NationStates Jolt Archive

The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel presents the "Adoption and IVF Rights" proposition.

We would like to give a special thanks to the Nation of Forgottenlands for his precious help and also thanks all the Nations who helped us to improve it on the UN forum.

____________________
Adoption and IVF Rights

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Significant


Proposed by: Love and esterel

Description: The United Nations,

OBSERVING that
-A- Adoptions and births from IVF, in the same manner as natural births, contribute to the happiness of many adults and children, worldwide

REGRETTING that in some Nations:
-B- Same sex couples and non married couples are discriminated against, for they are not allowed to adopt children
-C- Couples cannot adopt children from a different nation, even if these couples respect the standards defined by the nation of which the child is resident
-D- Adoption is sometimes a front for the selling of a child for money

-E- IVF (In-Vitro fertilization) is forbidden

MANDATES all nations to allow:
-1- Same sex couples and non married couples to adopt children with the same standard that opposite-sex and married couples are held to.
Nations will be permitted to allow Biological Parents to indicate their preference of the adoptive parents' religion, marital status and/or sexual preference before signing their parental rights away. This shall only apply in the case, both the child was willingly given away by parents but not purposely abandoned

-2- Opposite-sex and same-sex couples, regardless of marital status, from other UN countries shall be allowed to adopt children if these couples meet the standards defined by the nation of which the child is initially residing in.
Nations will be permitted to give priority of adoption to a local couple over a non-local couple

URGES that in all nations:
-3- Only nationally accredited adoption organizations can conduct the adoption procedure; and
-4- Adoptive parents be forbidden to give money to this adoption organizations, to any person working in or related to this association, to the biological parents and to people related to the biological parents; adoptive parents are welcome to donate money to any adoption organizations that they did not use and are not attempting to use to adopt children

ENCOURAGES
-5- Scientific stem cell research in order that, in the future, sterile men and women can have gametes (spermatozoon and ovum) with their own genetic identity, these gametes being harvested from their own stem cells,

URGES:
-6- All UN Nations to allow IVF, whether the gametes concerned were naturally produced or produced in the way defined in paragraph [5]

Thanks to all Nations that helped edit and improve this proposal in the UN forum

Voting Ends: Mon Sep 12 2005
_____________________________________________________________






here is the first post:


____________________________________________________________
The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel is proud to post the draft of the Adoption & IVF Rights

we don't want to submit it soon, as they are already many proposition in queue.

the aim is to open the debate on this matter, and collect many impovment ideas and critics

Thank you

here is the first draft

_______________________________________________________________
Adoption & IVF Rights

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild

The United Nations,

REGRETTING that in some Nations:
-A- Same sex couples are not allowed to adopt children
-B- Non married couples are not allowed to adopt children
-C- Couples from another UN Nation cannot adopt children even if these couples respect the standard of requirements defined by the nation of which the child is resident
-D- IVF (In-Vitro fertilization) is forbidden

OBSERVING that
-E- Adoptions and births from IVF, in the same way than natural births, contribute to the happiness of many adults and children, worldwide

URGES
-1- All nations to allow same sex couples and non married couples to adopt children, with the same standard of requirements than opposite-sex and married couples
-2- All Nations to allow opposite-sex, same-sex, married, and non married couples from another UN countries to adopt children if these couples respect the standard of requirements defined by the nation of which the child is resident.
Nations will not be prevented to allow by law a priority of the adoption to a resident couple respecting the standard over a non-resident one

ENCOURAGES
-3- Scientific stem cells research in the aim that, in a near future, sterile men and women can have gamet from their own genetic identity, these gamets being obtained from their own stem cells,

REQUESTS
-4- All nations to allow IVF at least for their citizen and citizen of others UN Nation, either the gamets concerned were naturally produced or produced in the way defined in paragraph [3]
___________________________________________________

Good work! But I think that:

URGES
-1- All nations to allow same sex couples and non married couples to adopt children, with the same standard of requirements than opposite-sex and married couples

What are these standards?

And:

Nations will not prevented at all to allow by law a priority of the adoption to a resident couple respecting the standard over a non-resident one

Isn't that discrimination?

What are these standards?
=> "standard of requirements defined by the nation of which the child is resident"

we are thinking nations will prefer to use their own standard, for sure it will better this standard to be defined in the present proposition, but we fear this is not easy to do


Isn't that discrimination?

you right, we agree with, but in this case again we fear that the "national sovereignty" argument will be even stronger

Unfortunately I have to agree with your fears :(

I like this resolution. However, I think you should add a clause that says the birth parents can place in their will that they don't want a same-sex couple to adopt their kids etc. And birth parents should be able to request that their kids get raised with a certain religion or belief.

I like this resolution. However, I think you should add a clause that says the birth parents can place in their will that they don't want a same-sex couple to adopt their kids etc. And birth parents should be able to request that their kids get raised with a certain religion or belief.

That's actually a good idea - letting the biological parents have some control over the adoption process.

Anyways - I don't remember the specifics, but I believe we already have a resolution that addresses Stem Cell research

I like the idea of allowing the biological parents to decide what religion and sexual orientation they want the adopting parents to be a part of. If I was a parent, I wouldn't want my child to be adopted by a same-sex couple or an Atheistic one. I would want it to be an opposite-sex, Christian marriage. Therefore, I approve of the idea of allowing the biological parentsto have a choice.

All in All, I think this is a good idea, but as stated previously, I also think that birth parents should be able to decide the clauses. If the birth parents want their child to go to a Muslim, Married, Hetero couple then that should be their decision.

I think that cross-border adoption causes many problems as children are basically sold. Care to fix that in this bill? If you do, you can expect my support and possibly my delegates.

thanks everyone for the suggestions

I like this resolution. However, I think you should add a clause that says the birth parents can place in their will that they don't want a same-sex couple to adopt their kids etc. And birth parents should be able to request that their kids get raised with a certain religion or belief.

we fully agree with the same-sex clause
we will rewrite the proposition including it

for the religion or belief, why not, but this will reduce the probability to the child to be adopted,
will it be ok, instead, if the births parents can add a clause that says the they don't want a couple with some certain religions or beliefs to adopt their kid?

I think that cross-border adoption causes many problems as children are basically sold. Care to fix that in this bill? If you do, you can expect my support and possibly my delegates.

very good also

I like the idea of allowing the biological parents to decide what religion and sexual orientation they want the adopting parents to be a part of. If I was a parent, I wouldn't want my child to be adopted by a same-sex couple or an Atheistic one. I would want it to be an opposite-sex, Christian marriage. Therefore, I approve of the idea of allowing the biological parentsto have a choice.

I'm not sure that kind of discrimination would be legal under the following resolutions already in place...

Gay Rights (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029602&postcount=13)
The Universal Bill of Rights (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029642&postcount=27)(article 4)
Discrimination Accord (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8689431&postcount=100)

There are probably a couple more that protect a gay couples right to equal treatment as well.

Anyways - I don't remember the specifics, but I believe we already have a resolution that addresses Stem Cell research

thanks, indeed,
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7680070&postcount=83

this resolution adresses stem cell about deseases,
so is it possible to include in our proposition that the UN encourages stem cells research about gamet production, or is at a violation?

will it be ok, instead, if the births parents can add a clause that says the they don't want a couple with some certain religions or beliefs to adopt their kid?


The parents saying they want their child to not be given to a family of a certain religion would work too, although while I'm unsure, would that go into Religious discrimination?

I'm not sure that kind of discrimination would be legal under the following resolutions already in place...

Gay Rights (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029602&postcount=13)
The Universal Bill of Rights (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029642&postcount=27)(article 4)
Discrimination Accord (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8689431&postcount=100)

There are probably a couple more that protect a gay couples right to equal treatment as well.

The parents saying they want their child to not be given to a family of a certain religion would work too, although while I'm unsure, would that go into Religious discrimination?

once again i'm lost in this legal matter :)

I'm not 100% sure myself but do think that if there are several resolution already in effect outlawing discrimination, then a new proposal can't allow or promote it as it is already against the law in member nations. Confusing I know. The experienced members will probably be able to clarify it better than I can :).

All I mean L&E is that by stating a certain religion can't adopt a child, you are infringing on Religious Tolerance, I believe...

For Example,

A Muslim family gives their daughter up for adoption and says, No Jews, Christians, Catholics or any Christ denomenation may adopt my baby. By following that rule, you are thereby discriminating agains all Christ religions.

Although, like I said, I am not 100% sure of this.

I'm not sure that kind of discrimination would be legal under the following resolutions already in place...

Gay Rights (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029602&postcount=13)
The Universal Bill of Rights (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029642&postcount=27)(article 4)
Discrimination Accord (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8689431&postcount=100)

There are probably a couple more that protect a gay couples right to equal treatment as well.

Right away, I can say that the Universal Bill of Rights doesn't apply - as it calls for equal treatment under the law (which is judicial consideration, not discrimination-at-large consideration)

The other two only apply if we consider a birth-parent deciding what religion their child should be raised by and the sexual orientation of the adoptive parents is actually discrimination.

The problem with discrimination is, well, the all so important definition....:


1. The act of discriminating.
2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners.


Unfortunately, I think #3 means that Waterana does have a point. I would, however, ask for a mod ruling on the matter. Considering you are discussing the raising of a child - specifically, one's own child - and noting that once the adoption is done, all control is lost, is it the same essence of discrimination?

Oh - and religious preference for adoptive parents I would actually say is a much more important thing to guarantee than sexual preference.

All I mean L&E is that by stating a certain religion can't adopt a child, you are infringing on Religious Tolerance, I believe...

For Example,

A Muslim family gives their daughter up for adoption and says, No Jews, Christians, Catholics or any Christ denomenation may adopt my baby. By following that rule, you are thereby discriminating agains all Christ religions.

Although, like I said, I am not 100% sure of this.

Religious tolerance is actually guaranteed more by things like the Discrimination Accord than the Religious Tolerance resolution - which (iirc) doesn't actually mandate anything - just talks about the need for religious tolerance.....

One of the worst resolutions still on the books.

Religious tolerance is actually guaranteed more by things like the Discrimination Accord than the Religious Tolerance resolution - which (iirc) doesn't actually mandate anything - just talks about the need for religious tolerance.....

One of the worst resolutions still on the books.

Well then like you said, take it to a mod L&E, and ask them about it.

There is another way to look at the same sex/religion aspects. When birth parents (or parent) sign the adoption papers giving their child away, they are giving up all parental rights to that child and severing all care and control over the childs life. Should they really have the right to dictate in that case how the child is raised after they have severed all rights to said child.

There is another way to look at the same sex/religion aspects. When birth parents (or parent) sign the adoption papers giving their child away, they are giving up all parental rights to that child and severing all care and control over the childs life. Should they really have the right to dictate in that case how the child is raised after they have severed all rights to said child.

True so perhaps, parents should have the right to dictate sexual preference & religion in an Open Adoption.

For those of you who don't know what an Open Adoption is, it's when the original parent(s) is still involved.

-D- IVF (In-Vitro fertilization) is forbidden

ENCOURAGES
-3- Scientific stem cells research in the aim that, in a near future, sterile men and women can have gamet from their own genetic identity, these gamets being obtained from their own stem cells,

REQUESTS
-4- All nations to allow IVF at least for their citizen and citizen of others UN Nation, either the gamets concerned were naturally produced or produced in the way defined in paragraph [3]
___________________________________________________

First we forbid IVF for reason noted:
1) Doesn't insure the parents of knowing possible medical problems that might cause defective fetus on concepetion through this process. So far no study that I know of has proven or disproven that this IVF does not directly cause mutation in the fetus that result in unwanted fetus.. Thus we get to abortion to correct this bad outcome. We already see enough problems of defective fetus in the normal man woman join and pray for a baby.. and let nature do it own.. This would also border on the issue of clones.. or you can say they in with the Stem Cell and see #3 below on that.. as you are dealing outside the normal order of natural reproduction here or the formation of new life.
2) IVF has been known to produce more than a single fetus that results in a family growing before it's ready to such a level.. Having one child is hard enough but say as many as six in a single birth.. It would bring problems for any family.. Thus do we ABORT all but a single fetus or maybe only keep two...
3) How is stem cell research related to IVF and Adoption should that not be addressed as a single issue in another proposal. As on that one issue being here I would never support this even if I liked your Adoption point.. and may come to terms on IVF with you should I come to find more information to prove it can be safely done and my concerns of Mutations and Multifetus be resolved so that Abortion is not a result, to correct them... Also the hint of creating a Fetus and then talking about Stem Cells... Another proposal a separate debate on that one would be in order for me.

There is another way to look at the same sex/religion aspects. When birth parents (or parent) sign the adoption papers giving their child away, they are giving up all parental rights to that child and severing all care and control over the childs life. Should they really have the right to dictate in that case how the child is raised after they have severed all rights to said child.

Perhaps it could be treated like wills - this is your last request regarding the matter. You don't know what's going to happen beyond that, but it is your request nonetheless.

Originally posted by Waterana: There is another way to look at the same sex/religion aspects. When birth parents (or parent) sign the adoption papers giving their child away, they are giving up all parental rights to that child and severing all care and control over the childs life. Should they really have the right to dictate in that case how the child is raised after they have severed all rights to said child.

Yes but their rights still remain UNTIL they sign those papers, and the point is, they would NOT sign the papers unless they were legally guaranteed that their child would be placed in a family that they found suitable (which may or may not include homosexual relationships).

In general, the Nation of Barad-Du does not support a single clause of the suggested proposal.

There is another way to look at the same sex/religion aspects. When birth parents (or parent) sign the adoption papers giving their child away, they are giving up all parental rights to that child and severing all care and control over the childs life. Should they really have the right to dictate in that case how the child is raised after they have severed all rights to said child.
Not as long as it’s dictated before they sign away their rights or if it’s a clause in the actual contract it self. They’re giving their child to an organization with the express understanding and intent of insuring a specific level and type of quality in the placing of their child, in their absence.

As long as it’s dictated by the parent(s) it can’t be discrimination. Because after all, it’s well within the parents right to decide who to give the child to. (A mother, sister, other family member or friend etc.) It happens every day.

With the stipulation, that the parent may decide what religion and/or sexual preference there child goes to, before signing their parental rights away, I'd say we have a good solid bill here.

It takes into account, everyone's best interests.

With the stipulation, that the parent may decide what religion and/or sexual preference there child goes to, before signing their parental rights away, I'd say we have a good solid bill here.

It takes into account, everyone's best interests.


fully agree on those points made on Adoption but have concerns as addressed prior on the IVF and Stem Cell points contained in this proposal. As still feel that IVF opens a door to Abortion and Stem Cell can lead to Cloning which some members may have a problem with and we need to get that out of the way now.

As to how you propose to deal with Mutation on Multifetus from IVF.. If a nation is no longer able to forbid what they think and beleive is a negative process.
Also Stem Cell Research is under fire in sevral areas because people are breeding simply to produce fetus to be used for Stem Cell Reseach. This may not be as large a problem in UN membership but for everyone nation in the UN figure three out that will jump on this and since they already have an open market on it... well you do the math and figure the results when it comes to the sale of bred fetus for Stem Cell Research.


We can only stop abuse if we ourselves are not party to it... We allow any Stem Cell Research without clearer rules for it we open the market for the sale of bred fetus... since IVF has been shown to produce more than one fetus... then figure keep on and raise sell the rest and live off that.. Also if it found to have some mutations or defects then sale it and get drunk then try again to have another fetus that you can keep..

ok, thanks for all this stuff,
it seems everybody like the "sex/religion parents will", we added it
we added also "the selling of a child in disguise" point
we want to keep the "stem cells research for gamets" point, if proved it's not a violation

_______________________________________________________________
Adoption & IVF Rights

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild

The United Nations,

REGRETTING that in some Nations:
-A- Same sex couples and non married couples are discriminated, for they are not allowed to adopt children
-B- Couples from another UN Nation cannot adopt children even if these couples respect the standard of requirements defined by the nation of which the child is resident
-C- Adoption is sometimes a selling of a chid for money in disguise

-D- IVF (In-Vitro fertilization) is forbidden

OBSERVING that
-E- Adoptions and births from IVF, in the same way than natural births, contribute to the happiness of many adults and children, worldwide

URGES all nations to allow:
-1- Same sex couples and non married couples to adopt children, with the same standard of requirements than opposite-sex and married couples

-2- Parents the right to decide what religion and/or sexual preference there child goes to, before signing their parental rights away

-3- Opposite-sex, same-sex, married, and non married couples from another UN countries to adopt children if these couples respect the standard of requirements defined by the nation of which the child is resident.
Nations will not be prevented to allow by law a priority of the adoption to a resident couple respecting the standard over a non-resident one

REQUESTS that in all nations:
-4- Only national acredited associations can achieve an adoption procedure; and
-5- Adoptive parents be forbidden to give money to this association, to any person working in or related to this association, to the biological parents and to people related to the biological parents; instead they will be invited to give some money to one or several other(s) national acredited association(s)

ENCOURAGES
-6- Scientific stem cells research in the aim that, in a near future, sterile men and women can have gamet from their own genetic identity, these gamets being obtained from their own stem cells,

URGES:
-7- All nations to allow IVF at least for their citizen and citizen of others UN Nation, either the gamets concerned were naturally produced or produced in the way defined in paragraph [6]

Zeldon 6229 Nodlez, we tried to answer all your questions in this post, if not please let us know, as there are many topics in your 2 last posts.

First we forbid IVF for reason noted:
1) Doesn't insure the parents of knowing possible medical problems that might cause defective fetus on concepetion through this process. So far no study that I know of has proven or disproven that this IVF does not directly cause mutation in the fetus that result in unwanted fetus.. Thus we get to abortion to correct this bad outcome. We already see enough problems of defective fetus in the normal man woman join and pray for a baby.. and let nature do it own..

In The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel, as in many Nations, IVF are practiced since 1978, and medical problems statistically don't appear more often than in natural births, and so on about "medical abortion".

Even if "medical abortion" were needed more times, as abortion is a right in the NSUN, we would have preferred to give the chance of sterile people to have biological babies, even if it means more "medical abortion". People who decide to have a IVF, are free to do it, and they know they can adopt a child instead.

This would also border on the issue of clones.. or you can say they in with the Stem Cell and see #3 below on that.. as you are dealing outside the normal order of natural reproduction here or the formation of new life.

yes we are dealing here outside the normal order of natural reproduction, but you stated : "We already see enough problems of defective fetus in the normal man woman join" => the normal order of natural reproduction is not perfect

we never mention or make any allusion of clonage in the proposition.
we just mention, our hopes that it will be possible to sterile people to have some gamets from their own genetic ID, and thus want to allow the fertilization of these gamets, this has nothing to do with clonage at all (clonage don't involve gamets nor fertilization)


2) IVF has been known to produce more than a single fetus that results in a family growing before it's ready to such a level.. Having one child is hard enough but say as many as six in a single birth.. It would bring problems for any family.. Thus do we ABORT all but a single fetus or maybe only keep two...

you right, but first people are informed about that, and second abortion is legal, if you want we add a point in the proposition to request that medical team must operate in a way that minimize the probability of abortion, we will do it

3) How is stem cell research related to IVF and Adoption should that not be addressed as a single issue in another proposal. As on that one issue being here I would never support this even if I liked your Adoption point.. and may come to terms on IVF with you should I come to find more information to prove it can be safely done and my concerns of Mutations and Multifetus be resolved so that Abortion is not a result, to correct them... Also the hint of creating a Fetus and then talking about Stem Cells... Another proposal a separate debate on that one would be in order for me.

you prefer two divide this proposition in 2 propositions, we understand your request, why not, but it's not our intention, because we think it's related

=> we will think about it and decide soon, maybe the member of this forum will help us

Editing time

If I put something you wrote in brakets, delete


_______________________________________________________________
Adoption & IVF Rights

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild

The United Nations,

REGRETTING that in some Nations:
-A- Same sex couples and non married couples are discriminated against, for they are not allowed to adopt children
-B- Couples from (another)one UN Nation cannot adopt children from another nation, even if these couples respect the standard of requirements defined by the nation of which the child is resident
-C- Adoption is sometimes a front for the selling of a chid for money (in disguise)

-D- IVF (In-Vitro fertilization) is forbidden

OBSERVING that
-E- Adoptions and births from IVF, in the same way (than)that natural births, contribute to the happiness of many adults and children, worldwide

URGES all nations to allow:
-1- Same sex couples and non married couples to adopt children(,) with the same standard of requirements (than)that opposite-sex and married couples are held to

-2- Biological Parents have the right to decide (what)the religion and/or sexual preference (there child goes to)of adoptive parents for their child, before signing their parental rights away

-3- Opposite-sex, same-sex, (married,) and non married couples from (an)other UN countries shall be allowed to adopt children if these couples respect the standard of requirements defined by the nation of which the child is resident.residing in
Nations will (not be prevented)be permitted to (allow by law a)give priority of (the) adoption to a (resident)local couple (respecting the standard) over a non-(resident one)local couple

REQUESTS that in all nations:
-4- Only nationally acredited associations can (achieve an)conduct the adoption procedure; and
-5- Adoptive parents be forbidden to give money to this association, to any person working in or related to this association, to the biological parents and to people related to the biological parents; (instead they will be invited to give some money to one or several other(s) national acredited association(s)) <unnecessary - though if you want "adoptive parents are welcome to donate money to any adoption associations that they did not use and are not attempting to use to adopt children">

ENCOURAGES
-6- Scientific stem cells research in the aim that, in a near future, sterile men and women can have gamet from their own genetic identity, these gamets being obtained from their own stem cells,

URGES:
-7- All nations to allow IVF at least for their citizen and citizen of others UN Nation, either the gamets concerned were naturally produced or produced in the way defined in paragraph [6]

6 and 7 I didn't edit because....I don't know those topics well enough to be comfortable editing them.

I'd like to suggest you use "adoption organizations" instead of associations.

It's gamete (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamete)
ENCOURAGES
-6- Scientific stem cell research in the aim that, in the near future, sterile men and women can have gametes from their own genetic identity, these gametes being obtained from their own stem cells,

URGES:
-7- All nations to allow IVF at least for their own citizens and citizens of other UN Nations, whether the gametes concerned were naturally produced or produced in the way defined in paragraph [6]

Would it not be better to use the term "gametocytes".
Also may i suggest rewriting so it reads ........
ENCOURAGES
-6- Scientific stem cell research in order that, in the future, sterile men and women can have gameteocytes with their own genetic identity, these gameteocytes being harvested from their own stem cells,

URGES:
-7- All UN Nations to allow IVF , whether the gameteocytes concerned were naturally produced or produced in the way defined in paragraph [6]

Would it not be better to use the term "gametocytes".
Also may i suggest rewriting so it reads ........ ENCOURAGES
-6- Scientific stem cell research in order that, in the future, sterile men and women can have gameteocytes with their own genetic identity, these gameteocytes being harvested from their own stem cells,

URGES:
-7- All UN Nations to allow IVF , whether the gameteocytes concerned were naturally produced or produced in the way defined in paragraph [6]
Yes, thats much better!

I was just running through the proposals list and realized something - and I would like to congradulate Love and Esterel for bringing forth two good proposals in such a short and thank him for being very open minded about possible modifications.

Next week you get to enjoy the wonders of slogging through the extensive debates required to pass a resolution.

We have gotten with our Noble Quacks on the issue of Stem Cell and IVF.. who have briefed us on these issues. We find that you say about what they have told us on these. We still have concerns around the possible problems of Mutations and Multifetus; but do not see this changing the way we deal with Abortion Abuse should Abortion be considered an option to correct these... medical problems with the IVF procedure or even in the Stem Cell.. Thus we can live with it.

I think we can support and not be opposed to these......
ENCOURAGES
-6- Scientific stem cells research in the aim that, in a near future, sterile men and women can have gamet from their own genetic identity, these gamets being obtained from their own stem cells,

URGES:
-7- All nations to allow IVF at least for their citizen and citizen of others UN Nation, either the gamets concerned were naturally produced or produced in the way defined in paragraph [6]

Neither of these Demand or Require us to act on them.. but lets us consider it and should we find in time we can then it will be there for us to do it.

Thus when this makes full vote you shall have my full support on it.

EDIT: ON Items 6 and 7 we note an editing of these and have seen no adverse change in the contents of these so would pass to the other members advising you on how to word what is in 6 & 7 but hope that you keep Encourages and Urges for the reasons I noted, as that leaves it to individual nations to do it or not do it......

thanks a lot to Forgottenlands, Yeldan UN Mission and Venerable libertarians for the very nice "editing", all this stuff is very good

we just prefer to keep "married" in paragraph [3]

we didn't know the word gametocyte, so we read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gametocyte
gametocytes are cells who divide in the end into gametes
(so maybe some gametocytes are stem cells, we don't know)

but, the aim of these researchs is to produce spermatozoon and ovum (= gametes) from the stem cells of people who don't naturally produce gametes or produce inadapted gametes, and then can't have children

_______________________________________________________________
Adoption & IVF Rights

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild

The United Nations,

REGRETTING that in some Nations:
-A- Same sex couples and non married couples are discriminated against, for they are not allowed to adopt children
-B- Couples from one UN Nation cannot adopt children from another nation, even if these couples respect the standard of requirements defined by the nation of which the child is resident
-C- Adoption is sometimes a front for the selling of a chid for money

-D- IVF (In-Vitro fertilization) is forbidden

OBSERVING that
-E- Adoptions and births from IVF, in the same way that natural births, contribute to the happiness of many adults and children, worldwide

URGES all nations to allow:
-1- Same sex couples and non married couples to adopt children with the same standard of requirements that opposite-sex and married couples are held to

-2- Biological Parents have the right to decide the religion and/or sexual preference of adoptive parents for their child, before signing their parental rights away

-3- Opposite-sex, same-sex, married, and non married couples from other UN countries shall be allowed to adopt children if these couples respect the standard of requirements defined by the nation of which the child is resident.
Nations will be permitted to give priority of adoption to a local couple over a non-local couple

REQUESTS that in all nations:
-4- Only nationally acredited adoption organizations can conduct the adoption procedure; and
-5- Adoptive parents be forbidden to give money to this adoption organizations, to any person working in or related to this association, to the biological parents and to people related to the biological parents; adoptive parents are welcome to donate money to any adoption organizations that they did not use and are not attempting to use to adopt children

ENCOURAGES
-6- Scientific stem cell research in order that, in the future, sterile men and women can have gametes (spermatozoon and ovum) with their own genetic identity, these gametes being harvested from their own stem cells,

URGES:
-7- All UN Nations to allow IVF, whether the gametes concerned were naturally produced or produced in the way defined in paragraph [6]
________________________________________________________________

Ok - how about:

Opposite-sex and same-sex couples whether married or not married

Personally, I would prefer this one
Opposite-sex and same-sex couples, regardless of maritial status,

Personally, I would prefer this one

Opposite-sex and same-sex couples, regardless of maritial status,



perfect, thanks

_______________________________________________________________
Adoption & IVF Rights

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild

The United Nations,

REGRETTING that in some Nations:
-A- Same sex couples and non married couples are discriminated against, for they are not allowed to adopt children
-B- Couples from one UN Nation cannot adopt children from another nation, even if these couples respect the standard of requirements defined by the nation of which the child is resident
-C- Adoption is sometimes a front for the selling of a chid for money

-D- IVF (In-Vitro fertilization) is forbidden

OBSERVING that
-E- Adoptions and births from IVF, in the same way that natural births, contribute to the happiness of many adults and children, worldwide

URGES all nations to allow:
-1- Same sex couples and non married couples to adopt children with the same standard of requirements that opposite-sex and married couples are held to

-2- Biological Parents have the right to decide the religion and/or sexual preference of adoptive parents for their child, before signing their parental rights away

-3- Opposite-sex and same-sex couples, regardless of maritial status, from other UN countries shall be allowed to adopt children if these couples respect the standard of requirements defined by the nation of which the child is resident.
Nations will be permitted to give priority of adoption to a local couple over a non-local couple

REQUESTS that in all nations:
-4- Only nationally acredited adoption organizations can conduct the adoption procedure; and
-5- Adoptive parents be forbidden to give money to this adoption organizations, to any person working in or related to this association, to the biological parents and to people related to the biological parents; adoptive parents are welcome to donate money to any adoption organizations that they did not use and are not attempting to use to adopt children

ENCOURAGES
-6- Scientific stem cell research in order that, in the future, sterile men and women can have gametes (spermatozoon and ovum) with their own genetic identity, these gametes being harvested from their own stem cells,

URGES:
-7- All UN Nations to allow IVF, whether the gametes concerned were naturally produced or produced in the way defined in paragraph [6]
________________________________________________________________

This is becoming a great proposal, which The Republic of Valori will support 100%. With all of these changes, it's top quality.

thanks for all the supports

as Forgottenlands suggested we will submit it next week

I think biological parents should also be able to say they don't want their kids adopted by unmarried couples, because some religions discourage that but don't kick out people that do so.

Since IVF/embryo adoption is a seperate controversial issue, I suggest splitting this resolution into two resolutions, one for adoption rules, and one granting IVF rights.

I think biological parents should also be able to say they don't want their kids adopted by unmarried couples, because some religions discourage that but don't kick out people that do so.

Ok, why not,

Since IVF/embryo adoption is a seperate controversial issue, I suggest splitting this resolution into two resolutions, one for adoption rules, and one granting IVF rights.

we really think it's related:

"OBSERVING that
-E- Adoptions and births from IVF, in the same way that natural births, contribute to the happiness of many adults and children, worldwide"

both adoption and IVF, allow sterile couples to have children, (adoption allow, also, non-sterile couples to adopt children by love and compassion)

here is the proposition "candidate release"

_______________________________________________________________
Adoption & IVF Rights

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild

The United Nations,

REGRETTING that in some Nations:
-A- Same sex couples and non married couples are discriminated against, for they are not allowed to adopt children
-B- Couples from one UN Nation cannot adopt children from another nation, even if these couples respect the standard of requirements defined by the nation of which the child is resident
-C- Adoption is sometimes a front for the selling of a chid for money

-D- IVF (In-Vitro fertilization) is forbidden

OBSERVING that
-E- Adoptions and births from IVF, in the same way that natural births, contribute to the happiness of many adults and children, worldwide

URGES all nations to allow:
-1- Same sex couples and non married couples to adopt children with the same standard of requirements that opposite-sex and married couples are held to

-2- Biological Parents have the right to decide the religion, marital status and/or sexual preference of adoptive parents for their child, before signing their parental rights away

-3- Opposite-sex and same-sex couples, regardless of maritial status, from other UN countries shall be allowed to adopt children if these couples respect the standard of requirements defined by the nation of which the child is resident.
Nations will be permitted to give priority of adoption to a local couple over a non-local couple

REQUESTS that in all nations:
-4- Only nationally acredited adoption organizations can conduct the adoption procedure; and
-5- Adoptive parents be forbidden to give money to this adoption organizations, to any person working in or related to this association, to the biological parents and to people related to the biological parents; adoptive parents are welcome to donate money to any adoption organizations that they did not use and are not attempting to use to adopt children

ENCOURAGES
-6- Scientific stem cell research in order that, in the future, sterile men and women can have gametes (spermatozoon and ovum) with their own genetic identity, these gametes being harvested from their own stem cells,

URGES:
-7- All UN Nations to allow IVF, whether the gametes concerned were naturally produced or produced in the way defined in paragraph [6]
________________________________________________________________

With all of these adjustments made, I can now happily support this Act.

The people of The Democratic Republic of Tajiri_san feel that allowing the Birth Parents to prevent people of a particular Race, Creed or Sexual Orientation from adopting a child over which they are severing all ties is indeed Discriminatory. As such upon our entry into the NSUN we shall be voting against this legislation despite it being otherwise a very good propsition.

The people of The Democratic Republic of Tajiri_san feel that allowing the Birth Parents to prevent people of a particular Race, Creed or Sexual Orientation from adopting a child over which they are severing all ties is indeed Discriminatory. As such upon our entry into the NSUN we shall be voting against this legislation despite it being otherwise a very good propsition.

Thank you. I'm glad to discover I'm not the only one who feels this way :).

As more and more discrimination has found its way into this, I have found myself supporting it less and less. With the latest one on marital status, all support is gone.

Once parents sign adoption papers, they should have no more say in what happens in that childs life. They have given all care and control of that child to the state. It is up to the state to find the best possible home for the child and the ex-parents bigoted opinions on religion, gays or unmarried couples (or anything else for that matter, I'm waiting for someone to mention skin colour) should never come into that decision. Whats best for the child is of paramount improtance.

We also need to remember that not all children put up for adoption are willingly given away by parents. How about those that are taken from abusive or neglectfull parents by the state. Should they have a say in the poor kids future? I say no.

A problem...


REGRETTING...

OBSERVING...

URGES...

ENCOURAGES...

REQUESTS...

Both the original and the suggested editted versions in the thread fail to do anything beyond make suggestions and requests. This is really not something that requires enacting legislation to accomplish. Including such articles in legislation is by all means appropriate... composing a peice of legislation entirely of such articles is, in our opinion, not. It is our position that legislation is supposed to establish laws, not compliance-optional opinions... and proposed legislation that does not ever go beyond urgings and requests simply creates pointless bureaucratic paperwork.

On that note, our agreement or disagreement with the sentiment expressed aside, we would request that the resolution RESOLVE something. Or ESTABLISH something... DECLARE something...

In other words: DO something.

Thank you. I'm glad to discover I'm not the only one who feels this way :).

As more and more discrimination has found its way into this, I have found myself supporting it less and less. With the latest one on marital status, all support is gone.

I'm not sure how related this is, but I spent a fair bit of time (it must've been a few years ago now) thinking about "discrimination" at an intimate and family level. I realized that no matter what I believe in terms of equal rights, when it comes to beliefs about who one chooses to be intimate, they can be as discriminatory as they ****ing want. The reason is this is not about what rights they have, this is about your own life. You have the right to decide if you don't want to date a black person - or if you need to be dating a jewish person, or what you're significant other's opinions are on such and such an issue or whatever. It's your right.

On the same level, I note that there is a number of people who hold similar values for their family - some situations of which have turned into rather hilarious movies. I note that one of my friends, his parents have stated in the will that he gets NOTHING if he doesn't marry someone who is Jewish (something his girlfriend is currently trying to resolve).

While we, as people who try to be respectful of people's religions and differing beliefs may frown upon this and not understand, we also should be aware that this is very much a personal issue. While they should have no say in how the child is raised, they should at least have the right to decide some fundamentals. If the adoptive parents decide to convert to a different religion 5 years after the adoption is done or if they get a divorce 3 years later, the birth parent should have no say on what happens to the child. However, this point of where should the child be given to - I think that's where a parent's last wish should be granted.

Yes they may be bigoted beliefs - but I would rather these people who are too afraid to give their child up for adoption for fear that a gay couple may raise their child have the assurance its not going to happen rather then them holding onto the baby in a scenario that they can't raise their child.

Yes it is discrimatory (perhaps or perhaps not at a level that is banned internationally), but there are some levels of personal issues where we still need to have the right to be discrimatory.

Once parents sign adoption papers, they should have no more say in what happens in that childs life. They have given all care and control of that child to the state. It is up to the state to find the best possible home for the child and the ex-parents bigoted opinions on religion, gays or unmarried couples (or anything else for that matter, I'm waiting for someone to mention skin colour) should never come into that decision. Whats best for the child is of paramount improtance.

How is it any better or worse for the child to be put into a family that is of the specific religion or status that the birth parents request?

We also need to remember that not all children put up for adoption are willingly given away by parents. How about those that are taken from abusive or neglectfull parents by the state. Should they have a say in the poor kids future? I say no.

Ah - yes, we should note that this right should be granted for voluntary adoption.

What it all boils down to is that after those papers are signed, the state has full care, control and custody of that child. It is also charged to find the best possible home for that child. While the ex-parents are not bound to obey previous resolutions on discrimination, the state is, and after taking custody of the child has to make the decision within those laws.

What it all boils down to is that after those papers are signed, the state has full care, control and custody of that child. It is also charged to find the best possible home for that child. While the ex-parents are not bound to obey previous resolutions on discrimination, the state is, and after taking custody of the child has to make the decision within those laws.

That doesn't mean it can't give preference to one family over another for a reason requested by the parents - just as if the parents found someone (as opposed to open adoption), the state would give preference to this family.

Again - I question whether or not this would be covered under past resolutions.

I'm inclined to agree with the representative from Waterana on the issue of the conditions attached to adoption, though I'm open to persuasion. I also agree with my Reformentian colleague that the proposal needs to be less passive. Finally, I'm also concerned that there is an assumption here that all countries have the capacity to guarantee IVF and related treatments. Ecopoeia, for one, has virtually no ability to do so. I urge caution in any attempt to strengthen this area of the proposal.

The above notwithstanding, I'd like to thank the representative from Love and esterel for the thoughtful and courteous way they have conducted themselves in this and other discussions.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

Normally I would agree that they are severing all ties, however, they could stipulate all of this before they sign their childrens rights away. When they are saying all of this, this child is still theirs, and who their child goes to is still their concern.

The following resolutions are why I feel discrimination by the state against potential adoptive parents, no matter what the ex-parents want, after the state takes custody of a child, is against passed resolutions. The child protection act alone states the welfare of the child is paramount, irrespective of any beliefs ect of their parents or guardians. The state must work within their own laws and current UN resolutions make discrimination illegal.

The only way to make sure the child goes to a home the ex-parent approve of is for them to find the new parent(s), then approach the state and both sets of parent(s) apply to have custody of the child transferred from one to the other. Then the parents get what they want and none of my complaints about discrimination would apply because the state would not at any stage have care and custody of the child.

Gay Rights (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029602&postcount=13)

The Child Protection Act (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029638&postcount=26)

The Universal Bill of Rights (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029642&postcount=27)
Article 4 would apply.

Discrimination Accord (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8689431&postcount=100)

The following resolutions are why I feel discrimination by the state against potential adoptive parents, no matter what the ex-parents want, after the state takes custody of a child, is against passed resolutions. The child protection act alone states the welfare of the child is paramount, irrespective of any beliefs ect of their parents or guardians. The state must work within their own laws and current UN resolutions make discrimination illegal.

The only way to make sure the child goes to a home the ex-parent approve of is for them to find the new parent(s), then approach the state and both sets of parent(s) apply to have custody of the child transferred from one to the other. Then the parents get what they want and none of my complaints about discrimination would apply because the state would not at any stage have care and custody of the child.

Gay Rights (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029602&postcount=13)

The Child Protection Act (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029638&postcount=26)

The Universal Bill of Rights (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029642&postcount=27)
Article 4 would apply.

Discrimination Accord (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8689431&postcount=100)

Is this a moral objection or just a legal one? If the latter, might I suggest we follow my original proposal and just throw it in front of the mods?

In my opinion its a legal objection that the state can't discriminate against potential adoptive parents based on religion, sexual preference, marital status, or any other reason that can be thrown up like race, cultural group ect because of passed resolutions.

In my opinion its a legal objection that the state can't discriminate against potential adoptive parents based on religion, sexual preference, marital status, or any other reason that can be thrown up like race, cultural group ect because of passed resolutions.

Fine - we'll address it via mod ruling

Shall we move on and address Reformatia's point?

Having re-read the proposal the people of the Democratic Republic of Tajiri_san agree that the proposal should be strengthened to make more than suggestions.

thanks to Tajiri_san and Waterana, after having read their post, The supreme court of The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel has informed the ministy of Foreign Affairs of The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel that the following paragraph was unconstitutional:
----------------
allow:

-2- Biological Parents have the right to decide the religion, marital status and/or sexual preference of adoptive parents for their child, before signing their parental rights away
-----------------

then, to avoid to modify our beloved constitution and to take into consideration the goods remarks of Tajiri_san we want to replace this paragrah with:

-----------------------------------
Nations will be permitted to allow Biological Parents to give priority of adoption to couples with religion, marital status and/or sexual preference of adoptive parents for their child, before signing their parental rights away
----------------------------------

A problem...



Both the original and the suggested editted versions in the thread fail to do anything beyond make suggestions and requests. This is really not something that requires enacting legislation to accomplish. Including such articles in legislation is by all means appropriate... composing a peice of legislation entirely of such articles is, in our opinion, not. It is our position that legislation is supposed to establish laws, not compliance-optional opinions... and proposed legislation that does not ever go beyond urgings and requests simply creates pointless bureaucratic paperwork.

On that note, our agreement or disagreement with the sentiment expressed aside, we would request that the resolution RESOLVE something. Or ESTABLISH something... DECLARE something...

In other words: DO something.

Having re-read the proposal the people of the Democratic Republic of Tajiri_san as delegates of TWOtopia agree that the proposal should be strengthened to make more than suggestions.

we fully agree
we had choose "URGES" to soften the proposition, which we think is even nowadays, feared by many people, .... the "yuck factor".....

we would like very much to "do something" more concrete

we will think about that and hope to find a solution, to rally most nations

Nations will be permitted to allow Biological Parents to give priority of adoption to couples with religion, marital status and/or sexual preference of adoptive parents for their child, before signing their parental rights away

We feel that paragraph 4 even in this for is allowing discrimination against certain sections of society and should be struck from the proposition entirely as the parents of the child are giving up their rights to the child and therefore should not be able to dictate at all what happens to a child which effectively is not theirs.

Can I just mention that Tajiri_San is not officially the TWOtopia UN Delegate so all his comments should not be regarded as speaking for our region as he has not discussed any matters with us. Thanks.

:gundge:

Can I just mention that Tajiri_San is not officially the TWOtopia UN Delegate so all his comments should not be regarded as speaking for our region as he has not discussed any matters with us. Thanks.

His comments are just as valid as any other delegate/UN members is, and he has made some valuable contributions here. What problems/squabbles are happening in your region has no bearing on those contributions, to me at least. I can't speak for the other members posting here however ;):).

What he says does indeed make sense but what I'm trying to say is that he is making come across he is the UN delegate for our region.. He's not.. He is using the name of our region in his posts when putting across views that are not the TWOTopias. Surely you can see this?

Vanperry I made that comment when I had (and still have) the minimum required 2 endorsements to be UN Delegate when the next sweep takes place and no opposition. As you have now joined TWOtopia and voiced your objection i have edited my post to reflect my nomination no longer being certain.

Also i am glad that you agree with my stance on this subject.

I dont agree :)

I said it made sense.

Tajiri_san, we understand and agree with your request,

but the aim of our proposition is also to help people worldwide to think on these matter
we think the best way to do it, is not to be that pushy, because that can backfire, this is why we think that manytimes a "mild" proposition can have a more important effect than a "strong"

we are not sure here it's the best way, we just think it is, we don't like revolutions, we prefer progressive evolution

it's why we will keep:
-----------------------------------
Nations will be permitted to allow Biological Parents to give priority of adoption to couples with religion, marital status and/or sexual preference of adoptive parents for their child, before signing their parental rights away
----------------------------------

about "URGES",we have not taken any decision yet

I'm going to request that you reconsider on 1-3 on the strength of those parts. The rest I welcome as being recommendations

we find all this discussion very interesting, and we want to thanks everyone

we now agree this resolution must do something, thanks to Reformentia, Waterana, Ecopoeia, Tajiri_san and Forgottenlands
Is "Requests" an appropriate word? or Requires? my english and my legal knowledge is not that good, and i'm humbly admit i can't defined them exactly
we supose its Strength must be Significant, then


We also need to remember that not all children put up for adoption are willingly given away by parents. How about those that are taken from abusive or neglectfull parents by the state. Should they have a say in the poor kids future? I say no.

we thanks again Waterana for this very good post, and then, we changed again the paragraph with the" religion, sex, marital status clause"
this clause was not our first intention, but we understand the many members in this forum, who wanted something about it, we hope this version is better

we changed the order of the Perambulatory Clauses

here is the proposition "candidate release 2"

_______________________________________________________________
Adoption & IVF Rights

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
The United Nations,

OBSERVING that
-A- Adoptions and births from IVF, in the same way that natural births, contribute to the happiness of many adults and children, worldwide

REGRETTING that in some Nations:
-B- Same sex couples and non married couples are discriminated against, for they are not allowed to adopt children
-C- Couples from one UN Nation cannot adopt children from another nation, even if these couples respect the standard of requirements defined by the nation of which the child is resident
-D- Adoption is sometimes a front for the selling of a chid for money

-E- IVF (In-Vitro fertilization) is forbidden

REQUESTS all nations to allow:
-1- Same sex couples and non married couples to adopt children with the same standard of requirements that opposite-sex and married couples are held to
Nations will be permitted to allow Biological Parents to give priority of adoption to couples with religion, marital status and/or sexual preference of adoptive parents for their child, before signing their parental rights away, only in the case the child was not willingly given away by parents

-2- Opposite-sex and same-sex couples, regardless of maritial status, from other UN countries shall be allowed to adopt children if these couples respect the standard of requirements defined by the nation of which the child is resident.
Nations will be permitted to give priority of adoption to a local couple over a non-local couple

REQUESTS that in all nations:
-3- Only nationally acredited adoption organizations can conduct the adoption procedure; and
-4- Adoptive parents be forbidden to give money to this adoption organizations, to any person working in or related to this association, to the biological parents and to people related to the biological parents; adoptive parents are welcome to donate money to any adoption organizations that they did not use and are not attempting to use to adopt children

ENCOURAGES
-5- Scientific stem cell research in order that, in the future, sterile men and women can have gametes (spermatozoon and ovum) with their own genetic identity, these gametes being harvested from their own stem cells,

URGES:
-6- All UN Nations to allow IVF, whether the gametes concerned were naturally produced or produced in the way defined in paragraph [5]
________________________________________________________________

Requests is actually weaker than Recommends. Request is "Will you please do this?", Recommends is "We feel this is the best option", Requires or Mandates is "This is what you must do" - the latter being the preference.

Nations will be permitted to allow Biological Parents to give priority of adoption to couples with religion, marital status and/or sexual preference of adoptive parents for their child, before signing their parental rights away, only in the case the child was not willingly given away by parents.

surely this is he wrong way round as people who do not give their child up willingly are those that were abusive or in some way unfit and had their child taken from them. It was shown earlier that parents in this catagory should NOT be allowed to determine what kind of couple their child be adopted by.

The people of The Democratic Republic of Tajiri_san feel that allowing the Birth Parents to prevent people of a particular Race, Creed or Sexual Orientation from adopting a child over which they are severing all ties is indeed Discriminatory. As such upon our entry into the NSUN we shall be voting against this legislation despite it being otherwise a very good propsition.
Thank you. I'm glad to discover I'm not the only one who feels this way :).

As more and more discrimination has found its way into this, I have found myself supporting it less and less. With the latest one on marital status, all support is gone.

Once parents sign adoption papers, they should have no more say in what happens in that childs life. They have given all care and control of that child to the state. It is up to the state to find the best possible home for the child and the ex-parents bigoted opinions on religion, gays or unmarried couples (or anything else for that matter, I'm waiting for someone to mention skin colour) should never come into that decision. Whats best for the child is of paramount improtance.

That's not really an issue because we're talking about a contract that they sign before giving up the child. Or even if it's in the contract papers they sign to give the child up it's still the same.

Quoted from me:

Not as long as it’s dictated before they sign away their rights or if it’s a clause in the actual contract it self. They’re giving their child to an organization with the express understanding and intent of insuring a specific level and type of quality in the placing of their child, in their absence.

As long as it’s dictated by the parent(s) it can’t be discrimination. Because after all, it’s well within the parents right to decide who to give the child to. (A mother, sister, other family member or friend etc.) It happens every day.
---

On a side note, I really don't see how it's a bigoted opinion. I mean because not everyone has the same view on these issues and with the facts still up in the air, I really can't see how wanting what they think is best for their children is bigoted...

thanks to Tajiri_san and Waterana, after having read their post, The supreme court of The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel has informed the ministy of Foreign Affairs of The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel that the following paragraph was unconstitutional:
----------------
allow:

-2- Biological Parents have the right to decide the religion, marital status and/or sexual preference of adoptive parents for their child, before signing their parental rights away
-----------------

then, to avoid to modify our beloved constitution and to take into consideration the goods remarks of Tajiri_san we want to replace this paragrah with:

-----------------------------------
Nations will be permitted to allow Biological Parents to give priority of adoption to couples with religion, marital status and/or sexual preference of adoptive parents for their child, before signing their parental rights away
----------------------------------
I'm sorry but we can not support this resolution with the changes it has now. As I've stated before, it is not discrimination by the state if we allow the parents to sign a contract first or if it's part of the adoption contract it self.

As it is now, we're going to have to vote no on this.

I'm sorry but we can not support this resolution with the changes it has now. As I've stated before, it is not discrimination by the state if we allow the parents to sign a contract first or if it's part of the adoption contract it self.

As it is now, we're going to have to vote no on this.

Judging by your comments you may have misread the section of the proposal you quoted. It is allowing such preferences to be expressed, not prohibitting them.

Nations will be permitted to allow Biological Parents to give priority of adoption to couples with religion, marital status and/or sexual preference of adoptive parents for their child, before signing their parental rights away, only in the case the child was not willingly given away by parents.

surely this is he wrong way round as people who do not give their child up willingly are those that were abusive or in some way unfit and had their child taken from them. It was shown earlier that parents in this catagory should NOT be allowed to determine what kind of couple their child be adopted by.

Yeah - remove the not.

thanks to Forgottenlands, ajiri_san, James_xenoland and Reformentia

we use now Mandates for [1] and [2]
and Urges for [3] and [4]

we changed again the " religion, sex, marital status clause"

here is the proposition "candidate release 3"
_______________________________________________________________
Adoption & IVF Rights

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

The United Nations,

OBSERVING that
-A- Adoptions and births from IVF, in the same way that natural births, contribute to the happiness of many adults and children, worldwide

REGRETTING that in some Nations:
-B- Same sex couples and non married couples are discriminated against, for they are not allowed to adopt children
-C- Couples from one UN Nation cannot adopt children from another nation, even if these couples respect the standard of requirements defined by the nation of which the child is resident
-D- Adoption is sometimes a front for the selling of a chid for money

-E- IVF (In-Vitro fertilization) is forbidden

MANDATES all nations to allow:
-1- Same sex couples and non married couples to adopt children with the same standard of requirements that opposite-sex and married couples are held to
Nations will be permitted to allow Biological Parents to give priority of adoption to couples with religion, marital status and/or sexual preference of adoptive parents for their child, before signing their parental rights away, only in the case, both the child was willingly given away by parents but not willingly abandoned

-2- Opposite-sex and same-sex couples, regardless of maritial status, from other UN countries shall be allowed to adopt children if these couples respect the standard of requirements defined by the nation of which the child is resident.
Nations will be permitted to give priority of adoption to a local couple over a non-local couple

URGES that in all nations:
-3- Only nationally acredited adoption organizations can conduct the adoption procedure; and
-4- Adoptive parents be forbidden to give money to this adoption organizations, to any person working in or related to this association, to the biological parents and to people related to the biological parents; adoptive parents are welcome to donate money to any adoption organizations that they did not use and are not attempting to use to adopt children

ENCOURAGES
-5- Scientific stem cell research in order that, in the future, sterile men and women can have gametes (spermatozoon and ovum) with their own genetic identity, these gametes being harvested from their own stem cells,

URGES:
-6- All UN Nations to allow IVF, whether the gametes concerned were naturally produced or produced in the way defined in paragraph [5]
________________________________________________________________

we will submit this proposition tomorow

Then I shall quickly edit


Adoption & IVF Rights

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

Perfect

The United Nations,

OBSERVING that
-A- Adoptions and births from IVF, in the same way that natural births, contribute to the happiness of many adults and children, worldwide

that -> as
way -> manner

REGRETTING that in some Nations:
-B- Same sex couples and non married couples are discriminated against, for they are not allowed to adopt children
-C- Couples from one UN Nation cannot adopt children from another nation, even if these couples respect the standard of requirements defined by the nation of which the child is resident

C - considering that you're starting that line off with "Regretting that in some nations", change the beginning to "couples cannot adopt children from a different nation," (and continue)

-D- Adoption is sometimes a front for the selling of a chid for money

chid -> child :P

-E- IVF (In-Vitro fertilization) is forbidden

MANDATES all nations to allow:
-1- Same sex couples and non married couples to adopt children with the same standard of requirements that opposite-sex and married couples are held to

Pick one or the other: standard or requirements

Nations will be permitted to allow Biological Parents to give priority of adoption to couples with religion, marital status and/or sexual preference of adoptive parents for their child,

Try:

"Nations will be permitted to allow Biological Parents to indicate their preference of the adoptive parents' religion, maritial status and/or sexual preference" (no comma at the end)

before signing their parental rights away,

End sentance here. Start next sentance with "This shall only apply" (to replace "only")

only in the case, both the child was willingly given away by parents but not willingly abandoned

Second willingly - change to purposely

-2- Opposite-sex and same-sex couples, regardless of maritial status, from other UN countries shall be allowed to adopt children if these couples respect the standard of requirements defined by the nation of which the child is resident.

respect -> meet
again - pick standard or requirements
child is resident-> child is initially residing in
Nations will be permitted to give priority of adoption to a local couple over a non-local couple


URGES that in all nations:
-3- Only nationally acredited adoption organizations can conduct the adoption procedure; and
-4- Adoptive parents be forbidden to give money to this adoption organizations, to any person working in or related to this association, to the biological parents and to people related to the biological parents; adoptive parents are welcome to donate money to any adoption organizations that they did not use and are not attempting to use to adopt children

ENCOURAGES
-5- Scientific stem cell research in order that, in the future, sterile men and women can have gametes (spermatozoon and ovum) with their own genetic identity, these gametes being harvested from their own stem cells,

URGES:
-6- All UN Nations to allow IVF, whether the gametes concerned were naturally produced or produced in the way defined in paragraph [5]
[/QUOTE]

The rest is good.

Good luck!

whaoo, Forgottenlands, i don't know how to thank you for this edit again. this is great
i was thinking "standard of requirements" was OK

_______________________________________________________________
Adoption & IVF Rights

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

The United Nations,

OBSERVING that
-A- Adoptions and births from IVF, in the same manner as natural births, contribute to the happiness of many adults and children, worldwide

REGRETTING that in some Nations:
-B- Same sex couples and non married couples are discriminated against, for they are not allowed to adopt children
-C- Couples cannot adopt children from a different nation, even if these couples respect the standard defined by the nation of which the child is resident
-D- Adoption is sometimes a front for the selling of a child for money

-E- IVF (In-Vitro fertilization) is forbidden

MANDATES all nations to allow:
-1- Same sex couples and non married couples to adopt children with the same standard that opposite-sex and married couples are held to.
Nations will be permitted to allow Biological Parents to indicate their preference of the adoptive parents' religion, maritial status and/or sexual preference before signing their parental rights away. This shall only apply in the case, both the child was willingly given away by parents but not purposely abandoned

-2- Opposite-sex and same-sex couples, regardless of maritial status, from other UN countries shall be allowed to adopt children if these couples meet the standard defined by the nation of which the child is initially residing in.
Nations will be permitted to give priority of adoption to a local couple over a non-local couple

URGES that in all nations:
-3- Only nationally acredited adoption organizations can conduct the adoption procedure; and
-4- Adoptive parents be forbidden to give money to this adoption organizations, to any person working in or related to this association, to the biological parents and to people related to the biological parents; adoptive parents are welcome to donate money to any adoption organizations that they did not use and are not attempting to use to adopt children

ENCOURAGES
-5- Scientific stem cell research in order that, in the future, sterile men and women can have gametes (spermatozoon and ovum) with their own genetic identity, these gametes being harvested from their own stem cells,

URGES:
-6- All UN Nations to allow IVF, whether the gametes concerned were naturally produced or produced in the way defined in paragraph [5]
________________________________________________________________

At a technical level, it's ok. However......it's wordy and the 32k members are not....lawyers or English majors so.....:D

Anyways - two corrections to my corrections:

1) change the first (C) and third (2) "standard" to "standards" (the second one (1) is better as it is)

2) "This shall only apply in (the optional) cases (no comma) where"

thanks
ok for standards
for case, there is only one case, in which the 2 conditions are met

_______________________________________________________________
Adoption & IVF Rights

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

The United Nations,

OBSERVING that
-A- Adoptions and births from IVF, in the same manner as natural births, contribute to the happiness of many adults and children, worldwide

REGRETTING that in some Nations:
-B- Same sex couples and non married couples are discriminated against, for they are not allowed to adopt children
-C- Couples cannot adopt children from a different nation, even if these couples respect the standards defined by the nation of which the child is resident
-D- Adoption is sometimes a front for the selling of a child for money

-E- IVF (In-Vitro fertilization) is forbidden

MANDATES all nations to allow:
-1- Same sex couples and non married couples to adopt children with the same standard that opposite-sex and married couples are held to.
Nations will be permitted to allow Biological Parents to indicate their preference of the adoptive parents' religion, maritial status and/or sexual preference before signing their parental rights away. This shall only apply in the case, both the child was willingly given away by parents but not purposely abandoned

-2- Opposite-sex and same-sex couples, regardless of maritial status, from other UN countries shall be allowed to adopt children if these couples meet the standards defined by the nation of which the child is initially residing in.
Nations will be permitted to give priority of adoption to a local couple over a non-local couple

URGES that in all nations:
-3- Only nationally acredited adoption organizations can conduct the adoption procedure; and
-4- Adoptive parents be forbidden to give money to this adoption organizations, to any person working in or related to this association, to the biological parents and to people related to the biological parents; adoptive parents are welcome to donate money to any adoption organizations that they did not use and are not attempting to use to adopt children

ENCOURAGES
-5- Scientific stem cell research in order that, in the future, sterile men and women can have gametes (spermatozoon and ovum) with their own genetic identity, these gametes being harvested from their own stem cells,

URGES:
-6- All UN Nations to allow IVF, whether the gametes concerned were naturally produced or produced in the way defined in paragraph [5]
________________________________________________________________

for case, there is only one case, in which the 2 conditions are met

Cases is plural because you're referring to the child, not for the scenario required.

Sorry - if you took my suggestion, it would apply to the child. The way you have it does apply to the scenario (sorry), though it does sound a little....unnatural. Your call.

ok

we added:

"Thanks to all Nations in the UN forum that helped edit and improve this proposal"
_______________________________________________________
Adoption & IVF Rights

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

The United Nations,

OBSERVING that
-A- Adoptions and births from IVF, in the same manner as natural births, contribute to the happiness of many adults and children, worldwide

REGRETTING that in some Nations:
-B- Same sex couples and non married couples are discriminated against, for they are not allowed to adopt children
-C- Couples cannot adopt children from a different nation, even if these couples respect the standards defined by the nation of which the child is resident
-D- Adoption is sometimes a front for the selling of a child for money

-E- IVF (In-Vitro fertilization) is forbidden

MANDATES all nations to allow:
-1- Same sex couples and non married couples to adopt children with the same standard that opposite-sex and married couples are held to.
Nations will be permitted to allow Biological Parents to indicate their preference of the adoptive parents' religion, marital status and/or sexual preference before signing their parental rights away. This shall only apply in the case, both the child was willingly given away by parents but not purposely abandoned

-2- Opposite-sex and same-sex couples, regardless of marital status, from other UN countries shall be allowed to adopt children if these couples meet the standards defined by the nation of which the child is initially residing in.
Nations will be permitted to give priority of adoption to a local couple over a non-local couple

URGES that in all nations:
-3- Only nationally accredited adoption organizations can conduct the adoption procedure; and
-4- Adoptive parents be forbidden to give money to this adoption organizations, to any person working in or related to this association, to the biological parents and to people related to the biological parents; adoptive parents are welcome to donate money to any adoption organizations that they did not use and are not attempting to use to adopt children

ENCOURAGES
-5- Scientific stem cell research in order that, in the future, sterile men and women can have gametes (spermatozoon and ovum) with their own genetic identity, these gametes being harvested from their own stem cells,

URGES:
-6- All UN Nations to allow IVF, whether the gametes concerned were naturally produced or produced in the way defined in paragraph [5]

Thanks to all Nations that helped edit and improve this proposal in the UN forum
________________________________________________________________

We have submitted the proposition to the UN
here is the link:
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=Adoption%20and%20IVF%20Rights

We want to thanks the nations of Commustan, Forgottenlands, Marxist Rhetoric , Yeldan UN Mission, Venerable libertarians, Reformentia, Waterana, Ecopoeia, Tajiri_san, James_xenolandfor their precious help

Approved

Approved

The "Adoption and IVF Rights" proposition have now received more than 40 approvals, we thank all the delagate who support it.

we have sent 600 TG for our campaign, we will have a break.

90 approvals in 24 hours
thanks for all the delagate who approved it

42 left....


we have sent 640 TG
only 3 delegates approved it without a TG from us

The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel want to thanks the 135 UN delegates who approved the "Adoption & IVF rights". The proposition has reached quorum.

some stats:

860 TG sent to UN Delegates
only 6 Delegates approved it without us having send them a telegram (4,5%)

here are the TG we have sent:

________________________________
Greetings ,

We are pleased to inform you

the “Adoption & IVF Rights”

had been submitted today to the UN.

No resolution about adoption and IVF has ever been voted.
Many nations in the UN forum helped us to write it.
We hope you will look at it and approve it, if you agree with.
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=Adoption%20and%20IVF%20Rights

Thank You
___________________________________

___________________________________
Greetings ,

We are pleased to inform you

the “Adoption & IVF Rights”

had been submitted to the UN, and already 90 delegates approved it.

No resolution about adoption and IVF has ever been voted.
Many nations in the UN forum helped us to write it.
We hope you will look at it and approve it, if you agree with.
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=Adoption%20and%20IVF%20Rights

Thank You
_______________________________

I will not support this repeal. it is not in best intrest of my country to approve of gay couples raising a child. this repeal must fail!

We await this proposal being sent up as an official voting topic. Based on Our initial reading of it, We probably will be opposing it. We shall hold off, however, until the official vote/debate begins before presenting Our arguments.

MANDATES all nations to allow:
-1- Same sex couples and non married couples to adopt children with the same standard that opposite-sex and married couples are held to.
Nations will be permitted to allow Biological Parents to indicate their preference of the adoptive parents' religion, marital status and/or sexual preference before signing their parental rights away. This shall only apply in the case, both the child was willingly given away by parents but not purposely abandoned

-2- Opposite-sex and same-sex couples, regardless of marital status, from other UN countries shall be allowed to adopt children if these couples meet the standards defined by the nation of which the child is initially residing in.
Nations will be permitted to give priority of adoption to a local couple over a non-local couple

My question is primarily targeted at the second point here.

Notwithstanding the issue of whether these are married couples or of their gender, it seems to me that the couples may adopt a child/children from a foreign nation is they meet the standards defined by the "donor" nation. There seems to be no way in which the standards required by the nation of the adopting couple can in any way influence or affect the adoption proceedings.

As such, I am tending towards a recommendation that our regional vote should be against this resolution but will allow time for those proposing the resolution to respond to this.

Notwithstanding the issue of whether these are married couples or of their gender, it seems to me that the couples may adopt a child/children from a foreign nation is they meet the standards defined by the "donor" nation. There seems to be no way in which the standards required by the nation of the adopting couple can in any way influence or affect the adoption proceedings.



thank you for your comment, in case of cross border adoption, couples should meet the standards by the "donor" nation as you say.

Nothing prevent the nation where the couple is resident to legislate with a law that will requires the couple to also meet the national standard

I agree with the vast majority of this resolution and it is very commendable, however I must vote against it, as section 5. encourages stem cell research, although it is only 'encouraged' and not mandated, my religious and moral believes dictate that it should not be done and this resolution is vindicating it, so I oppose this resolution.

I'm not 100% sure myself but do think that if there are several resolution already in effect outlawing discrimination, then a new proposal can't allow or promote it as it is already against the law in member nations. Confusing I know. The experienced members will probably be able to clarify it better than I can :).

It seems to me that much of this bill re-states elements that are already in resolutions 12 (Gay Rights), 25 (Child Protective Act), 26 (Universal Bill of Rights) and 99 (Discrimination Accord). Additionally aspects of it contradict resolution 19 (Religious Tolerance).

While we agree that all nations have the inherent right to determine the laws governing marriage and child rearing within their own borders.....we refute the assertation that any nation has a right to impose their beliefs in this matter on us, we will be opposing this.

Flanagania supports this proposal wholeheartedly. It reflects quite a few of our most cherished Flanaganian values, at its core an unceasing quest for enlightenment, to improve the human condition without resource to mumbo jumbo and bigotry.

Sure, on the surface it SOUNDS good, but once again it's another thinly-veiled gay rights issue paper-clipped to a more palatable one. I wish they'd quit that.

Sure, on the surface it SOUNDS good, but once again it's another thinly-veiled gay rights issue paper-clipped to a more palatable one. I wish they'd quit that.

i agree. and that goes for the line about unmarried couples, too. if an unmarried couple is going to go through all the hastle to adopt a child they should be willing to commit to marriage, too.

I have thrown in my support for the bill. Adoption is better then living on the streets or being unwanted and gives equal rights to all to do so. It also won't affect my control of the people anyway so I have no real reason to vote againt.

Jude
Ruler of Cuation

thank you for your comment, in case of cross border adoption, couples should meet the standards by the "donor" nation as you say.

Nothing prevent the nation where the couple is resident to legislate with a law that will requires the couple to also meet the national standard

I think that clause 2 prevents it because it mandates that couples should be allowed to adopt if they meet the conditions of the "donor" nation.

Although we appreciate a resolution promoting UN-wide standards for adoption, this resolution tries to include all sorts of issues that are either not strictly related to adoption, or do not need UN-wide legislation.

No wonder it took so many telegrams to get it approved.

The People's Republic will not support this resolution on the grounds of duplication of earlier efforts, spreading lies, and irrelevancy of most parts to the UN.

(an example of an outrageous lie (or gross ignorance of the author, which is also a possibility, but it's still a lie): "REGRETTING that in some Nations:
-B- Same sex couples and non married couples are discriminated against, for they are not allowed to adopt children ", which should be outlawed already by earlier resolutions and as such is impossible in the UN)

Canada6 supports this resolution.

Canada6 would also like to point out for the "voters against" that this resolution does not take away a nation's power to decide if same-sex married couples can adopt children, since it requires that "these couples meet the standards defined by the nation of which the child is initially residing in.", wether the child is from another naiton or not.

There will always be ways to work around this resolution if nations do not wish to grant adoption for same-sex couples, even if same-sex couples are to be held to the same standard as heterosexual couples as this resolution also requires.

Canada6 will finally like to point out that for the "voters against" that if you're nation does not support this resolution then, you most likely do not support same-sex marriages also. In that case you have nothing to worry about even if you do feel that this resolution automatically grants adoption rights to homosexual married couples.

Finally once again. Canada6 is fully in favour of this resolution.

Canada6 will finally like to point out that for the "voters against" that if you're nation does not support this resolution then, you most likely do not support same-sex marriages also. In that case you have nothing to worry about even if you do feel that this resolution automatically grants adoption rights to homosexual married couples.


Actually, they do have to support same sex marriage because of resolution 12 (Gay Rights) and resolution 99 (Discrimination Accord). So, if they are in the UN, this part has already been agreed to. If they don't like it, they should try to repeal them.

I'm against IVF but not the adoption rights

so I'm going to vote the Against

I think that clause 2 prevents it because it mandates that couples should be allowed to adopt if they meet the conditions of the "donor" nation.

but nations can vote a law to prevent resident couples who don't meet their standard to adopt children abroad


It seems to me that much of this bill re-states elements that are already in resolutions 12 (Gay Rights), 25 (Child Protective Act), 26 (Universal Bill of Rights) and 99 (Discrimination Accord). Additionally aspects of it contradict resolution 19 (Religious Tolerance).

thank you for your post
but, before we write our first draft about this topic on this forum, we checked the whole NSUN resoutions, and we find out noone was dealing with adoption or IVF

about "Religious Tolerance", we don't see which exact(s) point of our proposition
promote religious intolerance

but, before we write our first draft about this topic on this forum, we checked the whole NSUN resoutions, and we find out noone was dealing with adoption or IVF

about "Religious Tolerance", we don't see which exact(s) point of our proposition promote religious intolerance

This is in response to other representative's comments about the specific pro-same-sex-marriage wording (line 1). I was pointing out that the UN already has resolutions to deal with that. The additional protections and wording have no place in this resolution. That and the statements on stem-cell (line 5) do seem to be riders to the adoption issue which marrs the good intentions of the bill.

The point on religious intolerance is the encouragement for stem-cell research which is a huge slap in the face for Catholics and some other religions and has no place in a human rights bill.

Don't get me wrong, this is a well worded bill and we agree with the general intent. However, because of these riders my delegation cannot support it. If a bill is proposed that only deals with IVF and adoption rights without bringing in a morass of additional issues then more consideration could be given.

The point on religious intolerance is the encouragement for stem-cell research which is a huge slap in the face for Catholics and some other religions and has no place in a human rights bill.

the Catholic communities of Love and esterel and of many nations don't think stem cells research is bad.

No wonder it took so many telegrams to get it approved.



we have said in this thread we have send 860 TG to UN delegates.
and our proposition managed to get 318 approvals.

the Catholic communities of Love and esterel and of many nations don't think stem cells research is bad.

Sure, no religion is uniform it it's beliefs. But line 5 of this resolution is essentially a large multi-national organization forcing all member nations to believe a specific practice is okay. If the people in a nation want to believe the world was created by a Flying Spagetti Monster that is their right. To tell them to believe differently or to make effort as a government to convert them treads on their most basic human rights.

As a note, The Dominion of the Machine Spirit supports stem cell research BUT has no desire to tell other nation states what they should or should not believe in.

Sure, no religion is uniform it it's beliefs. But line 5 of this resolution is essentially a large multi-national organization forcing all member nations to believe a specific practice is okay. If the people in a nation want to believe the world was created by a Flying Spagetti Monster that is their right. To tell them to believe differently or to make effort as a government to convert them treads on their most basic human rights.

As a note, The Dominion of the Machine Spirit supports stem cell research BUT has no desire to tell other nation states what they should or should not believe in.

we used URGES and ENCOURAGES, we don't used mandates or requires

The Commonwealth of Simonovastan opposes this resolution. The UN will not be granted authority over our own social and health services departments.

Opposite-sex and same-sex couples, regardless of marital status, from other UN countries shall be allowed to adopt children if these couples meet the standards defined by the nation of which the child is initially residing in.

If this resolution passes, this soverign nation will simply change its standards, perhaps by refusing to grant work visas to employees of foreign adoption agencies operating within our borders, or by simply revoking the business licenses and permits of domestic adoption agencies which attempt to supercede our own laws and regulations in favor of the United Nations.

The children of Simonovastan are not an exportable commodity available for any foreign bleeding-heart tourist to acquire.

The children of Simonovastan are not an exportable commodity available for any foreign bleeding-heart tourist to acquire.

thanks for your comment, we just want to assure you we share the same concern, it's why we included in paragraph -2-:

""Nations will be permitted to give priority of adoption to a local couple over a non-local couple""

we used URGES and ENCOURAGES, we don't used mandates or requires

That is still a statement of position from a meta-govermental organization.

That is still a statement of position from a meta-govermental organization.

yes you are right, and we respect your argument of national sovereignty.

Our argument is the following:
Some couples who want a child are sterile, we think it's sad, it's why we want to help them to have a child when they desire to have one

HERE HERE!!! Simonvastan has spoken, and I agree with him/her

No, no, no, no and no!

Yet another UN resolution encroaching on sovereignty.

No.

No, no, no, no and no!

Yet another UN resolution encroaching on sovereignty.

No.


I agree, I don't see how this is any of the UN's business.

Our argument is the following:
Some couples who want a child are sterile, we think it's sad, it's why we want to help them to have a child when they desire to have one

Which brings up another point. What if a country regulates how many offspring their citizens can have as a means of population control? The IVF sections of this resolution could directly contradict that.

This resolution is immoral-same sex couples should not be included,and the child should not be put up for adoption.In both cases the child will be doomed to a troubled life with a bad childhood.

ENCOURAGES
-5- Scientific stem cell research in order that, in the future, sterile men and women can have gametes (spermatozoon and ovum) with their own genetic identity, these gametes being harvested from their own stem cells,

Why is stem cell research being brought in to this?

This does not have any thing to do with adoption and I agree with all of the adoption rules but dont not agree with stem cell reasearch, and would not like it in my country.

Which brings up another point. What if a country regulates how many offspring their citizens can have as a means of population control? The IVF sections of this resolution could directly contradict that.

Thank you for presenting us this scenario.
We must admit that we didn't think about it when writing this proposition.
But we were aware about possible similar scenarios, and this is why we used URGES and not requires or mandates.

Vote no!For the children's sake

I would like to vote for this resolution because I think it is important to incourage international relations, and the preservation of like. But I need to hear why stem cell reasearch is being included in this resolution.

Yet another UN resolution encroaching on sovereignty.

Canada6 recognises that voting against a resolution is perfectly normal. However...

Canada6 would like to state that it finds complaining that "UN resolution's are encroachments on national sovereignty" as incredibly lame and nonchalant.

EVERY SINGLE proposal will eventually override national law if passed. Therefore EVERY SINGLE resolution passed is an obvious encroachment on national sovereignty and the nations power to legislate as it pleases in whatever area that has been afected. These are the game mechanics, and it has nothing to do with the contents of a particular resolution.

If you vote NO for a proposal then please explain why, for the benefit of your cause.
Don't say that you will be voting No because of the encroachment on national sovereignty. Aside from that being spectacularly boring, that is simply disagreeing with game mecanics and this is not the thread to carry out such affairs.

The way Canada6 sees the UN is very simple. A resolution comes up and we vote on it according to our free will and judgement, and not based on the issue of believing that other nations should have the power to legislate for themselves on this issue. Canada6 respects and confided in the UN's delegates judgement to pre-approve all resolutions as they achive qourum or not.

Being a UN member means having to concede in certain areas and of course gain in others. However. The very moment that we Canada6, feel that the direction the UN has shifted to, is no longer compatible with Canada6 as a soverign nation, we will not hesitate and move out of the UN immediately.

Concluding Canada6 voices the opinion that backing up "against votes" complaining about encroachments national soverignty, is a valid vote but a pathetically weak argument.

With a final remark, Canada6 urges and supports all UN members to continue working together for a common platform of understanding, so that we may continue to build and shape the UN into a free, and just society.

This resolution is immoral-same sex couples should not be included.

I think any two people who are in love should have the right to adopt a child. Why not same-sex couples? People attracted to the same sex aren't "bad people".
And this isn't the middle ages. Peoploe who are homosexual are every bit as worthy of human rights as the rest of us. Would you punish people from different races that wanted a child? Both are examples of dicrimination: you're discriminating against same-sex couples. Read the resolutions.

Alas after talking with some of the other ruler in the South Pacific, I have to decided to change my vote to be against this bill. While I understand and support the care behind this idea, there are practical risks I can not afford.

Though I must respectivly query what is so wrong about the bill allowing rights to adopt for gays that Safeland finds so wrong? It is aware that the UN requiers fair rights to all, I think perhaps the land should leave the UN if it is so worried about such things.

I would like to vote for this resolution because I think it is important to incourage international relations, and the preservation of like. But I need to hear why stem cell reasearch is being included in this resolution.

ok, thanks for asking, here are our arguments:

- Some couples who want a child are sterile, we think it's sad, it's why we want to help them to have a child when they desire to have one, with IVF

- but some of these sterile couples don't even produces spermatozoon or ovum (= gametes), so IVF is not yet possible for them

- Some scientist in several nations have began to study and work on the possibility to harvest gametes from stem cells; they don't think this technology will be available in few month, but in few years

- So we think, that IVF from these gametes coud be a great opportunity for these sterile couples to have a child if they desire to have one

This proposition encourages to produce gametes to persons from their own stem cells => these persons will be the biological parents of the children to be born, in the same way as sex or classical IVF

Reading that argument.. I vote FOR

Votes For: 1,532

Votes Against: 752

I think we know who's won, congrats Love and esterel

When there are thosands of children who need parents why spend money and time to creat more babies??? If people can't have children together the people of Terioamo believe that they are in fact being told or ordered by "fate" or by logic it self to adopt. I ask that another great nation propose the follow in the UN chambers.
_______________________________________________________________

The United Nations,


Observing that
A: The amount of children who need to be adopted is growing around the world.

Regretting that some Nations:
B: Believe that it is acceptable to have couples (hetero/homo sexual) receive fertility treatment, using monetary resources and medical labor (that could be better used) when there are already children who need homes.

Mandates all nations make illegal:

1: Medical procedures and/or for the purpose of human procreation that are unnatural, i.e. In-vitro Fertilization, Fertility Medication.

Advocates and encourages Nations:

2: To simplify, modernize and promote their country's adoption process.
3. To speak put against nations who do not accept this mandate

That is a strong point, but infertile women/men don't want to adopt, and ivf is the only way forward, would you want an adopted child?? If I or my wife were infertile, I would propose ivf

EVERY SINGLE proposal will eventually override national law if passed. Therefore EVERY SINGLE resolution passed is an obvious encroachment on national sovereignty and the nations power to legislate as it pleases in whatever area that has been afected. These are the game mechanics, and it has nothing to do with the contents of a particular resolution.

No, not voting for something to protect national soveriegnty is a very valid argument. The UN should have to have an incredible reason to pass any resolution because, as Canada6 has stated, all resolutions limit national soveriegnty. As such, all resoultions should be voted against unless a very clear need can be shown for the UN to intervene. Resolutions should not be passed as frequently as they are. The current mode of operation is quite clearly an abuse of power by UN delegates who seem to hold thier idea of what a state should and should not be above what the inhabitants of the state think.

Sometimes the most responsable use of power is to not use it.

UN intervention should be a method of last resort, not the first.

That is a strong point, but infertile women/men don't want to adopt, and ivf is the only way forward, would you want an adopted child?? If I or my wife were infertile, I would propose ivf

thank you for your support, but we want to say this proposition is both about adoption and IVF, and we don't think one is better than the other. we want people to have the choice.

In my real life, i have 2 cousins who are adopted, i'm very happy they have been adopted, they are very happy to have been adoptd and my oncle and Aunt are very happy to have adopted them

We think every couple should have the choice to choose between IVF and adoption, we respect your choice, but we hope you will consider what you have said, we fully don't agree with your kind of judgment

One cannot be without the other... If ivf was lets say free on the NHS... then adoption agencies would explode because noone will want the children because of ivf.. if ivf was "banned" then adoption agencies would well..pop because that would be the only way.. the only way to resolve this issue is for ...

i really don't know... i'm sure someone gets what i mean though

The Delegate from the Valley of Fun will vote once he has consulted the inhabitants of his region. Although opinionated, the people of the Dominion of the Machine Spirit are not autocratic.

That being said, we are most likely going to vote against it as it currently stands.

The Delegate from the Valley of Fun will vote once he has consulted the inhabitants of his region. Although opinionated, the people of the Dominion of the Machine Spirit are not autocratic.

That being said, we are most likely going to vote against it as it currently stands.
Most Delegates representing large regions always have regional polls to aide their vote casting.

In the region of Canada, our Prime Minister and UN Delegate Checkers McDog has always complied with the our region's constitutional law.

Resolutions should not be passed as frequently as they are. The current mode of operation is quite clearly an abuse of power by UN delegates who seem to hold thier idea of what a state should and should not be above what the inhabitants of the state think.

Simonovastan concurs with The Machine Spirit.

To reiterate, our main issue with this resolution is this particular mandate:

-2- Opposite-sex and same-sex couples, regardless of marital status, from other UN countries shall be allowed to adopt children if these couples meet the standards defined by the nation of which the child is initially residing in.

This resolution is classified as pertaining to "human and civil rights." Unfortunately, Simonovastan believes that foreigners wishing to acquire one of our subjects should go through the proper channels. That is, foreign adoption is a matter of immigration, and not a human right.

To restate our position:

Simonovastan supports and practices stem cell research and cloning research.

Simonovastan supports the ability to increase fertility through artificial means.

Simonovastan does not support allowing UN member nations to circumvent our existing immigration laws, no matter what the means; we will adjust our existing policies and standards to ensure that, should this resolution pass, none of our children are exported to nations which we do not approve of.

We have all spoken, except for Machine Spirit, now when we hear his/her word, then the arguing can continue :)

I am generally for any repeal and against every new resolution which takes decision making power away from an individual nation's right to govern themselves. I do not trust any of these decisions to be made by a group which is dominated by nations that think differently from my own. WHY DO WE CONTINUE TO ABDICATE INDIVIDUAL NATION'S RIGHTS TO DECIDE THINGS FOR THEMSELVES TO THE UN? We should proceed with great caution on any legislation that ties the hands of local governments.

My largest personal reason for opposing this legislation is as follows:

MANDATES all nations to allow:
-1- Same sex couples and non married couples to adopt children with the same standard that opposite-sex and married couples are held to.
Nations will be permitted to allow Biological Parents to indicate their preference of the adoptive parents' religion, marital status and/or sexual preference before signing their parental rights away. This shall only apply in the case, both the child was willingly given away by parents but not purposely abandoned

-2- Opposite-sex and same-sex couples, regardless of marital status, from other UN countries shall be allowed to adopt children if these couples meet the standards defined by the nation of which the child is initially residing in.
Nations will be permitted to give priority of adoption to a local couple over a non-local couple


It doesn't matter if I believe this or not. I believe it's a nations individual choice to believe this or not.

I vote AGAINST.

If IVF were illegal adoption agencies would be able to give homes to the children who need it. IF two people can't have kids, why should we spend money and resources to create babies when we already have them? It is illogical and immoral. What’s more important, children without a home finding one or people who can't feed their ego by having a kid with their DNA?

In other news the only clinic that gave fertility treament in Terioamo was the sight of protest that turned violent when the Clinic's doctor started to shoot at the protestors while yelling "ITS OK, WE HAVE MORE OF WHERE YOU CAME FROM!"


:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :mp5:

Canada6 recognises that voting against a resolution is perfectly normal. However...

Canada6 would like to state that it finds complaining that "UN resolution's are encroachments on national sovereignty" as incredibly lame and nonchalant.

EVERY SINGLE proposal will eventually override national law if passed. Therefore EVERY SINGLE resolution passed is an obvious encroachment on national sovereignty and the nations power to legislate as it pleases in whatever area that has been afected. These are the game mechanics, and it has nothing to do with the contents of a particular resolution.



It is BECAUSE UN Resolutions have the unfortunate effect of overriding the will of the people, that is it the responsibility of all members of the United Nations to wield their power with discretion.

It is the belief of my citizens and indeed all of my allies that international intervention into the governance of a state should be the exception, rather than the rule. The UN should be focused on issues pertaining to international relations, not internal state concerns.

If a nation state (or even a region) wishes to enact protections for IVF and adoptions, the UN should neither encourage nor discourage such policy decisions.

I just don't see how any of this is the UN's business.

How are my adoption policies affecting the security or well being of another nation? And if you can find any ways, please explain how this will address any issues.

I can see the UN passing resolutions to make it easier for nations to adopt children orphaned by war. But this is just another case of people voting on how they feel other countries should be run.

We're now forced to stockpile chemicals for retaliatory action since we are becoming threatened by a neighbouring countries stockpile.

Are you threatened by your neighbours adoption laws?

Vote NO on this !

I am the only UN member in my region, and I have asked and proposed etc.

Adoration of Me, I totally agree with your last point, but not so much the others

The nation of Potty 5 will have to vote against this in its current form as part 4 would require our nation’s citizens to pay for the adoption process of foreigners through their taxes and not have the advantage of more children raised in good environments.

Potty 5 also finds that there are many nations that we would not allow a minor to go to when they are unable to decide if they wish to go there themselves (Without a guardian). If they are capable of such a binding and possibly dangerous the decision then they would have little need for a guardian and then would have no reason to be adopted.

In short, our nation wants our people to stay in our nation unless we are shore that they arte going some place that is much better off with out any reduction in freedoms.

Well, when a nation like mine, spends more money on Law and Order and having the Largest Welfare program of Albion Supreme, then I can afford to help those who need the money, also being a large exporter of the Green Dragon and also diamonds, I have money to burn!

I just don't see how any of this is the UN's business.

How are my adoption policies affecting the security or well being of another nation? And if you can find any ways, please explain how this will address any issues.

I can see the UN passing resolutions to make it easier for nations to adopt children orphaned by war. But this is just another case of people voting on how they feel other countries should be run.

We're now forced to stockpile chemicals for retaliatory action since we are becoming threatened by a neighbouring countries stockpile.

Are you threatened by your neighbours adoption laws?

You may think that UN resolutions should only deal about national or international security, We really understand your point of view

We think that it's important for UN resolutions to be about international security, but also about human rights, social justice or environment

I couldn't agree more Love and esterel, the UN is not just about peace-keeping, but also about everyday problems that no one has a solution to, from there it is put into vote, and teh outcome... well.. vote and you'll find out

The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel presents the "Adoption and IVF Rights" proposition.

We would like to give a special thanks to the Nation of Forgottenlands for his precious help and also thanks all the Nations who helped us to improve it on the UN forum.

____________________
Adoption and IVF Rights

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Significant


Proposed by: Love and esterel

Description: The United Nations,

OBSERVING that
-A- Adoptions and births from IVF, in the same manner as natural births, contribute to the happiness of many adults and children, worldwide

REGRETTING that in some Nations:
-B- Same sex couples and non married couples are discriminated against, for they are not allowed to adopt children
-C- Couples cannot adopt children from a different nation, even if these couples respect the standards defined by the nation of which the child is resident
-D- Adoption is sometimes a front for the selling of a child for money

-E- IVF (In-Vitro fertilization) is forbidden

MANDATES all nations to allow:
-1- Same sex couples and non married couples to adopt children with the same standard that opposite-sex and married couples are held to.
Nations will be permitted to allow Biological Parents to indicate their preference of the adoptive parents' religion, marital status and/or sexual preference before signing their parental rights away. This shall only apply in the case, both the child was willingly given away by parents but not purposely abandoned

-2- Opposite-sex and same-sex couples, regardless of marital status, from other UN countries shall be allowed to adopt children if these couples meet the standards defined by the nation of which the child is initially residing in.
Nations will be permitted to give priority of adoption to a local couple over a non-local couple

URGES that in all nations:
-3- Only nationally accredited adoption organizations can conduct the adoption procedure; and
-4- Adoptive parents be forbidden to give money to this adoption organizations, to any person working in or related to this association, to the biological parents and to people related to the biological parents; adoptive parents are welcome to donate money to any adoption organizations that they did not use and are not attempting to use to adopt children

ENCOURAGES
-5- Scientific stem cell research in order that, in the future, sterile men and women can have gametes (spermatozoon and ovum) with their own genetic identity, these gametes being harvested from their own stem cells,

URGES:
-6- All UN Nations to allow IVF, whether the gametes concerned were naturally produced or produced in the way defined in paragraph [5]

Thanks to all Nations that helped edit and improve this proposal in the UN forum

Voting Ends: Mon Sep 12 2005
_____________________________________________________________






here is the first post:


____________________________________________________________
The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel is proud to post the draft of the Adoption & IVF Rights

we don't want to submit it soon, as they are already many proposition in queue.

the aim is to open the debate on this matter, and collect many impovment ideas and critics

Thank you

here is the first draft

_______________________________________________________________
Adoption & IVF Rights

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild

The United Nations,

REGRETTING that in some Nations:
-A- Same sex couples are not allowed to adopt children
-B- Non married couples are not allowed to adopt children
-C- Couples from another UN Nation cannot adopt children even if these couples respect the standard of requirements defined by the nation of which the child is resident
-D- IVF (In-Vitro fertilization) is forbidden

OBSERVING that
-E- Adoptions and births from IVF, in the same way than natural births, contribute to the happiness of many adults and children, worldwide

URGES
-1- All nations to allow same sex couples and non married couples to adopt children, with the same standard of requirements than opposite-sex and married couples
-2- All Nations to allow opposite-sex, same-sex, married, and non married couples from another UN countries to adopt children if these couples respect the standard of requirements defined by the nation of which the child is resident.
Nations will not be prevented to allow by law a priority of the adoption to a resident couple respecting the standard over a non-resident one

ENCOURAGES
-3- Scientific stem cells research in the aim that, in a near future, sterile men and women can have gamet from their own genetic identity, these gamets being obtained from their own stem cells,

REQUESTS
-4- All nations to allow IVF at least for their citizen and citizen of others UN Nation, either the gamets concerned were naturally produced or produced in the way defined in paragraph [3]
___________________________________________________


these poor children with same sex parents will be bullied in school. think of the children. dont let them pay the price for their parents sexual choice.

it was Adam and Eve, not Adam & Steve. I am oppossed of it, because of the same sex marriage

You may think that UN resolutions should only deal about national or international security, We really understand your point of view

We think that it's important for UN resolutions to be about international security, but also about human rights, social justice or environment

And which category does this fall under?
And why?
And how is it being addressed?
And what of the nations that oppose same sex marriage?

these poor children with same sex parents will be bullied in school. think of the children. dont let them pay the price for their parents sexual choice.

Agreed, I voted for the resolution but I am in full agreement with this. Also, imagine the confusion in the child's mind when their friends say 'My mum and dad' and they have a 'mum and mum' and 'dad and dad'.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not speaking against homosexual individuals + couples, I'm just thinking about the childrens emotions and thought, putting myself in their place.

Cheers ;)
Starcra

OBSERVING that
-A- Adoptions and births from IVF, in the same manner as natural births, contribute to the happiness of many adults and children, worldwide
The Dominion of Tatheniel (TDoT) recognizes and agrees with this observation.

REGRETTING that in some Nations:
-B- Same sex couples and non married couples are discriminated against, for they are not allowed to adopt children
-C- Couples cannot adopt children from a different nation, even if these couples respect the standards defined by the nation of which the child is resident
-D- Adoption is sometimes a front for the selling of a child for money
-E- IVF (In-Vitro fertilization) is forbidden

TDoT recognizes these regrets.

MANDATES all nations to allow:
-1- Same sex couples and non married couples to adopt children with the same standard that opposite-sex and married couples are held to.
Nations will be permitted to allow Biological Parents to indicate their preference of the adoptive parents' religion, marital status and/or sexual preference before signing their parental rights away. This shall only apply in the case, both the child was willingly given away by parents but not purposely abandoned
TDoT whole-heartedly disagrees with the idea that same sex couples should be allowed to adopt. Non-married couples should not be allowed to adopt. The only true family structure that will embue a child with proper morals, ethics and understanding of natural physiology is an opposite sex, married couple... anything else should be forbidden. Same sex couples should be shot and killed on sight.
Purposely abandoned children should be remanded to the custody of child services and placed in foster homes until such time as a good traditional home can be found or the child has reached age of consent.

-2- Opposite-sex and same-sex couples, regardless of marital status, from other UN countries shall be allowed to adopt children if these couples meet the standards defined by the nation of which the child is initially residing in.
Nations will be permitted to give priority of adoption to a local couple over a non-local couple
Only if the foriegn couples are married and opposite-sex will TDoT agree with this mandate.

URGES that in all nations:
-3- Only nationally accredited adoption organizations can conduct the adoption procedure; and
TDoT agrees with this line item.
-4- Adoptive parents be forbidden to give money to this adoption organizations, to any person working in or related to this association, to the biological parents and to people related to the biological parents; adoptive parents are welcome to donate money to any adoption organizations that they did not use and are not attempting to use to adopt children
The term 'adoption organizations' in the first line should be changed to 'adoptive agency', inferring a reference to the agency from which the child was adopted... the former can be inferred to mean 'any' adoption organization (which is already mentioned later in the same line item). TDoT would like to also have added something forbidding an adoption agency using any donations from adoptive parents to purchase or donate to the original adoptive agency.

ENCOURAGES
-5- Scientific stem cell research in order that, in the future, sterile men and women can have gametes (spermatozoon and ovum) with their own genetic identity, these gametes being harvested from their own stem cells,
TDoT agrees with this line item. This is already a policy in TDoT.

URGES:
-6- All UN Nations to allow IVF, whether the gametes concerned were naturally produced or produced in the way defined in paragraph [5]
TDoT agrees with this line item.

Over all... The Dominion of Tatheniel will vote AGAINST this resolution based purely on the same-sex and non-married couples inclusion. :gundge:

And what of the nations that oppose same sex marriage?

We can't. The Gay Rights law states that same sex marriage is legal, I wasn't around when it passed however.

And which category does this fall under?

Human rights

And why?

Rights of Couples who meet the standards to adopt a child
Rights of sterile couples to have a child by IVF

And how is it being addressed?

what do you mean?

And what of the nations that oppose same sex marriage?

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=11

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #12
Gay Rights

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Strong


Proposed by: Kundu

Description: WHEREAS it has been clearly witnessed there is an outspoken minority who wish to oppress gays.

We, the People's Republic of Kundu and the other peoples of the world wishing for the preservation of freedom and the respect of all hereby resolve that all member nations of the United Nations must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life. We also resolve that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations.

Votes For: 12,705
Votes Against: 7,734

Implemented: Sat May 3 2003

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=80

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #81
Definition of Marriage

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Mild


Proposed by: Vastiva

Description: Description: IN VIEW of the Universal Bill of Human Rights, and the Gay Rights resolution;

The UN HEREBY :

DEFINES marriage as the civil joining of a member of any nation with any other member of any nation, regardless of sex, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, color, or any other characteristic, with the exception of age;

RECOGNIZES age of the individual(s) as a just reason for not recognizing marriage, as per Article One of the Child Protection Act;

FURTHER RECOGNIZES all nation's right to expand this definition beyond species borders as the individual governments see fit.

Votes For: 11,904
Votes Against: 7,473

Implemented: Thu Nov 25 2004

We think that it's important for UN resolutions to be about international security, but also about human rights, social justice or environment

What about the right to self-determination? And what about freedom of religion?

Passing international laws that dictate social policies interferes with a nation's ability to protect its culture and heritage. My people have the right to decide what they consider ethical and "good." That is the basis of the nation state.

Human rights



Rights of Couples who meet the standards to adopt a child
Rights of sterile couples to have a child by IVF






While I agree that the "right to marry and to found a family" is a generally accepted human right, it is not clear me or my people that this intrinsically includes a "right to adopt."

What about the right to self-determination? And what about freedom of religion?


yes, sorry we forgot it as well as others topics in our list, we agree with you and think it's important.
for example, even if our nation didn't yet exist at that time we support the 2 following resolution about right to self-determination:

UN RESOLUTION #4 UN taxation ban
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=3

UN RESOLUTION #110 United Nations Security Act
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=109


We also fully suport:
UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #19 Religious Tolerance
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=18


Passing international laws that dictate social policies interferes with a nation's ability to protect its culture and heritage. My people have the right to decide what they consider ethical and "good." That is the basis of the nation state.

this is a question about limits, borders, grey area between cuture/heritage and human rights
let's take an extreme example:
If a nation social policy, culture and heritage allow a part of its population to be slave, (there are many example in real world history) so what?

I would agree with the proposal, but I have a hard time agreeing with the last statement. If we encouraged stem cell research, so that sterile individuals can have kids with their genetic identity, then we are playing God. It is similar to cloning. We play God when we decide whether we want a boy or a girl, how we want our child to look like, what qualities do we think the child should have, etc.... God made us all unique and he formed us. Who are we to come in and take charge. I am so glad that Jesus is so forgiving and has apape love. I sure wish I had that in my life. :mad:

yes, sorry we forgot it as well as others topics in our list, we agree with you and think it's important.
for example, even if our nation didn't yet exist at that time we support the 2 following resolution about right to self-determination:

UN RESOLUTION #4 UN taxation ban
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=3

UN RESOLUTION #110 United Nations Security Act
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=109




this is a question about limits, borders, grey area between cuture/heritage and human rights
let's take an extreme example:
If a nation social policy, culture and heritage allow a part of its population to be slave, (there are many example in real world history) so what?

Neither of these Resolutions really addresses or protects my nation’s right to self-determination. We have the right to express our values, culture, religion, and even language. In fact, a nation state is DEFINED by those characteristics. Self-determination and sovereignty are separate, if related, issues. My right to sovereignty is predicated on my right to self-determination.

There are certain human rights that have over time been generally accepted to transcend national borders. Those are not, however, clearly defined. It is a purpose of a body like this one to provide a forum for the discussion of such issues.

That said,
1. It is only ONE purpose. The primary purpose of an international body is to regulate relations BETEWEEN and AMONG states, not WITHIN states.
2. No one culture has the moral high ground. There must be overwhelming agreement across all religions, cultures, ethnicities, and nations that a right exists, in order to call "universal." Yes, extreme abuses probably should be prohibited and the helpless protected, but that is a fairly small set.

I would agree with the proposal, but I have a hard time agreeing with the last statement. If we encouraged stem cell research, so that sterile individuals can have kids with their genetic identity, then we are playing God. It is similar to cloning. We play God when we decide whether we want a boy or a girl, how we want our child to look like, what qualities do we think the child should have, etc.... God made us all unique and he formed us. Who are we to come in and take charge. I am so glad that Jesus is so forgiving and has apape love. I sure wish I had that in my life. :mad:

Most christian believers in Love and esterel and in many Nations, don't think that allowing sterile couples to have a child is playing god, they don't see any relation.

yes, sorry we forgot it as well as others topics in our list, we agree with you and think it's important.
for example, even if our nation didn't yet exist at that time we support the 2 following resolution about right to self-determination:

UN RESOLUTION #4 UN taxation ban
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=3

UN RESOLUTION #110 United Nations Security Act
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=109


We also fully suport:
UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #19 Religious Tolerance
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=18

Sure, sure. This offers some protection to member nations. Citizens can't be taxed by the UN - but nations can and the UN can't stop nations from building armies except when then can (read that last line). #19 gives some vague fuzzy feel-good statement about tolerating religions, but this gets stomped on by other resolutions.

On the other hand we have things like resolution #2 (Scientific Freedom) which forces nations to put themselves at economic or security risk by forcing them to share technology. We have #8 (Citizen Rule Required) which dictates what kinds of governments are considered valid, #9 (Keep the World Disease Free!) where the UN is dictating building codes (I’d love to see this one enforced in a third world country), #15 (Protect Historical Sites) which dictates what should be important to a culture, #18 which (like the proposed Solar Panel resolution) dictates what type of technology is best suited to all countries in a blanket statement, #24 (Metric System) which forces countries to count in one specific way (The Machine Spirit prefers binary). . . it goes on like this.

As previously stated - the People of the Machine Spirit do feel for couples who want children as well as children who need families. We simply feel that lines 1 and 5 are a) redundant with respect to other UN resolutions and b) encourages an enviornment that is hostile to respecting nation's soveriegn rights.

This proposal is something I was concerned with when I first read it, having gone through the adoption process myself. These are my concerns and comments:

MANDATES all nations to allow:
-1- Same sex couples and non married couples to adopt children with the same standard that opposite-sex and married couples are held to.
Nations will be permitted to allow Biological Parents to indicate their preference of the adoptive parents' religion, marital status and/or sexual preference before signing their parental rights away. This shall only apply in the case, both the child was willingly given away by parents but not purposely abandoned

In effect, then, open adoption will become the rule in all UN nations. I have no problem with open adoption, as it can be helpful to the child, but remember, this is a process which, in the U.S. at least, is barely thirty years old. Has there been enough time for a proper study of open adoptions v. closed adoptions? Similarly, this does rather stomp over national sovereignty.

URGES that in all nations:
-3- Only nationally accredited adoption organizations can conduct the adoption procedure; and

What if you operate on the federal model, such as in the United States, where adoption agencies are accredited by the state and not the national government?

-4- Adoptive parents be forbidden to give money to this adoption organizations, to any person working in or related to this association, to the biological parents and to people related to the biological parents; adoptive parents are welcome to donate money to any adoption organizations that they did not use and are not attempting to use to adopt children

Stop. An adoption agency does the legwork, prepares the home-study, and steers an adopting couple through the process and it cannot charge fees? Moreover, as adoption is quite expensive, most adoption agencies are non-profit. This resolution would forbid a couple who adopted a child from donating to the charity of their choice.

The primary purpose of an international body is to regulate relations BETEWEEN and AMONG states, not WITHIN states.

Agreed. However, many approved resolutions are to the contrary, and do in fact meddle in internal state affairs.

No one culture has the moral high ground. There must be overwhelming agreement across all religions, cultures, ethnicities, and nations that a right exists, in order to call "universal."

Agreed again. However, it's implied that many UN member nations believe they do in fact have the moral high ground, as evidienced by the passage of resolutions (some of them seemingly contradictory with others) that mandate what nation-states can and cannot do.

Just because it has been done does not mean it should have been done and does not mean we can't try to change things for the better from now on.

but remember, this is a process which, in the U.S. at least, is barely thirty years old. Has there been enough time for a proper study of open adoptions v. closed adoptions?

Caer Rialis, thanks for all your questions, it's very interesting, we will try in this post to answer all of them:

Open adoptions v. closed adoptions, yes, we really tend to prefer open one's, but this is not an easy topic and it's why we prefered not to mention it, we don't think our proposition deal with that, maybe some nation will want to legislate on the UN about it, we don't have the competences to do it.

Similarly, this does rather stomp over national sovereignty.


We don't think so, as for us, this proposition give:
- Rights to Couples who meet the standards to adopt a child
- Rights to sterile couples to have a child by IVF

but we really understand your national soverignty argument, it's a eternel debate, and we think it's better to let UN members decide about it.


What if you operate on the federal model, such as in the United States, where adoption agencies are accredited by the state and not the national government?


In the case your Nation, operate on a federal model, then we sugest, that your federal administration recognize de facto all "state accredited adoption organizations" as "nationally accredited adoption organizations", we think it will be ok, and furthermore we used URGES, not "mandates" or "requires"

Stop. An adoption agency does the legwork, prepares the home-study, and steers an adopting couple through the process and it cannot charge fees? Moreover, as adoption is quite expensive, most adoption agencies are non-profit. This resolution would forbid a couple who adopted a child from donating to the charity of their choice.

we addded the following:
"adoptive parents are welcome to donate money to any adoption organizations that they did not use and are not attempting to use to adopt children"

We were worried about Adoptions that are sometimes a front for the selling of a child for money. We wanted to prevent theses horrible selling, and so maybe we have been a little too far. But, we, again used URGES, not "mandates" or "requires". Maybe we should have let Nations the choice between the sytem described in -4- and the following:

""-4bis- Adoptive parents be forbidden to give more than a national established amount of money to this adoption organizations; and forgiven to give money to any person working in or related to this association, to the biological parents and to people related to the biological parents; adoptive parents are welcome to donate any money they want to any adoption organizations that they did not use and are not attempting to use to adopt children""

After 12 pages of reading nothing but "lefty propaganda" The great Prime Minister of the Capitalist Wing, And King by his own hand Hassan The Chop starts to speak:

My fellow UN members:

You know, if this proposition was presented to me by my subjects, I would approve it...But it was not...It was presented to me by a member of an organization that is supposed to help out people suffering in underdeveloped nations.

If you want to help out suffering babies born to these suffering peoples with the usage of adoption, why not propose something that will encourage levied taxes to those that adopt.

Now if you want to attempt to come into my nation and demand rules on how my government imposes rules on adoption, :upyours:

This is my nation and we are not going to allow anyone to dictate what we can and can not do within our boarders. You obnoxious leftist communist bastards!!!! You are what is wrong with these poor third-world nations in the first place.

I saw the leftys loose in the last resolution, lets see them get another loss by voting against this one.

Thank you

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

Given that over-population should always be a concern, our region can't possibly vote for a resolution that will, in effect promote fertilisation procedures. Why can't sterile folk just adopt? There's certainly enough orphans around the place to go around eh?

I have only checke the first postings and therefore am slightly worried that my topic may have been exhausted, but I will go ahead anyway.
On the topic of the rights of biological parents to dictate how or whom a child should be raised [by]. I believe that their are truly no circumstances where the biological parents have any right over a child given up for adoption beyond naming it. It is the choice of the family who is taking in this life, how it should be raised. Is this not like England saying to revolutionary America, "Here America, you now have to listen to France, except that you have to stay under our laws and pay our taxes." The first thought of any potential reader should be, "NO FAIR!" It isn't, the person taking responsibility of a child has the responsibilty to raise them according to their standards, not following the guidlines set down by a biological parent.
Before you start calling me names, let me say that I understand the necessity for giving up a child for adoption by the parents. And very often it is the hardest yet most noble thing a parent can do for their child, but that doesn't mean they get to dictate the life of the child beyond the sanctuary of their own domain.
Spoon Savers

This is my nation and we are not going to allow anyone to dictate what we can and can not do within our boarders. You obnoxious leftist communist bastards!!!! You are what is wrong with these poor third-world nations in the first place.
Keep thy tongue in check foul person. I happen to be considered a lefty and I voted in favor of the last repeal. All your letter inspired in me was anger towards your own obtuseness. I advise you to go back and reread the proposal and rethink just how much control the UN is proposed to hold over your puny minded governmental fiefdom.
Think twice before you talk.
Spoon Savers

Keep thy tongue in check foul person. I happen to be considered a lefty and I voted in favor of the last repeal. All your letter inspired in me was anger towards your own obtuseness. I advise you to go back and reread the proposal and rethink just how much control the UN is proposed to hold over your puny minded governmental fiefdom.
Think twice before you talk.
Spoon Savers

The UN would be controlling a lot in my opinion, allowing gays to adopt kids is in fringing on national soverenty and is a violation of international law as far as i know. The UN was never created to tell others what they can and can't allow in their nations, aside from protecting others from invasions by said nations. Other then that the UN has, and should not have, no control.

Given that over-population should always be a concern, our region can't possibly vote for a resolution that will, in effect promote fertilisation procedures. Why can't sterile folk just adopt? There's certainly enough orphans around the place to go around eh?

We don't know the exact number, but the number of IVF worldwide is not very high, and our proposition expend adoption rights



On the topic of the rights of biological parents to dictate how or whom a child should be raised [by]. I believe that their are truly no circumstances where the biological parents have any right over a child given up for adoption beyond naming it.

we added the following clause:
"""This shall only apply in the case, both the child was willingly given away by parents but not purposely abandoned "

Greetings

Laietania's position is in accordance with the proposal, so we are going to vote FOR it. We have two strong reasons:

1st. The INTEREST OF CHILD. Childs have the Right to have parents, and this must prevail.

2nd. The BAN OF ALL DISCRIMINATION between couples. The matter is not how they have sex, the matter is they are in love and want to become a family.



Laietania has a VERY STRONG position IN FAVOUR OF the proposal

President Guillem.

Im voting against this issue and if it is passed I will challenge it. Not to be removed, but edited.
As homosexuality is wrong I believe it wrong to let them adopt children which will most likely follow after their homosexual "parents". I just ask that you put in your resolution to make adoption for homosexual and lesbian couples alike illegal in all nations.

Thank you for considering my thoughts. (and the time it took you to read this).

Homosexuality is not wrong is as right and as good as heterosexuality, because it's sexuality.

Thank you esterel for the clarification, however I still feel that, when a parent gives up their child, whether for good or evil, it is the best interest for the child to transfer not only the child itself but also the rights regarding how he/she should be brought up, and that researves no exeptions.

The UN would be controlling a lot in my opinion, allowing gays to adopt kids is in fringing on national soverenty and is a violation of international law as far as i know. The UN was never created to tell others what they can and can't allow in their nations, aside from protecting others from invasions by said nations. Other then that the UN has, and should not have, no control.
I urge you God007, to read perhaps for your first time, the rules and description pertaining to the UN. I admit that I am only human (for the time being) and am prone to error, so I would be much obliged if you would, with all due respect, quote for me where in the text it says the UN is beholden only to protecting its nations from invasions. Nay, the UN was created precisely to impose laws upon it's nations that will improve human quality of life. If you say that gays should not be allowed to adopt, that is your opinion, please state it plainly. :rolleyes:

(I plead that Misidian aquire some extra tact in their postings)

ok, thanks for asking, here are our arguments:

- Some couples who want a child are sterile, we think it's sad, it's why we want to help them to have a child when they desire to have one, with IVF

- but some of these sterile couples don't even produces spermatozoon or ovum (= gametes), so IVF is not yet possible for them

- Some scientist in several nations have began to study and work on the possibility to harvest gametes from stem cells; they don't think this technology will be available in few month, but in few years

- So we think, that IVF from these gametes coud be a great opportunity for these sterile couples to have a child if they desire to have one

This proposition encourages to produce gametes to persons from their own stem cells => these persons will be the biological parents of the children to be born, in the same way as sex or classical IVF


I think that this proposal is an excellent opertunity for the people to better there lives and my country is happy to support it. The point of the UN is to better the living standards of the world and this is perfect chance to improve peoples lives.

It is BECAUSE UN Resolutions have the unfortunate effect of overriding the will of the people, that is it the responsibility of all members of the United Nations to wield their power with discretion.All UN members are equal.

It is the belief of my citizens and indeed all of my allies that international intervention into the governance of a state should be the exception, rather than the rule. The UN should be focused on issues pertaining to international relations, not internal state concerns.I disagree with your opinion. That would severely limit the function of the UN.

If a nation state (or even a region) wishes to enact protections for IVF and adoptions, the UN should neither encourage nor discourage such policy decisions.That is for the majority to decide.

You know, if this proposition was presented to me by my subjects, I would approve it...But it was not...It was presented to me by a member of an organization that is supposed to help out people suffering in underdeveloped nations.1. I call that sour grapes.
2. This resolution has absolutely nothing to do with helping underdeveloped nations.

If you want to help out suffering babies born to these suffering peoples with the usage of adoption, why not propose something that will encourage levied taxes to those that adopt.I'm sure it is a good idea. However we should take one step at a time. Taxes have absolutely nothing to do with civil and social rights.

Now if you want to attempt to come into my nation and demand rules on how my government imposes rules on adoption, :upyours: Those are the UN rules. If you do not like the fact that UN resolutions are enforced in every UN member, then please leave the UN immediately.

This is my nation and we are not going to allow anyone to dictate what we can and can not do within our boarders.Read the FAQ. That is how the UN works. You don't like it. You leave.

I saw the leftys loose in the last resolution, lets see them get another loss by voting against this one.I am a lefty and I won the last resolution. I'll promise not to laugh at you.

Thank youYou're welcome.

After 12 pages of reading nothing but "lefty propaganda" The great Prime Minister of the Capitalist Wing, And King by his own hand Hassan The Chop starts to speak:

My fellow UN members:

You know, if this proposition was presented to me by my subjects, I would approve it...But it was not...It was presented to me by a member of an organization that is supposed to help out people suffering in underdeveloped nations.

If you want to help out suffering babies born to these suffering peoples with the usage of adoption, why not propose something that will encourage levied taxes to those that adopt.

Now if you want to attempt to come into my nation and demand rules on how my government imposes rules on adoption, :upyours:

This is my nation and we are not going to allow anyone to dictate what we can and can not do within our boarders. You obnoxious leftist communist bastards!!!! You are what is wrong with these poor third-world nations in the first place.

I saw the leftys loose in the last resolution, lets see them get another loss by voting against this one.

I was going to vote against this resolution for various reasons, some of which I have already debated while this was a draft, but after reading the above post am now angry enough to change my vote to "yes" just out of pure spite.

If you really want people to vote against and sink this resolution, maybe you should explain why you think they should do so without the insults and (what I consider) flame baiting.

I have been recently reading the forum and dont understand why people are up in arms about this issue. First of all when you joined the UN you knew that you would have to abbide by the resolutions that were past. So if you dont like it then resign from the organization. And further more I have a gay friend who has a son and he and his boyfriend are great parents. Futher more sexually orentation should not be a deciding factor wether or not a person is a suitable parent.

While I agree that the "right to marry and to found a family" is a generally accepted human right, it is not clear me or my people that this intrinsically includes a "right to adopt."

first maybe it's important to say that we prefer a child to be adopted by a couple whe meet the standard than to stay in the orphanage

second, some couples who respect the standard, are sterile and would like to have children, as this can be good for the children....

I think that this UN bill Infringes on Government rights over control of adoption and should be vetoed immediately. It bans we, the governments from not allowing certain people from getting children. What if a murderer or a child molester with previous records were to adopt a child. We would have no say in the matter

I was going to vote against this resolution for various reasons, some of which I have already debated while this was a draft, but after reading the above post am now angry enough to change my vote to "yes" just out of pure spite.

If you really want people to vote against and sink this resolution, maybe you should explain why you think they should do so without the insults and (what I consider) flame baiting.

I full on Agree with Waterana and their ideas, you can't tell us what to do with our people!

I have no objection to some of the components of the resolution, such as allowing IVF or permitting gay couples to adopt, but some of the other provisions are of concern to my country.

"Adoptive parents be forbidden to give money to this adoption organizations, to any person working in or related to this association, to the biological parents and to people related to the biological parents..."

This restriction, while well-intended, will interfere with many surrogacy arrangements. This will make it extremely difficult for gay male couples to have children with surrogate mothers. The male partner who does not provide the sperm usually adopts the child after it is born, and the female surrogate - the biological mother - is generally compensated for medical costs and for the inconvenience of being pregnant for 9 months. If no compensation at all was allowed, the number of women willing to be surrogates - already very small - might drop to levels so low that gay male couples would have difficulty having biological children. This same situation would apply to heterosexual couples where the woman is too old to conceive and carry a child and instead uses a surrogate and her husband's sperm to create a child.

"Nations will be permitted to allow Biological Parents to indicate their preference of the adoptive parents' religion, marital status and/or sexual preference before signing their parental rights away."

Are these categories exclusive, or would couples be permitted to specify other requirements for the family who adopts their child? Many people considering giving up a child for adoption care about the personalities, incomes, living arrangements, attitutdes towards corporal punishment, and many other factors that can affect the upbringing of a child. If biological parents are required to go into the adoption process knowing little about the family that will raise their child, many may be discouraged from giving up their children for adoption and will instead rely on less advantageous informal adoptions to family members or choose to abort their fetuses.

"Opposite-sex and same-sex couples, regardless of marital status, from other UN countries shall be allowed to adopt children if these couples meet the standards defined by the nation of which the child is initially residing in.
Nations will be permitted to give priority of adoption to a local couple over a non-local couple"

Although Iyara does not totally oppose foreign adoptions, it's concerned that couples do not appear to have a choice as to whether their child will be adopted by a foreign family or one from their own country. If biological parents are presumed to care about religion and sexual orientation, why would they not also care about things such as language and culture? Additionally, biological parents may wish to know that their children are located near enough that they may reunite with them after they reach the age of 18. Iyara sees no reason to restrict the rights of biological parents in this way.

I think that this UN bill Infringes on Government rights over control of adoption and should be vetoed immediately. It bans we, the governments from not allowing certain people from getting children. What if a murderer or a child molester with previous records were to adopt a child. We would have no say in the matter
Every single resolution that we vote upon, will override every member nation's government's power to enact laws over whatever issue the resolution is about.

However this resolution still CLEARLY states that every single member nation retains the right to use whatever criteria for adoption clearance it so desires. Your worries are unfounded.

[The Nuncio of the Holy Otaku Church of the Eternal Kawaii to the NSUN slowly walks to the podium, massaging his temples and scowling from the aftereffects of the Drunken Master Ritual and the subsequent Discipline of Holy Hangover. He looks out over the assembled delegates with rather bleary eyes, and begins to speak...]

In The Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised. Ladies, gentlemen, others, assembled representatives and delegates all. We wish to rise upon this occasion to regretfully present Our nation's voice in opposition to this proposal. Before presenting Our argument, however, We beg your collective indulgence and ask for your attention for a brief explanation of Kawaiian family law.

As many of you have no doubt observed, Our nation's culture differs considerably from what (if recent UN resolutions are a guide) is considered the "norm" in the NSUN. One of these ways is in our family structures. Ours is an extremely family-centered culture. Indeed, it would not be too inaccurate to call Our nation a "tribal" society. The extended family of father, mother, grandparents, aunts and uncles, cousins and blood relations all, is a integral part of a Kawaiian's personal identity. It is the cradle from which the Kawaiian child learns and grows, the support network that helps sustain them in adulthood, and the helping hand in their old age.

These bonds of blood extend into the spiritual, as well as the material, world. The spirits of Our family members now departed reside in the arms of the Cute One. As one would ask for aid with those living relatives who are in contact with Power and Influence, Our people ask their ancestors to intercede with the Eternal Kawaii (mtCObp) for Its blessing. Our people honor their ancestors, as is their proper due.

Now as to law--It is the teaching of the HOCEK that the rights of children, being helpless in this world to defend themselves, supercede the rights of adults who can fend for themselves. These rights include the right to a father and a mother, to serve as role models and teachers, a right to a home in which to grow, a right to a family identity, and a right to an ancestry, spiritual relatives that can intercede for the child as he or she learns the way of the Cute One.

To protect these childrens' rights, Kawaiian family law places serious restrictions on prospective parents. We hold it illegal for unmarried couples to raise children, for that would violate the child's right to parentage. In the unfortunate case where a parent or couple cannot raise a child, it is the responsibility of the closest blood relatives to take that child in and raise them as their own. We should note that this is not regarded as adoption, since it takes place within the extended family.

Only in the most tragic of cases, when a child has no known blood relatives, does the HOCEK intervene. It is the settled custom among Our people that in such extreme situations, it is best for the child that he or she be raised as a ward of the Church, rather than placed with strangers and given a false set of ancestors. No dishonor or disrespect is held towards such "children of the Eternal Kawaii". HOCEK teachings state clearly that all are equal before the Cute One, both the orphan and the child of a hunderd generations. Our Conclave of Wisdom prides itself on the quality of care it provides for these wards, and We invite any and all observers to come see for themselves the truth of Our words.

Now, as to the resolution at hand. We point to the following text:

MANDATES all nations to allow:
-1- Same sex couples and non married couples to adopt children with the same standard that opposite-sex and married couples are held to.
Nations will be permitted to allow Biological Parents to indicate their preference of the adoptive parents' religion, marital status and/or sexual preference before signing their parental rights away. This shall only apply in the case, both the child was willingly given away by parents but not purposely abandoned

We regretfully cannot support a resolution such as this, which would overturn Our nation's well-thought out and carefully planned family law. To be blunt, the Holy Otaku Church of the Eternal Kawaii has spent much time, effort and sacrifice to care for Our children. We do not need a UN bureaucrat, ignorant of Our nation's culture, to step in and tell Us how to do Our job, thank you very much.

We thank you for your time, and encourage all of you to consider these words and vote down this well-intended but sadly misguided resolution. May the Cute One be praised.

Thank you for your answers, Love and esterel. I should say that I have adopted a child, so many of the points in your resolution I had to examine closely, having gone through the process.


we addded the following:
"adoptive parents are welcome to donate money to any adoption organizations that they did not use and are not attempting to use to adopt children"

We were worried about Adoptions that are sometimes a front for the selling of a child for money. We wanted to prevent theses horrible selling, and so maybe we have been a little too far. But, we, again used URGES, not "mandates" or "requires". Maybe we should have let Nations the choice between the sytem described in -4- and the following:

""-4bis- Adoptive parents be forbidden to give more than a national established amount of money to this adoption organizations; and forgiven to give money to any person working in or related to this association, to the biological parents and to people related to the biological parents; adoptive parents are welcome to donate any money they want to any adoption organizations that they did not use and are not attempting to use to adopt children""

I undertood why you added part -4-. Selling babies through adoption is sickening, but when the UN urges something, to me, it does seem like this urging will become the standard by which we are all measured. I would prefer your added text in -4bis- with some modifications.

Have you examined the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption?

Greetings

Laietania's position is in accordance with the proposal, so we are going to vote FOR it. We have two strong reasons:

1st. The INTEREST OF CHILD. Childs have the Right to have parents, and this must prevail.

2nd. The BAN OF ALL DISCRIMINATION between couples. The matter is not how they have sex, the matter is they are in love and want to become a family.



Laietania has a VERY STRONG position IN FAVOUR OF the proposal

President Guillem.


That's fine and dandy. But this proposal does nothing to help the children.

This is a mixed bag proposal which makes it harder to adopt children who may desperately need parents. It also involves stem cell research for IVF, which I can't see helping the children who exist now and need help.

Again, if this proposal was meant to help the children, it would do something like make adoption of war orphaned children from another nation much easier. This just makes it harder for that type of scenario.

This just makes it harder for that type of scenario.

it doesn't seems to me, but we would be pleased to hear, where our resolution makes it harder to adoption, thanks

I couldn't agree more Love and esterel, the UN is not just about peace-keeping, but also about everyday problems that no one has a solution to, from there it is put into vote, and teh outcome... well.. vote and you'll find out

Excuse me, but what do you mean "nobody has a solution". Each state is more than capable of determining its own solutions for adoption and IVF issues. There is no reason that this type of issue should be brought before an international body such as the UN. It does not impact international relations. However, it does trample all over national sovereignty.

My fellow UN members: ... against this one.In The Name of the Eternal Kawaii ... May the Cute One be praised.The Federal Republic confers upon the King and the Nuncio the Corporate Medal of Stan Marsh, the highest honor that can be awarded to a non-Kennyan. We admire your spirit and your ardent defense of your own culture and peoples against the UN's presumptuousness on this article, and with regard to national sovereignty, we are in total agreement.

We would also confer the Order upon the ambassador from Love and esterel, whose nation would not let its status as a semi-newbie stop it from authoring two proposals and getting them both to the General Assembly floor -- but we have no idea who the ambassador from Love and esterel is.I was going to vote against this resolution for various reasons, some of which I have already debated while this was a draft, but after reading [City by the Live Sea's] post am now angry enough to change my vote to "yes" just out of pure spite.Voting out of spite. That's constructive.If you really want people to vote against and sink this resolution, maybe you should explain why you think they should do so without the insults and (what I consider) flame baiting.OOC (assuming your words are likewise OOC, which they seem to be): That is just the way City by the Live Sea posts, and he at least has the restraint to post in character. It really isn't a very deal for your fictional nation to feel insulted by the rantings of a fictional character. You should vote a proposal up or down based on its merits; not on the perceived obnoxiousness of a single nation.Those are the UN rules. If you do not like the fact that UN resolutions are enforced in every UN member, then please leave the UN immediately. ... Read the FAQ. That is how the UN works. You don't like it. You leave.We are sick and tired of this argument. You are arguing the UN's supremacy in the case of a resolution which has not passed yet. Members have every right to object to a proposal while it is being debated, and please forgive us if we do not regard "Well, if you don't like it, then leave" a valid reply. (OOC: Just as I do not consider "If you don't like America, then leave" a valid argument, either.)

John Riley
UN Ambassador

All UN members are equal.

I disagree with your opinion. That would severely limit the function of the UN.

That is for the majority to decide.

1) UN members are equal. Therefore no UN member should be in a rush to force its principles on another UN member.

2) That's correct. It would limit the function of the UN to the issues it was established to handle, relations between states.

3) Close. You're just confused about which majority. It is the majority within a state that determines it's internal policies.

I agree with this issue.

Voting out of spite. That's constructive.

OOC (assuming your words are likewise OOC, which they seem to be): That is just the way City by the Live Sea posts, and he at least has the restraint to post in character. It really isn't a very deal for your fictional nation to feel insulted by the rantings of a fictional character. You should vote a proposal up or down based on its merits; not on the perceived obnoxiousness of a single nation.

I haven't voted at all yet and my anger has cooled. I was just trying to get a point across. Whats that old saying...you catch more flies with honey than vinager. I do still plan to vote against as soon as I finish reading the forum and go to the man site.

(OOC)Its well known that the UN has a leftist lean and human rights resolutions have a head start because of that. If a rightist nation wants to sink a human rights resolution then constructive critisism of the resolution and pointing out its flaws and problems will work a lot better to change a swing voters or a leftists mind than insults and flamebaiting. I know full well thats how The City by the Live S posts but this paticular post is worse than any I've seen from him before.

Firstly, I strongly agree with the argument that this is an organization designed specifically for the purpose of governing foreign relations. However, with that in mind, the epitome of foreign relations is national sovereignty. This is not an issue that should be discussed in a body professing its devotion to the cooperation among sovereign states. This issue is divisive and totally inappropriate to the UN.

Secondly, anybody notice that there was NO MENTION of single parents wishing to adopt a child? Why should "acceptable parents" apply only to those in a relationship?

This act is inappropriate and discriminatory against the single parent. We need to vote this down.

While this proposal doesn't sound bad, it does supercede a nation's rights.
Some cultures just plain frown on same-sex couples(ex. 90% of non-western cultures).
You need to remember them.
You should insert a clause that states that adoption law and same-sex couple adoptions cannot supercede cultural beliefs.

Taxes have absolutely nothing to do with civil and social rights.

I am a lefty and I won the last resolution.

Even Marx understood the evils of alienating the worker from the fruits of his labor. For someone to claim to be a lefty and then say that taxation has nothing to do with civil and social rights is misleading at best. Possession is a core human right. Taxation diminishes, and in extreme cases, destroys, that human right.

we have no idea who the ambassador from Love and esterel is.Voting out of spite.
John Riley
UN Ambassador

Thank you for asking

Pazu-Lenny Nero is Minister of Foreign-Affairs of The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel and then, de facto its UN ambassador, as our Constitution states

There are many reasons to vote AGAINST this, among them are:

1. The popularity of IVF hurts a child's chance of getting adopted
2. It is too broad and tries to tackle to many issues at once
3. It presses one groups beliefs on homosexuality, unnatural procreation, and immigration on others.
4. Its not categorized correctly, its has nothing to do with "Human Rights"
5. Last but not least, why? Terioamo wants a committee set up to research this issue and come up with real solutions to the problem of Narcissistic Sciences (fertility treatments) and problems in the world adoption scene.

Please vote against,

I know full well thats how The City by the Live S posts but this paticular post is worse than any I've seen from him before.Funny. I see no difference between this post and all the others. ;)
No offense, Chop.Pazu-Lenny Nero is Minister of Foreign-Affairs of The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel and then, de facto its UN ambassador, as our Constitution statesThen we likewise confer the Corporate Medal of Stan Marsh upon Mr. (?) Nero, for the reasons previously stated.

i totally dont agree with mandate 1, it would allow certain people to discriminate against adoptees and prevent many from adopting.

we likewise confer the Corporate Medal of Stan Marsh upon Mr. (?) Nero, for the reasons previously stated.

Mr Nero is really honoured to receive the Omigodtheykilledkenny "Stanley" distinction. And would be very happy to get a visa and have an "official visit" in the great Nation of Omigodtheykilledkenny.

this seems like a needless topic, or better put, "something we could put aside until more major issues are resolved." Its a nice proposal, for the mos part, but i think we should consider abortions, crime control, and energy crisises first.

i see a lot of debating back and forth about the rights of the biological parents and those of the adoptive ones, but what about the rights of the adopted child?
i'm sure nobody will disagree that in some nations being a child of gay parents or of parents with a certain religious belief may have negative effects on the childs well being while growing up.
this issue is partially covered by letting biological parents have a say, but not for those children who have been abandoned or if the parents make a bad choice.
i do not, however, have a suggestion for how to get around this problem, but it's worth some consideration.

From Halfdane, Ambassador and Chief Cool Guy of HalfDenmark
To the UN forum

Sadly, I find it impossible to vote "yes" for the implementation of this reolution without first seeing it amended, that amendment being the excision of the phrase and concept:

"Nations will be permitted to allow Biological Parents to indicate their preference of the adoptive parents' religion, marital status and/or sexual preference before signing their parental rights away. This shall only apply in the case, both the child was willingly given away by parents but not purposely abandoned "

I find that:
IF the parents were willing to give away thier child BUT they feel strongly enough about their own belief system to impose it on a child that they are hitherto ceding all responsibility for the upbringing and lifelong actions of THEN perhaps they should do it themselves REMEBERING THAT the families that correspond to the adoptive parent's conditions will be bringing up whatever children are freely and equally available to them through the adoptive process in that particular lifestyle anyway.

I mean- what's your rationale for requiring a certain upbringing (beyond of course those accounted for by the adoptive process itself) for the child you're unwilling to raise? "No child of mine is gonna...."

It's not your child- you gave it up for adoption.

Equality means Equality.

Otherwise, it's all good.

-Halfdane

This is just a little post for those who are saying that some revolutions are restricting a nations sovreingity (Sp?). (Think of this as a commercial break :))

The UN, whatever resolution passes (with the exception of a repeal) is going to, in some way or another, big or small, put a restrain on the way the government and it's people do things. Even when guidelined are place in a resolution there's usually something that MUST be done. Every resolution basically is going to stop something or start something the government didn't. So the only way to regain your right is to repeal every resolution which is impractical.

Cheers (We now return to your regularly sheduled program :))

Secondly, anybody notice that there was NO MENTION of single parents wishing to adopt a child? Why should "acceptable parents" apply only to those in a relationship?

This act is inappropriate and discriminatory against the single parent. We need to vote this down.

That's a good point, Montini.

Some cultures just plain frown on same-sex couples(ex. 90% of non-western cultures).
You need to remember them.
You should insert a clause that states that adoption law and same-sex couple adoptions cannot supercede cultural beliefs.

While the Commonwealth of Simonovastan is officially athiest, we do agree that we should keep in mind member states who do profess a belief in a god or gods, or other indigenous customs and traditions, no matter how odd they may seem.

families that correspond to the adoptive parent's conditions will be bringing up whatever children are freely and equally available to them through the adoptive process in that particular lifestyle anyway.

I mean- what's your rationale for requiring a certain upbringing (beyond of course those accounted for by the adoptive process itself) for the child you're unwilling to raise? "No child of mine is gonna...."

It's not your child- you gave it up for adoption.

Simonovastan agrees with the Ambassador of HalfDenmark, as well. He or she brings up a valid point. It is not genetic material or heredity that determines parentage, but which individual(s) are going to actually raise the child.

After carefully studying the proposal, we have come to the conclusion that there is one very big omission in this proposal, as it does not specify what children can be adopted! We believe that it is intended to limit itself to children that - for whatever reason - legally are parentless.
However, the proposal does not say so. Therefore, under articles 1 and 2 anyone anywhere can choose to adopt any child - even if the child's current parents do not want to have the child adopted at all! And - under this proposal - there is no legal possibility to stop such an adoption.

Seeing this, we find that - although unintended - this proposal can have serious negative sideeffects. Therefore we can not vote in favour.

Gert
Principal of the Principality of Gertia

URGES:
-6- All UN Nations to allow IVF, whether the gametes concerned were naturally produced or produced in the way defined in paragraph [5]

i do not agree with this one since the government can interfere in the process,altering the genetic code thus controling the qualities of the country's people creating brilliant minds or mindless assasins :sniper:.And that is a direct violation of the right of choice (and life).

Keep thy tongue in check foul person. I happen to be considered a lefty and I voted in favor of the last repeal. All your letter inspired in me was anger towards your own obtuseness. I advise you to go back and reread the proposal and rethink just how much control the UN is proposed to hold over your puny minded governmental fiefdom.
Think twice before you talk.
Spoon Savers

You, my left wing wacko, are the exact dip I am refering to:

You actually think that you can impose your ideals upon this world, please come over to my country and we can talk about how we can relieve the world of a cancer such as you.

You should of voted against the repeal because it is countries such as yours that are deservent of coup!!!

Anyways leave the world alone with the rules on how to adopt. If you want serial killers to adopt, let them do it in your country. Do not attempt to do it in mine

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

I have been recently reading the forum and dont understand why people are up in arms about this issue. First of all when you joined the UN you knew that you would have to abbide by the resolutions that were past. So if you dont like it then resign from the organization. And further more I have a gay friend who has a son and he and his boyfriend are great parents. Futher more sexually orentation should not be a deciding factor wether or not a person is a suitable parent.

I am here to represent the anti-world dominating left wingers that want to posess the world:

In saying that, I am here to bring order to an out of control UN that has forgotton it's mission to help the poverty, disease -stricken nations with aid, teachings and hopefully to see the beauty of these nations becoming powerful capitalistic societies.

Not to impose rules on how to adopt babies.

In disgust,

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

You, my left wing wacko, are the exact dip I am refering to:

You actually think that you can impose your ideals upon this world, please come over to my country and we can talk about how we can relieve the world of a cancer such as you.

You should of voted against the repeal because it is countries such as yours that are deservent of coup!!!

Anyways leave the world alone with the rules on how to adopt. If you want serial killers to adopt, let them do it in your country. Do not attempt to do it in mine

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

I think you're overdoing it. It's very hypocritical in my mind to be in the UN purely to stop resolutions going through. If you aren't in the UN in the first place it doesn't effect you, so why join to stop all resolutions passing if they wouldn't affect you by not joining.

??
Starcra

As the resolution currently stands I cannot vote for it due to the clause concerning a Birth parents right of adoptive parents.
I'm sure you are all aware of this clause as it has been debated before and although I agree with quite a few of the comments against it I would like to add that Should a parent be willing to put up their child for adoption for whatever reason they forfeit theirs rights as a parent to that child. If they wish to have a choice as to how their child is brought up they should raise them themselves.

We all are for the scentific progress but gay cuples can't adopt childrens!
What they would say in their classrooms to other childrens?
"Hi, i got 2 daddies!"

Come on, God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Bardiel, Sovereign of Metallonia

I'm going to Abstain for now simply because the clause allowing birth parents to decide that certain groups should not be allowed to adopt their child is definatly discriminatory and frankly I am surprsed this has come to vote as it contradicts other existing bills.

Oh and Gay couples should be allowed to adopt so long as they are fit and able to look after a child properly as it would help intergrate society and improve equality particularly in generations after ours.

I'm going to Abstain for now simply because the clause allowing birth parents to decide that certain groups should not be allowed to adopt their child is definatly discriminatory and frankly I am surprsed this has come to vote as it contradicts other existing bills.

Oh and Gay couples should be allowed to adopt so long as they are fit and able to look after a child properly as it would help intergrate society and improve equality particularly in generations after ours.


i disagree - a close friend of mine was adopted by 2 gays (men) and its essentially (censored) his life up.

the IVF segment i agreew ith wholeheartedly, but i dislike the homosexual agenda around the rest of it. vote NO

On the adam and steve comment...The bible is written by humanity and is therefore an inviable source for heavenly truth-so dont quote it as such.

And to the Gay men ruined my life comment...How many straight relationships have seriously ruined childrens lives? Just as many if not more.


We appear to be forgetting that the child's best interest. It is that that we should focus on not that of the birth parent or the potential adopters.

Can someone tell me why half the resolution is written as a suggestion? I'm wondering what exactly the consequences are for voting for this resolution. We can't let a resolution pass that is so unclear.

Also, to clarify, "I'm going to abstain from voting" is the same thing as "I don't like it but I won't stop it." No vote is a vote for the resolution.

We are sick and tired of this argument. You are arguing the UN's supremacy in the case of a resolution which has not passed yet. No I am not. I am asking UN members to leave game mechanics out of a debate over any resolution.

The All-Nude Sultanate of Cans and Jars is appalled at the very introduction of this neutered cat of a resolution, particularly after the thoughtful and enlightened repeal of the chemical weapons ban that now fosters the spirit of Salaam across the member states of the UN.

The Right Most Honorable and Perfectly Cut Sultan registers his disgust with this tabloid spew on the following points:


As children are certainly welcome extensions to the universal right of property, IVF should instead be mandated for all persons capable of childbearing to increase the property base of citizens. A compulsory IVF program would thus prove a useful program for welfare promotion among less-populous states.
As the Utter Unknowable Godhead of Cans and Jars, the Sultan reserves sole right to determine whether or not conception should occur as a result of sin.
The Sultan and Sultanate are one. As such, His Profound Eminence reserves right of first refusal to inseminate anyone within his borders.
The resolution would be unenforceable, as enforcement would violate the sovereign supremacy of the Most Right Honorable and Perfectly Cut Sultan over his worshipful and ecstatic subjects. Our God, the Sultan, and the State are one and ever more shall be, thereby negating need for codified law. Any effort to discern rule beyond the will of the Sultan is clearly in error and merely does not comprehend the manifest magnificent wisdom of the Sultanate.


To restate for enlightenment-developing future subjects:

Children are property of the Sultan and to be conceived at his whim.
The proposal violates prior precedent of religious tolerance.
The proposal violates prior precedent of self-determination.
The proposal violates prior precedent of state sovereignity if enforced.

Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. See you at the polo grounds.

Al-Sultan Akbar,
Malik Al-Milak, HPE Sultan Al-Salaam

1) UN members are equal. Therefore no UN member should be in a rush to force its principles on another UN member.Exactly. That is why we have the vote.

2) That's correct. It would limit the function of the UN to the issues it was established to handle, relations between states.Would you care to point out exactly where this has been established. I'm afraid you are terribly mistaken, when you assume that the UN was created for international relationships only.

The FAQ states: "The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)"

You welcome.

3) Close. You're just confused about which majority. It is the majority within a state that determines it's internal policies.Unless their is a UN resolution that covers that particular legistlation. The UN overrides internal law. These are game mechanics.

Even Marx understood the evils of alienating the worker from the fruits of his labor. For someone to claim to be a lefty and then say that taxation has nothing to do with civil and social rights is misleading at best. Possession is a core human right. Taxation diminishes, and in extreme cases, destroys, that human right.You are talking about social justice and not social and civil rights. I don't believe that by lowering taxes, that minorities will feel they have more social rights. Social rights and civil rights do not work on the economic field but in the social and educational field.

I am here (...) Not to impose rules on how to adopt babies.
This resolution does not impose any rules at all. All it says is that sexual orientation cannot be an issue when disqualifying couples that want to adopt.

This resolution does not impose any rules at all. All it says is that sexual orientation cannot be an issue when disqualifying couples that want to adopt.
But it should be... as leaders, I believe we have the responsibility to set the example for our people, to govern our people and look after our people. It is the leaders responsibility to set the moral tone for their subjects/citizens/populace.

Homosexuality is wrong... period.
Un-married couples is wrong... period.

There should be no debate over this... sexual orientation is a natural law, not a man-made law. And un-married couples is a moral delemna that the children of my country will learn is immoral.

Why in the name of all that is holy would the the United Nations, an organisation primarily created to serve the purpose of creating peace between nations, want to condemn children to a bad start?

Because thats what it is, a bad start. Tests after tests, studies after studies, organisations after organisations have all stated the same. Children are much, much better of in male-female families. Males of normal composition, the way nature intended it. Nature didn't allow for two males to get a children for a reason, its not meant to be that way. Studies show that children living in those families are generally not as happy as in normal families.

Why do you think organisations that come in contact with children each day, all say that samesex adoptions is a bad idea? Because they know, and you should trust their judgement.

This has nothing to do with rights. No one human being has the right to another human being. Adults don't have a right to get a child, its a privilege. Parenthood is a priviliege. Parenthood is about giving your children the best possible future, and its a proven fact that the best possible future is what you get in a nuclear family. A family with a man and a woman marriage.

Vote NO to this resolution, that aims to destroy the future for millions of children in the name of the self-proclaimed "rights" of a few selected groups of people.

But it should be... as leaders, I believe we have the responsibility to set the example for our people, to govern our people and look after our people. It is the leaders responsibility to set the moral tone for their subjects/citizens/populace.I couldn't possibly DISAGREE more. The citizens should be free to choose whatever moral tone they like.

Homosexuality is wrong... period.No it is not.
Un-married couples is wrong... period.No it is not.

There should be no debate over this... sexual orientation is a natural law, not a man-made law. Precisely. That is why homosexual people feel naturally atracted to the same sex. It is not a fabricated attraction. It is what they naturally feel. Just like heterosexual people naturally feel attracted to the opposite sex.

And un-married couples is a moral delemna that the children of my country will learn is immoral.The only moral dilema I detect in your country is it's leadership.

Naturally, like the honored representative from Canada6 so nicely pointed out, two males cannot concieve a child.

Thats the dilemma right there. Its not natural, and there is no way its ever going to be. Because recent scientific discoveries have lead to the possibility to violate nature's laws, is not in itself a reason to do so.

We have discovered the atom bomb, which could destroy the entire planet. But that is no reason for us to destroy the entire planet.

Naturally, like the honored representative from Canada6 so nicely pointed out, two males cannot concieve a child.But they are still naturally attracted to one another. Homosexuality is not wrong, simply because it cannot produce offspring.

Its not natural

Tsunami, earth-quake are natural

wars are almost natural

hospitals and medecine are not natural

the love of a mother for her child is natural

heavy pollution from industry is not natural

=> some naturals things are good, some are bad
=> some not natural things are good, some are bad

This resolution does not impose any rules at all. All it says is that sexual orientation cannot be an issue when disqualifying couples that want to adopt.

Which is already allowed, because in the UN it's forbidden to discriminate on sexual orientation.

In other words, another useless resolution, brought to you by a group of people who'll do anything to scare as many nations away from the UN. This way, I can understand the UN is becomeing less and less popular.

Which is already allowed, because in the UN it's forbidden to discriminate on sexual orientation.

In other words, another useless resolution, brought to you by a group of people who'll do anything to scare as many nations away from the UN. This way, I can understand the UN is becomeing less and less popular.

Groot Gouda, thank you very much for your post.
We are relatively new to the UN, and find your position very interesting
we regret you were not on the Forum for the 12 days we improved it here with the help of many nations.

Several nations in real world allow it (spain, netherlands ..), so it's not new.
but i really understand your concern about nation deciding to leave the UN.
maybe, mandates in -1- was an error, maybe "urges" was more appropriate, i'm sorry about that

we will try in our future proposition, (if it happen to be) to be more "soft".

But they are still naturally attracted to one another. Homosexuality is not wrong, simply because it cannot produce offspring.

I did not state it was wrong in any way. Assaulting nature's laws is what I belive is wrong.

Tsunami, earth-quake are natural

wars are almost natural

hospitals and medecine are not natural

the love of a mother for her child is natural

heavy pollution from industry is not natural

=> some naturals things are good, some are bad
=> some not natural things are good, some are bad

Indeed so. To go further from your example, what if we found a way to complete protect mankind from natural disasters and all sorts of disease.

The result, overpopulation that would impoverish mankind. All nature's responses and actions have a purpose.

Wars are not really natural, no. Wars is something invented by mankind, a weapon to further some individuals or groups at the cost of others. Tsunami's are natural, yes, but many of them are a product of pollution or global-warming and thus not really natural either.

However, I do not wish to engage in a deeper discussion on what good things are natural and what bad things are natural. Let us focus on the issue at hand.

I did not state it was wrong in any way. Assaulting nature's laws is what I belive is wrong.

for you, trying to stop tsunami or volcano lava is wrong?

first maybe it's important to say that we prefer a child to be adopted by a couple whe meet the standard than to stay in the orphanage

second, some couples who respect the standard, are sterile and would like to have children, as this can be good for the children....

This certainly may be a good policy, but does not explain the source of the notion of a "universal human right to adopt." Just because one culture regards something a good thing to do, does not make it a human right.

Originally Posted by Adoration of Me
It is BECAUSE UN Resolutions have the unfortunate effect of overriding the will of the people, that is it the responsibility of all members of the United Nations to wield their power with discretion.

All UN members are equal.

Originally Posted by Adoration of Me
It is the belief of my citizens and indeed all of my allies that international intervention into the governance of a state should be the exception, rather than the rule. The UN should be focused on issues pertaining to international relations, not internal state concerns.

I disagree with your opinion. That would severely limit the function of the UN.

Originally Posted by Adoration of Me
If a nation state (or even a region) wishes to enact protections for IVF and adoptions, the UN should neither encourage nor discourage such policy decisions.

That is for the majority to decide.

1. The relevance of this statement is unclear to Our Government. How does the system of one-state-one-vote mitigate against the power of the UN to override national self-determination?

2. Yes! The "function of the UN" should be limited to international relations and the identification of legitimately UNIVERSAL human rights. Just because the UN has the power to override the will of the people, interfere with their right to self-determination, and abrogate their state sovereignty, doesn't mean it should. With great power, come great responsibility and this body must wield its power with discretion and circumspection.

3. The majority? Of whom? Because the UN is predicated on the state system, each state is given one vote, regardless of its size. This lack of representative democracy is mitigated by the assumption of sovereignty within the states. If there is no state sovereignty and no representative democracy, then the majority is NOT, in fact deciding anything.

This proposal is way too broad as many have pointed out. There is not enough clarity on the adoption clause. Also, this proposal tries to cover several major issues in one fell swoop. This bill should be reorganized and further refined before it should pass.
This bill also forces the singular ideas of several debatable issues onto every member nation of the UN, no matter their personal ideas. This proposal is not ready to receive votes, and i feel that it would be a waste of time to pass, as I am certain that a repeal will soon follow. Let the refinement of this bill be made off of the UN law-book, rather than repeated repeals and reformations that will hinder the UN process of other important issues.

Vote NAY!!!

This is just a little post for those who are saying that some revolutions are restricting a nations sovreingity (Sp?). (Think of this as a commercial break :))

The UN, whatever resolution passes (with the exception of a repeal) is going to, in some way or another, big or small, put a restrain on the way the government and it's people do things. Even when guidelined are place in a resolution there's usually something that MUST be done. Every resolution basically is going to stop something or start something the government didn't. So the only way to regain your right is to repeal every resolution which is impractical.

Cheers (We now return to your regularly sheduled program :))

We are very concerned that We are not speaking clearly.

The issue of national sovereignty is not merely a little aside to be addressed in a commercial break. To both my people and all of my allies the issues of sovereignty and self-determination are at the core of Our objections to this resolution.

There are no bans in my state against gay marriage, adoption, etc. That is not the point (to the Government of Me, at least). What is very disturbing to Us is the moral tyranny that seems to be the accepted status quo in the United Nations.

We do not wish to be rogue and very much look forward to long and productive relations with all of the UN members. BUT. We have an obligation to our citizens to protect their rights.

It is BECAUSE the UN has so much power that it MUST show restraint. Why is this body not more focused on important issues like interstate commerce? We appreciate and respect the values of other nations and merely wish those groups to show Us the same respect and courtesy. Obviously, there are examples of genuinely UNIVESAL moral goods, but those are the exceptions, rather than the rule.

The United Nations is based on a state system. Because this is NOT a representative system, but rather a system of one-state-one-vote, it is critical to protect the rights of the majority within the represented states. Respecting state sovereignty is the only way to ensure the will of the people is law, rather than the tyranny of the elite.

We deeply regret Our failure to express Ourselves more clearly in the past and hope that Our deep concern about this issue is now better understood by our colleagues.

v/r
Me

The Federal Republic confers upon the King and the Nuncio the Corporate Medal of Stan Marsh, the highest honor that can be awarded to a non-Kennyan. We admire your spirit and your ardent defense of your own culture and peoples against the UN's presumptuousness on this article, and with regard to national sovereignty, we are in total agreement.

We extend thanks to Ambassador Riley, and will display our "Stan" proudly in the Nunciate office.

We would like to draw the attention of the assembled delegates and representatives to the esteemed delegate of Itake's comments earlier:

This has nothing to do with rights. No one human being has the right to another human being. Adults don't have a right to get a child, its a privilege. Parenthood is a priviliege. Parenthood is about giving your children the best possible future, and its a proven fact that the best possible future is what you get in a nuclear family. A family with a man and a woman marriage.

These words bear repeating, because they hit the proverbial nail on the head when it comes to the merits, or lack thereof, of this resolution. Quite simply, this resolution is wrong-headed from the start. It focuses entirely on the rights of adoptive parents, rather than of the child being adopted.

If the NSUN is going to express an opinion at all upon this subject (although We argue that such matters are above its competence), then shouldn't it focus its efforts on helping the more vulnerable party here?

I hope this doesn't get passed cause I AM AGAINST same sex marriages. VOTE AGAINST!!!

[list]
As children are certainly welcome extensions to the universal right of property, IVF should instead be mandated for all persons capable of childbearing to increase the property base of citizens. A compulsory IVF program would thus prove a useful program for welfare promotion among less-populous states.

Sultan,

The alpha male of Henle 6 would like to propose a jointly-funded IVF research effort with the primary purpose of developing a compulsory IVF program for the production of genetically enhanced polo players and super soldiers.

Please respond to our consulate in the Henle FishBowl.

Henle 6

Sultan,

The alpha male of Henle 6 would like to propose a jointly-funded IVF research effort with the primary purpose of developing a compulsory IVF program for the production of genetically enhanced polo players and super soldiers.

Please respond to our consulate in the Henle FishBowl.

Henle 6

Alpha Male,

We welcome the opportunity to impose compulsory programs on our less-fortunately-educated population for the greater entertainment of our ruling class in the long and standing traditions of polo and open warfare.

I shall commiserate with other likeminded sort in the Henle FishBowl consulate.

Cheers,
Sultan Al-Salaam

Sultan,

That's great to hear. I'm looking forward to taking some of the load off of the polo ponies.

- Alpha Male

Members of the UN Delegations,

With all due respect to the charming Love and Esterel and the thoughtful Canada6, votes of majority popular will among nation-state administrations do not amount to the moral equivalent of truth.

As they do not, I am sure that leading proponents of the current proposal understand that introduction of such sweeping referenda as the current one on the floor could introduce the risk of reciprocal introduction of equally sweeping proposals that, while perfectly acceptable to a majority of member states, may be severely damaging to their own sovereign way of life that they now enthusiastically foist upon the Assembly.

The Right Most Honorable and Perfectly-Cut Sultan of Cans and Jars suggests that the current proposal's sponsors take into the account the breadth of their mandate and consensus, in particular observing that the broad opposition to the proposal could spark widespread disenfranchisement from the UN due to concerns over sovereignity encroachment, or worse, motivated, organized reaction within the Assembly that could disrupt the business agenda.

Advice respectfully submitted,
Malik Al-Milak Sultan Al-Salaam

Which is already allowed, because in the UN it's forbidden to discriminate on sexual orientation.

In other words, another useless resolution, brought to you by a group of people who'll do anything to scare as many nations away from the UN. This way, I can understand the UN is becomeing less and less popular.The objective is not scare away more and more people from the UN. The natural evolution of the UN is to become a union of tightly knit nations with a favourable attitude towards convergence, since with every single resolution that is passed some nations will feel alienated.

I did not state it was wrong in any way. Assaulting nature's laws is what I belive is wrong.I believe two woman can raise a child. I believe that two men can raise a child. I see nothing in nature that contradicts this.