No member state may "simply execute" any criminal. See GAR#443, Preventing The Execution Of Innocents."

- Ted

"I added the exception because I wanted to avoid contradiction, I should've read PRA more carefully, and remember, ambassador, an exception isn't a mandate."

(OOC: This does seem to be something that should be implemented in a potential redraft. If not, I’m sure the GA will pass some additional legislation that closes this loophole.)

[Bear Connors Paradiso]

Are we taking away peoples "No Sex" policy too? Whose right do you have to tell me my AI-planned and created population has less civil rights? How can a puny human brain tell Box he's being less than optimally efficient?

There are 4 issues which give "No Sex" policy, and at least one issue that is contingent on this policy to appear. From this issue even though it's failing, now I want to reinstate it.

[Lord Dominator]

Are we taking away peoples "No Sex" policy too? Whose right do you have to tell me my AI-planned and created population has less civil rights? How can a puny human brain tell Box he's being less than optimally efficient?

There are 4 issues which give "No Sex" policy, and at least one issue that is contingent on this policy to appear. From this issue even though it's failing, now I want to reinstate it.

OOC: The policies are separate from the GA, and I do not believe the stat effects from this would be enough to change that that way around (Sanct or someone else more in the no can correct me if needs be).

[Ave Gloriana]

This proposal would make it illegal to castrate rapists and child molesters.

Actually they key word is "permanent elimination"

Chemical castration is castration via anaphrodisiac drugs, whether to reduce libido and sexual activity, to treat cancer, or otherwise. Unlike surgical castration, where the gonads are removed through an incision in the body, chemical castration does not remove organs, nor is it a form of sterilization. Chemical castration is generally considered reversible when treatment is discontinued, although permanent effects in body chemistry can sometimes be seen, as in the case of bone density loss increasing with length of use of DMPA.

In May 2016, The New York Times reported that a number of countries use chemical castration on sex offenders, often in return for reduced sentences.

Physical castration IS permanent.

[Catsfern]

Actually they key word is "permanent elimination"

Chemical castration is castration via anaphrodisiac drugs, whether to reduce libido and sexual activity, to treat cancer, or otherwise. Unlike surgical castration, where the gonads are removed through an incision in the body, chemical castration does not remove organs, nor is it a form of sterilization. Chemical castration is generally considered reversible when treatment is discontinued, although permanent effects in body chemistry can sometimes be seen, as in the case of bone density loss increasing with length of use of DMPA.

In May 2016, The New York Times reported that a number of countries use chemical castration on sex offenders, often in return for reduced sentences.

Physical castration IS permanent.

you did read the spoiler text correct, because it makes the point clear that the process the describe is chemical, and can in theory be undone.

[Holantrod]

The only issue I have with this resolution is the ability of legal guardians to authorize the permanent sterilization of their charges without a health reason. A clause needs to be added to prevent a minor from being permanently sterilized if they do not understand and consent, even if their guardian wants the procedure to be carried out.

[Kus Sikobietordia]

Is this in reference to abortion

[Lord Dominator]

Is this in reference to abortion

"A basic reading of the proposal, or hel, just the title, would inform you that the proposal is not about abortion ambassador."

[Mundiferrum]

"This is unfortunately out of my control, the Patients Rights Act includes this exception. However, your nation can ban it entirely, since this is merely an exception and not a mandate."


"I am absolutely appalled, ambassador. Eugenics are basically a form of genocide and your nation should be ashamed of using them."

"Not under WA law, which defines genocide as :"any act committed, or measure enacted, with the intent to destroy, in whole or partially, an identifiable group of persons on the basis of belief, ethnicity, nationality, culture, or a perceived innate characteristic, which for the purposes of this resolution shall include sexual orientation."

"Strictly speaking, many genetic defects are not perceived, but actual and identifiable. They are not beliefs, ethnicities, nationalities, or cultures. Thus, a government campaign to limit genetic maladies isn't genocide, except insofar as you use it to curry emotional support.

"The C.D.S.P. is opposed. There are, frankly, compelling government interests in limiting the propagation of certain genetic maladies, and the existing protections for genocide and patient's medical rights are adequate to protect unethical use of this system."

Unfortunately, if the compelling government interest is to limit the propagation of certain genetic maladies, then forced sterilization is far from the appropriate tool. Ignoring, for the moment, how "certain genetic maladies" can, by the more unscrupulous nations, be defined as something that would be exclusionary to otherwise healthy and competent individuals -- say, Marfan's syndrome, or Achondroplasia (and, in OOC cases, "poverty" and "criminality", during the historical periods when genetics was woefully misapplied) -- sterilization, when it discourages the proliferation of one genetic disorder, inevitably encourages another.

Sterilization "works" by decreasing the frequency of a certain gene within a population. The "spread" of genetic conditions is where the genes for those conditions increase in frequency within a population. The issue with sterilization is that it has a larger impact than just decreasing the frequency of a certain gene. We are not just eliminating that gene; we are also decreasing the frequencies of whatever other genes the individuals being sterilized has.

When the frequency of a particular gene decreases, the frequency of different genes of the same allele necessarily increases. That means that when you decrease the frequency of one gene, you increase the frequency of another. Decreasing the frequency of a gene one dislikes through sterilization may very well increase the frequency of a gene from a different allele one dislikes, therefore introducing one, possibly worse, problem to solve another.

And that's if the genetic condition is spread only by one gene, or if the gene's only function is to cause disease. Take sickle-cell anemia, for instance: those whose two chromosomes both have the gene to express sickle-cell anemia receive it, while those who only has one such gene instead receives additional resistance to malaria. Then you have the fact that the expression of a gene causing disease is not always set in stone, with the environment often also having a measurable effect.

One could, hypothetically, tailor the situation such that the sterilization program ends once a certain set of genetic frequencies has been reached. Of course, that is utterly impractical -- one cannot screen every individual for every gene involved in every inheritable genetic disease, not unless one has endless resources (or technology from the distant future) -- so we'll have to assume that it's once a target genetic frequency for the gene expressed into the condition is reached. This more realistic case, however, introduces an element of injustice into the equation. Who gets to be sterilized, then? Those who cannot afford treating their children? Those the state considers less valuable to society? Or perhaps those who are picked by lottery, or those who are simply caught by the state first, though these later alternatives don't seem particularly just, either.

What, then, is the effective solution, if the only tool available to stop the "spread" of these conditions is modification of the germ line? One effective solution is to increase diversity; in other words, immigration. The more sets of genes from a different population, the more "diffuse" the frequency of the gene causing the disease is. Increased genetic counselling is also an effective tool, insomuch as many disease-expressing genes often require both chromosomes involved in the disease to have the same gene, or that some genes may counteract the effect of others. Instead of forcing individuals to outright never reproduce, one could simply encourage individuals of one kind not to reproduce with another.

Either way, forced sterilization is not an effective solution, certainly not for the long term. At the very least, there are other, altogether more just ways of reducing the "spread" of certain genetic conditions. If a genetic disorder becomes so dire that individuals have to be forced to do something, then a state has reached the point where immigration into the state isn't allowed, and resources are woefully limited. Forced sterilization would help with the latter less effectively than outright mass murder; the latter, at least, decreases not only the frequency of a gene, but also the number of mouths to feed. On the other hand, unlike merely stopping individuals of certain genetic makeups to reproduce, both of these most-dire methods decrease the state's gene pool overall, thereby increasing the chances of a different, possibly worse genetic condition to proliferate. But that is, of course, the extreme case.

* - slight edit to the fifth paragraph

[Mundiferrum]

PS, we have voted FOR, although we'll keep an eye out for whether the concerns of other ambassadors, which we do share, about parents still having the power to so limit the reproductive capacity of their progeny, are confirmed.

[Korazon]

Skin the people who rape children

[Lord Dominator]

Skin the people who rape children

"Much as I enjoy wanton sadism ambassador, that seems a bit overboard either if you desire not to kill them or if you do."

[Auralia]

"The C.D.S.P. is opposed. There are, frankly, compelling government interests in limiting the propagation of certain genetic maladies...

This is morally repulsive. You should be ashamed.

Neither I nor my government care about moral objections, only ones based on utilitarian policy. Moral objections are little more than appeals to emotion and are summarily ignored, as all appeals to emotion should be."

You do realize that utilitarianism is itself a moral position that relies on a particular definition of "good"? Is your own approach, therefore, nothing more than an "appeal to emotion"?

"This is undoubtedly an anti-choice piece of writing dressed up as protecting rights when it actually seriously impacts upon the rights of children and teenagers and would permit less scrupulous member nations to allow parents do irreparable harm to their children.

This proposal has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. Nor does this proposal affect the rights of minors in any way, as minors are merely exempted from the prohibition the proposal establishes -- something which is probably required in any event to avoid contradicting PRA.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

"This is undoubtedly an anti-choice piece of writing dressed up as protecting rights when it actually seriously impacts upon the rights of children and teenagers and would permit less scrupulous member nations to allow parents do irreparable harm to their children. I am unsurprised that a delegation from the "won't someone think of the children" brigade which openly and actively flaunts their disregard for international law once again has proposed legislation which could be seriously harmful to children. But then we know that they don't care for children once they're born.

"In summary we commit to continue opposing proposed legislation from nations who do not carry out their obligations under international law in good faith. And even if this were not the case here, this resolution is seriously flawed regarding children's rights."

- Ted

"Ambassador, with all due respect, I fail to see how prohibiting nonconsensual, irreversible castration is in any way anti-choice, nor do I see any part of this proposal that even so much as mentions the rights of children."

[Ave Gloriana]

Physical castration IS permanent.

you did read the spoiler text correct, because it makes the point clear that the process the describe is chemical, and can in theory be undone.

I was talking about physical castration. You were the one quoting me.

[Catsfern]

you did read the spoiler text correct, because it makes the point clear that the process the describe is chemical, and can in theory be undone.

I was talking about physical castration. You were the one quoting me.

in your first post you say

This proposal would make it illegal to castrate rapists and child molesters.

This is not a worthy and pressing issue to be decided at an international level. If you don't like sterilising criminals, don't do it.

But stop trying to tell the rest of us how to deal with criminal scum.

then Dirty Americans replies

This proposal would make it illegal to castrate rapists and child molesters.

Actually they key word is "permanent elimination"

Chemical castration is castration via anaphrodisiac drugs, whether to reduce libido and sexual activity, to treat cancer, or otherwise. Unlike surgical castration, where the gonads are removed through an incision in the body, chemical castration does not remove organs, nor is it a form of sterilization. Chemical castration is generally considered reversible when treatment is discontinued, although permanent effects in body chemistry can sometimes be seen, as in the case of bone density loss increasing with length of use of DMPA.

In May 2016, The New York Times reported that a number of countries use chemical castration on sex offenders, often in return for reduced sentences.

You then respond to that

Actually they key word is "permanent elimination"

Chemical castration is castration via anaphrodisiac drugs, whether to reduce libido and sexual activity, to treat cancer, or otherwise. Unlike surgical castration, where the gonads are removed through an incision in the body, chemical castration does not remove organs, nor is it a form of sterilization. Chemical castration is generally considered reversible when treatment is discontinued, although permanent effects in body chemistry can sometimes be seen, as in the case of bone density loss increasing with length of use of DMPA.

In May 2016, The New York Times reported that a number of countries use chemical castration on sex offenders, often in return for reduced sentences.

Physical castration IS permanent.

This is where there is a problem, as in Dirty Americans response to your post they describe a chemical method of non permanent castration, yet you respond with a mention of physical castration.

[New Franklin]

New Franklin votes AGAINST this resolution. Pedophiles will be sterilized in New Franklin.

[Absentia]

Absentia votes AGAINST this proposal, because of the confluence of several other issues - which is to say, if the national animal is granted personhood, then this resolution would make criminals of all the people who take the 'have your pet spayed or neutered' advice, and as such is not a trans-national issue, but one rightly addressed at the national level. A malicious regime could remain in compliance with this resolution by declaring that various classes of people are 'subhuman' in the first place and therefore not subject to it's provisions.

[Lyrrea]

Absentia votes AGAINST this proposal, because of the confluence of several other issues - which is to say, if the national animal is granted personhood, then this resolution would make criminals of all the people who take the 'have your pet spayed or neutered' advice, and as such is not a trans-national issue, but one rightly addressed at the national level. A malicious regime could remain in compliance with this resolution by declaring that various classes of people are 'subhuman' in the first place and therefore not subject to it's provisions.

This seems to me like an excuse to take this resolution to its ridiculous extreme. I don't think anyone views any animal, even a national animal, as a person, and even if they did I think they would fall under the exemption of those who are unable to consent. Thus, under clause 2a., the
"parent or guardian" of the animal (i.e. its owner) would be able to consent to spaying or neutering their pet.

To address your latter point, at no point other than in the very base, one sentence summary of the resolution does it even mention the word "human" but rather refers to those victims of forced sterilization as "individuals". Even if you are categorizing the undesirables as "subhuman", they are still guaranteed their right to reproductive choice.

Edit: Re-worded a sentence.
Edit 2: Fixed wording in another sentence.

[Marxist Germany]

The only issue I have with this resolution is the ability of legal guardians to authorize the permanent sterilization of their charges without a health reason. A clause needs to be added to prevent a minor from being permanently sterilized if they do not understand and consent, even if their guardian wants the procedure to be carried out.

"I will refer you to this transcript."

"Patients' Rights Act only extends to lawful medical procedures. It would be entirely within the remit of this assembly to demand that sterilisation of minors, in the context of the definition of sterilisation presented in this proposal, is only lawful in circumstances where it is entirely necessary for the long term health of the individual concerned. Thereby leaving voluntary sterilisation to adults only.

"No member state may "simply execute" any criminal. See GAR#443, Preventing The Execution Of Innocents."

- Ted

"I added the exception because I wanted to avoid contradiction, I should've read PRA more carefully, and remember, ambassador, an exception isn't a mandate."