NationStates Jolt Archive

Accessible Family Planning
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Mild

Description: Concerned that staggering population growth could pose serious economic problems, especially in developing nations;

Convinced that sensible family-planning policies are essential for controlling national birthrates, preventing unmanageable population increases, and ensuring the health and well-being of young families;

Acknowledging that low-income families may lack access to effective birth-control products or information on family planning services, and that lack of such products, information or services may result in greater poverty levels as low-income families continue to produce children they cannot afford;

Observant that member nations may restrict or outlaw access to certain birth-control methods that may help families prevent unwanted pregnancies;

Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, a Family Planning Service as a program to regulate the number and spacing of children in a family.

This Assembly hereby declares its commitment to supporting family-planning programs in member nations by enacting the following:

The United Nations;

1. Affirms the right of individuals to access information regarding family-planning services and birth-control methods, and to leave their home nations freely to obtain such services that are outlawed domestically;

2. Strongly urges member states to lend support to domestic agencies and programs providing information and services for family planning;

3. Encourages nations to permit aid disbursements to be used for the development of such services;

4. Strongly encourages member states to establish programs helping low-income families obtain legal family-planning services that are beyond their financial means;

5. Requests that nations provide incentives to domestic companies, agencies and programs to supply discounts and financial assistance for low-income families seeking family-planning services.

Suggestions and comments welcome.

We in New Manth enthusiastically support this proposal. Unemployed people cause a problem for the whole state. We are always looking for good ways to cull the numbers of the poor and keep them firmly under control. Whether it's by nipping the problem 'in the bud', as this proposal does by encouraging them never to have kids at all, or by after-the-fact solutions such as exposure of the young or mass deportation, we believe that controlling the population of the lower class is absolutely vital to ALL nation-states and will happily support any proposal which helps to do so. Bravo sir!

Ambassador Mattan tips his hat to the representative from Karmicaria.

With respect,
Halys Mattan III, acting UN Ambassador
Dominion of New Manth

My government has directed me to make the following statement
The Supremely Democratic States of Hirota wish to congratulate The Spankingly Delicious Harem of Karmicaria for bringing this matter to the floor. Hirota’s policy on this matter has been to view this as an element of a fundamental right – that of Morphological freedom. Since Hirota has always held a policy of promoting personal freedoms to the fullest extent possible, family planning has been generally free for all Hirotans for the last 50 years.
Karmicaria has presented an argument on mainly economic grounds, which we applaud and note as perfectly genuine reasons to support this policy. However, we would enquire if it is possible for the government of Karmicaria to consider adding recognition of bodily self-determination/Morphological freedom.
In no way does this request have any conditions set upon it, and Hirota will be applying encouragement to our regional delegate to endorse this proposal irrespective of the response by your government.

Thank you for your time.

We would endorse the statement read by Ambassador Kildarno. We have one small query which we suspect would colour the thinking of a great many nations: is abortion to be considered a family-planning practice or birth control method for the purpose of this resolution? We would strongly hope not, since we have no desire to see the waters of this excellent proposal muddied by arguments over that side-issue.

My government feels quite strongly that this topic is not "international" enough in nature -- because the decisions of any one national government on such matters would normally have no direct effects on any other nation -- for any UN resolution on it, except perhaps one expressing no more than mild encouragement, to be justifiable. They have also asked me to point out that people living in UN member-nations already have the right that this proposal "affirms" in its clause #1, as a part of Resolution #198 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12412273&postcount=199)... and "yes", before any of you raises the point, I do realise that that resolution is about permanent emigration rather than just taking trips abroad to do things that would be illegal back home: My government is of the opinion that if any of our people aren't willing to comply with our nation's laws, and go abroad in order to get around them, then they shouldn't expect to be allowed to return to our territories afterwards unless they're willing to face trial for those actions...

Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the UN
for
the Protectorate of the St Edmundan Antarctic
(and still required to wear this blasted penguin costume...)

We have one small query which we suspect would colour the thinking of a great many nations: is abortion to be considered a family-planning practice or birth control method for the purpose of this resolution? We would strongly hope not, since we have no desire to see the waters of this excellent proposal muddied by arguments over that side-issue.

No, abortion itself would not be considered a family-planning practice or birth-control method. Providing information on the subject would be the service.

is abortion to be considered a family-planning practice or birth control method for the purpose of this resolution? I can't see how it could come under those auspices on a global scale whilst ALC is still in place.My government is of the opinion that if any of our people aren't willing to comply with our nation's laws, and go abroad in order to get around them, then they shouldn't expect to be allowed to return to our territories afterwards unless they're willing to face trial for those actions...I would suspect that co-operation (or lack of co-operation) from other nations might make prosecutions difficult at best. Let me try explaining that again...if you went to a nation and asked them "did person X do this, because we are putting them on trial." I would not expect most nations to help you punish someone for a crime which they do not view as a crime. So then you'd have to rely on other testimony, such as someone following every single one of your residents whenever they leave the country. Sounds pretty expensive to me. <shrugs>

I can't see how it could come under those auspices on a global scale whilst ALC is still in place.

Try reading the ALC again.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Try reading the ALC again.I did; would you explain where you feel my reasoning is faulty?

I'll explain my reasoning further to help. ALC basically grants nation states the right to decide - so global legislation is illegal? Assuming that to be the case (and recognising the experience of Karmicaria in both the UN in general and resolution writing specifically), I'd guess the author had no intention to legislate on abortion?

In any case, if we assume that in some nations abortion is going to be legal, (and naturally some places where it will not), then the role of a family planning clinic is impossible to describe within any legislation in detail, and what family planning clinics can or cannot do beyond provide advice and education?

That's how I see it - if you disagree I'd welcome your reasoning.

Having access to information about abortion is quite a bit different from actually having access to abortion itself. You can still ban abortions in your nation. This proposal would only make access to information about abortion accessible, much as many nations ban certain narcotics, for instance, while information about them is still accessible. There's a huge difference between information and action.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I would suspect that co-operation (or lack of co-operation) from other nations might make prosecutions difficult at best. Let me try explaining that again...if you went to a nation and asked them "did person X do this, because we are putting them on trial." I would not expect most nations to help you punish someone for a crime which they do not view as a crime. So then you'd have to rely on other testimony, such as someone following every single one of your residents whenever they leave the country. Sounds pretty expensive to me. <shrugs>

We aren't by any means a police state, and trials for offences committted abroad would normally only occur if significant evidence was actually brought to our legal system's attention by somebody.
In the case of 'family planning', in fact, we don't actually have many limits, just some restrictions on the use of abortion for that purpose (which might be noticed by somebody if an offender went abroad while pregnant but then returned neither pregnant nor with a baby), bans on the use of un-tested methods (except in properly conducted clinical trials) and on some methods that have proven to involve significant health risks (whose use might well be spotted if the offender had to seek medical help because of side-effects),, and a ban on certain methods involving "unwholesome" aspects of the subtle arts (which we do have ways of spotting...): Our objection to the proposal was mainly to show that we are consistent in our support for the principle of National Sovereignty, not because of any serious problems that complying with its terms would involve...

Adolf Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the UN
for
the Protectorate of the St Edmundan Antarctic
(and still required to wear this blasted penguin costume...)

To clarify a few things. This didn't start off as my proposal. I merely picked it up after the original author abandoned it (with permission, of course).

It had been reworded and reworked where possible.

No, it doesn't make abortion legal or illegal. As was pointed out, it makes information about abortion accessible. That's it. It is also attempting to make access to contraceptives (both male and female) accessible, mostly to poverty stricken families. Also, the services would include such things as tubal ligation for women and vasectomies for men.

Having access to information about abortion is quite a bit different from actually having access to abortion itself. You can still ban abortions in your nation. This proposal would only make access to information about abortion accessible, much as many nations ban certain narcotics, for instance, while information about them is still accessible. There's a huge difference between information and action.Clearly we are talking about two different areas then.;)

Hopefully we can move on, without the spectre of abortion hijacking this discussion once more.

Clearly we are talking about two different areas then.;)

Hopefully we can move on, without the spectre of abortion hijacking this discussion once more.


You're the one who threw the abortion card by bringing up the ALC...

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Let me try explaining that again...if you went to a nation and asked them "did person X do this, because we are putting them on trial." I would not expect most nations to help you punish someone for a crime which they do not view as a crime.

Warning: The following comments are off topic from the discussion at hand.

The Dominion of Kivisto is fairly strict with enforcement of the law, and we take a dim view to those who would come to Kivisto to do something that is against the law in their home nation. Should a foreign government come to us and request information about the activities of one of their citizens as it regards things illegal in their nation, we would be inclined to cooperate. We might question the jurisdictional issues that should arise over it, as the activities occured outside of that nation's legal boundaries, but we don't enjoy the idea of standing in the way of another government enforcing their own laws.

Should this person wish to move to Kivisto and become a full citizen, that becomes an entirely different matter. Then it is a foreign government asking for information about the activities of a Kivistan on Kivistan soil. Such a request is liable to be met with reticence where it isn't met with outright mockery.

Sorry, Karmi. I'll keep any further comments on topic as much as possible.

On that note, we rather enjoy how this is developing. There may be one or two things to still be hammered out, but I can't quite put my finger on them at the moment.

Because an endorsement of family planning might very well significantly offend the religious beliefs of the citizens of many UN nations, and also because this is an issue that should be delt with domestically, the Ambassador from Androssia strongly opposes this resolution and hopes that it will never make it to quorum.

Because an endorsement of family planning might very well significantly offend the religious beliefs of the citizens of many UN nations,

Then those citizens need not seek out said family planning information. That's simple enough.

and also because this is an issue that should be delt with domestically,

On a domestic basis, the only mandate in this is that you make information available. The ability of individuals to travel to other nations is already covered by a previously passed resolution; Emigration Rights.

the Ambassador from Androssia strongly opposes this resolution and hopes that it will never make it to quorum.

Strong opposition to an incredibly mild proposal. Somewhat overly dramatic, I should say.

Warning: The following comments are off topic from the discussion at hand.

The Dominion of Kivisto is fairly strict with enforcement of the law, and we take a dim view to those who would come to Kivisto to do something that is against the law in their home nation. Should a foreign government come to us and request information about the activities of one of their citizens as it regards things illegal in their nation, we would be inclined to cooperate. We might question the jurisdictional issues that should arise over it, as the activities occured outside of that nation's legal boundaries, but we don't enjoy the idea of standing in the way of another government enforcing their own laws.

Should this person wish to move to Kivisto and become a full citizen, that becomes an entirely different matter. Then it is a foreign government asking for information about the activities of a Kivistan on Kivistan soil. Such a request is liable to be met with reticence where it isn't met with outright mockery..


"I must agree with my fellow ambassador here, this resolution almost seemes to be encouraging people to migrate and break the law, of the land of which they are legal citizens which in turn can lead to trials should they return. This can have drastic effects on economy of individual nations and families, shows utter disrepect for legal jurisdiction. While Aqua Anu allows for safe birth control methods in our country, we do not allow abortion which of course I realize is not coverd by this, doing so could be fairly contradicting to a previous resolution, but that is another note. Aqua Anu is crowded enough, we don't need gypsie pacts comming to get their 7 minutes in heaven."

Mild laughter from the other delegates

"We are too woried this will have more repercutions and do more harm than good, as such we will have to take an opposition stance or an abstantion stance."

Then those citizens need not seek out said family planning information. That's simple enough.



On a domestic basis, the only mandate in this is that you make information available. The ability of individuals to travel to other nations is already covered by a previously passed resolution; Emigration Rights.



Strong opposition to an incredibly mild proposal. Somewhat overly dramatic, I should say.

What if those forced to distribute the information find it offensive and in violation of their conscience? What if an entire national mood finds this information offensive? There are theocracies in the UN.

Mandating what information a nation's medical system must provide, regardless of national feeling and conscience, is a gross violation of national sovereignty.

We shall continue in our strong opposition.

Mandating what information a nation's medical system must provide, regardless of national feeling and conscience, is a gross violation of national sovereignty.
Interesting then that both Karmicaria and the original author are NSO members then.

What if those forced to distribute the information find it offensive and in violation of their conscience? What if an entire national mood finds this information offensive? There are theocracies in the UN.

What if everyone in that nation had no genitals? What if that nation was composed of a single gigantic space monkey?

In the UN, you take the good with the bad. If they don't like the idea of spreading information about family planning, they can just leave the UN.

Mandating what information a nation's medical system must provide, regardless of national feeling and conscience, is a gross violation of national sovereignty.


No it's not. It does not mandate that information must be provided, it mandates that the information must be made available. There is a difference. There won't be people handing out pamphlets about abortion or the pill, but there will be pamphlets there. That's the whole point.

Rang Erman
Advisor

The Dominion of Dagnus Reardinius is not in favor of this proposal. In the Dominion, should such services and/or information to be made available, it would be by a private enterprise with the aim of making money. If the poor cannot learn without the aid of the Central Institution, they will multiple, and they will rot. That is of no fault of the government or those around them even if these bodies have the facilities to give such information to the poor.

If one would disagree with the Dominion, consider this: This issue is most likely not the only one you would stand against us on. The Dominion does not provide social welfare, we do not extend a hand to the poor (nor the wealthy), and income tax is viewed as a despicable piece of rubbish--those that gain, gain by earning it, and what they earn, they keep. That is the nature of the Dominion, and undoubtedly, many oppose our policies.

However, the Dominion is not so foolish as to completely reject possible changes to our policy in specific instances. Regardless, we resent the words of this proposal, and will certainly vote against should it ever reach that stage.

The Dominion

Interesting then that both Karmicaria and the original author are NSO members then.

Ain't it though? It's a crying shame when people think and act for themselves instead of touting the party line. Not quite as much of a crying shame as sticking to your principles, but then we all have to choose the lesser of the evils.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

What if those forced to distribute the information find it offensive and in violation of their conscience?
Here's a clue: don't force people to distribute it. This proposal certainly doesn't, so that forcing would be a peculiar aspect of your national laws.
What if an entire national mood finds this information offensive?
Given they'll choose not to make use of it, the proposal would be at worst mildly irrelevant.
Mandating what information a nation's medical system must provide, regardless of national feeling and conscience, is a gross violation of national sovereignty.
Invoking 'national feeling' weakens your ridiculous and stupid argument. If there is such universal opposition to someone mentioning the concept of public health, then clearly no one will make use of the services. If I were you, I'd be more worried about the idea that some of my citizens might depart from this 'national feeling' and think for themselves.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

You're the one who threw the abortion card by bringing up the ALC...And you're the one who confused the issue.

No mummy, he started it.

Here's a clue: don't force people to distribute it. This proposal certainly doesn't, so that forcing would be a peculiar aspect of your national laws.

Given they'll choose not to make use of it, the proposal would be at worst mildly irrelevant.

Invoking 'national feeling' weakens your ridiculous and stupid argument. If there is such universal opposition to someone mentioning the concept of public health, then clearly no one will make use of the services. If I were you, I'd be more worried about the idea that some of my citizens might depart from this 'national feeling' and think for themselves.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

So...if my citizens don't have to distribute the information, who will? The UN?

Public health and birth control are not the same. I argue that increased population would better the public health. Underpopulation is a much more pressing problem than overpopulation.

Families should be encouraged to have a large amount of children. It's good for the economy.

No mummy, we started it, but we felt the question needed answering. Now that it has been, can the children please cease?

On reflection, we are somewhat concerned that the proposal has no mandatory clauses apart from the reaffirmation of a pre-existing right. As such, we're not quite sure what the point of passing it would be. We would prefer the "strongly urges" clauses to be more requirements; certainly they are not onerous, since their nature need not be purely or even primarily financial.

So...if my citizens don't have to distribute the information, who will? The UN?
If none of your citizens want to distribute the information, no one.
Public health and birth control are not the same. I argue that increased population would better the public health. Underpopulation is a much more pressing problem than overpopulation. Families should be encouraged to have a large amount of children. It's good for the economy.
Aside from that being the single most stupid thing anyone has said in the history of the universe, alright. Firstly, if you're adopting such a restrictive attitude to birth-control methods you're going to increase transmission rates of STDs. Secondly, you have a finite capacity to provide healthcare (particularly given your government would appear to spend none of its income on it) and as the population expands, the extent of coverage will decline. Thirdly, overpopulation leads to depletion of resources, excessive demands on water and sanitation systems, development of slums and informal housing, food shortages, unemployment, dependence, environmental degradation (such as soil erosion and waste overflow that in turn limits agricultural and industrial capacity) and, you know, the extinction of the human race. But as long as women are barefoot and pregnant, who cares, huh.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

So, how does this resolution actually do anything if all my citizens have to do is say, "We don't want to abide by this," and they get off scot free. That's not worth anything.

Responsible sexual behavior prevents STDs, not birth control.

Healthcare is not an issue in nations that have private doctors uncontrolled by socialist regulation. In RL, the US health system was far more effective in rendering care before the Great Society.

Overpopulation would theoretically lead to depletion of resources, after a long, long time. Wise management of resources is much more important towards preserving them than overpopulation.

Contrary to leftist prattle, the RL Earth is not going to run out of resources anytime soon, despite our population boom.

Is it a coincidence that the period of greatest prosperity in RL, the modern era, coincides with the period of exploding population? I think not. More people means more capital and stronger markets.

Smart environmental policies can succeed with or without a large population.

Extinction of the human race? That, my fellow ambassador, is a logical fallacy known as a slippery slope. It reveals the confused turmoil of your mind.

Barefoot? No. Pregnant? Preferable.

So, how does this resolution actually do anything if all my citizens have to do is say, "We don't want to abide by this," and they get off scot free. That's not worth anything.
It does something because it prohibits nations from preventing their citizens who aren't characters out of I Love Lucy from providing and seeking provision of information about family planning and birth control. This is the same as anything: a proposal to give citizens the right to own a gun doesn't become ineffective if a lot of people happen not to make use of that right, a proposal to give people a right to property is still 'worth something' if people give away that right and share their property.

On the other hand, given you clearly don't want your doctors to be required to give out such information, you're making a pretty convincing case for toughening the language of the proposal, which, for someone supposedly advocating national sovereignty, strikes me as extraordinarily counterproductive.
Responsible sexual behavior prevents STDs
I agree. Using a condom is responsible sexual behaviour.
Overpopulation would theoretically lead to depletion of resources, after a long, long time. Wise management of resources is much more important towards preserving them than overpopulation.
A human's nutritional requirement is not totally flexible: everyone requires a certain amount of food in order to survive. The agricultural threshold of a region is not infinite: the amount grown can certainly be increased, but is not limitless. Overpopulation is a problem of finite resources that no amount of smart management can magic away.
Extinction of the human race? That, my fellow ambassador, is a logical fallacy known as a slippery slope. It reveals the confused turmoil of your mind.
I expect I just need to find Jesus.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

_____________________________

OOC:
RL...RL Earth...RL US...RL...RL
This is a game. Try playing it sometime.

So, how does this resolution actually do anything if all my citizens have to do is say, "We don't want to abide by this," and they get off scot free. That's not worth anything.
The resolution is quite weak in that regard, but given that mandating almost anything in regards to social justice seems to be beyond the collective courage of the UN at present this is hardly surprising. Ambassador Madison's remarks are slightly misleading in that the affirmed right of individuals to the information does imply a duty on the part of governments to have it available should it be requested. You are as a nation quite within your rights to thrust the information upon your citizens at every reasonable opportunity, should you so desire, however we had rather gained the impression that you were concerned at the cost of this.

Responsible sexual behavior prevents STDs, not birth control.
One of the reasons, we imagine, why the UN has already resolved on the subject of education in this regard. This proposal encourages nations to go further. However, it would be remiss of us not to point out that certain methods of birth control do also limit the transmission of STDs, so the medical reasoning is not something to dismiss lightly.

Healthcare is not an issue in nations that have private doctors uncontrolled by socialist regulation. In RL, the US health system was far more effective in rendering care before the Great Society.
OOC: Wielding a suitable barge-pole and with skepticism that you could paint the walls with, I have to ask what the hell the "Great Society" is.

IC: Healthcare is not an issue in such nations only in the sense that either one gets it or one doesn't. For many of us here, that inaccessibility is an exceedingly vexing issue, and one the UN currently makes only warm noises about.

Overpopulation would theoretically lead to depletion of resources, after a long, long time. Wise management of resources is much more important towards preserving them than overpopulation.
Ignoring population pressures is a contributor to unwise resource management.

Contrary to leftist prattle, the RL Earth is not going to run out of resources anytime soon, despite our population boom.
OOC: RL reference again. Fortunately I still have this barge-pole, and I'm not afraid to poke with it.

Twenty years ago, word was that we would run out of oil in about twenty years. Twenty years ago, by no coincidence whatsoever, some of the companies involved in the industry took this "leftist prattle" seriously. Some of them invested in improving search techniques and technologies so that they could locate more oil reserves, extending the resource life-span that way. Some put serious effort into improving the efficiency of usage of oil-based products, most notably car engines, discovered that this also made economic sense for them and dragged the rest of the industry with them. And so on.

The results of twenty years of hard work is that we now, at current consumption rates, will run out of oil in about twenty years time. If you don't want to be saying "Um, oops?" to the next generation, then that hard work needs to be continued.

Is it a coincidence that the period of greatest prosperity in RL, the modern era, coincides with the period of exploding population? I think not. More people means more capital and stronger markets.
We would submit that the honoured delegate has cause and effect reversed. Should he choose to track the birth rates in this land of RL that he refers to, he will see that they have considerably decreased in this period of population explosion. Population increase is instead attributable to the plummeting mortality rate, because a prosperous society can afford the medical care and research to neutralise diseases which previously killed millions, prevent the formerly common killer of childbirth from claiming so many deaths, and educate the populace concerning sanitation and basic personal healthcare.

OOC: So, if we should ignore RL comparisons and recognise this as just a game -- as some people here are suggesting -- then we're free to assume the existence of large numbers of currently-uninhabited 'paralle' worlds into which our populations can expand and whose resources they can exploit (with Godwinnia and St Edmund, for example, already defined as spreading over parts of four different Earths and having exploratory teams further afield) too aren't we? And doesn't that option make RL-based arguments about overpopulation and resource-depeletion rather irrelevant?

On reflection, we are somewhat concerned that the proposal has no mandatory clauses apart from the reaffirmation of a pre-existing right.So what? You don't necessarily need to force nations to do something for a proposal to be effective. This way, you're respecting cultural differences while still applying an appropriate level of pressure on nations to liberalize their policies. Freedom of Assembly had little force beyond urging and recommendation, but it's still considered a fine resolution. Even I and my nasty sovereigntist cohorts supported that one.

[OOC: And I realize I'm killing any chances of you supporting this simply because I'm speaking in favor of it, but whatever. P.S.: Great Society was Lyndon Johnson's sequel to Kennedy's New Frontier; a bunch of liberal social programs including Medicare.]

Alright, if the argument over abortion is done and if we have all found Jesus (he was hiding behind my couch, by the way.), and have our barge-polls, are there any suggestions for adding or removing things and for cleaning up the language?

If there are none by the end of the weekend, this will be getting submitted on Monday morning, followed by an extensive telegram campaign.


Tana Petrov
UN Representative
Harem of Karmicaria

Clause 1 had been changed a little. Thank you to the person who suggested the change on another forum.

Alright, if the argument over abortion is done and if we have all found Jesus (he was hiding behind my couch, by the way.), and have our barge-polls, are there any suggestions for adding or removing things and for cleaning up the language?
We would still suggest replacing both "strongly urges" with "requires". It's not as if either clause 2 or 4, even if mandatory, would require nations to pour money into socialist-style welfare structures!

Clause 1 had been changed a little. Thank you to the person who suggested the change on another forum.
That clarifies the intention nicely, thank you.

So what? You don't necessarily need to force nations to do something for a proposal to be effective. This way, you're respecting cultural differences while still applying an appropriate level of pressure on nations to liberalize their policies.
We find the application of this argument curiously inconsistent, since you are insisting that the opposite is the case in the repeal of Mutual Recognition of Borders.

[OOC: And I realize I'm killing any chances of you supporting this simply because I'm speaking in favor of it, but whatever. P.S.: Great Society was Lyndon Johnson's sequel to Kennedy's New Frontier; a bunch of liberal social programs including Medicare.]
[OOC: don't make unwarranted assumptions, sunbeam :-) Thanks for the info; what little I know about Medicare suggests that it's not a good attempt at a comprehensive basic health service (in comparison with, say, the NHS in the sixties), so I see the previous poster's point.]

We find the application of this argument curiously inconsistent, since you are insisting that the opposite is the case in the repeal of Mutual Recognition of Borders.1. Take it to the proper thread.
2. There is fair difference between contesting the strength of a resolution's mandates, and contesting the things a resolution actually does. In MRoB's case, it is the latter. Just in case you haven't read the actual repeal argument.
3. Thank you for completely ignoring my argument and dithering over irrelevancies.

We would still suggest replacing both "strongly urges" with "requires". It's not as if either clause 2 or 4, even if mandatory, would require nations to pour money into socialist-style welfare structures!This is specifically addressing national domestic policies and thus is intended as a Mild proposal. Placing inappropriate requirements in its text would complicate the strength level, and not help matters much.

I am not going to change the "strongly urges" clauses. As mentioned, this is intended to be a mild proposal. So, mild it will stay.

Also as previously mentioned, please leave any arguments from other debates out of this thread. If you have something to say to someone about anything other than this proposal, take it to the appropriate thread. Stay on track. Please.

Enough. This ain't General.

We would submit that the honoured delegate has cause and effect reversed. Should he choose to track the birth rates in this land of RL that he refers to, he will see that they have considerably decreased in this period of population explosion. Population increase is instead attributable to the plummeting mortality rate, because a prosperous society can afford the medical care and research to neutralise diseases which previously killed millions, prevent the formerly common killer of childbirth from claiming so many deaths, and educate the populace concerning sanitation and basic personal healthcare.

The respected delegate makes a good argument. However, after a moment of reflection, we feel it necessary to remind him that a period of great economic growth was the Industrial Revolutions of the 19th century. During this time, per capita income exploded, coinciding with a population explosion. Birth control was not in use at this time, therefore, we can reasonably conclude that the use of birth control to reduce overpopulation and a healthy economy are not one and the same.

The respected delegate makes a good argument. However, after a moment of reflection, we feel it necessary to remind him that a period of great economic growth was the Industrial Revolutions of the 19th century. During this time, per capita income exploded, coinciding with a population explosion. Birth control was not in use at this time, therefore, we can reasonably conclude that the use of birth control to reduce overpopulation and a healthy economy are not one and the same.
QFT!

We couldn't have said it better.

The respected delegate makes a good argument. However, after a moment of reflection, we feel it necessary to remind him that a period of great economic growth was the Industrial Revolutions of the 19th century. During this time, per capita income exploded, coinciding with a population explosion. Birth control was not in use at this time, therefore, we can reasonably conclude that the use of birth control to reduce overpopulation and a healthy economy are not one and the same.
* ooc: who needs birth control when you have high infant mortality rates? *

The New Cultural Revolution is prepared to offer mild support for this proposal. I am not persuaded of the necessity of applying this legislation on an international level, but I see no harm in its application.

Benedictions,

1. Take it to the proper thread.
In what way is the observation that you are arguing inconsistently between threads inappropriate to either thread concerned?

2. There is fair difference between contesting the strength of a resolution's mandates, and contesting the things a resolution actually does. In MRoB's case, it is the latter. Just in case you haven't read the actual repeal argument.
A resolution's mandates are the things it does. Their strength is an indication of whether they are actually done or not. The difference, then, is exceedingly fine and we would argue irrelevant to our current discussion.

We observe once again that many of the arguments presented in your repeal motion, which we read and commented on during the drafting process if you recall, apply exactly to this proposal, specifically that its operational clauses are entirely non-mandatory. We have not yet seen a convincing argument put forward for either case which does not destroy the argument for the other. The difference between the two cases is that here we have the opportunity to argue for the proposal to be more than 'warm words', intending no offense to the hard work put in by the Karmicarian delegation, while there we have to choose between speculatively repealing such words on the off-chance that someone else may choose to introduce stronger ones, and leaving it as is while we consider what might be likely to be passed in this chamber.

3. Thank you for completely ignoring my argument and dithering over irrelevancies.
Excuse us for pointing out that your words needed defending from your own words elsewhere. Such, we have to say, is not irrelevant at all.

We accept the Karmicarian position (::there is snickering in the Gobbannaen delegation, which seems to confuse the ambassador::)... We accept the decision to maintain the strength of this proposal as mild, such is the ambassador's right after all. We regret to say that this leaves us in something of a quandry over whether to support this proposal or not. We are quite open about our desire to see the UN's provisions on healthcare and health education somewhat less pathetic than they currently are, and noble though the intent of this proposal is, we are not convinced that it does not make that task more difficult.

LAE will very probably support this effort, but before we think it's essantial to include a definition of family-planning services, and what they include.
We also share the views that this topic could be better dealt with as "significant", even if this second point alone is not something which can prevent us to vote for.

I didn't want to add a definition, but if it will help, how about this?

Defines for the purpose of this resolution, Family Planning services as a program to regulate the number and spacing of children in a family through the practice of contraception or other methods of birth control. Such services would include access to information about abortion and information about female and male sterilization.

It could use a little tidying up, I suppose.

Defines for the purpose of this resolution, Family Planning services as a program to regulate the number and spacing of children in a family through the practice of contraception or other methods of birth control. Such services would include access to information about abortion and information about female and male sterilization.

I don't know if it's necessary to include the examples. The definition could easily remain fairly short and concise. What would work just as well for me would be along the lines of:

Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, a Family Planning Service as a program to regulate the number and spacing of children in a family.

Just a suggestion, but there it is.

Thanks, Kiv. I put your version of the definition into the proposal.

I'll be submitting this sometime tomorrow, unless anyone else has something to add.

Submitted (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=family) for approval.