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: The Sanctity of Life Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: The Family First Party
Status[?]: defeated
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: July 2475
Description[?]:
| The Family First Party is deeply concerned about the current situation of this nation in regards to the protection of life. Life is a sacred thing, and no one should have the right to disrespect life and perform acts that are oblivious to its worth. The sacred life of a child begins at conception, when, though they may not have consciousness, they are most certainly a living entity, with a heartbeat. These children can suck their thumbs at the tender age of 12 weeks or less, just like toddlers. Having a consciousness should not determine what we consider to be a living human being. Nor should a time limit be put on when a child legally becomes a human being. A baby is a human being since the point of conception - a human life that is to be respected just as our nation's elderly, our young adults, and everyone else. Many who oppose the prohibition of abortion claim that a woman's right to choose is more important than the child's right to live. However, the child is not given a 'choice' in the matter, where the woman is - the woman's choice was whether or not to have sex. What about the child's choice? The woman's choice was whether or not to engage in sexual congress - in an act of pro-creation, the direct result of which is pregnancy. This was her concious choice, but beyond this, her choices are forfeit. You cannot CHOOSE to kill an innocent human being. The woman's choice was whether or not to engage in sexual intercourse - she chose to do so at her own peril, at her own 'expense', if having a child can truly be viewed as an expense. Not taking responsibility for your choices and your actions, especially when giving birth to a child is perceived to be an 'inconvenience', is disgusting and reprehensible, especially when many other options are available. Children can be given up for adoption, if the irresponsible mother of the child cannot raise the child herself or is unfit to raise the child. Many couples who are infertile through no fault of their own, and who are decent people whose only wish is to have a child, would give anything for this opportunity. Giving children up for adoption instead of terminating their life is an option that treats every human life as sacred, instead of viewing them as expendible, viewing them as statistics, viewing them as objects instead of human beings. Every human being has a right to life, regardless of whether the pregnancy they were born from was an accident, or unintentional, or anything else. No one has the right to terminate an innocent life - this is playing God and is an act of maliciousness and contempt for the sacred gift that is life. Euthanasia is a horse of a similar colour. Family First sympathises deeply with terminally ill people who are in a vegitative state, and who no longer have the will to live, but whether or not to end one's own life is a choice that no one has the right to make, regardless of the circumstances. Rather than allowing terminally ill patients to end their life in an assisted suicide, an act which is oblivious to the sacred gift of lfie, Family First favours palliative care, whereby patients are ensured maxium comfort for their remaining days, and will be able to pass away of natural causes, as nature intended. Life is not simply a commodity or a resource. Human lives are not simply a statistic or a figure on a page. Life is a sacred gift granted to every human being, and it is not up to anyone whether a child lives or dies, nor is it up to anyone whether an individual be allowed to end his own life. Do not let this nation be a place where life is disrespected and where life is expendible. Uphold the sanctity of life in this great nation - vote yes to the Sanctity of Life Act. Family First will protect the sanctity of human life at all costs. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Policy on the legality of abortions
Old value:: Abortion is allowed during the first and second trimesters.
Current: All abortions are illegal.
Proposed: All abortions are illegal.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The right to euthanasia.
Old value:: Euthanasia is allowed with consent from the patient and the treating doctor.
Current: Euthanasia is illegal and considered murder.
Proposed: Euthanasia is illegal and considered murder.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 15:49:32, October 18, 2007 CET | From | Hobrazian Peoples Party | To | Debating the The Sanctity of Life Act |
| Message | We accept article one though we would have liked it to allow abortion in the first trimester only. We cannot accept article two as we believe that when a patient wishes to die, under the current rules for euthanasia, and when a doctor in the name of the state and the common good must give his/her consent, it is very well controlled. We would argue also, that if we were to leave all up to the nature as FFP suggest we wouldnøt have a health system and we shouldn't take care of ill persons as the nature will do that themselves. We are keeping people alive longer than they should and therefore it is only logical to assist those in a state of illness that can't be cured and can't give the person anymore pleasures in life a safe ending. |
| Date | 02:21:27, October 19, 2007 CET | From | The Family First Party | To | Debating the The Sanctity of Life Act |
| Message | In response to the Hobrazian Peoples Party, the FFP would like to clarify our intentions with the proposed euthanasia act: we do not intend to have terminally ill patients remain on medicine and other things prolonging their death. We merely oppose any direct action of assisted suicide. Palliative care, as we have called it, would simply mean refraining from medicine and treatment, but allowing the patient to live out their remaining days naturally, provided with maximum comfort. |
| Date | 02:52:34, October 19, 2007 CET | From | National Imperial Hobrazian Front | To | Debating the The Sanctity of Life Act |
| Message | Cannot accept- while we morally oppose these acts, they will continue whether or not they're legal. |
| Date | 09:08:08, October 19, 2007 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the The Sanctity of Life Act |
| Message | We cannot support this act on moral and clinical grounds. Morally, forcing someone to live in pain and suffering is reprehensible and allowing/assisting them to die with their family and friends around them at their time of choosing must be seen as the most morally acceptable course of action. It is their life after all, who better to choose when it should end. As for abortion, although we would support reducing the time until the first trimester, the zygote is nothing more than a parasitical growth until it is capable of self survival, something which it is incapable of doing until 22-24 weeks, which is why the current legislation allows for termination up until the 20th week. However, we do again repeat that we would be happy to reduce the time to the first trimester only (maximum 14 weeks). We would also point out that there would be no reduction in the number of abortions as statistical evidence shows that Countries that allow abortions have no more than those that ban abortion. The only difference being is that the survival of the woman is increased in those areas where abortion is legal due to improved medical conditions. |
| Date | 17:20:12, October 19, 2007 CET | From | The Family First Party | To | Debating the The Sanctity of Life Act |
| Message | If women continue to receive abortions when abortions are not legal, we need to investiage each instance as if it were a murder. If the same amount of abortions are taking place when abortion is made illegal, this speaks volumes about the leniance of our criminal justice system, it does not mean that this will nessicarily always be the case, nor does it have to be if more is done to prevent it. As for the We Say So! Party's statements, the FFP would like to contend that living out the rest of ones days in peace and in comfort, being cared for by friendly hospital staff, is hardly 'forcing someone to live in pain and suffering'. This is a misnomer. Palliative care ensures maximum comfort for the patient, so that they can rest in peace under natural circumstances. We would like to suggest that it is assisted suicide - the direct taking of someone's life - that is reprehensible, rather than living out the course of one's life as naturally intended. The We Say So! Party pondered "who better to choose when it should end" - this is exactly the issue. No one can determine when a life should end - no one has the right to play God and end a human life prematurely. Who better to choose? No-one. And does self-survival define human life? Young children aren't capable of self-survival either - they require their mother's full attention and nurturing. Do human beings earn that status when their lives reach a certain age? Is there a point in time when the clock ticks over to the 20th week or the 21st week, and they suddenly become a morally relevant entity? Of course not. An embryo is every bit as much of a human being as a 12 week old baby boy, a thirteen year old teenager, a forty year old, a seventy year-old. Every human life is sacred, from beginning to end. |
| Date | 18:24:21, October 19, 2007 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the The Sanctity of Life Act |
| Message | "If women continue to receive abortions when abortions are not legal, we need to investiage each instance as if it were a murder." - But it is not murder. We place before you a question, would removing a tape worm be murder? It feeds on the person, it requires them for survival. If it is removed it will die but we see no problem with the destruction of that life because it does not constitute what we believe to be an organism worth considering. Until there is mental function an embryo is little better than a tape worm, displaying all the same characteristics of that organism barring looks and the ability to feel. We also ask, do the Family First Party know how easy it is to abort an unwanted foetus? The answer is extremely, the difficulty is guaranteeing the survival of the woman afterwards and making it illegal would force our security services to spend extortionate amounts on policing something that cannot be policed not to mention the increased risk to life to both the embryo and the woman. "Do human beings earn that status when their lives reach a certain age?" - If we use the Judeo-Christian philosophy, which seems to be the position you are arguing from, then they earn their status upon birth, not before. "As for the We Say So! Party's statements, the FFP would like to contend that living out the rest of ones days in peace and in comfort, being cared for by friendly hospital staff, is hardly 'forcing someone to live in pain and suffering'. This is a misnomer." -No, this is the misnomer. We cannot guarantee that someone will live out the rest of their days in peace and comfort. The reality of the situation is, sadly, that the majority of people who choose euthanasia are in terrible pain that cannot be treated with standard pain medication, moreover they are often forced to stay within the confines of the hospital dragging hospital equipment around with them, and those are the lucky ones. "The We Say So! Party pondered "who better to choose when it should end" - this is exactly the issue. No one can determine when a life should end" - This is indeed the issue, but we do not ponder the question as we know the answer. Only the person can choose when their life should end. It would be morally reprehensible to force someone to live who does not wish it, so long as they are of sound mind and it is their choice. We guarantee this by requiring that they and the treating medical professional is in agreement. If they believe they have learned all they can in this life then it is their choice to move on and join the Lord Hoba in Enlightenment, or move on to the next level of their existence. It is not for the Government to force them to stay. |
| Date | 04:35:44, October 20, 2007 CET | From | The Family First Party | To | Debating the The Sanctity of Life Act |
| Message | In response to the arguements made by the We Say So! Party: First of all, tapeworms are an intestinal parasite, where human beings are intelligent, . Whether they bare any superficial resemblance to a tapeworm in terms of their co-dependance on the human host, in their early stages inside the whomb, is irrelevant because a tapeworm can only ever be a parasite, where a foetus will transform into an intelligent, independant human being. Without wanting to offend any environmentalists or animal rights activists in the electorate, the Family First Party would like to suggest that human beings are of supreme moral worth in comparison to any other creature - least of all, the tapeworm. We do understand that the process of abortion is relatively simple, but we would like to contend that in most circumstances, illegal abortions are done by doctors anyway. There is little chance that a safe abortion can be performed by anyone with no medical background. Therefore, extremely harsh punishments could be implimented for any doctor or ex-doctor found to be providing abortions. There are ways of deterring this sort of phenomenon. As for the We Say So! Party's statements concerning the Family First Party's religious standpoint, we would like to clarify that, whilst many members of the party are devout Christians, we do not view ourselves as a nessicarily Christian party, and we do not view abortion as a strictly religious issue. We perceive abortion to be a debate over life and its importance, not a debate of religion vs. the world. Often Christians are the most fervent defenders of life, but this is only because our religion teaches us that every life is sacred. The Family First Party argues against abortion for the protection of innocent life - not for any religious agenda. In our party's perspective, birth begins at conception. In regards to the points that the We Say So! Party raised involving euthanasia, we would like to clarify that, if a patient is experiencing severe pain, they can choose to refrain from medicinal treatments. In many cases this will mean that they can refrain from the treatments that are prolonging their death. The Family First Party simply opposes the direct act of assisted suicide, as an unnatural act which devalues and disrespects the sanctity of life. Refraining from medicinal treatment in many cases will mean that the patient in question will pass away shortly after. As for the statement regarding the patient being "forced to stay within the confines of the hospital", we would suggest that the majority of patients wanting euthanasia would be in a vegitative state, and therefore incapable not only of moving, but also of rational thought. This is extremely sad, but the fact of the matter is that they are, in most cases, unaware of their situation. In many cases, family members will determine whether or not the patient lives or dies, because they cannot decide for themselves, unless they have signed a contract before hand. But this is no one's decision to make. The only option other than assisting them in suicide, and the much more natural option, is to provide them with all the care possible in their final days, and let them die peacefully and of natural circumstances. Perhaps it should not be up to the government to "force them to stay" in this life, but someone has a moral obligation to ensure that we, as human beings, do not always take the quick fix, the easy way out. Doing so devalues life, defaces mankind, and makes people think of life with less and less moral worth and importance. The only body powerful enough to ensure this is the government, and so the government has this obligation - the obligation to act as a moral and ethical arbiter for the people, because without some guidance and order, mankind will ultimately be led further and further astray. Sadly, these moral decisions cannot always be left to individuals, as their unfortunate circumstances result in a clouding of their judgement - many who may not agree with the taking of someone's life may find themselves supporting it in a different circumstance, such as abortion or euthanasia. The government has a moral obligation, as the only body powerful enough, to maintain a moral and ethical standard in this nation - this nation is better than this, this nation is better than taking the quick fix, the easy way out. This nation should be a place where life is always respected and is held in the utmost moral importance. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 83 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 257 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 60 |
| Random fact: RP laws follow the same passing rules as in-game variable laws. Laws that are not of a constitutional nature require a simple majority "Yes" vote from active parties currently holding seats. Laws that are of a constitutional nature require a 2/3 majority "Yes" vote from active parties currently holding seats. RP laws may be abolished a simple majority vote this applies to ANY RP law. |
| Random quote: "You will win, but you will not convince. You will win, because you possess more than enough brute force, but you will not convince, because to convince means to persuade. And in order to persuade you would need what you lack, reason and right in the struggle." - Miguel de Unamuno |