NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello,

Though there are a number of proposals being discussed, my government wanted to see if there is an interest in the Confederated City States of Mikitivity drafting an UN resolution concerning infanticide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide).

The issue is that although the Child Protection Act (Resolution #25) states that measures should be taken to protect minros from all forms of physical violence, the practice of infanticide (in particular female infanticide) is not mentioned in this or any other existing NS UN resolution ... a fact that concerns the people of Mikitivity.

The problem is that, when practiced for cultural reasons, gender based infanticide upsets natural population dynamics. Although some nations might argue that these activities are not encouraged, the United Nations has many times (including the afore mentioned Child Protection Act) used a resolution to condemn certain practices.

I don't see any need for it, especially, as you say, we already have several resolutions protecting children. We do not think that the UN needs to mention every single, separate atrocity when it already has blanket resolutions on the matter.

I like the idea, but the problem is that I don't feel we should limit it to infanticide as infanticide is defined as such:

Infanticide (n)
1. The act of killing an infant.
2. The practice of killing newborn infants.
3. One who kills an infant.
and that an infant is defined as

in·fant (n)
1. A child in the earliest period of life, especially before he or she can walk.
2. A child in the first year of life

Therefore, once a child ceases to be an infant they could freely kill them. Also, one could argue that children shouldn't be protected from death less than adults, therefore it might be argued that a anti-homicide proposal, which would also cover infaticide...

I don't see any need for it, especially, as you say, we already have several resolutions protecting children. We do not think that the UN needs to mention every single, separate atrocity when it already has blanket resolutions on the matter.

My government partially agrees, I think the UN doesn't need to support things like the right to smile or the right to eat cheese. I certainly agree that there are some issues that we don't need to address.

However, please allow me to try to change your government's position on this particular issue. :)

__

Infanticide is the practice of killing a child shortly after birth. Part of the point of the UN resolution would be to actually define this -- are we talking about 1 month or 12 months?

Stephistan's resolution (#25) was clear that it applied on "every human being below the age of eighteen", but what if a child is enuthanized shortly after birth? Rereading the Child Protection Act (the only resolution that I've found that comes close to addressing this subject), I would have to say that Grande's "Legalize Euthanasia" resolution (#43) actually provides a loophole that allows infanticide.

Here I'll quote Grande's resolution (which I find poorly written):

"I propose that euthanasia should be legalised. Everyone over a certain age or with a life-threatening illness should be given the right to decide ..."

Nowhere in Grande's resolution is the age actually set, but based on the few resolutions we have protecting minors it might be inferred that children are not protected and could be euthanasized purely for having been born female (which in human populations, information exists to suggest that for every 100 females born, 107 males are born).

It can be inferred where there may be gender based infanticide customs by looking at the gender based infant morality information and comparing it to international data. Naturally it would be exhausting for Mikitivity's statistics buerau to collect international data on the scope and scale of this, but if there is an interest in this, I will ask my government to post a poll in the NationStates forum and to ask all nations to disclose population based statistics and the races for those statistics. From this we can begin to see if there is cause for concern or not. For example, if a nation's data suggests that 75% of the infant population is human male, and 25% of the population is human female, then there is either a social or local environmental annomally that is essentially killing 3 times as many girls than boys. If this is a social issue, governments are obligated to act. The point of the resolution is to highlight this.


OOC: When we are debating Gandalf, Who Can Smile, and Who Cut the Cheese, I think the door for taking about a specific issue like infanticide is much more appropriate. I'm just thinking that the reason the number of posts here is so low is people are drifting into "different" areas and wanted to propose that this resolution could result in an interesting forum debate -- and yes, I don't have the text yet ... I wanted to also get a feel for just how far others wanted me to throw this bomb. ;)

n.p. collection d'arnell-andrea :: the bower of despair

*bump*

My government is still interested in pursuing this, but would appreciate more feedback on the general idea.

Go for it, although, perhaps, as has already been said, make an anti-homocide resolution (it is, after all, a gross infringment on human rights that has NOT been condemned by the NSUN yet... :p ), and include a section or two concerning gender-based infanticide (and abortions done for the sole reason of the child's gender)*

*OT: Seriously, the abortion resolution is SO poorly written... :headbang:

We nod to Mikitivity for providing this draft idea, as it does open an interesting door of debate that doesn't possibly result in arguements over how many tentacles Cthulhu has.

We note the idea of killing a child just before birth as being mentioned and would like to suggest that is covered by the Abortion law, which means we do not feel it as part of infanticide. We feel the solution to that problem is a definition of when a fetus becomes a human, but all attempts at a definition are derailed by varying viewpoints, including some that would be effectively making abortion illegal.

As for the rest of this: A simple case of a law protecting children from harm may be interesting, but we wish to see a draft before commenting further.

I think we should kill male babies, whereas one male can empregnate many females, but having too many dudes, then we need more hookers, and I don't think the UN allows those presently.

The Sex Worker Industry Act makes prostitution legal in the UN.

Go for it, although, perhaps, as has already been said, make an anti-homocide resolution (it is, after all, a gross infringment on human rights that has NOT been condemned by the NSUN yet... :p ), and include a section or two concerning gender-based infanticide (and abortions done for the sole reason of the child's gender)*

*OT: Seriously, the abortion resolution is SO poorly written... :headbang:

While obviously infanticide, when practiced for cultural reasons, may bear gender biases (which is something the people of Mikitivity find offensive), the previous resolutions related to Female Genital Mutilation and the Rights of Minorities and Women tended to bring out the worst in a number of UN diplomats. My government believes that the focus in this case should be specific: to protect infants from any prejudice, but not so broad that it can be attacked as going too far. A debate on the subject of murder, naturally is something of its own right, whereas infanticide is murder practiced by the state, community, or family and is often practiced for religious or cultural supersitions, like the misconception that say a female child is less valuable than a male child (just one example).

I hope that is clear in where the people of Mikitivity would like this debate to go ... as there is a balance between being too focused (picking on one gender) and being too broad (just condemning murder). We fear that this topic, no matter how many skilled Miervatians and others sit down to come up with flexible language, may fall upon deaf ears if the resolution promoting the topic doesn't have wide acceptance.

So with this in mind, my government has asked my office to start work on a *crude* draft. However, information is important. If this topic interests you, and if your government has intelligence related to infanticide as practiced in NationStates, that information (i.e. the links) would be invaluable to this body's preparation on this subject. :)

[OOC: Basically, I'm guessing somebody in II has knocked off some baby's for some reason or another ... since children are going to be from the same family as the parents, religion differences won't really factor in, besides, those are covered by the bans on genocide. We will indirectly be talking about gender equality, but also touching on abortion ... and I too agree that the current abortion resolution is poorly written, and hope to find a way to legally patch it up or maybe navigate around it a bit here.

With that in mind, I'll dig that resolution up from the UNA archives and post it here too! Thanks for the suggestion!] :)

[OOC: Just a heads up ... I'm going to try to "brainstorm" this proposal in public view for two reasons: (1) to get input, and (2) to illustrate how proposals start off as ideas and slowly get refined into resolutions. I probably will tackle the preamble first, clause by clause ... as I'm in absolutely *no* rush.]

Infanticide should be illegal everywhere exept China and the United States of America, due to overpopulation.

[insert Infant Here] :mp5:

Infanticide should be illegal everywhere exept China and the United States of America, due to overpopulation.
Greetings.

We pondered on this for a while, then realised that it was a joke about the high troll populations. Trollslayers are in great demand because trolls, infant or otherwise, have the ability to regenerate.

We note that NSUN resolutions are applied to all member states, so it is not possible to make exceptions.

We pondered on this for a while, then realised that it was a joke about the high troll populations. Trollslayers are in great demand because trolls, infant or otherwise, have the ability to regenerate.

We note that NSUN resolutions are applied to all member states, so it is not possible to make exceptions.

ROTFL!

Of course this does beg the question if troll regeneration is something that scientists will one day try to research and use in medical applications. ;)

But yes, NSUN resolutions need to be applied to all member states, so my government would not like to talk about this "imaginary" place called "China" or "USA" ... um, whatever they might be.

ROTFL!

Of course this does beg the question if troll regeneration is something that scientists will one day try to research and use in medical applications. ;)

But yes, NSUN resolutions need to be applied to all member states, so my government would not like to talk about this "imaginary" place called "China" or "USA" ... um, whatever they might be.

Interestingly (and I'm using that word at a push) there is a United States of America in NS, and I imagine there is a China as well. Be a tad unfair to single them out though!

But I'll try and contribute to this brainstorming. I'd like to think I've got a flair for words which might help.

Greetings.

We consider that the basic idea here is that sub-adult sentients should not be terminated before maturity. This is an idea implicit in most packages of rights (even including fishing and hunting regulations). It is acknowledged that there is a point in the life cycle of most sentient beings (and even software) whereupon the immature version becomes what is considered 'fully-functional' (even if buggy). We accord a degree of tolerance and even support to such immature versions that we do not accord to fully-functional versions.

The deliberate termination of sub-adult sentients is accordingly repugnant in the eyes of most civilisations and societies, even if the problem is one of overcrowding. One of the reasons is that they are obviously independently-functioning sentient organisms, even if crippled (or crippleware). Sufficient injection of resources (or even, 'paying the shareware fee') would raise them to full members of society and increase the resource pool.

UNITED NATIONS PROPOSED RESOLUTION
Condemning Infanticide
?

Category: Human Rights or Moral Decency
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Mikitivity

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

{insert reference & one-line summary to The Child Protection Act #25}

{insert reference & one-line summary to Abortion Rights #61}

{discuss the problems inherent in the two resolutions, specifcally how #25 never protects infants or late term abortions based on gender considerations -- this may be multiple clauses}

{point out that infanticide still takes place -- I'll run an International Incidents poll to confirm this in NationStates, but it exists in the real world, and I promise an "evil" puppet somewhere might practice this -- this is also where we can talk a bit about late term abortions} ;)

{first clause should define infanticide}

{second clause should condemn infanticide}

{third clause should lay out domestic actions to combat the practice -- I'm leaning towards education based programs *and* I'd favor criminalisation of even late term abortions for non-medical reasons}

I'm going to describe why I set things up this way for a start and basically disect my own post.

Resolution Header:

UNITED NATIONS PROPOSED RESOLUTION
Condemning Infanticide
?

Category: Human Rights or Moral Decency
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Mikitivity

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,


This first block of information, the resolution header, is actually the last part of a resolution to be finished. The reason it is finished last is because the body of the resolution actually determines the primary actions and is still in "flux". The body will also set the strength of the resolution, but in this example, I've already suggested that my goal is to produce a "mild" resolution. I've done this for two reasons: (1) infanticide is likely not a widely practiced thing, and there is no reason to really tweak nations that much, but it is probably still worth debating, and (2) the stat wanking nations will absolutely wet their diapers if I bring to the UN Floor a strong moral decency resolution -- a number of players are documented as playing NationStates not based on roleplaying or even the content of a resolution, but purely pushing buttons ... and nothing brings out stat wankers than a resolution that will potentially decrease any of the Big-3 game stats.


Resolution Preamble


{insert reference & one-line summary to The Child Protection Act #25}

{insert reference & one-line summary to Abortion Rights #61}

{discuss the problems inherent in the two resolutions, specifcally how #25 never protects infants or late term abortions based on gender considerations -- this may be multiple clauses}

{point out that infanticide still takes place -- I'll run an International Incidents poll to confirm this in NationStates, but it exists in the real world, and I promise an "evil" puppet somewhere might practice this -- this is also where we can talk a bit about late term abortions} ;)


The next section is the resolution preamble. This is basically where you are attempting to explain why there needs to be a resolution. This is your justification. It also will be the first (or possibly second) thing UN members are going to read.

Though it does not set the strength or actions of your resolution, it is still important. In this example, I will attempt to address the comments we've already seen, "Why do we need to condemn infanticide if we've already protected children?" The answer is there are gaps and loopholes in most resolutions, and I'd like to plug them up. I just need to state this as a diplomat would -- short and direct. :)

Resolution Body


{first clause should define infanticide}

{second clause should condemn infanticide}

{third clause should lay out domestic actions to combat the practice -- I'm leaning towards education based programs *and* I'd favor criminalisation of even late-term abortions for non-medical reasons}

This last section is where I will placed the numbered activating clauses, which essentially tell nations what this proposed resolution is supposed to really do. In many cases it is best to define the problem (if this wasn't done in the preamble), in order to close of loopholes. The next step is to take some sort of position or stand, afterall, that is the point of a resolution -- to enact international change or focus international attention on a subject. Taking action often takes several clauses / lines, which makes sense.

In the last note I talk about taking domestic actions. This is a typical note used by "Sovereign Rights" proponents, which is another subject area I'll talk about at a later date. The reference to criminalisation for late-term abortions is where I intend to really catch people's interests in the resolution ... players will not necessarily agree, and I can already see that I'm also probably going to need a definition of late-term abortions for this to really work.

I'll try and whip up some opening drafts. They are only here to be shot down or worked upon so feel free to supply some suggestions!


PREAMBLE
NOTING previous relevant resolutions referring to children in the past, notably The Child Protection Act #25 and Abortion Rights #61

AWARE that past resolutions have failed to protect children based on their gender.

CONCERNED that infanticide is still being practiced in some member states,

DETERMINED that the practice of infanticide should be eradicated.

BODY
CONDEMNS infanticide in all it’s forms, irrespective of motive or beliefs that support the practice

ENCOURAGES member states to employ educational programmes to encourage the populace and individuals to end it’s participation in the practice.

DETERMINED that member states employ punitive measures (including incarceration) if individuals are tried and found guilty of participating or co-operating in the practice.


Note - I'd love to put something in there to ban the practice of late term abortions, but it would have to tread carefully against the existing resolution. I was working on an effort to try and define abortion (which would go some way towards helping), but still needs to be carefully considered.

What is the point of making something illegal that a nation should be handling? None. End of problem.

This resolution, once more, calls upon nations to further give up their national rights to the UN, when the UN can not enforce this. It, once again, has no teeth.

Also, some nations, like Darkumbria, doesn't have an infanticide problem. Why? We don't have any parents, except those who are deemed leaders of individually genetically created children companies. Our children are the product of the best of the country, in whatever role they play. Gene givers turn over their genes, based upon exemplary behavior, courage, etc on their respective jobs. In other words, we don't let anyone but the best auto workers, engineers, military personel, farmers, etc provide their DNA for inclusion. The government attempts to find jobs for the whole workforce that allows for the individual worker to succeed. However, this does not always happen. Hence, the uemployment rate of 8%.

In conclusion, as you can plainly see, this resolution attempts to force my country, and any others like it, to allow reproduction and the dumbing down of society as a whole.

This resolution, once more, calls upon nations to further give up their national rights to the UN, when the UN can not enforce this. It, once again, has no teeth.You've already given up your national rights when you joined the UN. The UN has supremacy over national law. It even has supremacy over religion and anything else you can think of to justify going against the will of the UN.

As for the UN not being able to enforce it, I'd like to introduce you to the quasi-magical UN gnomes. Why just the slightest mention of a newly passed resolution tends to send them into a frenzy of change. It passes, your legislation and nation alter to adapt thanks to their mythical powers. It’s that simple.

As for teeth, I’m pretty sure the gnomes have lots of sharp teeth to make their point. (pun intended). I’m not about to provoke one to find out ;)

At any rate, I’ve seen nothing in this topic that forces you to permit reproduction (indeed it makes no effort to do that in my draft efforts, nor has anything been written in this topic thus far until you mentioned it), and I really have no idea where you get that idea from. Even if it did, I’d much rather legislate for the masses and step on the toes of a few nations than pander to a few nations who overreact and think it might do something it simply does not do. The UN treads on a few toes all the time – otherwise nobody would vote against proposals.

You've already given up your national rights when you joined the UN. The UN has supremacy over national law. It even has supremacy over religion and anything else you can think of to justify going against the will of the UN.

As for the UN not being able to enforce it, I'd like to introduce you to the quasi-magical UN gnomes. Why just the slightest mention of a newly passed resolution tends to send them into a frenzy of change. It passes, your legislation and nation alter to adapt thanks to their mythical powers. It’s that simple.

As for teeth, I’m pretty sure the gnomes have lots of sharp teeth to make their point. (pun intended). I’m not about to provoke one to find out ;)

At any rate, I’ve seen nothing in this topic that forces you to permit reproduction (indeed it makes no effort to do that in my draft efforts, nor has anything been written in this topic thus far until you mentioned it), and I really have no idea where you get that idea from. Even if it did, I’d much rather legislate for the masses and step on the toes of a few nations than pander to a few nations who overreact and think it might do something it simply does not do. The UN treads on a few toes all the time – otherwise nobody would vote against proposals.

Entirely untrue. Please investigate the UN and see what it is "Supposed" to do, versus what we have it doing now. The UN is an international body that works with nations to decide issues, not enforce moral issues.

OOC: You do not see the real UN forcing anything on anyone. The real UN has all government types, moral types, etc. Why? The real UN understands that not all the world deals with the same moral standards as one nation. Nudity in the US is not the same as in France, Germany, or any other nation. Yet, we still see proposals put forward by delegates to this body, to outlaw such matters, see the Nudity issue that KoH brought up.

IC: Facts are that this "international" body has a habit of presenting issues that matter to no one outside ones own region. The importance of a Holy Day does not qualify to some nations. Indeed, some nations do not celebrate Christmas. This poll/would be proposal falls under those same guidelines. This proposal is unimportant to the international body. Why? Because some of have set up a society that does not have this set of "Family values" as you see. Indeed, what this, and many other proposals, are doing is attempting to make ONE NATION, UNDER THE UN. That is unacceptable, and I will fight that fact every step of the way. Once this body learns what is international, universal, etc. then I will not have to oppose the garbage that I see being put forward.

I have one thing to say to you. This is not the real UN - and your not going to be able to work it the same way. The national sov arguement is a long tired drawn out debate which has been argued and argued and argued and argued....and this is not the right place to debate it and hijack this topic.

To look at what is generally considered the best article on the UN vs national rights, have a look here : http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8681146&postcount=4

And in future I would suggest you do not presume that I do not know what the RL life UN does, and what it does not do. But in future I would also suggest you stop trying to pretend this is anything like RL (especially when you talk about legislating on who can or cannot have children)

I have one thing to say to you. This is not the real UN - and your not going to be able to work it the same way. The national sov arguement is a long tired drawn out debate which has been argued and argued and argued and argued....and this is not the right place to debate it and hijack this topic.

To look at what is generally considered the best article on the UN vs national rights, have a look here : http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8681146&postcount=4


I agree that this is not the thread to discuss national sovereignty, and I appreciate your nod to my article. I'm going to be revising it soon to expand and restructure the later parts containing the individual arguments.

OOC: However, I don't like the implied assumption in your statement that the UN is "vs" national rights. Certainly the structure of the UN proposal categories suggests a certain bias (by good old Max) against the national sovereignty perspective, but I don't think the UN is intrinsically opposed to national rights. In fact, I think that the primary problem (from my point of view it's a problem) is that most players are 1. young and are unfamiliar with the various political philosophies 2. just vote for whatever sounds like a good idea and never consider what effects it might have on other nations and how it might erode their own rights in the future.

Since it looks as if abortion might soon be discussed I wanted to revive the draft written by Hirota with current UN members.

Funny... infanticide is murder and murder is illegal anyway. So why is this even a debate?

Funny... infanticide is murder and murder is illegal anyway. So why is this even a debate?

Which UN resolution makes murder illegal?

This is a sticky issue. It opens up the question of when life begins and leads to the abortion issue. It also may cause problems for nations which practice the reprehensible practice of eugenics, or could be a problem for nations involved in germ line experimentation-- genetic experiementation on children... Since killing an infant is already considered murder the United Nations should pass over this issue, except for the possibility of increasing the penalty for child murder. Since the commonality supports the death penalty, child murder would be an appropriate candidate for the death penalty.

This needs to be legal, the motherland regularally kills babies because they smell bad. This practice should not hindered, it should encouraged.

This needs to be legal, the motherland regularally kills babies because they smell bad. This practice should not hindered, it should encouraged.

http://www.p0stwh0res.com/images/birgittroll01.gif

http://www.p0stwh0res.com/images/crying_baby.gif

http://www.p0stwh0res.com/images/crying_baby.gif
Exactly.

Mik, Hirota, if you keep out any references to late-term/partial birth abortions then I would support the text contained in post #19.

Funny... infanticide is murder and murder is illegal anyway. So why is this even a debate?

There isn't actually an NSUN resolution making murder, as such, illegal in every member-nation regardless of national laws: I wouldn't bet against there being at least one member-nation (out of c.30'000, remember...) that doesn't have national laws against it either...

In Cluichstan, we feed picante sauce to babies.

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/4509/gerberpicantesauce8vv.jpg

In Cluichstan, we feed picante sauce to babies.

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/4509/gerberpicantesauce8vv.jpg
Babies are naturally spicy if you eat them...true story

Babies are naturally spicy if you eat them...true story

http://www.p0stwh0res.com/images/birgittroll01.gif

But why only infants? I'd much prefer a UN-wide law that forbids killing, preferably in a way that also immediately forbids capital punishment.

But why only infants? I'd much prefer a UN-wide law that forbids killing, preferably in a way that also immediately forbids capital punishment.
Ceorana fully supports that motion.

Ceorana fully supports that motion.

The people of Cluichstan most certainly do not.

But why only infants? I'd much prefer a UN-wide law that forbids killing, preferably in a way that also immediately forbids capital punishment.

We could call it "Ban War." Catchy.

But why only infants? I'd much prefer a UN-wide law that forbids killing, preferably in a way that also immediately forbids capital punishment.

Because my government would like to also prevent late term abortions that are decided upon after a gender is known ... in other words, we consider infanticide to actually extend the other direction. Basically, the issue is going to skirt on the issue, and thus we want it to remain focused on what we see as a gender equality issue.

Because my government would like to also prevent late term abortions that are decided upon after a gender is known ... in other words, we consider infanticide to actually extend the other direction. Basically, the issue is going to skirt on the issue, and thus we want it to remain focused on what we see as a gender equality issue.

Yes, it's even a huge problem nowadays in particular in 2 RL nations, India and China.
In china, the birth rate is around 120 boys for each 100 girls.
It's then also a problem for the marriage or (civil union) area, apart if a spontaneous male gay generation appear:p
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-09/15/content_374629.htm

I think one of the interesting steps to do may be to condemn strongly "Dowry" practices (and also it's opposite "Bride price")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_price

I think one of the interesting steps to do may be to condemn strongly "Dowry" practices (and also it's opposite "Bride price")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_price

OOC: First, the way we could perhaps gage this in NS nations would be to ask nations for gender specific data from births. While folks could play the "but this is a fantasy game" card (and they'd be right to do so), if somebody wanted to play the part of a society that practices infanticide without just "telling" the world, they could slide numbers by that suggest that the male-female ratio of infants is slanted towards males.

Second your other two ideas would make interesting resolutions. They need not be long.

I'll try and whip up some opening drafts. They are only here to be shot down or worked upon so feel free to supply some suggestions!


PREAMBLE
NOTING previous relevant resolutions referring to children in the past, notably The Child Protection Act #25 and Abortion Rights #61

AWARE that past resolutions have failed to protect children based on their gender.

CONCERNED that infanticide is still being practiced in some member states,

DETERMINED that the practice of infanticide should be eradicated.

BODY
CONDEMNS infanticide in all it’s forms, irrespective of motive or beliefs that support the practice

ENCOURAGES member states to employ educational programmes to encourage the populace and individuals to end it’s participation in the practice.

DETERMINED that member states employ punitive measures (including incarceration) if individuals are tried and found guilty of participating or co-operating in the practice.


Note - I'd love to put something in there to ban the practice of late term abortions, but it would have to tread carefully against the existing resolution. I was working on an effort to try and define abortion (which would go some way towards helping), but still needs to be carefully considered.

Hirota, your Abortion Rights issue has been temporarily resolved, and my government actually has only minor formatting suggestions for your draft proposal, which arguibly might be a "Moral Decency" proposal.

Here is how my government would prefer to see a proposal condemning infanticide written:

Condemning Infanticide
Submitted By: ?
Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Significant

The NationStates United Nations,

APPROVING of its resolutions the Child Protection Act, adopted Aug. 2, 2003, and Rights of Minorities and Women, adopted Nov. 20, 2004, which both seek to protect the rights of individuals reguardless of their age or gender,

GRAVELY CONCERNED by the practice of infanticide, which for the purposes of this resolution shall be defined as the murder of a child or unborn child based upon his or her gender,

1. CONDEMNS the practice of infanticide in UN member states,

2. ENCOURAGES member states to employ educational programmes to encourage the populace and individuals to end their participation in the practice,

3. CALLS UPON member states to employ punitive measures if individuals are tried and found guilty of promoting this practice.

This too is a draft.

Hopefully this link will work:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=8698&Cr=india&Cr1=

While I doubt many NationStates players include this sort of problem in their societies, I think it is worthwhile considering the possibility that some nations might (like those war machine governments that seem to constantly be at war with everybody).

There is a modest amount of material out here, and once you start reading up on what is called "Sex Selection", you'll find more of it.

Here is an example of what RL China has done:
http://www.china.org.cn/english/2003/Mar/59194.htm

Hopefully this link will work:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=8698&Cr=india&Cr1=

While I doubt many NationStates players include this sort of problem in their societies, I think it is worthwhile considering the possibility that some nations might (like those war machine governments that seem to constantly be at war with everybody).

Exactly what I had in mind.

War is war, and it happens in warfare.

Sickening thought.

Is there a un bill of war that would cover this?

Hirota, your Abortion Rights issue has been temporarily resolved, and my government actually has only minor formatting suggestions for your draft proposal, which arguibly might be a "Moral Decency" proposal.

Here is how my government would prefer to see a proposal condemning infanticide written:
Condemning Infanticide
Submitted By: ?
Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Significant

The NationStates United Nations,

APPROVING of its resolutions the Child Protection Act, adopted Aug. 2, 2003, and Rights of Minorities and Women, adopted Nov. 20, 2004, which both seek to protect the rights of individuals reguardless of their age or gender,

GRAVELY CONCERNED by the practice of infanticide, which for the purposes of this resolution shall be defined as the murder of a child or unborn child based upon his or her gender,

1. CONDEMNS the practice of infanticide in UN member states,

2. ENCOURAGES member states to employ educational programmes to encourage the populace and individuals to end their participation in the practice,

3. CALLS UPON member states to employ punitive measures if individuals are tried and found guilty of promoting this practice.


This too is a draft.

I am afraid the way this is written the definition of infanticide would exclude the killing of children for reasons other than the child's gender. In other words, infanticide would still be legal unless done because of the child's gender.

I am afraid the way this is written the definition of infanticide would exclude the killing of children for reasons other than the child's gender. In other words, infanticide would still be legal unless done because of the child's gender.

Good catch. Should the resolution be weakend and the scope narrowed to "Sex Selection Abortions" or should the definition be rewritten (and if so how)?