NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm getting ready to submit this with my UN nation, but before I do, I would like to know if anyone has any suggestions on improving it.

Accessible Family Planning

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;

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

Defining, for the purpose of this resolution, "family planning" as pertaining to a product or service for regulating 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 without unreasonable hindrance to obtain family-planning 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.

OOC: As I commented in the Antarctic Paradise's regional forum, I don't really see this as an important enough issue to justify letting the UN over-rule national governments.

Also, if you really have to submit it, would you please replace the "AFFIRMS" in Clause #1 with a word such as "URGES" that looks less binding. (Yes, I do realise that some people consider 'AFFIRMS' to be only about as mild as 'URGES', but to me it seems more like a synonym for 'GUARANTEES' and therefore as a binding instruction...)
Most methods of Birth Control are actually legal in my UN nation & its closest allies anyway (although there are laws restricting Abortion, which some people might try to include under that heading), but that nation's government would object most strongly on general princples to the idea of being required to let its people go abroad in order to break any of its laws.
Then again, although this proposal might force national governments to let their people go abroad to do "outlawed" things, it wouldn't require them to refrain from punishing those people for those actions if they dare to return home again afterwards...

Also, if you really have to submit it, would you please replace the "AFFIRMS" in Clause #1 with a word such as "URGES" that looks less binding. (Yes, I do realise that some people consider 'AFFIRMS' to be only about as mild as 'URGES', but to me it seems more like a synonym for 'GUARANTEES' and therefore as a binding instruction...)

Fine, I'll change "AFFIRMS" to "URGES".

Then again, although this proposal might force national governments to let their people go abroad to do "outlawed" things, it wouldn't require them to refrain from punishing those people for those actions if they dare to return home again afterwards...

You don't have to let them back in.

Dear Ambassdor of Karmicaria,

*blush*

I feel that you have not tried your best to push for your proposal for family planning. the reasons are not strong enough to make it a UN issue to overrule the nations' government. this is because developed nations usually face the problem of declining popluation and you had only address the part on less developed nations. It would be better if you relay the msg such that it would really be a huge worldwide issue whether developed or developing nations if family-planning is not done.


Julin Clarkson
Ambassador of The Republic of Morulcrow to UN
Member of the Parliament of Morulcrow

It doesn't only deal with developing nations. They are mentioned, but most of it is geared towards giving low-income families access to services and information that they wouldn't normally be able to afford.

Fine, I'll change "AFFIRMS" to "URGES".Please don't. As you may remember, I worked hard at that clause, then you did, then we did together, to make the language precise enough to give sovereigntists an appropriate level of comfort, yet strong enough so the anti-sovereigntists couldn't complain that this proposal "doesn't do anything!!!" I don't think that work should be scuttled for the sake of a single opponent with loud objections. Let St Edmund oppose. We don't need his support.

Please don't. As you may remember, I worked hard at that clause, then you did, then we did together, to make the language precise enough to give sovereigntists an appropriate level of comfort, while assuring that the anti-sovereigntists couldn't complain that this proposal "doesn't do anything!!!" I don't think that work should be scuttled for the sake of a single opponent with loud objections. Let St Edmund oppose. We don't need his support.

Right you are. I will change it back.

The replacement of AFFIRMS with URGES is inappropriate on two grounds. The first is grammatical: you urge people or organizations, not things. Secondly, we believe that the rights described in the article should be affirmed by this body, using "affirmed" in the sense of guaranteed. We believe the notion that nations should try to prevent their people from going to other nations to receive family planning assistance is nonsensical. They'll simply say they're going for some other purpose. And, as the author notes, if you believe this somehow makes them unworthy of residing in your nation, you don't have to let them back into your territory.

Also, "Observant" in the preambulatory section should be changed to "Observing" to provide consistency.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Please don't. As you may remember, I worked hard at that clause, then you did, then we did together, to make the language precise enough....We have to agree, if only for the questions a straight switch-out causes. "Urges the right of individuals" doesn't really make sense. The language could become, "Urges nations to allow individuals to exercise their right...", but you would then lose the razor thin balance you've achieved and someone would assuredly object to even a reference to a right to information.

We would much prefer stronger language along with guarantees that a person wouldn't be subject to legal action upon return to his or her country. However, from a pragmatic stand point, if this legislation at least affirms the right to the information, we would be willing to support it.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

It doesn't only deal with developing nations. They are mentioned, but most of it is geared towards giving low-income families access to services and information that they wouldn't normally be able to afford.

Dear ambassador of Karmicaria, maybe i should rephase myself. i'm suggesting that you improve you description portion of your proposal.

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

As you mention especially developing nations would have staggering population growth, then why would developed nations be much bothered with this issue as developed nations would usually have decline population problem.


I suggest that that instead of mentioning developing and developed countries, describle that unwanted pregnancies might lead to both social and economical pproblems and family planning can improve significantly the quality of life of our next generation etc.

i also hope that in your proposal urge people to have children and not unwanted pregnancies.


Julin Clarkson
Ambassador of The Republic of Morulcrow to UN
Member of the Parliament of Morulcrow

Thanks to Rube and Auss for their support -- for more information, here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=523634)'s a link to a previous draft discussion thread.

We think our new colleague from Morulcrow has a valid point. As the proposal now reads, it might be too easy for nations concened only with their petty self-interest to decide that this is "somebody else's problem" and wave the tattered and so-often-misused flag of national sovereignty.

We'd suggest some language be added to the preambulatory clauses pointing out that overpopulation in one nation often has destabilizing effects which could cause serious problems for other nations. Also, overpopulation can have serious environmental impact (e.g., overburdening of waste disposal means). And the environment respects no national borders.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

We believe the notion that nations should try to prevent their people from going to other nations to receive family planning assistance is nonsensical. They'll simply say they're going for some other purpose. And, as the author notes, if you believe this somehow makes them unworthy of residing in your nation, you don't have to let them back into your territory.

As I said (although apparently not clearly enough) in my previous post , it isn't their being allowed to go abroad for the specific purpose of "family planning assistance" to which we object, given that such assistance is generally legal in our nation anyway: Our objection is, on general principles, to being told that we would have to allow our people to go abroad in order to break our laws and yet -- apparently -- still retain our nationality.
If any of our nation's people really find any aspect of our laws (which were mostly passed by democratically-elected governments) unbearable then they're already entitled, not only by our own laws but by the existing UN resolution on 'Emigration Rights' as well, to move to any other country that will have them -- and become members of that nation, rather than ours -- instead. We generally wouldn't try to stop people leaving if they're genuinely unhappy about abiding by the same laws as their neighbours do, but we don't see why anybody who leaves like that should be entitled to keep our nationality -- and thus the right to our government's protection -- if they do so...

As I said (although apparently not clearly enough) in my previous post , it isn't their being allowed to go abroad for the specific purpose of "family planning assistance" to which we object, given that such assistance is generally legal in our nation anyway: Our objection is, on general principles, to being told that we would have to allow our people to go abroad in order to break our laws and yet -- apparently -- still retain our nationality.
As has been pointed out already, you do not have to let such people back into your nation, so the idea that they must retain your nationality is clearly not necessarily true.

IC

Are you saying that if a nation allow certain drugs to be illegal and certain individual when travel over to other nation,that legalised such drugs, to consume this drug (maybe for medical purpose etc.), this certain individual is not allow to come back to its homeland?

i think this is bull
*banging her fist on the table*

*cooled down*
However, its consoling that the new draft doesnt include such impractical measures.

Julin Clarkson
Ambassador of The Republic of Morulcrow to UN
Member of the Parliament of Morulcrow

*The Ambassador for Ganzland raises his hand timidly.*

Might I humbly suggest that Clause 1 be split in two? The government of Ganzland believes that it is wholly correct for an Affirmation of the right to information regarding Family Planning to enter into UN law, but recognises the concerns of other governments regarding sovereignty over nationality and citizenship issues.

We would also support previous statements regarding the cross-border impacts of over population. Our small nation welcomes migrants seeking a better life, but, as in all societies there is a section of our populace becoming concerned about migration. If measures can be taken, at an international level if necessary, to relieve pressure on the economies and resources of some developing nations, we believe that there would be a better balance of migration flows.

*The ambassador is overheard muttering "Hopefully that'll cook the Ganzland Conservative Party's goose!"*

James Gosling
Ganzland Ambassador To the UN
Member of the Ganzland Parliament

As I said (although apparently not clearly enough) in my previous post , it isn't their being allowed to go abroad for the specific purpose of "family planning assistance" to which we object, given that such assistance is generally legal in our nation anyway: Our objection is, on general principles, to being told that we would have to allow our people to go abroad in order to break our laws and yet -- apparently -- still retain our nationality.
If any of our nation's people really find any aspect of our laws (which were mostly passed by democratically-elected governments) unbearable then they're already entitled, not only by our own laws but by the existing UN resolution on 'Emigration Rights' as well, to move to any other country that will have them -- and become members of that nation, rather than ours -- instead. We generally wouldn't try to stop people leaving if they're genuinely unhappy about abiding by the same laws as their neighbours do, but we don't see why anybody who leaves like that should be entitled to keep our nationality -- and thus the right to our government's protection -- if they do so...

Perhaps the representative would be good enough to point out for us exactly where in the proposal it prohibits his removal of these persons' citizenship, declaring them extranational, or refusing them reentry into his nation.

We won't be holding our breath, since the proposal contains none of that. The representative simply insists on obstinately arguing against what the proposal doesn't say.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

Are you saying that if a nation allow certain drugs to be illegal and certain individual when travel over to other nation,that legalised such drugs, to consume this drug (maybe for medical purpose etc.), this certain individual is not allow to come back to its homeland?

No.

We are, however, observing that the proposal also doesn't say that they are allowed to come back their homeland, and nor does any other UN resolution, making it a matter entirely within the purview of that nation. We suspect that our embassies are agreeing rather vociferously about this.

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 family-planning services that are outlawed domestically;.

My question would be 'why allow a nation to outlaw' something that the majority of this body would allow as one might assume if this is approved and such services are allowed in those nations that approved it have the numbers to get this passed then can insure that no nation outlaws it and require them all to have a standard program outlined in a resolution on said. Thus no need for them to leave for it.

Then comes a question of payment for services as citizens of our nation are under our national health care plan that only pays for legal services done in this country by our certified healers. Any citizen in violation will not get care for additions, injuries, or whatever from having an illegal procedure not covered or paid for by our system. Thus they go get some drug/procedure and come back addicted or with a defect from it they are own their own here. Will the nation that let them in to get what they wanted be held accountable for ill-effects.. and assume the care of those needing more but can't pay for it...

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii (mtCObP):

Our nation disagrees with the basic premise of this legislation, to wit:

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;

The esteemed representative from Karmicaria has failed to make the case that so-called "staggering population growth" in fact poses such serious economic problems, nor that there is a morally-justifiable reason for controlling national birthrates.

We claim that this is merely fear-mongering by certain elements within developed nations who are concerned that people from "undesirable" nations are out-breeding them. This form of crypto-racism has no place within these august halls. Our nation shall be campaigning against this proposal should it come to a vote.

We claim that this is merely fear-mongering by certain elements within developed nations who are concerned that people from "undesirable" nations are out-breeding them. This form of crypto-racism has no place within these august halls. Our nation shall be campaigning against this proposal should it come to a vote.

Our delegation has spoken out in favor of this proposal and we continue in our support of it. We participated in a very small way in its drafting. To now be accused of "crypto-racism" is a scurrilous, baseless insult. The representative of The Eternal Kawaii should be well aware that our nation has repeatedly and strongly supported legislation aimed at ensuring the rights of all people of whatever race or species.

This groundless name-calling is an affront, not only to the nations smeared with this label, but to the dignity of this Assembly. The Principality of Ausserland DEMANDS a retraction.

By order of His Royal Highness, the Prince of Ausserland:

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

My nation has an extensive family planning system in an effort to keep the population down, as well as to limit the existence of unwanted and uncared for youth. However, I think clause 1 essentially encourages nations to dump their poor and needy on nations like us. I wouldn’t be surprised if nations used this legislation to justify the use of ‘family planning’ programs (and monies) to merely send away/’disown’ undesirable (and costly) citizens. We already have enough, thanks…
Due to the existence of Emigration Rights anyway, perhaps the “and to leave their home nations freely to obtain family-planning services that are outlawed domestically;” is problematic enough for reconsideration?

Frege Gott
Renastere Council of Leaders (Logic)

My nation has an extensive family planning system in an effort to keep the population down, as well as to limit the existence of unwanted and uncared for youth. However, I think clause 1 essentially encourages nations to dump their poor and needy on nations like us. I wouldn’t be surprised if nations used this legislation to justify the use of ‘family planning’ programs (and monies) to merely send away/’disown’ undesirable (and costly) citizens. We already have enough, thanks…
Due to the existence of Emigration Rights anyway, perhaps the “and to leave their home nations freely to obtain family-planning services that are outlawed domestically;” is problematic enough for reconsideration?

Frege Gott
Renastere Council of Leaders (Logic)

We appreciate the concerns of our new colleague from Renastere, but we do not share them. Three points for consideration....

We don't believe that Clause 1 in any way encourages anyone to dump their poor and needy on anyone. If a nation is so vile as to try to do that, they'd do it anyway. They wouldn't need the UN's encouragement.

Nothing in the proposal requires any nation to admit anyone to its territory. If you consider the prospective visitor to be "undesirable", you simply refuse him or her entry. That would remain perfectly legal should this proposal be adopted.

Emigration has the clear meaning of leaving a nation to seek residence in another. The "Emigration Rights" resolution would not cover people seeking to travel to other nations with the intention of returning to their home nations.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

*Sigh*
"Leaving our previous point of disagreement with this proposal's wording alone for now, my government has instructed me to enquire whether this proposal's author actually intended to leave national governments totally powerless to set any limits whatsoever on which individuals are to be allowed this 'right' and when they might go abroad for this purpose?
I would like to draw your attention to Resolution #198 'Emigration Rights' (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12412273&postcount=199), specifically its clause that says
3-SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTS from that mandate and declared right persons who are either undergoing ongoing legal proceedings or any subsequent sentence; those below the age of consent within their home nation who lack consent of parent(s) or guardian(s); those mentally incapable of making such decisions; those who would pose a public health risk; those whose presence is required by a court of law; or those being held as prisoners of war during times of conflict; and suggest that the addition of a similar clause to this proposal too would make sense.
Indeed, in the absence of either such a clause or the usual boilerplate along the lines of "except when any earlier Resolution that is still in force says otherwise", this proposal would seem to let convicted criminals go abroad freely (if any country would let them in), regardless of the punishments to which they have been sentenced, which would seem to be potentially illegal for contradiction of the clause in Resolution #180 'Fair Sentencing Act' (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11973198&postcount=181) that says 2. Declares the right of nations to determine for themselves the sentences for violations of laws committed within their jurisdictions;... unless the latter measure is held to guarantee only the right to set sentences and not the right to actually enforce them as well..."


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

We move the first clause be modified as follows:

1. Affirms the right of individuals to access information regarding family-planning services and birth-control methods, and to leave their home nations without unnecessary hindrance to obtain family-planning services that are outlawed domestically;We hope this allays the concerns raised by the Edmundan representative.

We move the first clause be modified as follows:
1. Affirms the right of individuals to access information regarding family-planning services and birth-control methods, and to leave their home nations without unnecessary hindrance to obtain family-planning services that are outlawed domestically;

We hope this allays the concerns raised by the Edmundan representative.

Yes, I think that it does. Setting similar limits on people's rights to travel abroad temporarily (whether for this reason or any other) along similar lines to the limits that apply for permanent emigration would seem to be allowable as "necessary" hindrances... because otherwise, after all, anybody who was refused permission to emigrate could simply say that they were going abroad for this reason instead and then refuse to return...

I like that change to clause 1. I'll edit it in.

If there isn't anything else, I would like to submit this as soon as possible. Also, once it is submitted, is there anyone who is willing and able to help with TGing?

We're not at all comfortable with the change suggested. We believe it's entirely too general in its language, and creates a gaping loophole. The language is so broad that any nation that wanted to prevent such travel could find some "necessary hindrance" to impose.

The representative of St Edmund Antarctic raised a valid concern. We recommend that the proposal be amended to add a specific exclusion from the travel provision of (1) persons serving a sentence of imprisonment, community service, or travel restriction imposed following conviction of a criminal offense, (2) persons whose presence in the nation is required by a court of appropriate jurisdiction in support of on-going legal proceedings or as a result of such proceedings, and (3) prisoners of war.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

We feel that changing "unnecessary hindrance" to "unreasonable hindrance" should address most of the Ausserlanders' concerns. Bogging down with fine print the simple elegance of an affirmed right under international law seems a bit silly from our standpoint.

As moderator rulings have repeatedly held that UN mandates need only apply to reasonable nations, simply forbidding "unreasonable hindrances" should be enough.

At least we hope so.

Our delegation has spoken out in favor of this proposal and we continue in our support of it. We participated in a very small way in its drafting. To now be accused of "crypto-racism" is a scurrilous, baseless insult. The representative of The Eternal Kawaii should be well aware that our nation has repeatedly and strongly supported legislation aimed at ensuring the rights of all people of whatever race or species.

This groundless name-calling is an affront, not only to the nations smeared with this label, but to the dignity of this Assembly. The Principality of Ausserland DEMANDS a retraction.

Our nation applauds the concern with which the esteemed representative's nation holds for the rights of people. We argue, then, that this legislation is not in keeping with such concern; indeed, it works against it in the most insideous fashion.

His Highness the Prince of Ausserland would be well-advised to reconsider his sources of council on this matter. After all, everyone is in favor of population control--provided it is other peoples' population that is being controlled. The day may come when those "other people" are Ausserlanders.

We see that the representative of The Eternal Kawaii has no intention of retracting her slanderous insult. So be it. She obviously sees nothing wrong with baselessly impugning the motives of others. Of course, that's always a resort when you're unable to argue your position reasonably.

The representative preens herself on her concern for human rights. But she obviously sees nothing wrong with nations forcing their people to remain ignorant of information they might use to better their lives and those of their families. She sees nothing wrong with nations keeping their people bottled up within their borders so they're unable to take advantages of services they might find valuable. So she drags along a red herring.

The representative's argument is absurd. The representative fails in both common sense and common decency.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

We feel that changing "unnecessary hindrance" to "unreasonable hindrance" should address most of the Ausserlanders' concerns. Bogging down with fine print the simple elegance of an affirmed right under international law seems a bit silly from our standpoint.

As moderator rulings have repeatedly held that UN mandates need only apply to reasonable nations, simply forbidding "unreasonable hindrances" should be enough.

At least we hope so.

We disagree most strongly. As the creator of the Creative Solutions Agency is well aware, precise language is sometimes necessary in legislation to avoid leaving gaping loopholes through which nations bent on noncompliance can drive trucks. We believe that is the case here.

"Simple elegance" is a fine thing. Unfortunately, it also often equates to fuzzy, toothless law.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

Slip "freely" back into the first clause. We believe there is little reasonable wiggle room around "to leave their home nations freely, without unreasonable hindrance, ..." Even Ms. Thwerdock couldn't argue the language is "fuzzy" or "toothless."

The wider effect of the proposal is intended to make family planning a more accessible resource for low-income families, and we fear that focusing unnecessarily on the do's and don'ts of a single clause dictating freedom of movement would prove a distraction from the legislation's central purpose.

"Freely" has been put back in.

Is there anything else that doesn't involve the first clause?

Is there anything else that doesn't involve the first clause?

Would it help if I told you I think the whole thing's fanatical? 'Cause it is.

We don't believe that Clause 1 in any way encourages anyone to dump their poor and needy on anyone. If a nation is so vile as to try to do that, they'd do it anyway. They wouldn't need the UN's encouragement.

Emigration has the clear meaning of leaving a nation to seek residence in another. The "Emigration Rights" resolution would not cover people seeking to travel to other nations with the intention of returning to their home nations.



Agreed, nations will do what they do.... By including the right to move freely for services and then encouraging aid distribution (clauses 3 & 4) to obtain services, it seems that the UN virtually provides legitimacy and funding for such actions....?

More problematic for dealing with opposition is:.....
By extending rights to include the return home, you run into the problems already expressed by several representatives about citizenship and the ability to 'break the law' and then return. Wouldn't affirming the right to leave and return include forcing the 'home nation' to take them back? (This is different from 'Emigration Rights' as clause 5 does not force any nation to allow entry...)

Thanks for the obviously thoughtful consideration of our concerns.
Frege Gott

Fanatical? I would hardly call trying to help out low-income families fanatical.

So, I suppose the answer to your question would be no, it doesn't help.

Fanatical? I would hardly call trying to help out low-income families fanatical.

So, I suppose the answer to your question would be no, it doesn't help.

Stupid vocabulary. Let's try again.

I think it's fine.

Stupid vocabulary. Let's try again.

I think it's fine.

Ah, okay. That's better. Thank you.

Ah, okay. That's better. Thank you.

I thought it better to comment than nitpick and sling mud.

Not that I was going to do those things, but some people....

We apologize if the esteemed representative from Ausserland has taken offense at our words. We merely state that he is failing to see the true agenda behind those who propose the kinds of "information" he believes this legislation will provide: demographic warfare against undesirables.

We beseech him to look behind the false mask of "concern for the poor" and see the true face of fear behind it. Fear of the poor, whose numbers must be limited by any means necessary, even to the point of discouraging their reproduction.

As moderator rulings have repeatedly held that UN mandates need only apply to reasonable nations, simply forbidding "unreasonable hindrances" should be enough.

We challenge the honoured ambassador to reread the many deeply unreasonable assertions of action made by various nations in response to the debate on the Labor Unions proposal (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=533709) and repeat his statement concerning reasonable nations with a straight face.

You think after two years here we're somehow blissfully unaware that this Assembly is packed with idiots? Luckily we are relieved of the unhappy chore of trying to please them all in drafting our proposals, as it would be a pointless exercise. As it is, we hope most members here with half a braincell left can agree that "freely, without unreasonable hindrance" means "no funny business."

We apologize if the esteemed representative from Ausserland has taken offense at our words. We merely state that he is failing to see the true agenda behind those who propose the kinds of "information" he believes this legislation will provide: demographic warfare against undesirables.

We beseech him to look behind the false mask of "concern for the poor" and see the true face of fear behind it. Fear of the poor, whose numbers must be limited by any means necessary, even to the point of discouraging their reproduction.

You're reading way too much into this proposal. There is no "hidden agenda" (why does that always come up when people are talking about nations from Antarctic Oasis?). It isn't demographic warfare against undesirables.

For crying out loud, all we're trying to do is educate people and possibly help low-income families out. Raising children isn't cheap and when you barely have enough money to support yourself, do you really think that it's a good idea to be having children? It really isn't.

Also, there is no "false mask" of concern for the poor. There is no fear of them.

Now, if you would be so kind as to stop slandering and insulting those of us who have written, helped to write and are supporting this, it would be greatly appreciated. If you can't, the door's that way.

Dahlia Dioce
Vice President
Harem of Karmicaria

Slip "freely" back into the first clause. We believe there is little reasonable wiggle room around "to leave their home nations freely, without unreasonable hindrance, ..." Even Ms. Thwerdock couldn't argue the language is "fuzzy" or "toothless."

The wider effect of the proposal is intended to make family planning a more accessible resource for low-income families, and we fear that focusing unnecessarily on the do's and don'ts of a single clause dictating freedom of movement would prove a distraction from the legislation's central purpose.

We're at a loss to understand why our distinguished colleague is so adamantly opposed to out attempts to close what we believe may well prove a sizable loophole. He complains our language would detract from the "simple elegance" of the proposal. We weren't aware we were writing great literature; we thought we were trying to write effective legisation. Now he proposes that including the specific sort of language we suggest would distract from the proposal's central purpose. We can't buy that for a minute. We don't think it would distract anyone from anything.

We say the proposal's language in this single instance -- even emended as he proposes -- is fuzzy and open to wide interpretation and misinterpretation. What's "reasonable" and "unreasonable hindrance"? Who knows? He says that doesn't leave a loophole. We say it does. We may be wrong, but we think we're every bit as capable of reading and interpreting legislation as he is. So we may be right. So why not slam shut the loophole if it exists?

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

without unnecessary hindrance

Adding this does nothing because it is not defined. Would it be an unnecessary hindrance to check that when they decide to leave:
1) they are fit and have no illness that might be spread to another nation.
2) they have the funds to provide for their travel and needs when they do go.
3) they are not taking items from one nation that might be sold to another.. that are national treasures or a security item.
4) they have provided for the care of their family in the left nation while they are away.
5) they have made provisions in the event they become unable to return to their normal life in the nation they left due to death or injury.
6) they have a place to go and that nation that takes them will assume care for them in event something goes wrong with their treatment while out of our nation

As one might find the above a hindrance on the person and just 'redtape' to keep them from getting what they seek.

Again to avoid the conflict of a person leaving one nation why has somebody not proposed that all nations provide standard family planing in all nations. Thus there would be no need for citizens of one nation to leave their own.. What they need would be there as required by the UN... As if one expects to get support to pass this then they should expect to see same support for that and thus this travel between nations problem solved.

Cashey Monybags,
CEO, Cavirrian Royal Bank,
First Minister of Finance
Chief Trash Collector District Nine

Thank you. The language has since been changed to "freely, without unreasonable hindrance."

Adding this does nothing because it is not defined. Would it be an unnecessary hindrance to check that when they decide to leave:
1) they are fit and have no illness that might be spread to another nation.
2) they have the funds to provide for their travel and needs when they do go.
3) they are not taking items from one nation that might be sold to another.. that are national treasures or a security item.
4) they have provided for the care of their family in the left nation while they are away.
5) they have made provisions in the event they become unable to return to their normal life in the nation they left due to death or injury.
6) they have a place to go and that nation that takes them will assume care for them in event something goes wrong with their treatment while out of our nation

As one might find the above a hindrance on the person and just 'redtape' to keep them from getting what they seek.

Doing many, if not all, of the above suggested items would run contrary to Emigration Rights which allows people to freely travel out of their current location barring only a few exceptions.

Again to avoid the conflict of a person leaving one nation why has somebody not proposed that all nations provide standard family planing in all nations. Thus there would be no need for citizens of one nation to leave their own.. What they need would be there as required by the UN... As if one expects to get support to pass this then they should expect to see same support for that and thus this travel between nations problem solved.


There are also other resolutions on the books that allow nations to decide for themselves whether or not certain practices are allowed. Mandating standard family planning practices would most likely infringe upon the rights already guaranteed to nations by UN law.

Having reviewed the draft in the first post, we find that the current language is acceptable and offer our full support to this effort.

Good luck and we look forward to seeing this come to a vote soon.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

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

After reviewing this debate, and the resolution, the UCMA has decided to support it and encourages the rest of this esteemed body to do the same.

Far from beng evil or a plot, population control is a necessary and essential function of any well-organized society. When any population of living beings exceeds the limits of what its habitat can support, the effects are dire, both for the environment they live in, and for the beings themselves.

Equally importantly, any nation that would deny their citizens options for managing something as essential, on a personal and individual level, as their own families, is patently unjust.

- Jinella Agaranth, UCMA Ambassador

Quorum reached and this is at vote.


Thank you everyone who helped with the drafting of this (or would that be redrafting?)

i'm new to this so don't think too badly of me. I just don't get it!
Are we voting to make family planning mandatory or just to provide the right to family planning if it is wanted by some citizens?

Quorum reached and this is not at vote.
We are confused. Can we cast our vote, or we can't? ;)

We are confused. Can we cast our vote, or we can't? ;)

No idea what you're talking about. :P Go, cast your vote. :)

Nations,

The moment I laid eyes on this horrendous and boundlessly oppressive document, I knew I had to get on my feet, grab my shovel (a tool Darganchay's forefathers built up our respectable nation with), and dig us all out of this pre-apocalyptic predicament.

Darganchay, though a proud and growing nation, is nonetheless minute and has managed to get by in a tenuous manner since its founding. Our "barren, inhospitable" landscape (according to our world factbook entry), our relatively tiny population, and young industry are some of the flaming hoops, and shark tanks that Darganchay must leap through and over (respectively).

A resolution like this leaves the vast majority of our United Nations all but paraplegic in these ways:

1.) It diminishes opportunities for long-term workforce growth in the country, which budding economies the world over would agree is a crippling prospect

2.) Funds appropriated to flabby, bureaucratic agencies and programs for the purpose of enforcing this resolution's principles are funds NOT being used for military, defence, domestic security and most importantly, improving our nation's economy and building up the influence of domestic corporations for the betterment of our people.

3.) It entices corporations and companies to fall under the will of government, instead of operating as independent, nation-building entities. They [corporation and companies] should operate freely to do the work of the people, not the work of the government, and certainly not the work of the United Nations.

Please consider my rebuttal, Nations, and please note the damage that this resolution will do to our global economy, and our chance to build free and unrestricted markets. Also, consider the negative example it sets for children worldwide: it teaches them that putting personal creeds, beliefs, and personal financial situations over the good of the world economy is pardonable and even decent behavior.

People make the world: we should not put up more guard-posts to their entry into our world and our world economies.


With devout respect but fierce disagreement,

The Envoy of Darganchay

"Boundless Power Among the Worthy is the Only Truth"

i'm new to this so don't think too badly of me. I just don't get it!
Are we voting to make family planning mandatory or just to provide the right to family planning if it is wanted by some citizens?We're voting to give citizens the right to seek information about family planning, and to leave their nations if any services are outlawed domestically; also, to urge nations to lend support to domestic family-planning agencies etc., etc.

At the Palentine Delegation, the slighty unwholesome Sen. Sulla is sittling at his desk. Actually, sitting might be a rather generous description. He seems to be leaning foreward, and to the left at a rather precarious 40 degree angle. He also looks a bit worse for wear, especially his eyes, which when he actually opens them seems to be rather bloodshot. Upon his desk lie two empty bottles of 101proof Ol' thought provoker, and a bowl of spinich dip. The contents of a opened bag of Fritos lie scattered on the desk and floor. A young intern walks up to Sen. Sulla with some papers and gasps in shock.

"Senator! Your eyes look horrible!", she cries out

"You should see them from this side sweetheart! What do you want? Leave the flowers at the door. Have some respect for the dying.", replied the good senator as he cluched his head and moaned.

"The new resolution is up for vote, Senator."

"Well estemed colleagues, and fellow inmates of this festering snakepit called the General Assembly. The Palentine will cast its vote for this resolution. Now you must excuse me, But I feel the need to sleep a bit.", said Sen. Sulla.

And upon that note, he promptly passed out face first into the bowl of spinach dip. The light sounds of snoring and the Marine Corp Hymn could be heard from the bowl.

While Scotchpinestan appreciates the intent of this proposal, we feel that it presents an unacceptable infringement on the rights of individual nations to set their own laws, and therefore we must strongly OPPOSE.

this is a way to control population, it is like a big brother and a way to see the oposition. The Comunist nations will strongly rise against this resolution. We don't have the right to access the privacy of others family.

this is a way to control population, it is like a big brother and a way to see the oposition. The Comunist nations will strongly rise against this resolution. We don't have the right to access the privacy of others family.How does this infringe upon your ability to set your own laws? All this really makes you do is allow people to travel abroad to attain services/products that are outlawed in your nation. They could already do so under the previous resolution Emigration Rights.

So where's the trouble?

At my Queen's direction, I have cast Karianis's vote against this resolution. Though a legitimate issue, we feel it is also one that should never have been brought before the United Nations in the first place.

Serifina Karin
Ambassador to the United Nations
Sacred Kingdom of Karianis

For crying out loud, all we're trying to do is educate people and possibly help low-income families out. Raising children isn't cheap and when you barely have enough money to support yourself, do you really think that it's a good idea to be having children? It really isn't.

With all due respect to the esteemed representative from Karmicaria, she is basing her argument on a false premise. To wit, that overpopulation is a cause of poverty. This is a falsehood, put forward by people from privileged nations to justify to themselves discrimination against the poor.

We contend that people are poor not because they have too many children, but because they lack the tools necessary to pull themselves out of poverty. In many poor nations, a large family is one of the few tools available. The esteemed representative's plan seeks to persuade the poor to falsely deny themselves the benefits of children.

This legislation is anti-child, anti-poor and anti-humane. We urge all peoples of good will here to reject it.

The esteemed representative's plan seeks to persuade the poor to falsely deny themselves the benefits of children.
If their economic situation is such that a large number of children is a benefit then they will continue to have large numbers of children. This legislation doesn't force them to do otherwise.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

If their economic situation is such that a large number of children is a benefit then they will continue to have large numbers of children. This legislation doesn't force them to do otherwise.

However, this legislation would put the NSUN stamp of approval on a program that may persuade them not to, despite it being against their best interests. This body has no justifiable business urging people not to have children.

However, this legislation would put the NSUN stamp of approval on a program that may persuade them not to, despite it being against their best interests. This body has no justifiable business urging people not to have children.You do understand, Nuncia, that this is not in any way an impediment to families who want large numbers of children; it's only making choices for those that don't more accessible. There is nothing whatsoever about forcing, "urging" or even "persuading" families not to have children. The resolution is rather neutral on how large a sensibly sized family ought to be. If families do not desire the services urged to be made more available under this remit, they do not have to seek them out. There is absolutely nothing here that would suggest otherwise.

We never expected the Kawaiians to support a resolution like this, but we did expect at least a reasonable objection to come from a delegation as distinguished and respected as that of The Eternal Kawaii. We must say, the hysterical shrieking about "crypto-racism" and supposed "anti-child" and "anti-poor" sentiments coming from your contingent has only strengthened our support for this resolution. You have no place accusing the supporters of this legislation of malicious intent, but since you, with an air of supreme arrogance, have already waved off demands for an apology, we will not reprise the extension of such an unreasonable request.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

At my Queen's direction, I have cast Karianis's vote against this resolution. Though a legitimate issue, we feel it is also one that should never have been brought before the United Nations in the first place.Yeah, that makes loads of sense. Why shouldn't a "legitimate issue" be brought before the United Nations?

This legislation is anti-child, anti-poor and anti-humane. We urge all peoples of good will here to reject it.

The representative of The Eternal Kawaii continues to spout nonsense.

The resolution is not "anti-child". It enables people to gain access to information that can help them ensure they can properly support the children they do have.

The resolution is not "anti-poor" or "anti-humane". It will enable the poor and everyone else to obtain information and services that they can use to establish some measure of control over their own lives.

This body has no justifiable business urging people not to have children.

We would agree. But this comment completely misrepresents the resolution. Nowhere does it urge anyone to engage in family planning. It simply helps make sure that option is available to those who wish to take advantage of it.

Ausserland supports the resolution.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

Despite being personally for this resolution, my government has instructed me to vote AGAINST this resolution.

And I won't argue any further, I know I am not in the best position to defend our side.

Thank you.

Maddalena Pedrana
Acting Nord-Brutlandese Ambassador to the UN

The resolution is not "anti-child". It enables people to gain access to information that can help them ensure they can properly support the children they do have.

With all due respect to the esteemed representatitive of Ausserland, his argument that this legislation supposedly "enables people to gain access to information" is the very form of paternalism we decry when we say that this legislation is discriminatory. The peoples of the world are not stupid. Any person who knows how to have a child knows perfectly well how not to have one if they so choose. There is no need for someone from a supposedly "more progressive" nation to come along and tell them how.

Furthermore, we find the representative's claim that this legislation does not urge people to engage in "family planning" to be disingenious. Its very words state as much:

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

How can this be interpreted any other way that by placing the NSUN seal of approval upon "family planning"? And we repeat, by what right does the NSUN have to do such urging?

Voting against.

I need more poor people so that I can make Soylent Green a reality.

Sorry Dahlia, but due to a distinct lack of internationalism in this issue, I have to vote AGAINST.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Fellow Dignitatries;

The Republic of Minilla Island, by and large, is a sterling Catholic nation. One of our Nation's greatest responsibilties, is the defense of the Church and her teachings. Our nation takes the position that abstinence and the use of the "Rhythm method" within the confines of matrimony.

However,

In this bill is basically common sense. It is important to have strong family planning in order to make for better societies. In no where is this bill dictating who should have children. It is only asking states to promote family planning. Nothing else. The members of the Foriegn Affairs Comittee in our Parliament, after reading this, and in consultation with HRH, King Raymond I, and our Spiritual Leader, His Eminence, Brian Cardinal Longmore, has approved that I vote in favor of this legislation.

Therefore, Minilla Island will vote "yes".

Regards,
Bertram Pinkston
UN Ambassador,
Republic of Minilla Island

Voting against.

I need more poor people so that I can make Soylent Green a reality.

Well, at least you're honest.

Sorry Dahlia, but due to a distinct lack of internationalism in this issue, I have to vote AGAINST.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

No need to be sorry, Bob. I understand.

Dahlia Dioce
Karmicarian Vice President.

The delegation of Altanar must politely, but firmly disagree with those who do not consider this an international issue, or one that merits the UN's attention.

If a nation allows itself to become overpopulated, the effects of that overpopulation are rarely limited to that nation alone. Environmental degradation stemming from that overpopulation can easily affect other nations, as can unchecked immigration from people reasonably desiring to leave an overpopulated nation and the environmental damage that may cause. For those reasons alone, we feel that this most definitely merits international attention, even if we ourselves are not a nation affected (as of yet) in such a manner.

In addition, we simply cannot comprehend the pseudo-apocalyptic effects some nations are ascribing to what we see as a relatively benign resolution. Nowhere in this resolution are you being forced to provide family planning options; you're simply urged to do so, and required to let your citizens go elsewhere (*cough*more enlightened nations*cough*) to receive such options if they wish to do so.

- Jinella Agaranth, UCMA Ambassador

Exactly what kinds of birth control are meant under "Accessible Family Planning"?

Fiore Acquerello
Deputy UN Ambassador

I want to thank the distinguished Karmicaria for the UN proposal.
The Republic of Grahameni sponsors the resolution that will be passed on Wednesday.

All nations with values and principles who are developed or are developing
have the right to sensibly plan around and for the families of their nation. The poor in all countries have the right to charity and the right to obtain essentials that would improve their standards of living for their families. However, birthrate may be an issue we must deal with. Every family and woman has the right to birth control and prevention by the grace of God. Life is very sacred, but God has given us something greater from our sacred lives. And that is Choice. Families are the backbone of any great nation. Family planning is of the upmost important.

Families are the backbone of any great nation. Family planning is of the upmost important.

We agree whole-heartedly with the distinguished representative from Grahmeni on the importance of the family. It is the foundation of our nation's society, the strongest foundation we or any nation could have. It is for that reason that we oppose government intrusion into family affairs such as this resolution urges. Family planning ought to be the sole province of the family. National governments should have no say in this matter, and international bodies likewise.

It is for that reason that we oppose government intrusion into family affairs such as this resolution urges. Family planning ought to be the sole province of the family.The government should not directly intrude on any family, but the possibility of expanding opportunities to help a less fortunate family in need of planning should be available. That is the bottomline. This resolution will be passed.

Greetings,
I am sorry, but I must say that my nation opposes this.
Our country requires tests, and certifications to make sure you can support a child, and to make sure you are able to handle children. We do not consider it appropriate that our laws could be bypassed by people taking a step out of our country.
The information, as Eternal Kawaii has stated, is common knowledge; anyone can make children and should know that it is not like keeping a puppy, and extra needed information is given by us to people who pass our tests and are registered to be allowed children.

So again, we oppose this, but thank you for the work and consideration that you put into this with the thought of betterment for people across nations.

I second what the Artimidorean delegate mentioned. Being a parent requires much more thought and foresight than "Whoops." It is one thing to provide family planning information to the masses; however, our country has the same kinds of stringent tests to determine exactly which of our citizens are (in the government's eyes) fit to be parents, and which are not. I can see no purpose of this proposal other than to dangle a proverbial carrot just out of the reach of those who would like to be parents, but due to our laws cannot.

Saucy Jack
Sexiest Man Alive
High Sultan of Pathetic Romantics

This resolution isn't just about birth control, it's also about education and alotting of services. I don't see that this would limit a government's control, however it would allow for more civil rights as well as for a more informed public.

This resolution does not intrude into family affairs, it simply opens up previously unavailable options to the poor as well as making the public in general more aware.

This resolution isn't just about birth control, it's also about education and alotting of services. I don't see that this would limit a government's control, however it would allow for more civil rights as well as for a more informed public.

This resolution does not intrude into family affairs, it simply opens up previously unavailable options to the poor as well as making the public in general more aware.

Ah, the part that goes against our laws is as follows:
and I quote:
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;


1. Affirms the right of individuals to access information regarding family-planning services and birth-control methods, and to leave their home nations freely without unreasonable hindrance to obtain family-planning services that are outlawed domestically;

Unquote.

My country has setup a very careful balance. This measure would allow people to leave my country, have kids, and attempt to get back in. If it was just information, that wouldn't be so bad. The problem comes, when it provides products for them. Its not just low income families.

In our eyes, we see the "Low income families" as an excuse, those people know more then anyone that having a kid is to costly. This is why we have taken this right away from them, unless they pass our requirements. If they can barely feed themselves, they do not need to have children; and our goverment denies them access.
Being able to go to my neighboring country, and get all the information they need, and any tools/help they might need to start a family is unwelcome, and takes away from the laws we have set in place for our peoples protections.
If this measure is just for information, then instead pass a measure that asks our countries to please give information to people in highschool.
Thats what we have Sex-Ed for, for the countries that still do; how else will they know what is illegal?

My countries people don't need service, and they are given their information when we see fit, as was previously stated; this ruling should be left to the nations and states to decide, not the UN. This is a private matter for our individual countries to deal with.

Is this REALLY needed as a UN policy?

It frankly isn't something the UN does.

The UN is there to enforce international laws and treaties, not control a country's population.

I oppose this proposal.

My country has setup a very careful balance. This measure would allow people to leave my country, have kids, and attempt to get back in. *snipped further foolishness*I don't think you understand what "family planning" means. It is defined in the proposal, but if you want the simple version, we're talking about birth control, not helping people start a family (whether you're talking about fertility drugs or sperm banks, I don't know, but neither is what is meant).

Is this REALLY needed as a UN policy?

It frankly isn't something the UN does.

The UN is there to enforce international laws and treaties, not control a country's population.Who are you to tell us what we do or do not do? This isn't the real life UN; this is the NSUN, and we are well within our rights under the rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) to impose a mandate such as this (and a mild one at that). This isn't about population control at all; this is about rendering assistance to families who need it. That's rather what the Social Justice category is for.

Upon initial review of the proposed resolution, I applaud its support for individual rights and freedoms and the protections thereof, without being overly intrusive or needlessly complicated. It currently has my approval.

Sincerely,
Ambassador Biddulph Strathfield
Twafflonia

My country has setup a very careful balance. This measure would allow people to leave my country, have kids, and attempt to get back in.

The proposed resolution, however, fails to require your government to allow reimmigration of such persons. Furthermore, if having excess children is illegal in your country, then their emigration from your country may be denied if your government deems it the case that these persons are indeed planning on re-entering the country with the excess children after leaving to birth them. While leaving to give birth may be protected by the resolution, leaving to return with a child (in essence, leaving to retrieve illegal goods so as to smuggle them back into the nation) is not protected.

Not that I support your nation's draconian birth control policies, but this resolution does little to hamper them.

Sincerely,
Ambassador Biddulph Strathfield
Twafflonia

It is the opinion of the government of Mirigo that reliable birth control is the responsibility of one's home country. Mirigan citizens have stated their dislike of neighbouring nations' citizens overwhelming the Mirigan birth control supply, especially from the seedier nations of the West Pacific.

The Empire of Mirigo has voted against this resolution.

Guillermo Vidal
Mirigan Ambassador to the UN

This whole thing seems to me to be limiting the authority of national governments to base their decisions off of their beliefs. As a Christian, I do not, and cannot, support and family planning that involves advising or condoning abortion. If this resolution is allowed to go through, that eliminates my ability to govern my nation according to my beliefs. I am not out there trying to ban family planning or abortion in the entire UN, so I would appreciate it if no one tried to force them on me.

This whole thing seems to me to be limiting the authority of national governments to base their decisions off of their beliefs. As a Christian, I do not, and cannot, support and family planning that involves advising or condoning abortion. If this resolution is allowed to go through, that eliminates my ability to govern my nation according to my beliefs. I am not out there trying to ban family planning or abortion in the entire UN, so I would appreciate it if no one tried to force them on me.

This does not advise or condone the use of abortion as a method of birth-control. All it does is provide information on family-planning services.

If this passes, it will not eliminate your ability to govern your nation according to your beliefs. There is nothing that mandates you allow this. Yes, it does urge, request and encourage, but there is nothing that says you must allow this.

Doesn't do a blasted thing really.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

It protects the rights of people to seek out family planning where it is available, and pressures member nations to make it more so. It also shields ALC from repeal, since its opponents claim they are less inclined to repeal it if these protections are put into place, but who would want that?

With all due respect to the esteemed representatitive of Ausserland, his argument that this legislation supposedly "enables people to gain access to information" is the very form of paternalism we decry when we say that this legislation is discriminatory. The peoples of the world are not stupid. Any person who knows how to have a child knows perfectly well how not to have one if they so choose. There is no need for someone from a supposedly "more progressive" nation to come along and tell them how.

Once more, the representative, in her strident and semi-hysterical opposition to this resolution, throws aside logic and reason to engage in inflammatory and insulting rhetoric. If everyone already knows everything they need to know about family planning, there would be no need for family planning services at all, would there? Paternalistic? What could be more paternalistic than a government keeping its people ignorant and bottled up so they could not choose to access information and services? The peoples of the world are not stupid. But they can be kept ignorant by governments that seek to continue their repressive and dictatorial policies by preventing the free flow of information. The representative apparently sees nothing wrong with this. We do.

Furthermore, we find the representative's claim that this legislation does not urge people to engage in "family planning" to be disingenious. Its very words state as much:

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

How can this be interpreted any other way that by placing the NSUN seal of approval upon "family planning"? And we repeat, by what right does the NSUN have to do such urging?

It can be interpreted according to what it says, rather than as the representative chooses to twist it to mean. It places the "UN seal of approval" on making information and services available to those who might make good use of them. The choice of whether or not to obtain the information or take advantages of the services is left completely up to the people.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

If everyone already knows everything they need to know about family planning, there would be no need for family planning services at all, would there?

With all due respect to the esteemed ambassador from Ausserland here, this is precisely our point. So-called "family planning" services are nothing more than an attempt by certain members of priviledged nations to strike out in fear against the poor and the undesirable, using the false promise of "helping them out of poverty" to hide their true agenda: keeping "them" from out-breeding "us".

It is a tragedy that many otherwise enlightened and responsible nations have fallen victim to this propaganda. The NSUN would be highly irresponsible, however, if it became a party to spreading it.

After consideration of this proposal, The Republic of Hephasterus wishes to make formal it's opposition to this proposal.

Although the resolution is submitted under the guise of providing information regarding "family planning" the proposal only makes four mentions to "education" in regards to this subject. However, nine references are made to family planning "services." Unfortunately, one of the "services" all too often related to birth control and "family planning" is the practice of abortion.

Our government realizes this is a controversial and highly divisive topic, and due to the sensitive moral, ethical, and even religious nature of abortion, we adamantly oppose any UN proposal that would indicate our government supports this practice.

It is therefore the intent of the Republic of Hephasterus to oppose this proposal.

I think people are reading too much into this. All this bill is doing is urgung all states to offer "Family Planning Services". You can tailor this to meet the needs of your Nation. If you want to instruct your populace on the Rhythm Method or abstinence, Fine. If, and may the Lord they God have mercy on your soul, you preach abortion as part of Family Planning, that is your perogative. This is not dictating WHAT you offer in family planning, but that you SUPPORT some sort of Family Planning activities within said Nation.

This bill only re-enforces what most of us have anyway.

In the name of HRH King Raymond I.

Regards,
Bert Pinkston
UN Ambassador
Republic of Minilla Island

Cookesland votes AGAINST, i don't feel this is an International enough issue for the UN

Fiore Acquerello
Deputy UN Ambassador

I think people are reading too much into this. All this bill is doing is urgung all states to offer "Family Planning Services". You can tailor this to meet the needs of your Nation. If you want to instruct your populace on the Rhythm Method or abstinence, Fine. If, and may the Lord they God have mercy on your soul, you preach abortion as part of Family Planning, that is your perogative. This is not dictating WHAT you offer in family planning, but that you SUPPORT some sort of Family Planning activities within said Nation.

Friends and worthy adversaries,

This is where the government of Darganchay begins to find this proposal intrusive and inexcusably irrelevant compared to the types of issues this body should be debating.

What is "family planning" in the first place? Darganchay's stance on "family planning" is that the phrase refers to helping families to grow and prosper in their ordained place in our budding, free-trade-friendly economic system. If this is a resolution about contraception, name it as such. If this is a resolution about abortion, name it as such. If this resolution is about any other maniacal, expensive, and demoralizing government programs to help reduce economic progress by short-circuiting natural population growth, NAME IT AS SUCH. Otherwise, this proposal is a dead fish floating in a murky, filthy pond of bloated moralization.

This body should be ashamed of itself for endorsing such a barbaric and brutal assault on economic progress and on natural population growth.

Remember, if your population is controlled, there is no need for population control. Find their role for them, give due respect to the worthy, and your nation is on the speedy, smooth road to glory already.

With honour,

The Envoy of Darganchay to the United Nations

How does this infringe upon your ability to set your own laws? All this really makes you do is allow people to travel abroad to attain services/products that are outlawed in your nation. They could already do so under the previous resolution Emigration Rights.

So where's the trouble?

?!?! we are not talking about the same resolution!

Accessible Family Planning

A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

i'm talkin about this!!

this is a nation's private issue and not an UN issue! i vote no because is nonsense!

This does not advise or condone the use of abortion as a method of birth-control. All it does is provide information on family-planning services.

If this passes, it will not eliminate your ability to govern your nation according to your beliefs. There is nothing that mandates you allow this. Yes, it does urge, request and encourage, but there is nothing that says you must allow this.

I respectfully disagree. It requires me to allow the people to leave, to seek such methods as are not available within our borders. You may see this as allowing the potential parents to excersize their rights. I, and my government, seek to protect another group here. What of the children? If a young mother decides to migrate to another nearby nation, in order to have the abortion that is illegal in my nation, and I let her go, I have just allowed the death of an innocent Crusader. My God-given duty is to protect the lives of ALL of my citizens. I am not doing a very good job of that, if I permit innocent, unborn children, who have absolutely no say in the matter, to be carried across the borders to be murdered and disposed of abroad. No, instead, that would be like allowing one of your citizens to cross the border in order to kill another one of your citizens. Would you condone this? No! Then kindly do not attempt to force me to do so. Also, I do not think it is the place of this august body of nations to "urge, request and encourage" me to allow abortions or family planning within my borders.

Humbly Yours in Christ,
Sven the Crusader <><

Cookesland votes AGAINST, i don't feel this is an International enough issue for the UNConcerned 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; Forgive my saying so, but I always assumed overpopulation was a serious issue warranting international attention. That's one of the reasons this is being brought forth, though we forgot to include stronger preambulatory language expanding on this point, stressing that unmanageable population increases in some nations pose great problems for other nations and so forth -- although simply bringing this up may set the Kawaiians off again, and the volume on the iPod doesn't nearly go high enough to drown them out.

[Turns to aid behind him:]

Hey, run back to the office and fetch my earmuffs, will you?

?!?! we are not talking about the same resolution!

Accessible Family Planning

A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

i'm talkin about this!!

this is a nation's private issue and not an UN issue! i vote no because is nonsense!That's a tagline that the game automatically adds to every resolution categorized as Social Justice; there's really not anything we can do about that. Why not try and read the text of the actual resolution, and report back to us on any problems found therein?

I respectfully disagree. It requires me to allow the people to leave, to seek such methods as are not available within our borders. You may see this as allowing the potential parents to excersize their rights. I, and my government, seek to protect another group here. What of the children? If a young mother decides to migrate to another nearby nation, in order to have the abortion that is illegal in my nation, and I let her go, I have just allowed the death of an innocent Crusader. My God-given duty is to protect the lives of ALL of my citizens. I am not doing a very good job of that, if I permit innocent, unborn children, who have absolutely no say in the matter, to be carried across the borders to be murdered and disposed of abroad. No, instead, that would be like allowing one of your citizens to cross the border in order to kill another one of your citizens. Would you condone this? No! Then kindly do not attempt to force me to do so. Also, I do not think it is the place of this august body of nations to "urge, request and encourage" me to allow abortions or family planning within my borders.Actually, as it has already been stated before, by the sponsor no less, this does not necessarily apply to abortions; the definition of "family planning" is such that abortions could reasonably be excluded. There were concerns expressed long ago that expressly including abortion among allowed family-planning services would muddy the issue, so the definition was tailored in such a way that nations could include it if they wanted to, but it was not mandatory to do so. I hope this addresses some of your concerns, chaplain.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

That's a tagline that the game automatically adds to every resolution categorized as Social Justice; there's really not anything we can do about that. Why not try and read the text of the actual resolution, and report back to us on any problems found therein?



Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations[/QUOTE]

Ok Sammy:

Description: Concerned that staggering population growth could pose serious economic problems, especially in developing nations; <-- no problem, nice thought.

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; <-- that is up with all internal nations policies.

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; <-- also internal policies.

Observing that member nations may restrict or outlaw access to certain birth-control methods that may help families prevent unwanted pregnancies; <- internal policies.

Defining, for the purpose of this resolution, "family planning" as pertaining to a product or service for regulating the number and spacing of children in a family. <-- "family planning" nice name :D

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 without unreasonable hindrance to obtain family-planning services that are outlawed domestically; <-- in my nation the people is free to get any information and services. in other nations, it's up with them! this is a violation of private nations affairs.

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

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

4. Strongly encourages member states to establish programs helping low-income families obtain legal family-planning services that are beyond their financial means; <-- every nation has is economy, some better some worst. who has the best economy may have this law, but those who have a poor economy canot have this. In order to have this law they would have to give up other economic situations = unemployment

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. <-- this i agree! but only the part that says "families seeking"

In general, it's up to every nation to make their family planning policies and not other nations.


I am an democratic person and Democracy is voting yes but my vote is no and i gave u my reasons, any question?

I am excited that a well-written proposal has finally been brought in for a vote. I am for this resolution as it can control the overwhelming populations of some nations, although my own is quite fine. I live on an island thus those wishing to cross borders with other nations are quite rare. If someone wants to leave my country to receive an illegal procedure in another country, then they must already have the money to pay for a ship/plane, something quite uncommon amongst LOW INCOME families.

From the Office of the Prime Minister of Mittagonia
.................

Mittagonia would be pleased to support this resolution. It does not find the suggestions offensive or intrusive - but simply as suggestions on helping our brother and sister nations be healthier and happier. It does not insist on any one type of family planning or method, but allows the nation to decide what it is best for its people. This resolution will not only help to maintain a careful watch on our growing populations, but may help in reducing the spread of diseases, ease to a stop the cycle of poverty within low-income families and allow people the peace of mind that they need not be engulfed in an event that is unplanned for. Congratulations on a well thought out and considered resolution.

With sincere regards,
Patrick Nathaniel
Prime Minister of Mittagonia

Personally, I think the government should have no business in the structure of family well-being, but this should help them out the low-income families.

I don't see what problem people could have with this resolution. This resolution mostly deals with health care. First it urges nations to provide families with a way to get some kind of birth control. Not even nations against abortion should have a problem with this, because it doesn't specify what kind of birth control you provide the people with. Remember, their are a number of birth control methods besides abortion. The second thing this issue focuses on is education. Education on family planing can be done in multiple ways. The government could include it in some kind of wedding class that must be taken in order to wed. The government could give hospitals brochures to set up in their office. (OOC: I've seen ones on heart disease, why not family planning?) IC: You could even include "family planning" as a higher education class. And for those against sex classes, it doesn't have to talk about sex, just ways to support a family financially. And for those who just can't stand the resolution you don't have to do anything except allow your people to leave the country to find a way to "family plan" elsewhere. All in all I think the only valid argument against this proposal is that it is a little old fashioned, since the main draw to having children in a low income household is child labor. Which, correct me if I'm wrong, has already been banned by the UN. In conclusion, I believe this is a well written proposal and I salute the authors and supporters for writing such a flexible, yet effective resolution.

The People's Republic of Opendia (voting for)

This isn't about population control at all; this is about rendering assistance to families who need it. That's rather what the Social Justice category is for.

Isn't about population control?

This excerpt is taken DIRECTLY out of the proposal:


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;


My point exactly.

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;

We are not convinced, actually. Though people can always pull out examples from the mythical RL world, this is not always the case. Population growth =/ economic problems; population growth =/ environmental degradation; population growth =/ poor health. Perhaps we are a bit too quick on equating population and people on these problems.

No, population growth is not the sole cause of these problems, nor will it always contribute to these problems. It is up to the policies of the government that will determine whether population growth will have a positive or a negative impact.

Population increase can actually benefit a nation with sensible economic policies, as an increase in population can enlarge the market and increase the number of possible workers. In a sense, population becomes an asset in this case. However, if the government is stupid and mismanages the economy, population growth can be a liability.

Same goes with environmental degradation. A large population would not necessarily mean that the environment would be degraded. No. There are other, more significant things that affects the environment including, but not limited to: wise use of resources, government regulation, awareness of the populace, recycling, technology, and so on. These have a greater, more direct impact on the environment.

Again, same goes with the health system. If the health care system is poor, then undoubtedly an increase in population would strain the system. However, if the system in excellent, and there are focus on preventive measures and excellent public health, it could easily take the population growth in stride.

To end, we believe that this issue would be best solved by individual states themselves, because the situation varies from nation to nation. As said earlier, the other parts of the resolution is already covered in "Emigration Rights"; therefore we think that we don't need this resolution.

Brutland and Norden is voting against.

Dr. Knut Spicolli, MD
The Expectant Father at the Nord-Brutlandese Delegation (and the Ambassador's Husband)

It is talking about population increases for families. It's just a bit fuzzy.

The Free Land of Inuktuvik recognizes the noble intent of the present United Nations resolution.

However, Article 1 of the resolution contains language which our nation finds unacceptable. Namely, "Affirms the right of individuals to... leave their home nations freely without unreasonable hindrance to obtain family-planning services that are outlawed domestically..."

Whereas:

1. As a sovereign nation the Free Land of Inuktuvik reserves the sole right to allow or disallow citizens passage within and across its borders, at its sole discretion.

2. The language in the article aforementioned can be interpreted as encouraging individuals to travel abroad in order to violate laws that have been duly voted and lawfully enforced within the sovereign borders of our nation. Moreover these laws if violated may have far-reaching damaging effects on our society and culture.

It is the opinion of the Free Land Of Inuktuvik that the Accessible Family Planning Resolution is at its heart a noble and worthy exercise but that the language of Article One as presently formulated is a blatant violation of the sovereignty of our nation and we declare our intent to vote NO to the measure.

We urge the sponsor(s) of the proposed resolution to strike the offending language from the resolution.

The Ambassador from Putzi sends our warmest regards to all fellow delegates but can't help being bemused by all the effort going into debating a resolution with such large and gaping loopholes that one could drive a family planning clinic through them...

It "urges" this and "recommends" that but won't actually make anything happen...also it is a Law of Nature (and a strange one at that) in the NationStates universe that a nation is only allowed to choose a unique prefix for its name upon reaching a population of 500 million. This is effectively a reward or incentive for reaching such a large population - the part of this legislation aimed at population control is clearly and foolishly trying to work against the nature of the universe (one could call it the Arrow of Population - analogous with the Arrow of Time) and so is doomed to failure. How comic!

The hiccoughing Ambassador from Putzi, (who votes AGAINST but cares not which way the vote goes for all the difference it will make...)

Isn't about population control?

This excerpt is taken DIRECTLY out of the proposal:

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;My point exactly.Alright, let me rephrase: "This is not about about imposing population control on nations; it is about rendering assistance to families who need it." You are free to word it however you like, but whatever it is you're yammering about is not the purpose of this resolution's remit.

The Ambassador from Putzi sends Putzi's warmest regards to all fellow delegates but can't help being bemused by all the effort going into debating a resolution with such large and gaping loopholes that one could drive a family planning clinic through them...

It "urges" this and "recommends" that won't actually make anything happen...also it is a Law of Nature (and a strange one at that) in the NationStates universe that a nation is only allowed to choose a unique prefix for its name upon reaching a population of 500 million. This is effectively a reward or incentive for reaching such a large population - we are clearly going against the nature of the universe with the aspect of this legislation aimed at population control. How comic!Heh. Funny. Until you consider this is supposed to be a mild proposal, which is why it is subcategorized as "Mild." Go on, have a look, right at the top of the proposal. Mild proposals are supposed to be worded mildly; it's in the rules.

And please stop trying to say this is a resolution for "population control"; it's disingenuous and muddies the issue.

Heh. Funny. Until you consider this is supposed to be a mild proposal, which is why it is subcategorized as "Mild." Go on, have a look, right at the top of the proposal. Mild proposals are supposed to be worded mildly; it's in the rules.

Mild?! This proposal so meek and mild it's dead. Sooo, you've got 2000+ posts and therefore earned the right to patronise everyone? I'm still hiccoughing.

The Putzi Ambassador

We are not convinced, actually. Though people can always pull out examples from the mythical RL world, this is not always the case. Population growth =/ economic problems; population growth =/ environmental degradation; population growth =/ poor health. Perhaps we are a bit too quick on equating population and people on these problems.

No, population growth is not the sole cause of these problems, nor will it always contribute to these problems. It is up to the policies of the government that will determine whether population growth will have a positive or a negative impact.

Population increase can actually benefit a nation with sensible economic policies, as an increase in population can enlarge the market and increase the number of possible workers. In a sense, population becomes an asset in this case. However, if the government is stupid and mismanages the economy, population growth can be a liability.

Same goes with environmental degradation. A large population would not necessarily mean that the environment would be degraded. No. There are other, more significant things that affects the environment including, but not limited to: wise use of resources, government regulation, awareness of the populace, recycling, technology, and so on. These have a greater, more direct impact on the environment.

Again, same goes with the health system. If the health care system is poor, then undoubtedly an increase in population would strain the system. However, if the system in excellent, and there are focus on preventive measures and excellent public health, it could easily take the population growth in stride.

To end, we believe that this issue would be best solved by individual states themselves, because the situation varies from nation to nation. As said earlier, the other parts of the resolution is already covered in "Emigration Rights"; therefore we think that we don't need this resolution.No, population increases by themselves do not necessarily pose a problem; it's "staggering" and "unmanageable" population growth this proposal cites as a potential problem to national economies and the management of developing societies. While the internal policies of individual nations are indeed the best way to address these problems -- and the mild language employed in this resolution is designed to respect national leaders' right to determine the policies of their own nations -- we still do hold that people should have the right to seek out family-planning services where they are available, and that these services should be made more readily available to families who choose to pursue them. That's precisely why this proposal was introduced. This was never intended as a population-control measure; overpopulation was only cited as one of several reasons why family-planning services should be more procurable.

Mild?! This proposal so meek and mild it's dead.Right, you should probably vote against then. Good day.

Mild?! This proposal so meek and mild it's dead. Sooo, you've got 2000+ posts and therefore earned the right to patronise everyone? I'm still hiccoughing.

The Putzi Ambassador

You're right, no one has the right to patronize you because they have been on longer. (sometimes some of the really old members can be really stuck up) But even though it is mild, it is effective. And don't worry it's not a population control.

The People's Republic of Opendia

No, population increases by themselves do not necessarily pose a problem; it's "staggering" and "unmanageable" population growth this proposal cites as a potential problem to national economies and the management of developing societies. While the internal policies of individual nations are indeed the best way to address these problems -- and the mild language employed in this resolution is designed to respect national leaders' right to determine the policies of their own nations -- we still do hold that people should have the right to seek out family-planning services where they are available, and that these services should be made more readily available to families who choose to pursue them. That's precisely why this proposal was introduced. This was never intended as a population-control measure; overpopulation was only cited as one of several reasons why family-planning services should be more procurable.

As laudable as the intentions of the drafters of this proposal may seem, the fact remains that it is concerned with population growth. Calling such growth "staggering" or "unmanagable" calls in to question: by whose standards? Is this not an admission by some nations that they believe other nations' populations are somehow "out of control" and need to be "managed"?

To say that this proposal was never intended as a population-control measure is to miss the point. It is results, not intentions, that are the final judge of a resolution. The results here can be clearly forseen: the persuading of families not to have children. Such actions are unworthy of this august body.

As a duly appointed UN representative for the government and people of James xenoland, I must vote strongly against this idealogically driven, subversive attempt at social re-engineering by this body.

Meh.
I've been convinced.
The Genoshan Isles will vote against.

My country has a population of well over 1 billion people. It is because of the diligent work ethic of our people, that we are so prosperous.

We can "manage" our population growth just fine without this proposal.
And we take offense that only "enlightened" nations have family planning/population control measures.

Respectfully,
The Honorable Marcus Diegaus III, KCMC, CC
Senior Ambassador
Permanent Representative to the United Nations
The Royal Federation of the Genoshan Isles

As laudable as the intentions of the drafters of this proposal may seem, the fact remains that it is concerned with population growth. Calling such growth "staggering" or "unmanagable" calls in to question: by whose standards? Is this not an admission by some nations that they believe other nations' populations are somehow "out of control" and need to be "managed"? .


Once again, you're not reading the actual resolution. It is by your own[/B nation's standards to when population growth is staggering, and you have the choice of attempting to limit or you can let it grow endlessly and watch your economy implode. Unsurprisingly, other nations [B]cannot manage your population, they merely give you the option to do so if you wish.
This resolution uses loose enough wording that it could pass and you would need to make absolutely no changes in your country. Yet you would still prefer to complain about it selfishly while ignoring those nations which may need this kind of program.

Mild?! This proposal so meek and mild it's dead. Sooo, you've got 2000+ posts and therefore earned the right to patronise everyone? I'm still hiccoughing.

The Putzi Ambassador

*Bob sneaks up behind the Putzi Ambassador*

BOO!!!!!!!!

Did that take care of your hiccups?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

As laudable as the intentions of the drafters of this proposal may seem, the fact remains that it is concerned with population growth. Calling such growth "staggering" or "unmanagable" calls in to question: by whose standards? Is this not an admission by some nations that they believe other nations' populations are somehow "out of control" and need to be "managed"? .


Once again, you're not reading the actual resolution. It is by your own[/B nation's standards to when population growth is staggering, and you have the choice of attempting to limit or you can let it grow endlessly and watch your economy implode. Unsurprisingly, other nations [B]cannot manage your population, they merely give you the option to do so if you wish.
This resolution uses loose enough wording that it could pass and you would need to make absolutely no changes in your country. Yet you would still prefer to complain about it selfishly while ignoring those nations which may need this kind of program.

Mild?! This proposal so meek and mild it's dead. Sooo, you've got 2000+ posts and therefore earned the right to patronise everyone? I'm still hiccoughing.

The Putzi Ambassador

*Bob sneaks up behind the Putzi Ambassador*

BOO!!!!!!!!

Did that take care of your hiccups?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Meh.
I've been convinced.
The Genoshan Isles will vote against.

My country has a population of well over 1 billion people. It is because of the diligent work ethic of our people, that we are so prosperous.

We can "manage" our population growth just fine without this proposal.
And we take offense that only "enlightened" nations have family planning/population control measures.

Respectfully,
The Honorable Marcus Diegaus III, KCMC, CC
Senior Ambassador
Permanent Representative to the United Nations
The Royal Federation of the Genoshan Isles

This proposal isn't a population control, it's a way to educate poor families to keep them from too many children, and providing them with some kind of birth control method. You don't even have to do either, but you do have allow your people to leave the country to get one of the above.

The People's Republic of Opendia

It "urges" this and "recommends" that but won't actually make anything happen...

The hiccoughing Ambassador from Putzi was apparently too busy hiccoughing to read Article 1 of the resolution. Perhaps he'd like to try breathing into a paper bag for a while and try again.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

Having thought she'd seen the last of the hall, Shelob, carrying an egg sac on her back, made her way to the General Assembly.

Alright, let me rephrase: "This is not about about imposing population control on nations; it is about rendering assistance to families who need it." ... And please stop trying to say this is a resolution for "population control"; it's disingenuous and muddies the issue.

Whosz better to szay if familiesz need birth controlsz than nationxz in which they livesz? Thousandsz of babiez yessz we needsz to survive. Too many babiez easzy to takesz care of. Eatsz them we doez. Thisz tklt legislationsz hidesz judgmental thoughtsz againszt peoplesz who are differentsz. Seducesz my peoplesz to weaken selvesz and commit selvesz to exterminationsz.

It is by your own[/B nation's standards to when population growth is staggering, and you have the choice of attempting to limit or you can let it grow endlessly and watch your economy implode. Unsurprisingly, other nations [B]cannot manage your population, they merely give you the option to do so if you wish.Tnnk. Resolution removesz power of nationsz to control. Givesz powersz to individualsz to decide if too many babiez havings.

The results here can be clearly forseen: the persuading of families not to have children. Such actions are unworthy of this august body.
... it's a way to educate poor families to keep them from too many children, and providing them with some kind of birth control method.

The tkli Nuncia isz wise and correctsz. Thisz law holdz poor as lesser than richezs. Why shouldz nationsz encouragesz poor not to hasz asz many babiez as rich, but not encouragesz rich to hasz no babiez?.

Wavesz our forelegsz in devotion....

It is by [B]your own[/B nation's standards to when population growth is staggering

Then why does this resolution exist?

As I have said before, all this resolution wants to do is control our population, no matter how it is worded. You have to read BETWEEN the lines.

Our population is of NO business to the UN, whether that be the fictional UN in this game, or the real UN.

This resolution was made out of one thing: BOREDOM

If you want to abuse your power by making random resolutions, then you shouldn't be in the UN at all.

My vote still stands: AGAINST

This resolution: crap. The way it's written I'd have to give funds to help another country's family planning while I will need to do so for my country. I don't want other nations placing a burden on mine. This resolution is short and needs to be rewritten very much.

AGAINST!

First, we are very pleased that clause 3 made it into the final draft. Second, we apologise that we have of late (wherefore we know not...) been absent from this Assembly, and hence not followed the drafting of this proposal, nor the debate on it. Third, we commend the author on the extensive drafting that was conducted and their general openness to comments on the draft. Fourth, there is nothing in this proposal that we could reasonably oppose. Fifth, we wouldn't wish to be accused of drive-byism, and thus won't simply snip that a lot of the opposition to this proposal would appear to be desk-bashingly stupid.

It was my personal recommendation that we abstain on this proposal, so as not to appear to be acquiescing in the passage of such a tepid measure that might have the effect of preventing some legislation that actually does something to promote public health; however, I have been overruled by the Social "Democrats" occupying the Quintessential Congress, and Quintessence of Dust will vote FOR this proposal.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador
Quintessence of Dust

I'm sorry I'm late to the discussion and I've only glanced over the transcript so far but I seem to be dissapointed at the debate so far. The notion that this is some attempt by the UN to reduce your nation's population is manure, pure and simple.

Mind you I thought I saw some supporters use a line that seemed to imply that poverty was something you can eliminate through nateral selection - if poor people don't have children we can eliminate poverty.

Retired Werepenguins highly supports this resolution. We have concerns, but generally we do not find them reasons to change our mind and vote against the resolution. The concern is whether or not this is an end run around the ALC. The argument is that "Defining, for the purpose of this resolution, 'family planning' as pertaining to a product or service for regulating the number and spacing of children in a family." One could argue that abortion would be included in family planning.

Now, for the record such a definition doesn't cause a problem with ALC directly. The problem is clause 1, the right to leave your home freely to get such services. This allows anyone in a nation that bans aboriton to leave their nation to get an abortion. Assuming that the other nation lets them in.

Oh wait, I just realized a clever point, the right to leave the country is granted, but not the right to return. That might make pro-abortion nations reluctant to let such (for all intents and purposes) one way immigration into their nation.

This resolution: crap. The way it's written I'd have to give funds to help another country's family planning while I will need to do so for my country. I don't want other nations placing a burden on mine. This resolution is short and needs to be rewritten very much.

AGAINST!

There is nothing in this that says you have to give funds to other nations. Try reading it again, very, very carefully.

I'm just new, but I had a close look at the resolution and it looks fine to me. There's nothing wrong with supporting poorer members of society with birth control. Its all about educating people and providing them with with the knowledge and means to get their rocks off without worrying about Mini-Me popping out in 9 months.

I am voting FOR the resolution.

Slainté Mhath.

Then why does this resolution exist?

As I have said before, all this resolution wants to do is control our population, no matter how it is worded. You have to read BETWEEN the lines.

Our population is of NO business to the UN, whether that be the fictional UN in this game, or the real UN.

This resolution was made out of one thing: BOREDOM

If you want to abuse your power by making random resolutions, then you shouldn't be in the UN at all.

My vote still stands: AGAINST

It doesn't force you to take action in your country, it only gives you the option to do so. Your citizens have no less right to use family planning if you don't agree with it. In that case, you can claim family planning involves making babies, and it's as if this resolution hasn't affected your country much. However, there are numerous other countries that would need this to pass.

Once again, another country has no empathy and doesn't understand that perhaps the world around them needs something when it won't affect them in any way. Or perhaps them beating their head into a brick wall :headbang: and convincing themself that this resolution is solely about population control has reduced their cognitive function to nil. Either way, it shall pass.

The tkli Nuncia isz wise and correctsz. Thisz law holdz poor as lesser than richezs. Why shouldz nationsz encouragesz poor not to hasz asz many babiez as rich, but not encouragesz rich to hasz no babiez?.

The fact of the matter is, that poor people are less likely to be able to afford a large number of children than the rich. Not only that, but the purpose of this resolution is not to discourage the poor from having babies. It is simply giving them access to a number of resources including but not limited to: education, which allows them to decide if having a lot of children is smart financially, and a birth control of some sorts if they decide to limit their family size. I repeat this is not a way to oppress the poor, or to get you to support other nations, or even to limit your nation's population. Why would members of the UN go out of their way to limit your population?

The People's Republic of Opendia

The argument is that "Defining, for the purpose of this resolution, 'family planning' as pertaining to a product or service for regulating the number and spacing of children in a family." One could argue that abortion would be included in family planning.

That is true, one could argue that, but you could also argue that other methods of birth control, like protection are sufficient "family planning" products. Not only that, but as you stated earlier if a nearby nation provides abortion you don't have to let the people back in. Which would keep pro abortion nations from including abortion in the definition.

The People's Republic of Opendia

This resolution targets low-income and society's down and out, I believe it pigeon holes this group as people we do not desire to reproduce. The money spent on this resolution would be better spent on education in general and developing ways to help the less fortunate in all our countries. We should not be flirting with picking who should have children or not. In many ways this resolution's wording suggests it is not far off from sterilization. Pregnancy prevention methods are accessible (for free) in most medical clinics and colleges. And those that cost more (the pill) are subsidized by standard medical insurance. This resolution will serve to only widen the gap in classes.

The hiccoughing Ambassador from Putzi was apparently too busy hiccoughing to read Article 1 of the resolution. Perhaps he'd like to try breathing into a paper bag for a while and try again.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

Another patronising megaposter...Putzi humbly suggests that my exhalted patron the Ambassador from Ausserland himself goes and rereads Articles 2,3,4 and 5 which 'strongly urge', 'encourage', 'strongly encourage' and 'request' in turn. Such feebleness of Article construction is beneath the stardards of even 'mild' in our opinion.

Putzi wishes to warmly thank all those who suggested cures for his complaint, especially Flibbleites who was so effective. Unfortuately the second BOO! started them again...

The Putzi Ambassador (who is now voting FOR in order to confuse everyone)

putzi i highly reccomend that you change sides we dont want that bill placed

Then why does this resolution exist?

As I have said before, all this resolution wants to do is control our population, no matter how it is worded. You have to read BETWEEN the lines.

Our population is of NO business to the UN, whether that be the fictional UN in this game, or the real UN.

This resolution was made out of one thing: BOREDOM

If you want to abuse your power by making random resolutions, then you shouldn't be in the UN at all.

My vote still stands: AGAINST

good on ya i agree but it allso means the un has control over our countrys population its my advise to stay on the against side and i hope you would like to come to cloud 9 for a chat and some food from my poor people whos babies are being slauterd for use by kentuky fied babies because of the population increce

I'm just new, but I had a close look at the resolution and it looks fine to me. There's nothing wrong with supporting poorer members of society with birth control. Its all about educating people and providing them with with the knowledge and means to get their rocks off without worrying about Mini-Me popping out in 9 months.

I am voting FOR the resolution.

Slainté Mhath.

why whats the point family planning is not on the agenda for most nations its so pointless

good on ya i agree but it allso means the un has control over our countrys population its my advise to stay on the against side and i hope you would like to come to cloud 9 for a chat and some food from my poor people whos babies are being slauterd for use by kentuky fied babies because of the population increce

OOC: All I'm going to say here is that punctuation and spellchecks are your friend.

IC: No, it doesn't mean that the UN has control over your nation's population.

annoying large text snipped

OOC again: Please do not use font size that large. It's unnecessary and rather annoying.

Another patronising megaposter...Putzi humbly suggests that my exhalted patron the Ambassador from Ausserland himself goes and rereads Articles 2,3,4 and 5 which 'strongly urge', 'encourage', 'strongly encourage' and 'request' in turn. Such feebleness of Article construction is beneath the stardards of even 'mild' in our opinion.

Putzi wishes to warmly thank all those who suggested cures for his complaint, especially Flibbleites who was so effective. Unfortuately the second BOO! started them again...Yeah, fuck off already.

Cdr. Jenny Chiang
Security Attache to the United Nations

why whats the point family planning is not on the agenda for most nations its so pointlessYou too.

~Cdr. Chiang

big text
Please. You don't need to scream. The microphone is just in front of you.

Dr. Knut Spicolli, MD
The Expectant Father at the Nord-Brutlandese Delegation (and the Ambassador's Husband)

why whats the point family planning is not on the agenda for most nations its so pointless

I disagree wholeheartedly. In many countries family planning is very much on the agenda. Look at certain countries in the West that have almost unprecedented levels of teenage pregnancies creating pressure on the Social Services and the welfare system. We need to educate the less well off and provide them with the resources to tackle family planning issues. If the UN are willing to assist with these issues then fair play to them.

And settle down with the caps, we can all hear you.

Slainté Mhath,

Seoras Domhnallach
Ambassador for Tomnahuria.

Friends,
No matter which side of this issue your country stands ground upon, this proposal is less than a day from being passed. It is not a perfect proposal, noting pointed out loopholes, but the basic blueprint is there. The loopholes give room to countries' rights on how to execute the soon-to-be resolution.

I repeat this is not a way to oppress the poor, or to get you to support other nations, or even to limit your nation's population. Why would members of the UN go out of their way to limit your population?

Fear of those who are different. The NSUN has made war unfashionable, so what better way to keep one's hands clean and still limit the number of "undesirables" in the world than to convince them they're better off not reproducing?

Fear of those who are different. The NSUN has made war unfashionable, so what better way to keep one's hands clean and still limit the number of "undesirables" in the world than to convince them they're better off not reproducing?

Oh, drop it already. We are not trying to limit the number of 'undesirables". We are not trying to stop people from reproducing. We are trying to help people make more informed decisions when it comes to starting or expanding their families.

Dahlia Dioce
Vice President, Harem of Karmicaria

It doesn't force you to take action in your country

It most certainly does. It forces a nation to allow its citizens to leave the country specifically to undergo a procedure that is banned in their home country. That creates a double standard. "You're allowed to do this, with our government's blessing, just not within our borders"? This is nothing short of undermining these nations' laws.

Either way, it shall pass.

And I predict a repeal of this resolution will soon pass just as easily.

It most certainly does. It forces a nation to allow its citizens to leave the country specifically to undergo a procedure that is banned in their home country. That creates a double standard. "You're allowed to do this, with our government's blessing, just not within our borders"? This is nothing short of undermining these nations' laws.

No, it really doesn't. Besides, your citizens already have that right under Emigration Rights.

This will not force your government to do anything that they don't want to do.

And I predict a repeal of this resolution will soon pass just as easily.

You may be right, then again, repeals have a hard time getting through because people get sick of seeing them come across their desk.

Dahlia Dioce

Articles 2,3,4 and 5 which 'strongly urge', 'encourage', 'strongly encourage' and 'request' in turn. Such feebleness of Article construction is beneath the stardards of even 'mild' in our opinion.In my opinion, it's perfectly up to that standards of a "mild" Proposal. And not only do I have a massive post count, but I wrote the current version of the rules.

Guess who wins?

The Empire of Felchinstein supports the resolution as it now stands. It will save the nation alot of money, considering every child after the second is aborted and the fetus is used for stem cell research.

The problem with this is that haveing "family-policies" can isnt very Democratic is more of a Dictatorship idea forcing families to have certain things that they may or may not have to do.
I do not know if others may think the same way I do but forcing a family to do or to not do "personal acts" is not fair.

Yeah, fuck off already.

Cdr. Jenny Chiang
Security Attache to the United Nations

You too.

~Cdr. Chiang

Bad form, Commander.
Bad form.

Such blatant language is not for respectable officers, even ornery, pig-headed, short-sighted officers such as yourself.

M. Diegaus III

Doesn't matter if this passes, as I foresee a repeal.......

President Vladimir Kozentov
Leader of Chernobyl Power Plant

Bad form, Commander.
Bad form.

Such blatant language is not for respectable officers, even ornery, pig-headed, short-sighted officers such as yourself.Who asked you?

Doesn't matter if this passes, as I foresee a repeal.......So do I! In fact, I predict a repeal will come to vote (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=spcc) tomorrow! Whoa! :eek:

In the meantime, I suggest you take to heart the suggestion (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12967431&postcount=149) of the distinguished Karmicarian representative.

The problem with this is that haveing "family-policies" can isnt very Democratic is more of a Dictatorship idea forcing families to have certain things that they may or may not have to do.
I do not know if others may think the same way I do but forcing a family to do or to not do "personal acts" is not fair.

Where is it stipulated that families will be 'forced' to use family planning? It is a support mechanism, not some kind of Draconian measure to prevent couples from having children.

I suggest you read the proposal again before making erroneous assumptions.

Slainté Mhath

I suggest you read the proposal again before making erroneous assumptions.

Slainté Mhath

But jumping to conclusions is the only exercise some people around here get.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

A good revelation, but we are not conversed that archangle faximile planning is an tissue this september organ grinder should be legalisationing on. However, it is of succulently lacking in it's insipidence for us not to be cornered

Mrs Malaprop

No, it really doesn't. Besides, your citizens already have that right under Emigration Rights.

This will not force your government to do anything that they don't want to do.
Doesz nothingsz already not doingsz? Wondersz then, why bothersz tklt?

If I me wantsz spidersz in dark forestsz have many many babiez and no choicesz for themsz? Don't wantsz themsz not having babiesz? Thisz makesz I me letsz them havesz choicesz, yessz.

...wavingsz forelegsz in devotionsz...

At this time, the Dictatorship of Koar supports this proposal to assist families in keeping their numbers down safer, easier, and cheaper than before.

In the meantime, I suggest you take to heart the suggestion (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12967431&postcount=149) of the distinguished Karmicarian representative.

That's only one person's suggestion comrade........

Hardly enough to get me to NOT want to repeal the resolution.

It doesn't only deal with developing nations. They are mentioned, but most of it is geared towards giving low-income families access to services and information that they wouldn't normally be able to afford.
good god, I'm glad this is only a game - you do all realise this can be paraphrased as "do not let the poor breed"? :eek:

good god, I'm glad this is only a game - you do all realise this can be paraphrased as "do not let the poor breed"? :eek:

That is EXACTLY why this resolution is irrelevant.

Mark my words comrades, it WILL be repealed.


President Vladimir Kozentov
Leader of Chernobyl Power Plant

That is EXACTLY why this resolution is irrelevant.

Mark my words comrades, it WILL be repealed.


President Vladimir Kozentov
Leader of Chernobyl Power Plant

To repeat myself;

You may be right, then again, repeals have a hard time getting through because people get sick of seeing them come across their desk.

However, I do wish you luck in you endeavor.

For those who supported this and helped it to pass, the Governments of Karmicaria, Lady Deathstrike and OMGTKK would like to thank you. If anyone is interested, there will be a gathering at the Karmicarian Burlesque house, on us, of course.

Dahlia Dioce

Who asked you?


Nobody, actually.
But it's still the truth.

So, have a Coke and a smile, and pipe the hell down.

M. Diegaus III

You know, I hardly think I'd be very productive in these halls if I devoted even one second to giving a fuck what you thought of me. In the future, I would appreciate it if you reserved your remarks on this floor to the proposal at hand, and left the Miss Manners bullshit at the door.

~Cdr. Chiang

You know, I hardly think I'd be very productive in these halls if I devoted even one second to giving a fuck what you thought of me. In the future, I would appreciate it if you reserved your remarks on this floor to the proposal at hand, and left the Miss Manners bullshit at the door.

~Cdr. Chiang

Honestly.
Take whatever stick you have lodged up your gaping and seeming malfunctioning sphincter, and use some freaking decorum.
This isn't some "Miss Manners bullshit", Kennyite. It's common fucking sense. The floor is no place for blatant rudeness. You wanna do that shit, and put someone out on blast, then do it in the privacy of an office, not here, where most of us try to do some business.

Brig. (ret.) M. Diegaus III

The floor is no place for blatant rudeness. You wanna do that shit, and put someone out on blast, then do it in the privacy of an office, not here, where most of us try to do some business.Booooooring ....

~Cdr. Chiang

Yeah, lock this topic please. ~Kenny

As if yours had merit?

- M. Diegaus III



Agreed.
Lock this.

Cdr Chiang, Brigadier Diegaus, for the honour of your respective regiments, shut the [sexual congress] up and go have a [sanguinary] drink in the [expletive] Strangers' Bar.

*Dicey Reilly slams General Assembly doors*