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: Adoption (Requirements) Amendment Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Judicial Union 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: March 2522
Description[?]:
| An act to require more stringent testing of adoption applicants. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning adoption.
Old value:: Adoption is regulated by the government. Applicants can adopt after a routine check-up.
Current: Adoption is strictly regulated by the government. Only by passing several tests and by following an intensive program applicants can adopt children.
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 | 11:54:45, January 23, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Adoption (Requirements) Amendment Act |
| Message | The reasons for this are threefold: 1. We current require prospective natural parents to undergo tests to evaluate their capability as parents. Surely prospective adoptive parents should have a similar or higher barrier, rather than a mere routine checkup? 2. The state has the responsibility to care for these children. It would be the utmost injustice if a parent, who was demonstrably unfit, was allowed to adopt a child merely because the agency could examine the applicant thoroughly enough. 3. In this nation, and in every industrialised nation on Terra, there is a much larger number of applicants than children able to be adopted. An intensive programme would ensure only the best applicants, those who are best able to look after the needs of the child, are able to adopt. The "rights of the adopter" should be irrelevant here. The state's sole consideration should be to look at what is best for the child, and we should not jeopardise that in any way. |
| Date | 12:37:25, January 23, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Adoption (Requirements) Amendment Act |
| Message | this will add so much red tape that it would be next to impossible to adopt a child. |
| Date | 20:17:49, January 23, 2008 CET | From | Greenish Liberal Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the Adoption (Requirements) Amendment Act |
| Message | No thanks, we're more than satisfied with the current law. |
| Date | 21:19:47, January 23, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Adoption (Requirements) Amendment Act |
| Message | Yes, why should we worry about the welfare of the child? We should streamline the process as much as possible, giving out children to whoever wants one, right? |
| Date | 21:50:22, January 23, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Adoption (Requirements) Amendment Act |
| Message | Better to have it streamline than wrapped up in so much red tape that only those with money can actually adopt. |
| Date | 03:08:19, January 24, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Adoption (Requirements) Amendment Act |
| Message | How would it possibly only allow people with money to adopt. And even if it did, is that a bad thing? Families with money will be able to better provide for the child. |
| Date | 07:00:37, January 24, 2008 CET | From | JDW Tukarali Greens Party | To | Debating the Adoption (Requirements) Amendment Act |
| Message | oppose I did not support a "test" (the utter absurdity of it) for a natural parent so of course I will not support one for an adopted child parent |
| Date | 15:03:38, January 24, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Adoption (Requirements) Amendment Act |
| Message | Money is not everything JUP. As to your question, the answer is very obvious. Adopting is expensive as it is. If this bill were to pass, the cost would just go up thus eliminating people from ever adopting because they do not have the funds to do the tests as well as going through the entire application process. The way it is now allows more of the general populace to adopt and still ensures safety. |
| Date | 17:30:06, January 24, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Adoption (Requirements) Amendment Act |
| Message | Oh and with three parties opposing this with sufficient votes to defeat it... |
| Date | 17:30:14, January 24, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Adoption (Requirements) Amendment Act |
| Message | we call the question |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 196 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 304 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: You can inactivate yourself on your User Page. You will then lose all your seats but your party account won't be deleted, and your party's Visibility ratings will not diminish. Reactivation can be requested in the "Reactivation Requests" thread in the Game Moderation section of the Particracy Forum. |
| Random quote: "While we may not always agree it is my hope that we may always be civil." - Jonathan Clarke, former Hutorian politician |