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 2539
Description[?]:
| An act to institute greater regulations for prospective adopters. |
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 | 22:06:09, February 26, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Adoption (Requirements) Amendment Act |
| Message | The state has a responsibility to look after children in its care, in the orphanages and children's homes. If the state gives a child out to anyone who comes knocking, the state is not fulfilling this role. We must make sure parents who intend to adopt children are fit to look after them, and that they will be good parents. Anything less is insufficient. |
| Date | 02:57:54, February 27, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Adoption (Requirements) Amendment Act |
| Message | This will add way to many layers of red tape and will make the adoption process 10x more expensive than it is now. |
| Date | 03:32:25, February 27, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Adoption (Requirements) Amendment Act |
| Message | Yes, but it is worth it. Expense is not a good enough reason to risk putting a child in the state's care into the custody of someone unfit to be a parent. |
| Date | 09:19:52, February 27, 2008 CET | From | JDW Tukarali Greens Party | To | Debating the Adoption (Requirements) Amendment Act |
| Message | oppose |
| Date | 14:44:33, February 27, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Adoption (Requirements) Amendment Act |
| Message | JUP, you just do not like the adoption process. People are checked out anyways under the current law. All you are doing is destroying the adoption process. |
| Date | 22:40:36, February 27, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Adoption (Requirements) Amendment Act |
| Message | No, they are given a "routine check-up", which is certainly not intensive, and will be entirely insufficient to determine if a person is capable. That would merely see whether they have a criminal record and other such blatant indications. |
| Date | 23:27:53, February 27, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Adoption (Requirements) Amendment Act |
| Message | You are also forgetting about the parent qualification test that we have and the fact that if they circumvent it, they are watched. This is truly meaningless. |
| Date | 23:52:10, February 27, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Adoption (Requirements) Amendment Act |
| Message | That is for natural parents, not adoptive parents. You can tell this, since another option is to force an abortion, and we doubt even your party would require the abortion of a child well born. |
| Date | 00:21:44, February 28, 2008 CET | From | Tukarali Graenix Party | To | Debating the Adoption (Requirements) Amendment Act |
| Message | We agree with the RP's last statement |
| Date | 01:46:52, February 28, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Adoption (Requirements) Amendment Act |
| Message | Prove it is only for natural parents and not adoptive parents. I do not see any of those words in the bill. |
| Date | 09:34:13, February 28, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Adoption (Requirements) Amendment Act |
| Message | Ok, let us say our law was "the government requires a test for would-be parents, if parents circumvent the test the government requires abortions". Adoptive parents could not be subject to that, since they cannot physically have an abortion. From this we can see that "would-be parents" is limited to those people who become parents naturally. Now, the current law is "the government requires a test for would-be parents, if parents circumvent the test they are allowed to keep the children, but are watched for incompentence". You notice the only difference here is the penalty prescribed. The rest of the law is unchanged from above. The definition of "would-be parents" similarly wouldn't change. Legal interpretation is a useful skill to have, you really ought to look into it. |
| Date | 15:50:25, February 28, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Adoption (Requirements) Amendment Act |
| Message | "Adoptive parents could not be subject to that, since they cannot physically have an abortion. From this we can see that "would-be parents" is limited to those people who become parents naturally" And parents who want to adopt and have no kids of their own would also be consider would be parents. |
| Date | 18:21:45, February 28, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Adoption (Requirements) Amendment Act |
| Message | I probably quoted the wrong line. No matter. The argument is the same. People who want to adopt would be considered would-be-parents under current law anyway as they want children. It is really no different if the child is naturally born or adopted. As to the "legal interpretation", I consider your legal interpretation to be wrong and my legal interpretation to be right. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 212 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 245 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 43 |
| Random fact: It is not allowed to call more than 5 elections in 5 game years in a nation. The default sanction for a player persisting in the early election tactic will be a seat reset. |
| Random quote: "Before all else, be armed." - Niccolo Machiavelli |