NationStates Jolt Archive

To all delegates: I only as for your consideration, your opinion, and if you confer, your approval.

"END BIRTH RESTRICTIONS,"
U.N. Proposal

The tragedy of forced abortions is manifest in numerous U.N. member nations. Freedom, and well as the pursuit of family, is being crushed in the name of population control. But no such measures need ever be taken.

1. Be it resolved, all governments must refrain from restricting legally married couples in the number of children they may give birth to, or adopt.

2. No unreasonable penalty, such as impossible tax increases, shall fall upon such couples who choose to pursue large families.

The great majority of member nations have decided that abortion and reproductive rights are well-within the bounds of national soveriegnty, and that no United Nations resolution should be composed in the interest of changing that. This, again, is a moralistic issue that seeks to enforce on nation's beliefs and circumstance on the rest of the world. Not only is that kind of moral imperialism offensive to member nations that disagree with you on face, but also problematic to countries with legitimate population problems.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Lubria also respects a tax on overpopulating parents. In this day and age, when the infant death rate in industrialized countries is plummeting, and the average lifespan is rising, measures must be in place to assure that a nation does not overburden itself. A small, healthy population is better than a large, unhealthy mob.

That being said, Lubria respects the rights of persons to have as many children as they wish, but the burden on them only increases with each child; tax benefits can only go so far. We stress early education on the safer sex to help prevent unwanted pregnancies, and encourage Planned Parenthood whenever possible. We do not believe in forcing abortion. Lubria is not yet facing an over population problem at this time, but we are unwilling to close any doors at this point, should we face one in the future. We credit our populations frugal reproductive polices to early sex education in schools; perhaps other nations suffering from overpopulation should consider similar approaches.

Lubria respects national sovereignty in this instance.

The Right Honble. Peter Javanis
Baron of Altrec
Special Envoy
Office of His Grace, the Lubrian Prime Minister

But no such measures need ever be taken.

It's not clear whether you mean forced abortion or population control in general by this. If the former, this assertion is a fairly straightforward human-rights issue; if the latter (as the rest of the proposal would suggest) it seems simply false, for reasons others have stated.

Your proposal makes little distinction between forced abortion and population control measures; intentionally or not, this is inflammatory and misleading. If forced abortions are what you want to prevent, legislate specifically against those. If you want to address the much wider issue of population control (an issue far less clearly under the UN's remit) don't phrase the proposal as if preventing forced abortion is its primary objective.

The word 'unreasonable' is also extremely vague.

I appreciate you all taking the time to consider my proposal.

SOPHISTA
As far as I can tell, and please take the time to correct me if I am wrong, no resolution has been passed restricting me from this subject. Whether a majority of U.N. member nations desire to repress these issues, I simply don't know. But to claim my conduct as inappropriate... who are you to tell me what to do? My proposal is a moral issue, 90% of proposals are moral issues, like PROSTITUTION and EUTHANASIA. And one other thing, I am not imposing myself on anyone else. Should this become a resolution, it would be the 147 delegates who would be responsible.

As tihs is a human rights issue, we find the national sovereignity argument irrelevant. No nation has any right to interfere with individual sovereignity unless absolutely necessary towards preserving such sovereignity, as is the case in prosecuting criminals.

Are you making the implication that non-viable fetuses have human rights?

We believe the fetus is a parasite, and is not owed human rights until after birth.

We respect the views of other nations that may differ from ours.

We in Guaifenasin believe this is an issue of national sovereignty, and cannot support such a proposal in the context of the UN.

We recognize that abortion is a difficult issue. We realize that respected philosophers, doctors, and scientists disagree about the point at which human life begins. We understand that some good people believe that life begins at conception and as such must be legally protected, while others, such as the spokesperson from Lubria, consider the unborn little more than a “non-viable fetuses.”

Whatever camp one belongs to, we believe that all reasonable people must support this basic human rights proposal. From either perspective, forced abortion violates one of the two most basic human rights. From the pro-life perspective, it violates the right to life. From the pro-choice perspective, it violates the right to one’s body. In either case, no government can be justified in the use of state power to force or pressure abortion (including pressuring through taxes or penalties). We find it absurd to claim that member states have reached any consensus on general abortion law, but even if they do at some point reach such a consensus, this is a separate issue. The question is not whether one has a right to an abortion, but whether one has a right not to have an abortion. We can think of few rights more fundamental.

As to the notion that this proposal violates sovereignty, protecting basic human rights should be the primary function of the UN. We find it laughable that one would claim that such a basic protection of life and/or bodily control would be considered intrusive, yet accept the UN’s mandate to allow assisted suicide. (The implication is that the state cannot stop me from killing myself, but it may force me to kill my child.) Nor do we believe that overpopulation mitigates the dignity or rights of the individual human person.

While the given proposal would require some rewording and technical improvement before it is offered as a resolution, we fully support its intent.

For the People of Burkonia,
HRH, King of Burkonia

Forced abortions are an issue that falls within human rights. No human should be harmed in any way, shape, or form, by the government, except as punishment for crimes. (a plug for capital punishment, lol) I can't see that this issue merits a resolution all it's own.

Population controls put in place by governments are something else, and I have to agree with those delegates who reserve that right to thier nations. The population of the earth in general is already to high, with some nations incapable of providing for thier population. Population pressure will be brought under control, either through intelligent, voluntary means, or through disease and starvation.

It's our choice. An emotional decision may get rather ugly.

The case for overpopulation is far weaker than some activists would care for us to believe. Food shortages provide one example. Economic and scientific research indicates that we currently have the capacity to produce far more food than the current nutritional requirements of the world’s population. The problem is distribution.

I might suggest two root causes of this problem. The first might be that capitalists in wealthy nations who do not see incentive in selling lower priced food to those who need it most control the means of production of the food.

The second explanations might be that these wealthy nations are wealthy because their form of free economy is more efficient. Along with this goes the assertion that those nations with the worst economies have flawed economic systems due to flawed governmental systems. In some cases (Cuba, China) their command economies are less efficient, leading to a lack of food. In others (Somalia) food is present, but government or tribal leaders deny it to the population as a method of control.

Both explanations have some merit, though I am inclined to put a bit more weight behind the second. Of course, there are other overpopulation issues, but these may have solutions as well. (For instance, and application of the Coase Theorem and the idea of buying and selling pollution rights might be a solution to many environmental issues.)

I do not intend to deny “overpopulation” and economic scarcity as a problem, but it may be far less severe than some estimate. More importantly, we may be able to find more efficient and humane solutions than taking away freedoms and liberties from individuals and families.

HRH, Monarch of Burkonia

Right then. Here we go.

My proposal is a moral issue, 90% of proposals are moral issues, like PROSTITUTION and EUTHANASIA.

A. The fact that previous resolutions have breached the wall between what is covered as an international issue does not give you the right to make further transgressions. Just because murder has happened before does not justify murder in the future.

B. Having seen previous resolutions that are in violation you now bear an increased obligation to respect the soveriegnty of individual nations. If you have seen a crime committed and then find yourself in a position to stop the crime from being committed again, you have a responsibility to stop the crime.

C. A reading of the forums will provide quite detailed opposition to proposals of this nature by the representatives who are most active. This isn't just something I am against, but an entire community.

I am not imposing myself on anyone else. Should this become a resolution, it would be the 147 delegates who would be responsible.

A. The one who begins the process by which a trespass is committed is just as responsible as the one who ends the process. That is, if you leave a loaded firearm on the table knowing that a child might pick it up, you are just as responsible for the shot being fired.

B. To imply that the delegates would be the ones at fault simply points out that there is some kind of flaw with the proposal. People don't shuffle off blame for a good idea, but everyone is quick to flee a bad one.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

A. The fact that previous resolutions have breached the wall between what is covered as an international issue does not give you the right to make further transgressions. Just because murder has happened before does not justify murder in the future.

You seem to miss the point. Any law that deals with human rights is by nature a law that both leglislates morality and interfears with the internal workings of indivudal states. (Murder is an odd example on your part as bans on murder are essentially morality based laws.) Would you reject any human rights proposals by the UN?

Reproductive policy is best left to the nation themselves (if that; better yet to simply educate, give tax disincentives etc. than to criminalize sexual behaviors).

Would you reject any human rights proposals by the UN?

Sophista isn't in the business of setting back human rights. But who ever said the fetus was a human deserving of those rights. Our argument is that no one person can define when life begins or just what a fetus is at what stage and why. Because that decision is based on largely moralistic and religious reasoning, any legislation making these restrictions by invoking the idea of human rights would by default make these decisions for other nations. Just as a pro-life nation wouldn't want the UN to define by majority that a fetus is, as others have stated, a parasite, many pro-choice nations don't appreciate rights being given to something that they believe is inanimate and unable to survive on its own.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Sophista isn't in the business of setting back human rights. But who ever said the fetus was a human deserving of those rights. Our argument is that no one person can define when life begins or just what a fetus is at what stage and why. Because that decision is based on largely moralistic and religious reasoning, any legislation making these restrictions by invoking the idea of human rights would by default make these decisions for other nations. Just as a pro-life nation wouldn't want the UN to define by majority that a fetus is, as others have stated, a parasite, many pro-choice nations don't appreciate rights being given to something that they believe is inanimate and unable to survive on its own.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Once again, Minister Hillaker seems to miss the point.

The RCO is in full support of this measure. That our nation is Catholic and very much pro-life of course colours our view on the matter. But the representative of Sophia seems to miss the larger point, one that does not touch on the morality/immorality of abortion per se, but rather of individual autonomy.

Specifically, Minister Millaker seems to not give sufficient mind to the autonomy of the couples involved. Forced abortion, as a restriction upon the physical bodies of the women especially, is obviously a violation of human rights. Not of "human rights" as codeword for "religious ideology," but surely human rights as anyone who uses the term "pro-choice" recognizes. Forced abortion means abortion against one's will - in other words, the epitome of anti-choice. While one could make arguments for population control, is it worth the sacrificing of one's control over one's body? Indeed, what difference is there then between forced abortion and forced sterilization?

The resolution presented is not something that is a matter of pro-life/pro-choice. This is a matter of human rights. The force in forced abortion should be reason enough for both sides to agree: for the pro-life, the force against the fetus and the mother; for the pro-choice, the force against the mother and her choices about her body. This really isn't a hard choice.

The RCO supports this measure, and we will request that our delegate vote for it (if he has not done so already).

With Respect,
Minister of Foreign Affairs Voegelin, Royal Commonwealth of Oakeshottland.

"The force in forced abortion should be reason enough for both sides to agree: for the pro-life, the force against the fetus and the mother..."


Here-Here! We fully agree with Minister Voegelin in this matter. Though certainly religious ideologies may drive some people towards this bill, we believe it transends boundaries and would appeal to both groups in this issue.

Yours,
Lord Alan Winchester
Prime Minister of the Third Estate
Kingdom of Phillipsania

Forced abortions are an issue that falls within human rights. No human should be harmed in any way, shape, or form, by the government, except as punishment for crimes. (a plug for capital punishment, lol) I can't see that this issue merits a resolution all it's own.

In countries with limited resources and potentially devastating population problems - why wouldn't having more ythan your share of children be considered a crime?

It looks an awful lot like theft (that extra mouth is going to be consuming resources which rightfully belong to others), breach of contract (presumably a person living in such a situation would have agreed to a limited number of children or they would have been deported or arrested long ago), and potentially murder (if resources are sufficiently scarce, one extra person eating means another person who was eating going hungry).

If your only claim is that humans should not be harmed when not committing crimes - that's completely irrelevent. People who have more than their allotted number of children are committing serious crimes as recognized anywhere in the world.

Don't make me come over there.

In countries with limited resources and potentially devastating population problems - why wouldn't having more ythan your share of children be considered a crime?

It looks an awful lot like theft (that extra mouth is going to be consuming resources which rightfully belong to others), breach of contract (presumably a person living in such a situation would have agreed to a limited number of children or they would have been deported or arrested long ago), and potentially murder (if resources are sufficiently scarce, one extra person eating means another person who was eating going hungry).

If your only claim is that humans should not be harmed when not committing crimes - that's completely irrelevent. People who have more than their allotted number of children are committing serious crimes as recognized anywhere in the world.

Don't make me come over there.

An interesting argument for the population control side. But, tell me, what consists of a "fair share" of children? And who decides?

THEFT: tell me, why would food "rightly" belong to others? By what measure? Unless a nation is fully communist, to say there is such a direct allocation of who "rightly" should have food is irrelevant. The resources would not be that easily measured nor allocated.

BREACH OF CONTRACT: The issue at hand is whether it is a valid style of "contract." After all, if a nation, as a matter of population control, issued a law demanding that all children over a certain number be handed over to the soylen green factory, one could question whether the state has the right to ask such a thing. Indeed, under your argument, it seems there is no limit to the State - anything it demands is tacitly "agreed" to by the population, and is beyond question.

MURDER: That is always a concern. But, then again, we are now talking about matters of prudence and stability. Do such population control measures work? As famine is usually the result of political instability and not lack of resources, demanding that the population limit the number of children (by threat of forced abortion) will not help. It is not only a violation of rights, but equivalent to using a super-soaker to put out a five-alarm fire.

Once again, you use that term "allocated." By whom? After all, if overpopulation is such a concern, why simply prevent children through forced abortion? Why not simply decimate the population? Surely, they will not reproduce beyond their "allotted" number when they are dead. Indeed, one wonders whether the population would volunteer their politicians to go first on the decimation policy.

To simply state that it is a crime in many states is irrelevant. In many states, saying a discouraging word about the leadership is a capital offence. Rather, we are concerned with what, as an international body, is acceptable for the citizens of the various states. Once again, the RCO believes this measure to be worthwhile.

With Respect,
Minister of Foreign Affairs Voegelin, Royal Commonwealth of Oakeshottland.

But, tell me, what consists of a "fair share" of children?

The number of children the projected rate of production growth is calculated to sustain in an acceptable quality of life divided amongst the people who want to have children as that nation divides things.

Remember that a 1% increase in workforce only corresponds to a .7% increase in production. That means that unless extra capital is forthcoming for the new workers to utilize, more workers simply means a reduced quality of life (lower GDP per capita or longer work days).

And that's assuming there are jobs for the new people. A 1% increase in population with no increased workforce participation would simply reduce GDP per capita by 1%.

And who decides?

Who decides anything? For a democracy it would be a collective decision, I suppose. People would be given a variety of economic projections based upon having different populations at different times in the future. More people means that the total production would be higher, but beyond a certain point the production per capita would decrease. If the people decide that they don't want to accept a loss of individual wealth in order to support you having a child that's their look out.

In a less representitive government, there is going to be some person or group entrusted to make those decisions - and if those decisions are to limit the population, well, they probably have as good a reason for that as for anything else they do.

After all, if overpopulation is such a concern, why simply prevent children through forced abortion? Why not simply decimate the population?

That's inefficient though! Growing people up part way costs resources and food, if you are just going to kill them, that's just retarded. If, on the other hand, you reduce the number of people before you expend resources, that's sound management.

Limiting populations is always about resource management and distribution. Inefficient things, such as murdering citizenry, simply do not adequately fill that roll. Thus, it's a paper tiger on your part.

Don't make me come over there.

You speak rather tartly for a nation with such a small population. I wager that even if your whole population came to the RCO, we would hardly notice. I would suggest some humility on your part.

This seems odd - you go between discussing the GDP and then notions of an "acceptable" quality of life. What is "acceptable"? If a nation is so desperate that it must allow forced abortion, it seems that "acceptable" would merely be avoiding the war of all against all. And surely, if things are that desperate, forced abortion would be comparatively worthless as a remedy. You are using an emergency procedure, questionable at best even then, to justify merely political prudence.

Your calculations, especially regarding diminishing returns, does not include the benefits from economies of scale, nor does it calculate technological increases that may remedy the issues of population. You are using such a narrow measure that of course such evil policies as forced abortion look appropriate. Perhaps if your calculations did not suffer from such tunnel vision, you could see the problems with forced abortion more clearly.

As for the decimation policy, you nicely left out that a dead citizen cannot procreate. Besides, who said anything about killing off the ones in their prime? Heck, the old, infirm, weak, diseased, and all the other "inefficient" types of people could be wiped out quite easily and most efficiently. They would be such a drain anyway. Indeed, under your logic, it seems they would be the best to finish off - either they are past their productive prime, or will never have one. Your logic, indeed, leads to eugenics. It's not my fault that you are to cowardly to follow your own logic to its sick extent.

The RCO reiterates its support for this bill.

And we suggest to Hooglastahn that it not force us to come over there. You would be wise to watch your tongue around older states, child-nation.

With Respect,
Minister of Foreign Affairs Voegelin, Royal Commonwealth of Oakeshottland.

If a nation is so desperate that it must allow forced abortion, it seems that "acceptable" would merely be avoiding the war of all against all.

How so?

Who ever said that wanting to maintain a higher quality of life necessitated that the people were in dire straits?

Why couldn't the people of a nation simply choose to limit the number of children rather than rationing the caviar? More people means less is produced per person after a breakpoint determined by the availability of capital. If people don't want to suffer that reduction in services and apportionments, why should we stop them?

Don't make me come over there.

My, your arrogance is touching. And why not? After all, with your 6 million people, and your region of 60 million citizens, what possible force could confront you? Please. As a piece of advice, talking curtly to the older, more experienced, and more heavily armed is unwise. Some older nations tend to express their anger more directly than we do.

Forced abortion....as an option to avoid caviar rationing. One wonders what exactly you measure in your "quality of life" calculation, as freedom seems far from it. To ensure increased material wealth, you seem to be more than happy to allow some rather key elements of human liberty fall to the wayside. An interesting way to run a state.

Again, the RCO supports this measure. Seeing Hooglastahn's rationale for being against it, we feel assured that such a measure, if given enough endorsements, is sure to be approved by this organization.

And I suggest you don't make us come over there, pup. Our dominions could wipe their shoes on you. The new nations should learn some respect early. It is better for them.

Signed,
Minister of Foreign Affairs Voegelin, Royal Commonwealth of Oakeshottland.

Ironically, you couldn't. Or rather, the costs would be unfortunate.

The whole point of having relic nuclear weapons left over from the previous regime is that noone can afford the costs entailed of attempting to wipe their shoes off on you.

But regardless, this is the UN, where we attempt to discuss our differences based on logic, and not on the fact that you can at any time attempt to incite our wrath to the point where you can burn in nuclear hellfire until the ash blots out the day star.

Be that as it may, do you actually have any concrete arguments why governments should not be able to make decisions on the trade offs of population vs. per capita production? Honestly.

Don't make me come over there.

EDIT - bloody double posts.

Ironically, you couldn't. Or rather, the costs would be unfortunate.

The whole point of having relic nuclear weapons left over from the previous regime is that noone can afford the costs entailed of attempting to wipe their shoes off on you.

But regardless, this is the UN, where we attempt to discuss our differences based on logic, and not on the fact that you can at any time attempt to incite our wrath to the point where you can burn in nuclear hellfire until the ash blots out the day star.

Be that as it may, do you actually have any concrete arguments why governments should not be able to make decisions on the trade offs of population vs. per capita production? Honestly.

Don't make me come over there.

Your nation has a surprisingly high view of itself. A pity. That is sure to cause you trouble.

Any concrete arguments? Well, I must admit, on this issue, I must go with Aristotle, who (in his "Metaphysics") once wrote "If you can't agree on first principles, stop talking." If the forced violation of one's body is of less import to you than a caviar ration, I wager that our disagreement is beyond conversation.

Having said that, I also am confident that most nations in the UN see the matter somewhat differently - that perhaps they would prefer freedom over their own bodies, rather than get caviar on the cheap. As such, we applaud the resolution, and hope it is brought before the UN. Then, good Hooglastahn, please feel free to tell the other member states the dire need for forced abortion on caviar grounds, and that they should not make you come over there. If you make your case then as you do now, the resolution is sure to be passed. We request all delegates to seriously consider approving this measure.

Signed,
Minister of Foreign Affairs Voegelin, Royal Commonwealth of Oakeshottland.

I'm afraid I have to concur with Hooglastahn, here. As much as I hate them and everything they stand for and see the day where they are ground beneath the heel of Stark to be a pleasing one indeed, I must protest the besmirching of the land we hold in common (at least until the border disputes are settled). This is the United Nations, an august (and entirely illegitimate) body devoted to the discussion of important political matters, which is the main reason why I have chosen to deliver this message, that it and those fools who kowtow before it may learn from our example.

In Starkeria, everything comes down to resource management. We have a profits to consider, and thus must be certain that our workforce remains at a high enough level to support our current industrial capacities without overextending our Food Commodities Departments' output. As such, we maintain rigorous population controls, and assess heavy fines on employees who threaten these controls with wanton procreation. It's only sound business practice, and will of course be standardized globally once the nations of the world set aside their petty differences and come to work for Starkeria.

Hail Stark! Hail Starkeria! Long may the Iron Consortium Prevail!

Having said that, I also am confident that most nations in the UN see the matter somewhat differently - that perhaps they would prefer freedom over their own bodies, rather than get caviar on the cheap.

But what you are suggesting is not freedom of the body. Freedom means the ability to make any choice you want. If you are restricting their choices, you are restricting their freedoms.

If a people choose to hold people accountable to direct population control, that's their choice. It may make economic sense, it may not. But in any case, it's their choice to do so and any group which tries to stop them is inhibiting their choices and thus their freedoms.

Freedoms of the body apply to the group as well as the individual. Forced abortion, like any other punitive measure for those who would break the laws of their society, is a group freedom. And as any freedom, it must be protected, lest madmen such as Stark take over.

Don't make me come over there.

Having said that, I also am confident that most nations in the UN see the matter somewhat differently - that perhaps they would prefer freedom over their own bodies, rather than get caviar on the cheap.

But what you are suggesting is not freedom of the body. Freedom means the ability to make any choice you want. If you are restricting their choices, you are restricting their freedoms.

If a people choose to hold people accountable to direct population control, that's their choice. It may make economic sense, it may not. But in any case, it's their choice to do so and any group which tries to stop them is inhibiting their choices and thus their freedoms.

Freedoms of the body apply to the group as well as the individual. Forced abortion, like any other punitive measure for those who would break the laws of their society, is a group freedom. And as any freedom, it must be protected, lest madmen such as Stark take over.

Don't make me come over there.

Freedom? Yeah, I support freedom. I believe that men should be able to rape women. His body; his choice.

Actually, I don't. Why not? Because it's not only affecting his body, but hers as well. Ditto with forced abortion. It's not only affecting the government bottom line, but the woman who's forced.

Besides, at about the age of 11 or so, a child can begin actively, in poorer countries, farm. As one man said, "Because of my large family, I am a wealthy man."

To all delegates: I only as for your consideration, your opinion, and if you confer, your approval.

"END BIRTH RESTRICTIONS,"
U.N. Proposal

The tragedy of forced abortions is manifest in numerous U.N. member nations. Freedom, and well as the pursuit of family, is being crushed in the name of population control. But no such measures need ever be taken.

1. Be it resolved, all governments must refrain from restricting legally married couples in the number of children they may give birth to, or adopt.

2. No unreasonable penalty, such as impossible tax increases, shall fall upon such couples who choose to pursue large families.

The always growing yet kind to trees nation of Berkylvania, while in theory supporting this type of legislation, can not in good concience support this particular bill as we strongly feel the powers and limitations outlined are far too broad and far reaching.

While this resolution uses the term "Forced Abortion" in it's title, it seeks to address practices beyond this. We feel that, indeed, a "forced abortion." However, we find that, under this resolution, government sponsored "pregnancy awareness" or "sex education" programs may be targetted. We strongly suggest that the resolution seek to define the specific infringements on human rights that it seeks to eliminate and outline them boldly so as not to make a bad situation worse.

Additionally, we are unsure of the language regarding marriage and the right to have children. Is it not as much of a human rights violation for a single woman as for a married woman to be "forced" into an abortion she is unwilling to have? Why is a difference being drawn? Until this is clarified, this unfair discrimination against unwed mothers is reason enough to not support this particular resolution.

Furthermore, we are confused as to why this resolution seeks to mandate reasonable taxation in sovergn nations. This is surely beyond the scope of such a human rights resolution. While we may not approve of a government putting a higher tax rate on a woman or couple that have, say, a third child, it is far beyond the rights for us to prevent them from doing it as there is no human rights violation in this case. It is simply cause and effect. The choice to concieve the child is made and the couple of woman must now live with the higher taxation rate. The second point of the proposed resolution is far and above too invasive and should be eliminated completely.

Again, while we, in theory, support this idea, we do NOT support this resolution as it is much too broad and undefined as well as intrusive in matters outside of it's scope.

To all delegates: I only as for your consideration, your opinion, and if you confer, your approval.

"END BIRTH RESTRICTIONS,"
U.N. Proposal

The tragedy of forced abortions is manifest in numerous U.N. member nations. Freedom, and well as the pursuit of family, is being crushed in the name of population control. But no such measures need ever be taken.

1. Be it resolved, all governments must refrain from restricting legally married couples in the number of children they may give birth to, or adopt.

2. No unreasonable penalty, such as impossible tax increases, shall fall upon such couples who choose to pursue large families.

The always growing yet kind to trees nation of Berkylvania, while in theory supporting this type of legislation, can not in good concience support this particular bill as we strongly feel the powers and limitations outlined are far too broad and far reaching.

While this resolution uses the term "Forced Abortion" in it's title, it seeks to address practices beyond this. We feel that, indeed, a "forced abortion." However, we find that, under this resolution, government sponsored "pregnancy awareness" or "sex education" programs may be targetted. We strongly suggest that the resolution seek to define the specific infringements on human rights that it seeks to eliminate and outline them boldly so as not to make a bad situation worse.

Additionally, we are unsure of the language regarding marriage and the right to have children. Is it not as much of a human rights violation for a single woman as for a married woman to be "forced" into an abortion she is unwilling to have? Why is a difference being drawn? Until this is clarified, this unfair discrimination against unwed mothers is reason enough to not support this particular resolution.

Furthermore, we are confused as to why this resolution seeks to mandate reasonable taxation in sovergn nations. This is surely beyond the scope of such a human rights resolution. While we may not approve of a government putting a higher tax rate on a woman or couple that have, say, a third child, it is far beyond the rights for us to prevent them from doing it as there is no human rights violation in this case. It is simply cause and effect. The choice to concieve the child is made and the couple of woman must now live with the higher taxation rate. The second point of the proposed resolution is far and above too invasive and should be eliminated completely.

Again, while we, in theory, support this idea, we do NOT support this resolution as it is much too broad and undefined as well as intrusive in matters outside of it's scope.

While we may not approve of a government putting a higher tax rate on a woman or couple that have, say, a third child, it is far beyond the rights for us to prevent them from doing it as there is no human rights violation in this case. It is simply cause and effect. The choice to concieve the child is made and the couple of woman must now live with the higher taxation rate.

Similarly, it is within the rights of sovereign nations to execute people for any reason or no reason at all. What is and is not a crime is entirely up to each nation to determine for themselves.

Even if this absurd provision were to go through, it would still be within the rights of each nation to simply shoot the children after being born for the crime of being a third or fourth child, or whatever.

The only palpable difference between abortion and infanticide is that infanticide requires the expenditure of resources to maintain the carrier for a full forty weeks and abortion doesn't. That and infanticide makes even more people uncomfortable for some reason.

Don't make me come over there.

Besides, at about the age of 11 or so, a child can begin actively, in poorer countries, farm. As one man said, "Because of my large family, I am a wealthy man."

Oh dear. What you are suggesting is:

1. Exploitation of one person by another.
2. Child slavery.
3. Expenditure of the future on the backs of static peasant economy.

If that's seriously your proposal for why allowing population to go unchecked is OK, perhaps we should be instituting some population control measures in Kappastan as well.

In the situation you describe, the children are being put to work at a young age without capital investment or training. So you are plugging unskilled labor into the system without improving other aspects of economic growth - such as tools or technology. So while there is economic growth going on, it is smaller than the growth of people - wich means your per capita economy is now smaller.

So if the per capita economy is shrinking, how are people becoming wealthy?

Simple. It's because the head of the family is taking all the proceeds of the labor and the children are getting barely enough to survive. So the children are slaves, and the head of the family is getting rich. Explain to us the part where this is a good thing?

And it gets worse. Remember how they were throwing extra workers in without producing extra equipment? Well, they also aren't introducing any more land. The farmers in this situation have one family for the whole farm they own. When the current head of the family dies or retires - they have two options:

Option One: Split up the farm. That is, all of those extra children each get a piece of the farm, and the next generation goes on just like this one except that each person is making their family work with about one seventh the resources.

Option Two: Don't split up the farm. That is, one child gets the farm, and all the other children look for work elsewhere. The child inheriting the farm will want to raise his or her own family in order to continue the system, and all the other brothers and sisters will have to get jobs elsewhere or starve. Good luck with that, they have no food, no capital, and the only thing they are skilled at is menial agricultural labor which the society already has in abundance - and which we've already established pays only in the bare minimums of survival.

This is a horrible option, and argues strongly for sensible population control.


The only palpable difference between abortion and infanticide is that infanticide requires the expenditure of resources to maintain the carrier for a full forty weeks and abortion doesn't.

Except for that minor detail where fetuses have brains the size of a lizard and don't know fear or despair, while children have the same amount of neurons as adults and have all the capacities and faculties available to any person. There is more to being human than resource management, quality of life counts significantly.

Good night, everyone.

Similarly, it is within the rights of sovereign nations to execute people for any reason or no reason at all. What is and is not a crime is entirely up to each nation to determine for themselves.

If you assume that sovereignty is absolute and that its legitimacy comes from the ability to effectively wield force and power, than your assertions seem correct. A sovereign state can do anything it wills and its actions are of no one else’s concerns. It is, however, actually a self-contradictory assertion. Two problems:

If there are any sort of moral absolutes, any sort of natural moral law in the Stoic/Thomastic sense, or any sort of natural rights (rights that exist by virtue of anything more than force), then the state’s legitimate power is limited, whatever actual power it may have.

However, if no such natural law exists, and states hold legitimate authority by virtue of their control of force, then there is no reason to assume sovereignty. If one state can gain a monopoly of force over others, it can force those states to act and violate their sovereignty. They cannot call on their sovereignty as a defense, because sovereignty then equates to nothing more than power and force, making the more powerful state sovereign. Thus, if a group of states can use power to impose this or any other law on you, and do so successfully, you have no recourse to sovereignty. There can be no right if “might makes right,” only might.

If there are any sort of moral absolutes, any sort of natural moral law in the Stoic/Thomastic sense, or any sort of natural rights (rights that exist by virtue of anything more than force), then the state’s legitimate power is limited, whatever actual power it may have.

If monkeys fly out of my butt right now, then I'm sure that my personal weight is a lot less than the last time I checked a scale. As long as you predicate your statement with absurd flimflammery, then you can get all kinds of crazy stupid conclusions. I'm not sure what, if anything, that has to do with the conversation.

Don't make me come over there.

* The Rep of Komokom is seen holding a frying pan in a very hostile manner and has in his hand a rubber stamp, with which he promptly uses to post the following stamp on this forum thread,

{POINTLESS MORAL DEBATE ALERT}

"No mess'in!"

- The Rep of Komokom. :)

Similarly, it is within the rights of sovereign nations to execute people for any reason or no reason at all. What is and is not a crime is entirely up to each nation to determine for themselves.

Have you even read past UN resolutions? Please do. Then suck it up or leave the UN.

* Points at Rehochipe, and jumps up and down.

"That person stole my words!"

:wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

And might I add,

"The only barriers are ultimately those which we as people put before others and ultimately, our-selves. If we continue to do so, we add so many barriers, we wall our-selves apart from each other, but, if we take barriers away, then we find we are out our prime point, we are all one glorious person, yet each part of the whole may still celebrate their individuality which is key."

Dude, I think I just hit my "Ghandi" streak? :shock:

(Seriously considers dropping anti-biotics into waste paper bin, :wink: )