NationStates Jolt Archive

As head of International Relations for the Sea of Tranquility, the nation of Dathomiri would like this opportunity to direct the attention of Delegates to a new proposal still lacking support. The proposal, "License to Procreate", was conceived and drafted by the Rogue Nation of Gitchee Manitou, our Regional Delegate. If it would be possible for you to find the time to look over said proposal, and if you find it acceptable, please add your support so that it may come to a vote. Please direct questions or comments about the the License to Procreate to the Rogue Nation of Gitchee Manitou.
Thank you for your time and consideration.

The Most Serene Republic of Dathomiri,
Head of International Relations,
Sea of Tranquility

Here it is.
License to Procreate

A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.


Category: Moral Decency


Strength: Strong


Proposed by: Gitchee Manitou

Description: To remove what is considered an inalienable right to procreate, thus making childbirth a privelege.

OBSERVING:

1) The abuse therein to gain financial advantage within charities offered by private and governmental institutions (i.e. Welfare)

2) The overabundant tendency to breed violence from violence, ignorance to ignorance, and thus seeing no logical conclusion for these traits to end naturally.

3) The clear and concise evidence suggesting that certain adults have no means educationallly, financially, morally, responsibly, and show absolute lack of personal accountability when it applies to rearing children.

4) That overpopulation is on the rise, and an action to 'trim the unwanted fat' of our populace is needed, however Darwinistic the applied mandate would seem.

5) That by right, no child should be born into inappropriate living conditions, thus removing the burden of goverment as a 'post-birth' solution, thus negating the need for foster care, etc.

REGULATIONS:

1) The number of children allowed is discerned by the parents ability, and subsequently more children requires higher standards which must be met.

2) That the law include and enable the licensing of both single male and female parents, assuming they meet the criteria.

3) That any child born 'unlicensed' be made a ward of the nation, and handled in the procedure said nation has implemented for itself.

DECLARES:

1) All nations impose sexually responsive inhibitors upon men AND women, both medicinally and educationally, until such time as license is acheived.

2) That requirements for obtaining license follow guidelines issued by UN resolution #'s 7, 9, 12, 14, 19, 20, 22, 25, 51, 69, 80, 88, 89, 91, 99, and 118.

3) That regulation NOT include bylines prohibiting license due to 'political discourse', i.e. UN Resolution #53, insofar as discourse not include 'criminal activity'.

4) That said license be aquired through proper government channels, at a time when the age of adulthood has been met, and;
A) Procedure be implimented at individual nations discretion, maintaining a minimum standard imposed by the UN itself.
B) That once license has been attained, the requirements of license be met throughout the child's life, until they reach adulthood.

5) That trespass upon this mandate be punished by fines and/or castration, again imposed by respected nation and;

6) That the UN body itself shall monitor each nation annually to ensure no abuse of mandate, or else fall within violation of UN policy.

URGES:

1) Nessecary revisions in resolution #53 (Universal Freedom of Choice), and revision/repeal of resolution #61 (Abortion Rights), seeing as said resolution would thus be rendered inane.
And I'm against it.

Is it just me or is this,2) That requirements for obtaining license follow guidelines issued by UN resolution #'s 7, 9, 12, 14, 19, 20, 22, 25, 51, 69, 80, 88, 89, 91, 99, and 118. one of the biggest house of cards violations ever?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Is it just me or is this, one of the biggest house of cards violations ever?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
Yes it is. I was hesitant to even post the text as I'm pretty sure this proposal is illegal. Not to mention its already covered nicely by a daily issue.

Is it just me or is this, one of the biggest house of cards violations ever?

Pretty much.

It's also grossly offensive to basic human liberty. Forced surgery to damage sexual ability AND state control of reproduction in the same proposal!

Our office finds that this proposal is illegal, tyrannical, and anti-sovereignty. As such, we are opposed to it.

Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

4) That overpopulation is on the rise, and an action to 'trim the unwanted fat' of our populace is needed, however Darwinistic the applied mandate would seem.
OOC:
How is that Darwinistic? Darwin wrote about competition over resources determining which individuals survive, traits being inherited and affecting an individual's chance of survival, and all that. You are proposing that population is limited so there is less competition over resources, are you not?
Anyway...

IC:
It would take rather a lot to convince us of the worth of this proposal. What with it being rather a violation of human rights and such, and being a tad authoritarian for our tastes.
Here it is.

And I'm against it.
*the delegate breaks out into song*
Well, I'm against it! I'm against it!
Yeah, I'm against it! I'm against it!
I don't like playing ping pong,
I don't like the Viet Cong.
I don't like Burger King,
I don't like anything!
And I'm against it! I'm against it!
...
*the delegate looks rather sheepish and retreats into the hall*

URGES:

1) Nessecary revisions in resolution #53 (Universal Freedom of Choice), and revision/repeal of resolution #61 (Abortion Rights), seeing as said resolution would thus be rendered inane.
Only the word 'URGES' prevents this from being out-and-out illegal. Even with 'URGES', it's borderline against the Repeals section of Rules for Proposals. I'll get another modly opinion first, but I don't think this'll fly as written.

OOC:
How is that Darwinistic? Darwin wrote about competition over resources determining which individuals survive, traits being inherited and affecting an individual's chance of survival, and all that. You are proposing that population is limited so there is less competition over resources, are you not?
Anyway...

I think the author means to refer to social Darwinism, as practised by the Nazis.

For starters, i am the author of this proposal.

I read the rules for drafting proposals.

you obviously did not take the required amount of time to read , both the proposal, and the rules.

1)if it is something that comes up in a daily issue, how could it be illegal?

2) Darwinistic, as well as Socially Darwinistic. Animals will kill there own off to ensure survival, this is just going about it a bit more civiized.

3) House of Cards violation? By simply stating that the guidelines in which license would be issued should FOLLOW those UN resoulutions is hardly illegal, unless of course that you're saying that the resolutions in of themselves are illegal.

Disagree, that is fine, but don't use ignorance as well as blatant disregard for the text provided to oppose.

come get me.

1)if it is something that comes up in a daily issue, how could it be illegal?Issues and UN proposals have different criteria. Issue coding isn't used in proposals, and the complete UN ruleset doesn't apply to issues. Apples and oranges.
Disagree, that is fine, but don't use ignorance as well as blatant disregard for the text provided to oppose.
As a Game Moderator who assisted in the authoring of the ruleset and who makes rulings daily on the legality of proposals, I hardly consider my opinion one born out of ignorance. I'd appreciate it if your second post didn't take the same condescending tone towards other posters as did your first.

License to Procreate

Because we all know that all pregnancies are fully documented and computerized at all stages from conception and thus can be controlled :rolleyes:

A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.


Category: Moral Decency


Strength: Strong

At least you got this part right

Proposed by: Gitchee Manitou

Description: To remove what is considered an inalienable right to procreate, thus making childbirth a privelege.

OBSERVING:

1) The abuse therein to gain financial advantage within charities offered by private and governmental institutions (i.e. Welfare)

I'd rather the abuse than to leave a deserving man out in the cold. Next

2) The overabundant tendency to breed violence from violence, ignorance to ignorance, and thus seeing no logical conclusion for these traits to end naturally.

Though somehow, we developed an inane sense of logic as a species, ceased our ignorance as a population on the whole, and lessened our level of violence, well, with exception to one RL industrialized nation, but that's besides the point.

3) The clear and concise evidence suggesting that certain adults have no means educationallly, financially, morally, responsibly, and show absolute lack of personal accountability when it applies to rearing children.

And yet, we send children to foster homes in exactly the same condition

4) That overpopulation is on the rise, and an action to 'trim the unwanted fat' of our populace is needed, however Darwinistic the applied mandate would seem.

Are you kidding? The planet is growing faster than the population! Over the past 2 months, the planetary population has, on the whole, dropped - possibly by several billion people! I suppose when you consider the trillions on this planet....

5) That by right, no child should be born into inappropriate living conditions, thus removing the burden of goverment as a 'post-birth' solution, thus negating the need for foster care, etc.

Ah, dominance of the rich in the world of procreation. PANNED. I fully support this so called "burden of government".

REGULATIONS:

1) The number of children allowed is discerned by the parents ability, and subsequently more children requires higher standards which must be met.

Unless of course, you know, we want to set an absolute limit of...well...1

2) That the law include and enable the licensing of both single male and female parents, assuming they meet the criteria.

Well, at least I can agree with this component

3) That any child born 'unlicensed' be made a ward of the nation, and handled in the procedure said nation has implemented for itself.

So, in other words, a post-birth abortion? Woo hoo, humanitarian left and religious right are coming after you now

DECLARES:

1) All nations impose sexually responsive inhibitors upon men AND women, both medicinally and educationally, until such time as license is acheived.

Denied

2) That requirements for obtaining license follow guidelines issued by UN resolution #'s 7, 9, 12, 14, 19, 20, 22, 25, 51, 69, 80, 88, 89, 91, 99, and 118.

Would this be classified under House of Cards? What about future resolutions to consider? I could go on.....

3) That regulation NOT include bylines prohibiting license due to 'political discourse', i.e. UN Resolution #53, insofar as discourse not include 'criminal activity'.

Fine

4) That said license be aquired through proper government channels, at a time when the age of adulthood has been met, and;
A) Procedure be implimented at individual nations discretion, maintaining a minimum standard imposed by the UN itself.
B) That once license has been attained, the requirements of license be met throughout the child's life, until they reach adulthood.

And if they fail to meet these requirements?

5) That trespass upon this mandate be punished by fines and/or castration, again imposed by respected nation and;

6) That the UN body itself shall monitor each nation annually to ensure no abuse of mandate, or else fall within violation of UN policy.

#6 is unnecessary. If they aren't booting UN Gnomes out of their country, it will be enforced 24/365

URGES:

1) Nessecary revisions in resolution #53 (Universal Freedom of Choice), and revision/repeal of resolution #61 (Abortion Rights), seeing as said resolution would thus be rendered inane.

If revisions are necessary in those resolutions for a contradiction with this resolution, this resolution is automatically illegal. You must first remove the contradiction from those resolutions (or your own), or you must give up. I also note that no ammendments can be made, you must repeal and replace if you wish to revise a resolution

Oh, and if you didn't get the hint, I strongly oppose

3) House of Cards violation? By simply stating that the guidelines in which license would be issued should FOLLOW those UN resoulutions is hardly illegal, unless of course that you're saying that the resolutions in of themselves are illegal.You do realize that should all those resolutions listed be repealed (and yes I do realize that this is extremly unlikely) then your resolution would have no guidelines left and as such could be interperted as needing those resolutions to exist in order for it to function, therefore constituting a housd of cards violation.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Description: To remove what is considered an inalienable right to procreate, thus making childbirth a privelege.

I guess this one doesn't apply to me as I don't procreate buy childbirth.. and you forgot to read and include resolution 56 which gives me rights.... Also I want to exercise Resolution 36 Here....

*the delegate breaks out into song*
Well, I'm against it! I'm against it!
Yeah, I'm against it! I'm against it!
I don't like playing ping pong,
I don't like the Viet Cong.
I don't like Burger King,
I don't like anything!
And I'm against it! I'm against it!
...
*the delegate looks rather sheepish and retreats into the hall*

YES! YES! YES! The UN needs Ramones music on the P.A.!

Legal or illegal, I have a one word response to the entire concept, on second thoughts make that 5 words. No, no and no again.

The whole idea is so intrusive and downright oppressive that I just can't get the right words out to describe how disgusted I am at it. I can't even give you any advice to improve this proposal because the whole thing is just so.......wrong.

Official Kriovalian response:

Krioval declines to support this proposal.

Unofficial response:

WTF, ya know?!

Unlike in many similar cases when there has been a 2-1 split, the Triumvirs of Enn are united in saying that they will never support any proposal of this kind.

The proposal, "License to Procreate ---- Please direct questions or comments about the the License to Procreate to the Rogue Nation of Gitchee Manitou. ----- an inalienable right to procreate


Honorable Member,

I would like to know from you where you found that any UN member nation has an Inalienable Right to Procreate. As have read over current resolutions and not seen it granter under any of them... Perhaps because age has made me poor to view and slow to read, but I've looked them over many times and not seen this.

Also how do you define 'procreation' and by what method do you 'procreate'.. As have seen in this world many form of what others call 'procreation but to me it means little, or I just don't understand the process..

My nation has considered joining the UN and is interested in proposals of this nature that we may come to support if the proposal is clear to us. As we have come to read many that we don't support but find it possible here.

George Warden,
Minister of Health Garne

*points and laughs t the representative from Neo-Anarchists, reads the proposal and points and laughs at tthe author* ummm our official responce is that the Empire of Tajiri_san shall not back this proposal.

okay.

i have to admit, i'm shaking my head abut this one. It seems clear to me, but apparently not to you, that to say a resolution FOLLOW guidelines already in place DOES NOT claim a need for revision of resolutions in place.

You do realize that should all those resolutions listed be repealed (and yes I do realize that this is extremly unlikely) then your resolution would have no guidelines left and as such could be interperted as needing those resolutions to exist in order for it to function, therefore constituting a housd of cards violation.
Bob Flibble
UN Rep.


I AM NOT STATING THAT I WANT TO REVISE OR REPEAL ANYTHING!

phew.

so, i will now state that i feel that in the nature of this game, i am not taking my actual views in the matter. i do not actually think handing out licenses to breed is even an option for me, or any country.

this idea was taken from how i understand law in China to be, though to a more severe degree.

i thought it would be interesting to see how it would fly, especially after reading grueling proposal after proposal about getting rid of some threat or another, and seeing as there are plenty of mean peoples in the game would seem to really care less if you save a dolphin in this electronic world here.

though i haven't played this very long, i was truned onto it by people who have. i've already seen daily issues on the board that go to proposal, so i figured why not try and take another.

if nessecary , i will revise the proposal and repost, and i'll even thread it here, so you can rip even more on me, misuderstand the meaning, and give even more kneejerk opinons and criticisms.

and to the mod who told me to take a 'less condescending tone', not to sound like i'm starting a fight, but it is clear that i am not the only person in this board to have a tone similar to my own.

sorry, but i forgot to include my sarcasm tags...

and furthermore, the use of the word 'procreate' is using a biblical definition, meaning that the term imply by action the desire to impregnate.

it sounded silly to entitle the proposal 'license to impregnate/breed', etc.

scoff scoff.

i do appreciate the song. it was clever. i found myself trying to make a tune to fit.

okay.

i have to admit, i'm shaking my head abut this one. It seems clear to me, but apparently not to you, that to say a resolution FOLLOW guidelines already in place DOES NOT claim a need for revision of resolutions in place.



I AM NOT STATING THAT I WANT TO REVISE OR REPEAL ANYTHING!
I'm not saying you want to repeal of revise anything either, I'm saying that should those resolutions your proposal takes it's guidelines from be repealed, your resolution would be left with no guidelines to follow, which is why I feel that it is a house of cards violation.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

ahhhhhh...........

see, now that makes sense.

so are you saying that if omitted that line, this would make the proposal legit?

Legit...probably (I still am unsure about the recommends repeal of....), but regardless, it is a snowball, welcome to hell.

so are you saying that if omitted that line, this would make the proposal legit?
That line, and the one about suggested repeals and amendments elsewhere. You're welcome to bring up those points in the argument thread, but they don't belong in the body of the proposal itself. Proposed repeals MUST be introduced using the Repeals process, not the Proposal process.

Also, your point about condescenion is noted. The difference is that they attacked the idea, while you attacked the posters, calling them out for 'ignorance' and 'failing to read'. The first is legal and proper, the second is 'ad-hominem' flaming.

We should note that under HOCEK family law, prospective couples and their respective families are expected to demonstrate a commitment to fitly raise any children born of the proposed union. Noncommitant unions and single parenthood are illegal in Our nation. This is done to protect the rights of the resulting children to a proper family structure in which to grown and develop.

That said, We find the notion of a "license" to procreate an appalling violation of the right of families and couples to fulfill the purpose of their union upon their own terms. We find it further appalling that a kind of financial test is demanded to determine the number of children a couple may have, as if the true test of a loving family is how much money they make. We therefore request that this proposal be withdrawn.

and furthermore, the use of the word 'procreate' is using a biblical definition, meaning that the term imply by action the desire to impregnate..


To just say procreate and not indicate how it's done is leaving it open to understand... As there are many nations in NS and each has it's on Bible.. Some don't even have anything in them on this procreation issue.. Others have a different definition so it is only fair to ask what you mean by procreation...

My nation are clones we don't breed in the same sense that your definition might cover...


Zarta Warden
UN Ambassador Zeldon

pro·cre·ate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prkr-t)
v. pro·cre·at·ed, pro·cre·at·ing, pro·cre·ates
v. tr.
To beget and conceive (offspring).
To produce or create; originate.

v. intr.
To beget and conceive offspring; reproduce.


Honestly, I think Procreate will suffice. Certainly it is the faster of the definitions to recall.

and furthermore, the use of the word 'procreate' is using a biblical definition, meaning that the term imply by action the desire to impregnate..


Honestly, I think Procreate will suffice. Certainly it is the faster of the definitions to recall.


Thank you for a Dictionary Definition of Procreate but the individual used a Biblical Definition... they do not always carry common meanings.. Based on a number of thoughts around who wrote them... Also since they are using a Biblical Definition over a more open Dictionary Definition would it not be forcing a religious idea therefore which one... Rather than a general idea from a Dictionary Definition that most might use while not excepting the Biblical Definition.

seriouly man.

you're just being difficult.

you know what i meant, and if i wanted it religious, i would've said it was religious.

you know what i meant, and if i wanted it religious, i would've said it was religious.


I believe it is you who have already made the religious...

Definitions: Biblical
Biblical Adjective
1. Of or pertaining to or contained in or in accordance with the Bible; "biblical names"; "biblical hebrew".
2. In keeping with the nature of the Bible or its times or people; "biblical styles in writing"; "a beard of biblical proportions"; "biblical costumes".

garnilorn, where in GA are you from?

Warner Robbins perhaps? because i never said it was a religious thing i was putting out there, but using more of a biblical definition.

learn how to read and stop giving your idiotic knee-jerk criticisms.

We should note that under HOCEK family law, prospective couples and their respective families are expected to demonstrate a commitment to fitly raise any children born of the proposed union. Noncommitant unions and single parenthood are illegal in Our nation. This is done to protect the rights of the resulting children to a proper family structure in which to grown and develop.

That said, We find the notion of a "license" to procreate an appalling violation of the right of families and couples to fulfill the purpose of their union upon their own terms. We find it further appalling that a kind of financial test is demanded to determine the number of children a couple may have, as if the true test of a loving family is how much money they make. We therefore request that this proposal be withdrawn.



This is why we feel one needs a clear definition of procreate as each nation is going to define it if you do not clearly do so... To simply imply it's Biblical or from a Dictionary leaves it open... As there to my knowledge has not been any Resolution passed that says the UN gets it's definitions only from noted source. Thus since each member nation writes their Dictionary and Bibles they put their own definitions in them. We need a clear definition of procreation as intended in your porposal.

garnilorn, where in GA are you from?

Warner Robbins perhaps? because i never said it was a religious thing i was putting out there, but using more of a biblical definition.

learn how to read and stop giving your idiotic knee-jerk criticisms.
*Dons flame retardant suit*

It sounded to me, too, like you were making some sort of a religious connection. All you have to do is explain what you really meant (preferably in more than a line or two) and try to clear up any misunderstanding. Insulting another poster's (in fact a whole city's) ability to read probably isn't going to win you a whole lot of fans on the forums, including among the mods.

What a, if you'll pardon my bluntness, stupid, knee-jerk, reactionary, intrusive, crude and violating resolution. This will simply alienate society from government and lead to a generation of emotionally damaged children.

And regardless of what you say Gitchee Manitou, you clearly have included religious references to support your cause.

The blessings of our otters are not upon you, for shame.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.