NationStates Jolt Archive

Please support the proposal "Action to reduce birth defects". Think of the children!

Action to reduce birth defects
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Description: Recalling UN resolution # 81, Definition of Marriage and its intentions.

Recognizing the danger of potential birth defects and genetic diseases.

Recognizing increased costs of health care of member nation from birth defects and genetic disease.

Recognizing social norms and the need to preserve certain relationships as sacrosanct and free of sexual exploitation.

We resolve that relationships of an incestuous nature be restricted from the definition of marriage.

We further resolve that incestuous relationships be forbidden, with punishments and enforcement left to the discretion of member UN nations.

We define incest as follows:
Sexual intercourse or relationships that would normally involve sexual intercourse such as marriage or civil unions between:
1) Siblings, those who through birth, adoption, or by the marriage of their mother or father share one or more parent.
2) Ancestors or descendants by blood or adoption. (Parents or Children)
3) Siblings of ancestors or descendants by blood or adoption. (Aunts, Uncles, Nephews, Nieces)
4) Ancestors or descendants of siblings of ancestors or descendants. (Cousins)

Good form, well researched, nicely adapted to the realities of the UN and its past/passed resolutions, right up until you get to the definition.
1) Siblings, those who through birth, adoption, or by the marriage of their mother or father share one or more parent.
2) Ancestors or descendants by blood or adoption. (Parents or Children)
3) Siblings of ancestors or descendants by blood or adoption. (Aunts, Uncles, Nephews, Nieces)
4) Ancestors or descendants of siblings of ancestors or descendants. (Cousins)
1. What does adoption have to do with incest?
2. Are you limiting this to a single generation? It doesn't say so explicitly, so I'm assuming not. That means that anyone who has any degree of consanguity to anyone else cannot have sex. Given that almost anyone can be traced to common ancestry with almost anyone else within six to ten generations, you're eliminating reproduction altogether.

I'll stop there. No.

Action to reduce birth defects

Put on condom.

Seriously though relationships don't always include kids and I hate the line 'Recognizing social norms and the need to preserve certain relationships as sacrosanct and free of sexual exploitation'.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States

Recognizing the danger of potential birth defects and genetic diseases.

Recognizing increased costs of health care of member nation from birth defects and genetic disease.

Recognizing social norms and the need to preserve certain relationships as sacrosanct and free of sexual exploitation.




But incest represent only a minimal franction of the causes of birth defect. To focus uniquely on incest wont solve anything, obiviously. So while we're on the subject of eugenisme, and dont deny it, we are, wouldn't it make more sense to actualy map everyone's genetic code from birth, check up for possible weakness, and crack down on the fuckers ? Thats what I thought.


Seriously thought, what I was trying to say with sarcasme in my above statement is, any action reducing individual rights for the sake of 'purity' or "reducing social cost", will be regarded with the greatest suspicion. Your original idea of outlawing incest and other abnormal relationship is quite noble, but to do it for the sake of purity and reducing social cost seems quite suspicious, since such an idea has a very heavy and negative historical bagagge.
So unless the definition of ethical relationship is very clearly defined, we will never support it. For if it is too hollow and interpretable, it could be used as an excuse by less scrupulous nations to massivly opress their people for no good reasons.

Now that my intentions are clear, lets move on and check up your definition of incest.


We define incest as follows:
Sexual intercourse or relationships that would normally involve sexual intercourse such as marriage or civil unions between:
1) Siblings, those who through birth, adoption, or by the marriage of their mother or father share one or more parent.
2) Ancestors or descendants by blood or adoption. (Parents or Children)
3) Siblings of ancestors or descendants by blood or adoption. (Aunts, Uncles, Nephews, Nieces)
4) Ancestors or descendants of siblings of ancestors or descendants. (Cousins)


Well, to be honest, your definition of incest is very well done. It covers pretty much everything I can think of at the moment, but its a litle bit to large of one point : how far in the genealogical tree can two people be appart for them not to be considered as blood relative ?

Good form, well researched, nicely adapted to the realities of the UN and its past/passed resolutions, right up until you get to the definition.

1. What does adoption have to do with incest?

If you adopt a child and then exploit that relationship for sex, one can't argue that it can cause genetic mutations or birth defects. However, the relationship is still abusive, which is why I added the part about certain relationships as sacrosanct and free of sexual exploitation. I would have made the title more comprehensive, but it only allowed so many characters.



2. Are you limiting this to a single generation? It doesn't say so explicitly, so I'm assuming not. That means that anyone who has any degree of consanguity to anyone else cannot have sex. Given that almost anyone can be traced to common ancestry with almost anyone else within six to ten generations, you're eliminating reproduction altogether.

I'll stop there. No.

You're right. The fourth part of the definition should have read parent or child instead of ancestor or descendent. I meant to limit it to first cousins.

Seriously though relationships don't always include kids and I hate the line 'Recognizing social norms and the need to preserve certain relationships as sacrosanct and free of sexual exploitation'.


Would you agree or disagree that it is wrong to adopt a child and then have sex with it?

One can imagine all sorts of abuses if adoption were left out of a restriction against incest. I understand your concern over language, however I believe some relationships really are sacrosanct and should be free of sexual exploitation.

We resolve that relationships of an incestuous nature be restricted from the definition of marriage.

Incest is a cultural term & phenomena.... What you define as incest might be someone else's cultural norm.


We define incest as follows:
Sexual intercourse or relationships that would normally involve sexual intercourse such as marriage or civil unions between:
1) Siblings, those who through birth, adoption, or by the marriage of their mother or father share one or more parent.


In a lot of royalty based cultures this is not only a frequent occurence, siblings are the preferred marraige partner. In many cases, we can't find any genetic problems with this having happened. I refer you to RL ancient Egypt.


2) Ancestors or descendants by blood or adoption. (Parents or Children)


Some people would expand this further, based on their social norms. There is an important difference between a person's biological and social parents; attempting to regulate this will get a lot of resistance from such cultures.


3) Siblings of ancestors or descendants by blood or adoption. (Aunts, Uncles, Nephews, Nieces)

ditto

4) Ancestors or descendants of siblings of ancestors or descendants. (Cousins)
Again, often the 1st cousin is the preferred marriage partner. Also, are you talking cousins as in ALL COUSINS, PARALLEL COUSINS, or CROSS COUSINS? The genetics here does matter.... particularly since it's the emphasis of the resolution.

In it's present state, I cannot support this resolution.

Would you agree or disagree that it is wrong to adopt a child and then have sex with it?

One can imagine all sorts of abuses if adoption were left out of a restriction against incest. I understand your concern over language, however I believe some relationships really are sacrosanct and should be free of sexual exploitation.

While that's not the sort of thing I'm personally into, there are issues of consent related. If an adopted child passes the age of consent and minority, then what reasonable factors would limit them marrying besides this law? The genetic ideal this resolution is backing doesn't seem to apply in this case.

Good form, well researched, nicely adapted to the realities of the UN and its past/passed resolutions, right up until you get to the definition.

1. What does adoption have to do with incest?
2. Are you limiting this to a single generation? It doesn't say so explicitly, so I'm assuming not. That means that anyone who has any degree of consanguity to anyone else cannot have sex. Given that almost anyone can be traced to common ancestry with almost anyone else within six to ten generations, you're eliminating reproduction altogether.

I'll stop there. No.

Work on the wording, then bring it back.

While I understand that incest can (sometimes) lead to genetic problems, I don't think that is reason enough to ban it. Cause with condoms, vasectomies and all sorts of other birth control measures that exist in the world today, sex doesn't have to lead to children, and this is just an attempt to impose the morals of one society on the rest of the UN, but by doing it in an underhand and somewhat sneaky manner.

Birth defects are caused by other things than incest and yet you make no attempt to deal with that in the proposal.

I can't support this proposal because the whole content of it is pretty much unreleated to the title.

If you want to ban incest then at least have the decency to call the proposal "banning incest".

(edit) It's also quite possible it is illegal as it is attempting to amend and restrict a prior resolution.

I think the UN's time would be better spent drawing up a resolution banning forced incest and defining that as rape and thus contrary to the universal bill of rights.

As it stands, the Child Protection Act states:

ARTICLE 2

1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the minor from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s)d or any other person(s)


But this only protects children. The Universal Bill of Rights states:

Article 5 -- All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment.

But that does not explicitly address sexual abuse and would be considered even more vague on the topic of forced incest.

I think the UN's time would be better spent addressing the lack of resolutions on this issue instead.

Please support the proposal "Action to reduce birth defects". Think of the children!

I am.

Action to reduce birth defects
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Description: Recalling UN resolution # 81, Definition of Marriage and its intentions.

Recognizing the danger of potential birth defects and genetic diseases.

Recognizing increased costs of health care of member nation from birth defects and genetic disease.

Recognizing social norms and the need to preserve certain relationships as sacrosanct and free of sexual exploitation.

This has me worried. What relationships?

We resolve that relationships of an incestuous nature be restricted from the definition of marriage.

Sarkarasetans, the people of my empire, have evolved beyond the genetic innormalities that cause incest to cause genetic problems. However, they also have a genetic disposition to not trying it, either. So, this is not a problem.

Also, incest only rarely results in actual genetic problems if only practiced for one generation, assuming reproduction is involved. There are families with long traditions of incest that do not use it for reproduction and do not have the genetic problems. There is also a certain tribe of humans that has resulted to incest to keep their tribe alive and, after over 100 years of practicing it, do not show the genetic problems.

We further resolve that incestuous relationships be forbidden, with punishments and enforcement left to the discretion of member UN nations.

I say we leave this up to the nation.

We define incest as follows:
Sexual intercourse or relationships that would normally involve sexual intercourse such as marriage or civil unions between:
1) Siblings, those who through birth, adoption, or by the marriage of their mother or father share one or more parent.
2) Ancestors or descendants by blood or adoption. (Parents or Children)
3) Siblings of ancestors or descendants by blood or adoption. (Aunts, Uncles, Nephews, Nieces)
4) Ancestors or descendants of siblings of ancestors or descendants. (Cousins)

Nice definition, but drop adoption as incest. There are people who have married siblings that were adopted by their parents when those siblings were not blood relations. A certain Victor Frankenstein comes to mind as a famous example.

I will not support this. If two (or more) consenting adults want to engage in a sexual relationship, then the law has no business stopping them. The genetic problems with offspring aren't generally that bad, and if there are serious problems for any child produced, that issue can be dealt with separately.

I will not support this. If two (or more) consenting adults want to engage in a sexual relationship, then the law has no business stopping them. The genetic problems with offspring aren't generally that bad, and if there are serious problems for any child produced, that issue can be dealt with separately.

Infact - is there not a resolution that would make this illegal to begin with? Sexual Freedom would not cover the marriage part (which is covered by definition of marriage anyway) but it would cover the "what they do in their own house" part.

So all in all, isn't this proposal entirely illegal since it violates TWO previous resolutions?

Indeed it is. Hopefully, it'll be deleted.

Would you agree or disagree that it is wrong to adopt a child and then have sex with it?
To have sex with the child is already illegal. To have sex between adults is none of my business unless someone is being raped.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World