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: Life Rights Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Tukarali Graenix 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: November 2508
Description[?]:
| This bill is to give the right of life back to the youngest of our citizens and oldest. This bill is not going to the extreme ends of banning euthanasia and abortion, but it provides a needed change. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Policy on the legality of abortions
Old value:: Abortion is allowed during the first trimester.
Current: Abortions are only allowed in medical emergencies.
Proposed: Abortions are only allowed in medical emergencies.
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 but not considered murder.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 00:19:20, December 27, 2007 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Life Rights Act |
| Message | This is a huge backward step in personal liberty, and we strongly oppose them both. A person's ultimate right, the right from which all other rights flow, is the right to life. A person has the right to choose whether to continue their life, and no other person should be able to infringe this right. A foetus, on the other hand, is not a person. In the first trimester, and well into the second, a foetus is simply a collection of cells with no sentience. We should not restrict a woman's right to live her life how she wishes, to preserve a bunch of lifeless cells. |
| Date | 00:37:39, December 27, 2007 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Life Rights Act |
| Message | WHat's the point of ARticle 2? Though we believe it should be illegal, how will it be prosecuted? Opposed on article 1! |
| Date | 06:06:32, December 27, 2007 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Life Rights Act |
| Message | Presumably, the second article would make abortion a crime lesser than murder. It is still a bad move. |
| Date | 17:47:57, December 27, 2007 CET | From | Greenish Liberal Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the Life Rights Act |
| Message | Opposed |
| Date | 03:42:40, December 28, 2007 CET | From | JDW Tukarali Greens Party | To | Debating the Life Rights Act |
| Message | oppose. unlike my recent set of props bundled together for a more complete separation of church and state, there is no apparent direct connection whatsoever between these two props. the first seeks to impose someone's own personal religious beliefs regarding abortion on the rest of secular society. my party would never support that. the second assumes the gov knows better than the individual whether their continued life is worth living. again this is an attempt to impose someone's private religious feelings on patient's rights onto a secular society. my party would never support that. I take it back, the two props do have religious intolerance in common. the current bill needs to be re-labeled the "Religious Intolerance Act" if we had a truth in advertising standard. next time make use all five props to impose your personal religious beliefs upon secular society and called it the "Theocracy Enabling Act." that way no one would be confused regarding your intentions. |
| Date | 21:07:52, December 28, 2007 CET | From | Tukarali Graenix Party | To | Debating the Life Rights Act |
| Message | http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=151607 that's for JUP |
| Date | 23:27:53, December 28, 2007 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Life Rights Act |
| Message | Yes, and the makeup of our party has changed in the 30 or so years between that bill and now. A number of our earliest bills are inconsistent with the aims and goals of our party currently. |
| Date | 02:28:23, December 30, 2007 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Life Rights Act |
| Message | That's quite obvious. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 88 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 411 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: "Treaty-locking", or ratifiying treaties that completely or nearly completely forbid any proposals to change laws, is not allowed. Amongst other possible sanctions, Moderation reserves the discretion to delete treaties and/or subject parties to a seat reset if this is necessary in order to reverse a treaty-lock situation. |
| Random quote: "Politics is perhaps the only profession for which no preparation is thought necessary." - Robert Louis Stevenson |