NationStates Jolt Archive

The United Nations,

ALARMED BY the high STD levels in poor countries and in poor areas.

ALARMED ALSO by the high percentage of unwanted pregnancies in these areas, that lead to hazardous attempts for unprofessionally-made abortions, and high mortality rate,

REFRAINING from making any statement as to the morality of using condoms, yet wishing to save human lives,

DEFINING "a poor person" as a person who, after providing enough food, proper shelter, proper health and basic education to oneself and one's close family, has no money available for buying at least 30 condoms per month.

DECIDES:

1. Free condoms shall be made available in all poor areas in all member states.

2. Every poor person shall be entitled to 30 free condoms per month, provided the person signs a sworn affidavit, declaring to be "poor" as defined here, and in need of condoms.

3. Free condoms shall be available also to every boy and girl above the age of 15 and under 18, without the need for a sworn affidavit.

4. Black market in condoms shall be prohibited, and subject to penalty under the member nation's internal Law.

30 condoms. I'm curious, would one have to prove a need for 30 of them? What if a person required more than that?

Poor should maybe be defined as "under the poverty line"

Third preambalotary clause should be struck.

And I think member nations' money could be better spent than on 30 condoms per poor person per month. That's a TON of money when you consider how bad some nations are...

Er, perhaps a better solution would be to simply guarentee a month's supply of free condoms at all free clinics and hospitals.

We have to agree: our money could be spent far better. What you've drafted isn't a solution. What guarantee do we have that those condoms would be used? I dare think those 15 year old individuals would use the condoms as balloons or amateur sling-shots. Then truly, our money would be wasted.
Instead of actually buying thousands of condoms and handing them out with no assurance that they will be used for their original purpose, I suggest we fund sexual education programs in the poor and more backward nations. We should employ these lectures in schools as well as local community centers, and thus encourage the use of condoms.

30 condoms. I'm curious, would one have to prove a need for 30 of them? What if a person required more than that?


Well, every number will be questionable. But I think a person is entitled to have sex 30 times a month. If one needs less - then one will not give a sworn affidavit one needs 30. And if one needs more, well, no one says being poor is easy... Anyway, 30 per month is plenty. believe me... ;)



Poor should maybe be defined as "under the poverty line"

Third preambalotary clause should be struck.

And I think member nations' money could be better spent than on 30 condoms per poor person per month. That's a TON of money when you consider how bad some nations are...



1. not every nation has a poverty line.

2. I don't think we can force children to give a sworn affidavit each time they need condoms. I do think, though, that we should keep them healthy...

3. not everyone will have 30 a month. they must give a sworn affidavit, and there is no black market, remember?



Er, perhaps a better solution would be to simply guarentee a month's supply of free condoms at all free clinics and hospitals.

Maybe, but not every place has free clinics. most poor areas in the world don't have clinics at all, and there is where the problem is hardest.

Well, if you think this will solve those countrys' health problem, why don't you fund the first wave of free condoms?

We have to agree: our money could be spent far better. What you've drafted isn't a solution. What guarantee do we have that those condoms would be used? I dare think those 15 year old individuals would use the condoms as balloons or amateur sling-shots. Then truly, our money would be wasted.
Instead of actually buying thousands of condoms and handing them out with no assurance that they will be used for their original purpose, I suggest we fund sexual education programs in the poor and more backward nations. We should employ these lectures in schools as well as local community centers, and thus encourage the use of condoms.

1. I still think it is economically efficient. treating a sick person with STD costs more than supplying this person with condoms.

2. The assurance for avoiding wastes is the affidavit. As for kids, well, I guess you're right, but how much? How many balloons will this kid use? It still is worth it. Sex-education is a real problem, and really, no one listens... (I know I didn't... ;) )

We still think education is a better solution.

Give a man a fish, and he will eat for one day. Teach a man how to fish, and he will eat his entire life.

If a man can barely afford putting food on the table, should he really be worried about his sex life? I mean, 30 times a month is a bit much.

And yes, I realize that throwing free condoms around will decrease the number of people with STDs, but here's an idea: LESS SEX. How about drafting a proposal to help the common man pay for things that are essential to life?

1. Free condoms shall be made available in all poor areas in all member states.

You need to define "poor areas".

3. Free condoms shall be available also to every boy and girl above the age of 15 and under 18, without the need for a sworn affidavit.

4. Black market in condoms shall be prohibited, and subject to penalty under the member nation's internal Law.
These are both outside the scope of a proposal regarding "Free condoms for the poor and needy". And, in effect, #3 could be construed as making a statement as of the morality of condoms...as is the rest of the proposal.




I don't like this proposal on economic grounds, mostly. 30 seems a pretty arbitrary number (and arbitrariness + government = bad governing); and only males will use condoms (if a poor female is having consensual sex with a poor male: he has a supply already; and with a non-poor male: he has money for his own). Bottom line, my nation is shelling out 60 condoms a couple every month--many of which are likely monogamous relationships and not needing condoms anyway. And my nation would be held to providing an untold number (presumably as infinitely many as they request) to its youth. This approach is really unsound, financially, for national governments.

Also, there's sovereignty. I feel my nation has more pragmatic solutions to this (which isn't even a problem in my nation) My nation has STDs essentially controlled by providing incentives for health and domestic clinics for the poor (AIDS, STD, Food shelters, Battered Woman Shelters) in poor areas. Also, my nation's government has a hard time believing *anyone* is truly in the need for condoms does not have enough to buy a supply for the month (which is not 30: inconsistent with actual numbers suggesting how often people really have sex). Basically, my government has been able to bring the prices of condoms down enough, so that all a family member will have to do is forgo that cup of coffee in the morning to have enough for a couple weeks' supply.

So, I evaluate this as costing too highly for my nation and benefiting my nation little. Then there's the whole issue of supplying condoms to minors. There's no limit to how many they can ask for, first. And second, minors would presumably have much less need for condoms than adults--as they have much less sex than them. Having the condoms is not equal to usage. And minors are even less likely not to have the loose change it takes to get a condom or two (as they do not have to provide for the health and well-being of a whole family). Also, children in my nation are already required to be offered education; Education which includes, and can easily increase, sexual education.

the thing here is education


Kids and young adults need to be taught about the seriousness of sex,condoms and STDs,for them to even take serious consideration about this topic.

and many nations can spend this money on their own nation anyway.at least then they know their money is not being wasted. and if it is $30 for 30 condoms it wont cost as much for each nation.

Victor Sorino
U.N. Minister

In our psychotic dictatorship, only the leader has the right to have sex, and all other men are castrated (except 5 of his first male-children). So, there is no STD problems, and no use for condoms.

I urge you to endorse this solution. It would save lives of your citizens, and save money too.

And how, pray tell, does the rest of your nation reproduce?

And how, pray tell, does the rest of your nation reproduce?

They don't...

Sorry, but thats just plain stupid...

I think in real life something like this was done. there was a christmas tree with condoms on it. so you could get one free if you needed one.

Sorry, but thats just plain stupid...

Are you denying his innate right to utterly destroy his entire country?

Anyway, six males might be able to contiue the species...sperm donation and the like. Just not a very healthy genetic base to work from, considering they are all related. I can see inbreeding happening very quickly.