by Leishmania » Sat Mar 28, 2020 11:13 am
by The New Nordic Union » Sat Mar 28, 2020 11:27 am
Morover wrote:GAR#222 already covers this topic.
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;
by Sothoth Shub » Sat Mar 28, 2020 11:28 am
Morover wrote:GAR#222 already covers this topic.
by Morover » Sat Mar 28, 2020 11:33 am
by Sothoth Shub » Sat Mar 28, 2020 11:35 am
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.
by Morover » Sat Mar 28, 2020 11:41 am
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.
by Sothoth Shub » Sat Mar 28, 2020 11:43 am
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.
by Sothoth Shub » Sat Mar 28, 2020 11:46 am
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.
by Tinhampton » Sat Mar 28, 2020 11:47 am
by Morover » Sat Mar 28, 2020 11:55 am
Tinhampton wrote:How on Terra does this not contradict GA#383 "Right to Sexual Privacy," Articles 2 and 5?
by The New Sicilian State » Sat Mar 28, 2020 12:02 pm
by Tinhampton » Sat Mar 28, 2020 12:13 pm
by Leishmania » Sat Mar 28, 2020 12:17 pm
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.
by Leishmania » Sat Mar 28, 2020 12:20 pm
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."
by The New Sicilian State » Sat Mar 28, 2020 12:23 pm
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."
by Leishmania » Sat Mar 28, 2020 12:26 pm
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."
by Grays Harbor » Sat Mar 28, 2020 12:32 pm
by Leishmania » Sat Mar 28, 2020 12:53 pm
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.
by The New Nordic Union » Sat Mar 28, 2020 1:20 pm
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.
by Leishmania » Sat Mar 28, 2020 1:48 pm
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.
by Bananaistan » Sat Mar 28, 2020 1:59 pm
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.
by Tinhampton » Sat Mar 28, 2020 2:03 pm
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.
by Leishmania » Sat Mar 28, 2020 2:11 pm
by The New Nordic Union » Sat Mar 28, 2020 2:13 pm
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.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement