NationStates Jolt Archive

Rights of Adoptee's Parents

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights

Strength: Mild

Description:
NOTING that some pregnancies are not on purpose, and may result in unwanted children.

OBSERVING that unwanted children tend to be abused, beaten, and otherwise deprived of a good life.

NOTING that adoption is a method of removing said unwanted children, which does not involve killing the baby before birth, a prosess which has created a large debate.

NOTING that in some areas, when a parent gives their child up for adoption, they are not allowed to keep their identities secret from the adoptee, allowing him or her to track down the parent later on. The parent many times would like to forget about the child as much as possible,and persue a "normal" life.

OBSERVING that this may deter some parents from giving their children up for adoption.

MANDATING that all parents who give their children up for adoption be given the choice to hide their identities from their child. They may also choose to have their names given, but have them be given with a request not to seek the parents. For couples, if one person wants to keep themself secret, they may do so without consent of the other person.

MANDATING that this choice is not to be affected by the government in ways including notices promoting one of the choises and prosecution for choosing one of the choises.

MANDATING that no person is to breach the privacy, should the parents decide to keep their identities secret, with the sole exception of the person hiding the identity.

So what does every one think?

Oh, and voting ends Sept. 2.
I'm a little late on the campaigning. :rolleyes:

Ok, first off, it's usually a good idea to post draft here first, before you submit. That helps close up loopholes that you may not have noticed. But anyway...

Description:
NOTING that some pregnancies are not on purpose, and may result in unwanted children.

Hmm... maybe "...pregnancies are not on purpose or wanted..." I know it risks sounding redundant, but it seems to cover more in my opinion.

OBSERVING that unwanted children tend to be abused, beaten, and otherwise deprived of a good life.

Ok.

NOTING that adoption is a method of removing said unwanted children, which does not involve killing the baby before birth, a process which has created a large debate.

Need to fix that spelling.

NOTING that in some areas, when a parent gives their child up for adoption, they are not allowed to keep their identities secret from the adoptee, allowing him or her to track down the parent later on. The parent many times would like to forget about the child as much as possible, and persue a "normal" life.

Add a space between those two words. You may also want to use a different operating word - you just used "NOTING" in the last one, and it's a bit repetative. If you really can't think of anything else (check the stickies - there's a whole list somewhere), then use "NOTING FURTHER".

OBSERVING that this may deter some parents from giving their children up for adoption.

MANDATING that all parents who give their children up for adoption be given the choice to hide their identities from their child. They may also choose to have their names given, but have them be given with a request not to seek the parents. For couples, if one person wants to keep themself secret, they may do so without consent of the other person.

Sounds good. But the same thing with that first clause - you've used OBSERVING before.

MANDATING that this choice is not to be affected by the government in ways including notices promoting one of the choices and prosecution for choosing one of the choices.

Same thing with the operating word. Use something else.

And again, check spelling.

MANDATING that no person is to breach the privacy, should the parents decide to keep their identities secret, with the sole exception of the person hiding the identity.

Um... doesn't this clause kind of ruin the whole proposal? If the person keeping the identites secret blabs, then suddenly the parents can be tracked down. Or am I somehow misunderstanding this?

Good idea, but still needs some tuning up.

Okay, I'll redraft it tonight, put it up for review, and then propose it again.

A page I use for new and different operative clauses is here (http://csuna.netfirms.com/reference/resolutions.htm) Its a site for a mock United Nations in Toronto, which also explains how to write real UN proposals here (http://csuna.netfirms.com/reference/sample.htm) The last link send you to an attachment to view. Some of the information doesn't apply to NSUN resolution, but it does help in organizing your proposal.

Hope this helps.

You really should include provisions for a mandatory medical history of the birth parents. They may want to keep their identities secret but they should at the very least provide the adoptees the pertinent medical histories of each birth parent, so that the adoptees have a chance to safe guard the life of the child they are adopting.

doesn't this detract from the adopted child's rights?

I mean, doesnt everyone deserve to know their genealogy? I could be alone with this, but I wouldnt appreciate not knowing anything about my family.

Also, what if a relative such as grandparent sought out the adobted child? Would that be legal?

Obviously medical records of the parents would be needed no matter what...


Now Im wondering about adoption laws in my own country....

I agree with THAPOB

choices and prosecution for choosing one of the choices.
Same thing with the operating word. Use something else.
Actually, I believe the use of the word 'choices' twice is appropriate in this case. It is comparing what should not be done regarding the various choices available.

I completely agree with Bolshikstan. A medical history should be required without question. There is important information regarding the history of family illness that both the child and adoptive parent(s) deserve to know. The concerns raised by THAPOAB are of equal importance also.