NationStates Jolt Archive

Greetings,
If you have some free time, take a look at a proposal called "Birth Control".
I think it might interest you.
Thank you for listening.

It would be helpful if you posted it here for yourself for us all to see.

Description: Poor People in poor countries tend to have a lot of kids. It makes difficult to Welfare State to work, and its complicated to poor people to raise a lot of kids since that they don't have enough money to do that. With less children it would be easier to educate and to take care of our children.
Well raised kids think better, work better, Produce better.

because of that I propose:

I - Free sterilization surgery to both men and women at any hospital.

II - second childbirth should cost $300,00 , and to the following births, plus $100,00 per birth (even in public hospitals).

III - in case of rape, the second clause is not valid.

IV - pregnancy prevention classes at school for kids above 13 years old.

V - Free condoms at Public hospitals.

VI - more information about pregnancy and safe sex to poor men and women.

Special Clause I : this proposal should not invigorate if there is high risk of economy collapsing, what should be determined by UNs economist of choice.
--------------------''------------------------------''-----------------------



I received telegrams about the second clause, saying that people shouldn't have to pay to give birth. But its very simple, you need money to raise kids, if they don't have money to pay the birth tax they won't have money to raise 2, 3, 4 or more kids thats why that second clause exists.

Thank you for listening.

No UN proposal should ever charge one person for anything. Period.

People are charged all the time, fees and taxes are included in UN proposals (they are subliminal but they exist). Second birth fee is for a good cause.

How about addressing the root causes of poverty rather than charging people money when they have kids? Way to attack the symptoms rather than the problem, friend.

Personally, I find the idea of arbitrarily imposing hefty fines against our citizens for the mere act of reproduction totalitarian and needlessly vindictive. While our government currently teaches Sexual Education (which includes information about family planning) and provides free contraceptives, we also encourage our citizens to start and raise their own family as they see fit. Creating a 'One Family - One Child' system would have no forseeable benefits in our society, and would only serve to place arbitrary limits on an area that currently requires no limitation. The idea of extorting our own people for large sums of money for a violation of this 'rule' is also strongly counter to the ideal of what New Tyrollia holds as justice. Our intent is never to punish our citizens, only to help them. If your nation currently has problems with population control, you might consider trying a similar approach yourself.

No UN proposal should ever charge one person for anything. Period.

I'm not entirely sure, but I'm thinking because of this the proposal is in violation of UN Resolution #4, which states:

"The UN shall not be allowed to collect taxes directly from the citizens of any member state for any purpose."

Since this is a direct tax on a person imposed by the UN it is in violation of the above.

Remove II and III and we're in business

Problem here is that different nations have different needs. Your resolution will affect all nations. Some nations, developed nations especially, want to encourage people to have kids.

The idea of imposing a flat charge is also too overreaching. Remember, this is the UN. Things have global impact. $300 may not be much in one country, but due to exchange rates and economic conditions, it could be a year's income in another.

To sum up, good idea, wrong place.

If you have an alternative to II then I think this is a good proposal. I think clause II basically puts a dollar value on life. Life is not meant to be treated like property.

I thought about what you guys said, clause II is like a test to see if the mother have money to raise her kids, your thinking like "what if she can't pay $300 of her country currency to have her second kid". If she can't pay, she won't have money to raise her kid, to feed her kid to give what her kid needs. And it's not a "one child per couple politics" it's just like a test, to see if she is able to have that kid and raise him well in our modern way of life.

This resolution, if clause II will remain in it, will cause more problems than solve. A black market of birth will develop, where parents are charged mere 50 $ instead of 300, for example. Moreover, people will have their children birthed in secret, ie out of hospital, with all the potential health risks that involves. That is only the top of the iceberg (or however these great chunks of ice swimming in the sea are properly called in English), I'm afraid.

The people should know what they are doing, they know that its risky to have a child in the black market. This we can fight with education, if you educate your people they won't do that kind of stuff.

I thought about what you guys said, clause II is like a test to see if the mother have money to raise her kids, your thinking like "what if she can't pay $300 of her country currency to have her second kid". If she can't pay, she won't have money to raise her kid, to feed her kid to give what her kid needs. And it's not a "one child per couple politics" it's just like a test, to see if she is able to have that kid and raise him well in our modern way of life.

And if she does have the $300 then what, you take it from her? <shakes head> If there really are families in your nation that cannot support their children, why don't you try helping them out instead of levying fines?

The people should know what they are doing, they know that its risky to have a child in the black market. This we can fight with education, if you educate your people they won't do that kind of stuff.

The whole problem you are trying to adress is one "we can fight with education, if you educate your people they" will know how to prevent reception, how to be responsible for the welfare of their own children etc.

Zamundaland does not support your proposal.

The UN imposes laws a government must follow - not it's populace. While some nations may fund a burgeoning birth rate and increasing welfare costs problematic, not all do. We fail to see how it is within the UN's purview to dictate to nations how and at what cost its' citizens are to procreate.

Zamundaland favors each nation dealing with crime and proverty within its own boundaries rather than trying to tell other nations how to deal with the issue. Perhaps if the nation in question were to spend a bit more in the educational arena, they wouldn't be having this problem. It is a fact that the higher up the educational ladder one climbs, the fewer children one has.

Zamundaland urges all delegates to not lend their support to this "cause".

You're thinking about nations, you must think about people,. Health and education are basic stuff that a nation must have, when they pay $300, that $300 is going to be invested in Health.
Yes, its true some nations don't have problems with that, but we can't think about the minority, we must think about the problems that poor people have to face, more and more kids just make it worse. Let's start to think in whats better to the poor people, that $300 that they pay to have second birth, its just a way to show them that it wont be easy to raise 2 children, 3 children etc. Unfortunately we can't just take all the money in the world and share it with everybody, so lets help people to make good use of what they have, make people think twice before having one more mouth to feed at home, one more life to take care.
Its not a way of getting money from people its a way to teach them how to live well with what they have.

Thank you for listening.

You're thinking about nations, you must think about people.
You're thinking about people, you must start thinking about nations.

This is the UN. We define what nations must do, and then the nations pass that along to the people in ways that fit their culture, economy, and structure. The UN is in the business of "wholesale", not "retail" lawmaking. We leave the individual management up to the nations.

Rather than digging in to the bunker of your original thoughts, perhaps you could incorporate some of this constructive criticism into your proposal.

Frisbeeteria,

You missunderstood me, what I am trying to say with "think about people" is not that, is just that you should think on whats better for the people, I know that the proposal is for nations, but it will affect people, and thats what I'm talking about, helping people, thinking about people

Frisbeeteria,

You missunderstood me, what I am trying to say with "think about people" is not that, is just that you should think on whats better for the people, I know that the proposal is for nations, but it will affect people, and thats what I'm talking about, helping people, thinking about people

Which only proves the point Frisbeeteria has been trying to hammer through to you...

You missunderstood me, what I am trying to say with "think about people" is not that, is just that you should think on whats better for the people, I know that the proposal is for nations, but it will affect people, and thats what I'm talking about, helping people, thinking about people
I didn't misunderstand at all. I knew exactly what you meant. I'm telling you to rethink how you present your proposals, because your way isn't working.

All the problems with my proposal came because of clause II, but all that people said against it I gave an argument what more can you say about it?

All the problems with my proposal came because of clause II, but all that people said against it I gave an argument what more can you say about it?

I haven't seen the argument yet that would have convinced me that clause II is right. Maybe you misssed my counter-argument?

I haven't seen the argument yet that would have convinced me that clause II is right. Maybe you misssed my counter-argument?

Agreed. I still don't see how punishing your worst-off citizens is going to stop your problem, and I still don't see how this 'deterent' is better than helping them. If you want to keep someone from doing something dangerous, you don't break their legs, do you?

Its not a punishment, its a test. If you have money to pay, you wont have problem to raise your kid, if you don't have the money, you know that you won't be able to raise your kid, and he/she will be just one more hungry homeless

If it's a 'test' than why don't you simply state that only families who can prove their financially ability to support a child are legally allowed to have one? Why not run a check, instead of taking their money?

If it's a 'test' than why don't you simply state that only families who can prove their financially ability to support a child are legally allowed to have one? Why not run a check, instead of taking their money?

probably because it would cost tax money, instead of raise them, and secondly because it would be bothersome to have to make all the work.

And no, I still don't see how a "test" will prevent parents to beget their children. That would imply that you would either make contraception compulsory which is preposterous, or even worse you make abortion compulsory :gundge:

because if they are not financially able, what can I do, oh ok what a pitty you're not financially able go have your baby and sign your permanent poverty sentence. Everybody will think like "oh they'll just check, doesnt matter if we are able or not, nothing will happen at all"

if they don't have the $300 to pay, they'll owe money to the State, and pay per month untill it completes $300, this will make people think twice before havin babys without the proper conditions to it

Time for a reality check.

Poverty or the ability to pay one's bills has no bearing on having children whatsoever. If this were true, people on welfare simply wouldn't have any more children. They really don't require an additional bill to prove to them that they're poor. They knew that from the onset.

If they are allowed to pay the amount due in installments over a period of time, then your financial feasibility test falls flat. All you have accomplished here is welfare dollars coming back into the treasury instead of entering the economic pool. If they can pay over time, what does paying prove? Nothing whatsoever, except perhaps that they are capable of budgeting, in which case we submit they are probably quite capable of raising children under limited financial circumstances.

While we understand the reasoning behind the proposal - the means accomplishes nothing useful.

Your child "fee" does nothing but extort money from those desiring children, and increases the already present hardships of the poor.

Once again Zamundaland expresses its belief that money spent on education and guaranteed birth control products will accomplish your goal far more adequately than simplying requiring people to pay for the privilege of having a child.

:headbang: If they knew they were poor, they wouldn't have one more baby to feed without money to do it. Even paying over time they will lose those $300 and that will make them think about not having more kids because next time it will cost $400. Even paying over time it will prove that they can't raise more kids.

I understand and agree with the intent of your proposal. Most people who have posted so far do as well. Just to show you that I know what you're saying, I'll repeat the bit we've been debating right here:

-You want to impose a cost of $300 for the second child born to a family
-This cost will increase by $100 for every subsequent child born to that family
-Your belief is that this cost will prevent poor families from having more children than they can afford.
-This belief is founded on the idea that if they can't afford $300(or potentially more), they will think twice about having more children.

I've listened to you. I understand what you are saying. Now, please, listen to what everyone else has been trying to tell you.
The idea is flawed because the cost of having additional children will not act as a deterant, but will simply punish families who are already suffering. Think about this: The $300 is paid for the second child, yes? Thus, the family already has one child. They know how much it costs to support a baby.
What does this mean? Well, your problem is that families are having children they can't afford. But the thing is - they know that they can't afford these children already, and yet they are still having them Obviously, economic motivations do not apply. As a result, an economic deterent will not solve the problem.
Please, understand, this is constructive criticism. Most people have no problem with the bulk of the proposal. Most people would support it, except for this one misguided clause about the fines. We're trying to help you out, not attack you. I hope that you see it that way.

Ok guys, I'll make a repeal when the voting is over but without II and III clauses. Thank you for everything. :D