We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Safe Orphans Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Democractic Socialist Party of Lodamun
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: November 2087
Description[?]:
| I know that this issue has been debated time and time again, but I find it appalling that any person, any criminal, any pedophile is allowed to adopt children. So, I'd like to introduce the Safe Orphans Act. This bill will make it so that the government can regulate who(m) can adopt children. The bill is obviously incomplete and waiting for your ideas. I will take suggestions on to what is required to adopt a child, but for now, they are as follows: 1. Couples - as well as individuals - may adopt children as long as they can provide a safe, well nurturing environment for the child. I. The term “safe” is defined as follows: secure from danger, harm, or evil. Having a low potential for dander, harm, evil under everyday conditions. a. Potential guardians should take all reasonable measures to make their households safer (i.e. childproofing cabinets/doors, plug covers for outlets, mesh gates, etc.) b. Household pets are not a problem as long as it doesn’t have a reported history of aggression. c. Homes in areas with higher levels of crime will be frowned upon, but not completely disregarded. II. When possible, child. If not, the child's biological parents will choose an applicant. If it that is still impossible, an agent working for the adoption agency will decide. 2. Applicants may not be turned away based on their age, gender, race, religion, sexual preference, marital status, or income provided they can supply the upbringing stated above. 3. Convicted committers of violent crimes and sex offenders cannot adopt children. 4.Biological parents of the children will be expected to pay for the procedures involved in giving up their child. If the child's parents were lost to illness/accidents the fees will be supported through taxes. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning adoption.
Old value:: Adoption is not regulated.
Current: Adoption is regulated by the government. Applicants can adopt after a routine check-up.
Proposed: Adoption is strictly regulated by the government. Only by passing several tests and by following an intensive program applicants can adopt children.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 20:57:52, July 19, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Safe Orphans Act |
| Message | Is there a time served clause on our federal offenders. If not then someone who was say a conscientious objector would be barred from providing a much needed home. Additionally, by whose standards is nurturing to be judged. We see problems arising in the interpretation of this term. There are those that would argue that only children brought up in their religion are being nurtured spiritually. Then, what does safe mean. Is a home allowed to contain any kitchen knives, or a dog etc? These are the type of reasons why we thought that any type of regulation on who can and can not adopt would be unworkable. It seems much better to us to have the general case being that anyone can adopt, with those few cases where adoption would not be something that we accept being the exception to the rule. i.e. some individuals would be prohibited from adaopting by court order. No specific testing or training should be required. The other big argument against this is that this testing and training is not required to become a parent, so why is it needed to become an adoptive parent? |
| Date | 01:15:35, July 20, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Safe Orphans Act |
| Message | In general terms, this is fine. The point about convicted criminals is spot on, though.Those who have been imprisoned for non-violent crimes such as political protest shouold not be barred from adopting. Bar sexual offenders, by all emans, but not everyone convicted of any crime. |
| Date | 03:02:22, July 20, 2005 CET | From | Democractic Socialist Party of Lodamun | To | Debating the Safe Orphans Act |
| Message | It'd be nice if parents could be tested and trained before becoming parents, but thats obviously giving the government too much power over the personal lives of citizens. However, this bill is meant to be inclusive, allowing almost everyone but those likely to harm the child. |
| Date | 06:33:59, July 20, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Safe Orphans Act |
| Message | "II. When possible, the child's biological parents will choose applicants. If not, an agent working for the adoption agency will decide." Remove, the child's biological parents could well discriminate based on "age, gender, race, religion, sexual preference, marital status, or income". |
| Date | 08:24:05, July 20, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Safe Orphans Act |
| Message | I rather like that clause. Open adoption, and everything. |
| Date | 20:26:59, July 20, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Safe Orphans Act |
| Message | II should be changed to allow the child themself to be the first opinion of importance where possible, not the parents. The parents were irresponsible enough to have a child they can not support, they should not be trusted with making this decision. It should fall to the child, and then to the agency representative. We are concerned though that yet again, the wording of the act does not concur with the wording of the proposal. We agree with the act, but this does not seem to be severely regulated. Then there is the second part of the proposal that is of concern. The training part. Who pays for this? The applicant to adopt a child? If so you are eliminating good loving homes that are in a low income situation, money is not everything in a family. The tax payer? We hope not, the average man is not the cause of a child needing adoption. We will accept that the tax payer can pay for this where the child concerned is one that has lost both parents to accidents/illnesses. However if the biological parents are alive, then they shoul pay for the cost of this training. Otherwise it is condoning an attitude of, "I'm all right, Jack" with respect to contraception and responsible sexual behaviour. |
| Date | 21:44:57, July 22, 2005 CET | From |  Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Safe Orphans Act |
| Message | Oppose...The result of this bill, whether it intends it or not, is to create a surplus of orphans that cannot find homes. Make it harder for people to adopt children, and less people will adopt children. A laudable goal, but counter-productive in practice. |
| Date | 07:03:09, July 25, 2005 CET | From | Democractic Socialist Party of Lodamun | To | Debating the Safe Orphans Act |
| Message | What about allowing tax breaks to those who adopt children in order to encourage them? |
| Date | 22:55:12, July 25, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Safe Orphans Act |
| Message | We could agree to that, but we still dont like the proposal of this bill. Heavy regulation isnt the way to encourage anything. |
| Date | 02:24:01, July 28, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Safe Orphans Act |
| Message | One more thing: "4. Biological parents of the children will be expected to pay for the procedures involved in giving up their child. " (In our opinion, abortions are already easier on the parents than adoptions. We feel that this clause will help to encourage more abortions and less adoptions, a trend that we do not wish to increase. We personally are divided on abortion, feeling that it is an issue of Life versus Liberty between two parties, therefore we permit the procedure, but discourage it.) Therefore we request that all parts of this bill that could work to discourage parents from giving their children to adoption be removed. |
| Date | 03:32:22, July 29, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Safe Orphans Act |
| Message | ((Sorry, hit the wrong button first time)) |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 259 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 75 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 116 |
| Random fact: Players have a responsibility to differentiate between OOC (out-of-character) and IC (in-character) behaviour, and to make clear when they are communicating in OOC or IC terms. Since Particracy is a role-playing game, IC excesses are generally fine, but OOC attacks are not. However, players must not presume this convention permits them to harass a player with IC remarks that have a clear OOC context. |
| Random quote: "The true destiny of America is religious, not political: it is spiritual, not physical." - Alvin R. Dyer |