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: ESA Public Health Proposals.
Details
Submitted by[?]: Axis Mundi Democratic Bloc
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: January 2494
Description[?]:
| The ESA proposes the following items for debate. The ESA is a strong supporter of pro-choice groups in relation to abortion. It is a women's right to decide if she wants to give birth and raise a family. Therefore, we petition that they be initially given limited rights on abortion. The ESA also believes that cigarettes are a threat to public health. They are known to contain carcinogenic compounds which affect not only the smoker, but those around them. Therefore, we propose a ban on the white sticks of death. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Policy on the legality of abortions
Old value:: Abortions are only allowed in medical emergencies.
Current: Abortion is allowed during the first and second trimesters.
Proposed: Abortion is allowed during the first trimester.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Sale of tobacco products.
Old value:: Only adults may purchase tobacco.
Current: Only adults may purchase tobacco.
Proposed: The sale of tobacco products is prohibited.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:43:50, November 28, 2007 CET | From | Kapitalist-Arbeitsfamilien Partei | To | Debating the ESA Public Health Proposals. |
| Message | So, in a nutshell, this bill basically gives women a right to choose to MURDER an little baby girl in the womb, but that SAME woman cannot freely CHOOSE to buy a cigarette??? The CWFP is unequivocally certain that there is something wrong with this picture!!! [ :( ] |
| Date | 21:46:04, November 28, 2007 CET | From |  Likaton Coalition of the Willing | To | Debating the ESA Public Health Proposals. |
| Message | Immeressence Inc. fully support this Bill |
| Date | 22:21:11, November 28, 2007 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the ESA Public Health Proposals. |
| Message | We are opposed to both articles. The first is not truly subject to rational debate as it is based on the philosophical/theological question of when is preson a person. The second removes a choice from rational adults. If they wish to commit slow suicide from tobacco, think of it as evolution in action. |
| Date | 06:59:07, November 29, 2007 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the ESA Public Health Proposals. |
| Message | AM RLP - that is inconsistent. It's not a matter of faith, not a theological or philosophical question, that is a smokescreen that the religious right uses. Ultimately - it is about whether a woman has the legal right to govern her own body. By saying that a foetus cannot be aborted, one is actually saying that the foetal claim on the woman's body trumps even her OWN claim on her person. The philosophy or theology is irrelevent.. do we allow one person to OWN another person. Can women be enslaved for no more cause than being gifted with a uterus? Regarding the smoking ban - the AM RLP argument would be good if ONLY smokers were harmed. They aren't. Second-hand smoke can actually be a lot more dangerous than primary smoke, since it is unfiltered. |
| Date | 13:32:01, November 29, 2007 CET | From | Kapitalist-Arbeitsfamilien Partei | To | Debating the ESA Public Health Proposals. |
| Message | "By saying that a foetus cannot be aborted, one is actually saying that the foetal claim on the woman's body trumps even her OWN claim on her person."--TDP TDP, you have grossly MISINTERPRETED what the RLP's position is. He NEVER said that the fetus has a "claim" on the woman's body, but that the Woman doesn't have claim on the FETUS's body; under the current law, though, if a Doctor certifies that a pregnancy can have a negative effect on the woman's LIFE or PHYSICAL health, she can get a legal abortion. Therefore, the illusive claim that the fetus is "owning" the woman's body has no merit. Second, it is a SCIENTIFIC FACT that the fetus and the Woman are to DISTINCT independent beings in which the blood of the baby NEVER mixes with that of woman. Rather, the baby in the womb is ONLY dependent on the woman for FOOD via the placenta cord. So, the REAL question is: if you believe that that nullifies the humanity of the fetus b/c it is (literally) DEPENDENT on food from the mother, then that would "technically" make it permissable for a mother to kill a 9-month old baby or even 2-year old b/c they both are DEPENDENT on the mother to (literally) feed them. P.S.: I have NEVER seen a 9-month old baby feed HIMSELF (haha)!!! |
| Date | 14:07:55, November 29, 2007 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the ESA Public Health Proposals. |
| Message | TDP - I must disagree. The right to live is the basis for all other rights. IF one believes that a fetus is a human being, then the 9 months of inconvenience that a woman undergos is trumped by that fetus's right to survive. If one do not believe that it is human, than I agree, it follows logically that abortion is ethical. The question of what is human is at the core of the arguement, and that is a philosophical and theological issue. |
| Date | 14:54:44, November 29, 2007 CET | From | Axis Mundi Democratic Bloc | To | Debating the ESA Public Health Proposals. |
| Message | The ESA believes the right to choose whether or not to carry a foetus to term is not a question that should be answered by the government, but by the woman involved. It is simply not the governments job to interfere in matters pertaining to an individuals own body. This differs from the smoking ban because smoking affects not just the smoker, but those in their general vicinity. It is a threat to public health and must be stamped out. |
| Date | 16:51:36, November 29, 2007 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the ESA Public Health Proposals. |
| Message | Okay RLP - does one person's (so called) 'right to live' trump anothers? Can the leader of the TDP demand that the leader of the RLP carry him around, feeding him, cleaning up his excretions, etc? No - because 'right to live' ends at the extent of a person's skin. You can't enslave another to satisfy your own 'right to live'. And that is why - no matter the morality, theology or philosophy, abortion should be an inalienable 'right'. A woman cannot be enslaved just because this one person trying to enslave her happens to also be parasitically feding off her. To refer to a pregnancy as 'inconvenience' is almost staggering in it's chauvinism... when was the last time one of the male RLP parties was forced to carry a lifeform the size of a bowlingball in their guts? |
| Date | 17:00:05, November 29, 2007 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the ESA Public Health Proposals. |
| Message | CWFP: You don't get it, do you. The foetal claim is indeed being made. Among adults, if I try to tell you you have to be my slave, you can turn and walk away. Hell, the law will protect you. But if a foetus enslaves a woman, she loses all rights to turn and walk away... there is no parity. Take the foetus out, and let it make it's own way, by all means. Destruction of a foetus is a sideeffect of abortion, not the goal. As to the 'scientific facts'... so? They are separate lifeforms... who cares? That doesn't give the foetus any right to demand access to the woman's metabolism and flesh. Quite the contrary. As to the 9 months or 2 years red herring... there is no parallel. Citizenship is gained at birth - we already recognise that a foetus and a baby are LEGALLY different things. Again - no parallel because a mother who feels enslaved to her 2 year old can simply give that child away. The CWFP oppose that 'right' to the pregnant mother... and for no real reason. |
| Date | 10:43:32, November 30, 2007 CET | From | Permissive Social Union | To | Debating the ESA Public Health Proposals. |
| Message | Reluctantly we must abstain, although we may be persuaded to vote yes. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 272 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 304 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 90 |
| Random fact: Role-play is most enjoyable and successful when there is good communication and friendly relations between all players involved. |
| Random quote: "Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?" - Ernest Gaines |