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: Abortion Law
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal Party
Status[?]: passed
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: May 2549
Description[?]:
Abortion should be allowed anytime during the entire course of the pregnancy. |
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: Abortion is allowed during the entire course of the pregnancy.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 15:05:37, March 20, 2008 CET | From | New Socialist Alliance | To | Debating the Abortion Law |
Message | ABOUT BLOODY TIME!!!!! |
Date | 20:49:55, March 20, 2008 CET | From | Democratic Rationalists (PrCoa) | To | Debating the Abortion Law |
Message | The Democratic Rationalists are stalwartly pro-choice. We believe in the paramount importance of the right of bodily integrity. We believe that the right to terminate a pregnancy is a predicate to equality of the sexes. ' And we must vote no on this bill. We vote no on this bill because science and common sense tell us it is excessive and it is cruel. The simple fact is, there is no difference between a human infant carried to term the day before it is born, and the day after it is born. It has all the nerve receptors, and all the neural pathways to experience pain on the day before it is born while it is in the womb, just the same as it has them the day after it is born, and lives outside the womb. We could, in fact, with almost no consequence at all to the infant, induce labor the day before its date of natural birth, or deliver it from the womb surgically. The infant would be indistinguishable if so delivered as it would be the next day. Why, then, should we permit infanticide just because the infant has not been delivered from the womb? The answer is, we should not. The Democratic Rationalists take the position that the developing human acquires moral status sufficient to warrant legal protection outweighing the mother's interests in bodily integrity and medical privacy at the same time that the infant develops the capacity to suffer. Given our understanding of medical science, that moment occurs sometime between during the second trimester. It is at that time that the developing human develops the all of the pertinent nervous system predicates required to experience pain. It is at that time that it becomes a moral crime to cause pain to it. The status quo of the law more than adequately protects women's rights, as it protects developing humans from needless suffering. At any time during the first six months of pregnancy, a woman may terminate it for any reason or none. The state asks only that if she delays her decision for that long, that she respect its interest in protecting what she has to that point permitted to develop in her womb to the point that it now has the capacity to experience the pain of death, for another three months. What the state asks here is not unreasonable or excessive, most especially in light of the rights reserved to the mother. We urge our fellow parliamentarians to vote against this bill, as its only justification is ideology. --Tanner Woodman, Democratic Rationalist MP from Tanori, a district in Krentori |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | |||
yes | Total Seats: 346 | |||
no | Total Seats: 259 | |||
abstain | Total Seats: 145 |
Random fact: Check out the forum regularly for game news. http://forum.particracy.net/ |
Random quote: "I am working for the time when unqualified blacks, browns, and women join the unqualified men in running our government." - Cissy Farenthold |