NationStates Jolt Archive

The proposal reads (with at least two typos, by hey):



A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights Strength: Strong Proposed by: Razu
Description: This proposal does not seek to inhibit the inherent, natural right of humans to reproduce. Recognizing that man now lives within (and would fail without) a coherent and informed society, we here now seek to raise the standard of life and living for future generations, and not perpetuate past errors.

BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

A Department of Procreation, whose mission is the licensing of prospective parents, be formed.

BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

To obtain the license necessary to carry an infant, both potential mother and father must pass toxicology tests, to assure the state that said parents are not physiochemically (under the influence of detrimental or substantially influential drugs) unfit to produce offspring.

BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

No question of religion, race, economic standing, education, ability, age, or any other arbitrary influence will be taken into account by this department.

BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

The persons conducting the tests have access only to the toxicology samples, so that in no way race, colour, creed, or any other arbitrary factor have ay influence upon the right to bear other than otherwise stipulated.

BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

After passing initial toxicology tests, the parents of any newly licensed birth must continue to meet approved requirements during the pregnancy, or risk substantial fines, and risk their child be claimed as a ward of the state.

BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

Once having awarded a birth license, subsequent to insuring no negligence or mistreatment come upon the unborn infant, upon birth the Department of Procration will cease contact with born infant and parents, relinquishing further responsabilites to the appropraite authorities.

BE IT RESOLVED THAT: Upon passing puberty, all males and females others now able to procreate register themselves or undergo procedures rendering them temporarily unable to procude offspring.

To be taken into consideration:

It is universally acknowledged that the consumpton of certian illicit and, in sufficient quantaties, licit drugs, during pregnancy does seriously and adversely affect the fetus during gestation and the infant upon and after birth.

In the case of FAS (Fetal Alcohol Syndrome), the following may occur: spontaneous abortion; growth retardation; physical, mental, and behavioral abnormalities; facial abnormalities; and CNS impairment, such as developmental delay, speech or language delay, lower IQ, and decreased head circumference.

Mothers who ingested thalidomide during pregnancy gave birth to infants afflicted with Phocomelia, a bilateral or symmetrical shortened-limb defect in which the hands, feet (or both) protrude from the shoulder or hip joint.

The unchecked birth of these infants (except perhaps in statistical records), overlooked and unhindered, many not long for this world, is to be deplored by any nation proclaiming a decent level of heathcare, or indeed love and respect for its citizens and their progeny. In few cases is any action available following parturition; for parents and infant a painful road lies ahead. These maladies are imposed upon the unborn child during pregnancy, and afterwards only superficial treatments that attempt only to ease suffering are available.

If a person wishes to drive a car, or fish and hunt, even enter into the state of marriage, they must apply for a license. It is not an imposition of responsable government to ask prospective parents to sanctify their vows to eachother and their offspring by pledging a full and healthy term to their unborn child.

The proposal reads (with at least two typos, by hey):



A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights Strength: Strong Proposed by: Razu
Description: This proposal does not seek to inhibit the inherent, natural right of humans to reproduce. Recognizing that man now lives within (and would fail without) a coherent and informed society, we here now seek to raise the standard of life and living for future generations, and not perpetuate past errors.

BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

A Department of Procreation, whose mission is the licensing of prospective parents, be formed.

BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

To obtain the license necessary to carry an infant, both potential mother and father must pass toxicology tests, to assure the state that said parents are not physiochemically (under the influence of detrimental or substantially influential drugs) unfit to produce offspring.

BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

No question of religion, race, economic standing, education, ability, age, or any other arbitrary influence will be taken into account by this department.

BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

The persons conducting the tests have access only to the toxicology samples, so that in no way race, colour, creed, or any other arbitrary factor have ay influence upon the right to bear other than otherwise stipulated.

BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

After passing initial toxicology tests, the parents of any newly licensed birth must continue to meet approved requirements during the pregnancy, or risk substantial fines, and risk their child be claimed as a ward of the state.

BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

Once having awarded a birth license, subsequent to insuring no negligence or mistreatment come upon the unborn infant, upon birth the Department of Procration will cease contact with born infant and parents, relinquishing further responsabilites to the appropraite authorities.

BE IT RESOLVED THAT: Upon passing puberty, all males and females others now able to procreate register themselves or undergo procedures rendering them temporarily unable to procude offspring.

To be taken into consideration:

It is universally acknowledged that the consumpton of certian illicit and, in sufficient quantaties, licit drugs, during pregnancy does seriously and adversely affect the fetus during gestation and the infant upon and after birth.

In the case of FAS (Fetal Alcohol Syndrome), the following may occur: spontaneous abortion; growth retardation; physical, mental, and behavioral abnormalities; facial abnormalities; and CNS impairment, such as developmental delay, speech or language delay, lower IQ, and decreased head circumference.

Mothers who ingested thalidomide during pregnancy gave birth to infants afflicted with Phocomelia, a bilateral or symmetrical shortened-limb defect in which the hands, feet (or both) protrude from the shoulder or hip joint.

The unchecked birth of these infants (except perhaps in statistical records), overlooked and unhindered, many not long for this world, is to be deplored by any nation proclaiming a decent level of heathcare, or indeed love and respect for its citizens and their progeny. In few cases is any action available following parturition; for parents and infant a painful road lies ahead. These maladies are imposed upon the unborn child during pregnancy, and afterwards only superficial treatments that attempt only to ease suffering are available.

If a person wishes to drive a car, or fish and hunt, even enter into the state of marriage, they must apply for a license. It is not an imposition of responsable government to ask prospective parents to sanctify their vows to eachother and their offspring by pledging a full and healthy term to their unborn child.

There's an interesting point being raised here. Since parents who take legal or illegal drugs to extremes are considered 'unfit' parents, wouldn't it be better to simply prevent them from having children in the first place? It would also protect children from damage during pregnancy, which is a very positive thing. However, there are some problems:

- how would you render them infertile 'temporarily,' and which sex would it apply to? Both?
- wouldn't it be difficult to keep track? Would it be a crime to forget?
- it is well known that certain disorders are genetic, and may have serious and adverse effects on the lives of children. Couldn't similar reasoning apply to those parents with genetic disorders? Isn't this the start of a (and I shiver that I use this phrase, but it fits) 'slippery slope' towards eugenic procedures?

Even if few people seriously consider this act, I think it would be instructive to discuss it in earnest.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

- how would you render them infertile 'temporarily,' and which sex would it apply to? Both?

Other than a very small cork, I am aware of no non-invasive (surgical or otherwise) procedures that can temporarily render males infertile, so the burden would fall upon females, presumably from their first reaching fecundity until the point in time when they are approved to bear children.

- wouldn't it be difficult to keep track? Would it be a crime to forget?

Difficult perhaps, but throughout histry many safety issues were once nay-sayed due to the 'diffuculty' of their enforcement. It would require vigilence on the part of the agency concerned, but the overall effect would be worth the effort. This law would make it impossible to 'forget', per se. It would force the decision into the minds of those who wish to bear children, and prevent those who do not wish to from making such mistakes.

- it is well known that certain disorders are genetic, and may have serious and adverse effects on the lives of children. Couldn't similar reasoning apply to those parents with genetic disorders? Isn't this the start of a (and I shiver that I use this phrase, but it fits) 'slippery slope' towards eugenic procedures?

One could argue that, where it exists, the death penalty as a deterrant to serious crimes might be the first downward step on a slope that would eventually see all crimes as punishable by death. No factor beyond the parents being physically fit to bear children will influence their application. This law does not seek to control human mating vis-a-vis race, and it is clearly stated that such matters shall have no bearing while parents are reviewed pending their application.

Not all births are intended.

To ensure good outcomes we should license not just intentional procreation but all sexual intercourse.

Combining this with the "Sex in Public" resolution we could devise a range of categories of licenses from "private/monogamous" to "public/all welcome"; think how much revenue could be generated! As well as healthy neonates of course.

Why is this a human rights resolution when it specifically requires people to get a license before having sex? Sounds pretty intrusive and in violation of human rights to me. Is a Department of Truth next?

I chose to enter this under human rights because it affects both the rigths of prospective parents and protects the rights of potential infants.

Collaboration: This bill could pave the way for all manner of sexual license... and, imagive the new industry that would occur due to manditory training courses required for a person to be elligible to get their nooky license. I would imagine an examination with both a theoretical and practical component.

Doesn't that beg the question about whether the government would next own the children? Once they do that, they can decide how to raise them. They could even institute "breeding" programs and try to achieve their master race.

we find the concept of rendering the entire population default but reversibly infertile a VERY attractive proposition.

we would recomend further that procreative liscencing not only involve a written test and the medical qualifications already mentioned but also a kind of 'driver's' test with robotic infant simulcrums which record every aspect of their treatment required to be cared for by prospective parents for predetermend amount of time, at least a full month, possibly several.

the procreative licence perhapse rewarded competitively on the basis of performance of care for the simulcrum.

(ooc'ly: read a REALY good story based on that concept once upon a time, i think it was in one of the dangerous visions anthologies but i wouldn's swear to it and of course don't remember the name or author, only that it was written arround the same time they came out in the late 60s early 70s some time)

=^^=
.../\...

I don't see how this could be considered a Human Rights proposal. Human rights proposals INCREASE freedoms. This is Moral Decency.

We're going to need licenses to have kids? We're going to create another gargantuan, all-consuming government agency to enforce the right (or, now, lack thereof) to have children? We're going to force this policy in every nation in the UN?

My body. My kids. My choice. MINE. Not the government's. There are only a scant few legislations of child rearing I might consider accepting, and all of them have to do with abuse and negligence. I'm well aware that you could argue that this proposal falls into those categories, but I cannot support legislation of this type.

This would also mandate testing of all citizens for all drugs. Isn't that something of an invasion of privacy?

Temporarily sterilizing teenagers around the world is an interesting idea, though I do disagree with it on the grounds of national sovereignty, if nothing else. One other concern I have is that I know nothing of the medical operations needed to do this -- is there any chance of accidentally rendering someone permanently sterile, for instance?

Doesn't that beg the question about whether the government would next own the children? Once they do that, they can decide how to raise them. They could even institute "breeding" programs and try to achieve their master race.


Superb idea! I'll bring it to the Emperor's attention at once.

If a nation gave its citizens the right to practice freedom of religion, would this resolution not then cause a dilemma in enforcement? As forcing them not to procreate and/or to take birth control might become unconstitutional in that case, as some religions insist on procreation and with not using birth control. So, would the mandating of this resolution not, in effect, tell them "sorry, it's a law, you'll just have to go to hell" in a manner and discriminate against that particular religion?

I don't suppose Scaraba's ugly resolution can piggy back on this, can it?

I also think it would be a bit embarassing for some would-be parents to have to go get a license somewhere, being seen in which pretty much says "We want to have sex." And also, would sexual activities of which the purpose is not to procreate be included? If a couple goes to a non-UN country and manages to conceive there, and this couple was unlicenses, would they be penalized? -.- Did this stem from the urban legend definition and origin of the F word?

Not as long as they stay in the non-UN nation.

I find this to be a very interesting proposal, but I dont think it needs to become a U.N. law. Too restrictive. Too many nations would oppose it.

I however, will contempulate bringing it, or a similiar idea into effect in my own country. Depends on whether or not I feel like setting up a ballot box or not. I figure I can set up the hours for 1 AM to 1:05 AM on a random day, slip in my vote and close the polls. The majority vote of whomever votes (Which will just be me since it will be secret ;) ) will win. I wonder what I will vote for. Better go ponder that.

Go democracy.