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 Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Red Tory 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: May 2607
Description[?]:
| Abortion is murder! Abortion is the killing of an innocent life. No one has the right to say who is allowed to live and who is not. We are not gods. The only acceptable time is a circumstance in which the mother is in danger. Murder is not okay after birth, and is just as horrific before. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Policy on the legality of abortions
Old value:: Abortion is allowed during the entire course of the pregnancy.
Current: Abortion is allowed during the first and second trimesters.
Proposed: Abortions are only allowed in medical emergencies.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 08:19:19, July 16, 2008 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Abortion Act |
| Message | Abortion isn't murder. Murder is a legal term, implying the ILLEGAL loss of life,. Since abortion is legal, it cannot be murder. We are not gods. But Zhelezo Immeressen is. Thus, if we are going to invoke the will of 'gods', there is only one party with the right to choose... and it isn't this fly-by-night tory movement. We are constantly frustrated by parties that make a big fuss about preserving the 'life' of the unborn... but then make life a living hell for anyone that has made it 'this side' of the uterus. You're not 'pro-life' - you're just anti-choice. |
| Date | 08:24:25, July 16, 2008 CET | From | Likatonia Monarch Front | To | Debating the Abortion Act |
| Message | The Likatonia Monarch Front declines to vote for or against this bill. |
| Date | 14:56:52, July 16, 2008 CET | From | Red Tory Party | To | Debating the Abortion Act |
| Message | How is the destruction of an innocent life not murder? These unborn children have no say. Your argument consists only of the bending of words, you succeed in nothing but avoiding the issue. |
| Date | 18:26:58, July 16, 2008 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Abortion Act |
| Message | The 'destruction of innocent life' (as the tories call it) is not murder because it is legal. Murder is illegal. Abortion is legal. Thus, abortion - whether you like it or not - is not murder. That's not bending words - that's law. If something is legal, it's not illegal. The tories may find that a hard concept to swallow, but it's the unfortunate truth. So - abortion is not 'murder', and tax is not 'theft'. There are a number of other arguments against the tories: 1) There are no 'innocent lives'. There are just 'lives'. And an aborted feotus doesn't have one. 2) There are no 'unborn children'. If it is a child, it was born. If it wasn't born, it's not a child. 3) A foetus has no rights. And neither should it - it isn't a legally recognised person, and that's how it should be. We do not allow 'potential' to govern our laws on anything else - infants aren't allowed to drive just because they MIGHT be old enough one day, we don't bury healthy people just because they MIGHT die at some point in the future. So - we don't allot property rights to a foetus just because it MIGHT, one day, become a citizen. 4) Women are not slaves in Likatonia. We do not allow anyone else to exert their property rights in PREFERENCE to the personal body property right of an individual. A foetus does not have a trump card over the 'owner' of the uterus. We could go on (and on) but the message is clear - we cannot allow laws that remove the right to abort. As an incidental, the Sturm und Drang Partei doesn't actually support full-term abortion. We (personally) feel there is a legitimate cut-off point after which abortions shouldn't be done without very good cause (like medical risk). But this isn't about our PERSONAL beliefs - this is about law. |
| Date | 20:03:31, July 16, 2008 CET | From | Red Tory Party | To | Debating the Abortion Act |
| Message | The RTP are deeply saddened with the state of the Sturm and Drang Party's morality. Once again the Strum and Drang are using wordplay to try and convey a concept. Also, you cannot compare life to driving, life is life. Life is precious and should be valued. Likatonian Government seems to have lost its touch with humanity. |
| Date | 20:29:19, July 16, 2008 CET | From |  Likaton Coalition of the Willing | To | Debating the Abortion Act |
| Message | There is a specific point where a foetus becomes a person. Legally, that is at Birth. There is a specific point where a sperm and ova become a foetus; that is Conception. There is much debate, always, around this emotive issue. When does a foetus become more than a cluster of cells; when is it ensouled? Technically, we imagine that there is no hard and fast deadline. Some foetus' may develop more quickly than others, but throughout all of this one fact remains: The mother is a living person. THeir rights are, at the very least, equal to those of the child at the point of birth, and thus superced the rights of the foetus, logically. We may not like it, but to legislate otherwise would be a crime of misogyny, and an act of evil. All the RTP waffle about morality, is frankly laughable. If you believe in legally enforced gestation, you are morally bankrupt. |
| Date | 23:47:26, July 16, 2008 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Abortion Act |
| Message | Legally compelled gestation is slavery. And the Tories think to lecture US on morality? Our position on this issue has nothing to do with 'morality' - as we previously illustrated. Our personal beliefs in this party oppose the current legislation, but this isn't about our morals or beliefs - it is about LAW. We do not believe the government has the right to LEGALLY force a mother to carry an embryo, foetus, etc if she does not wish to do so. We are opposed to slavery, even where the slave is compelled by a lifeform dwilling within it. We agree with one point. Life IS precious. But why is the 'life' of a pre-born entity MORE precious than the life of an established post-born entity? We see no logical justification for that and - absent that - we see no reason to change our position. (OOC: in various cultures, 'life' has been historically demonstrated as beginning at different points, subjective to the culture. In Egypt, a 'life' wasn't assumed to be legitimate until puberty, when the offspring gained their actual name. In the era of the New Testament, Jesus' own parents wouldn't have considered him 'alive' until birth - because the Hebrew concept revolves around the 'breath of life' as laid out in Genesis). IC: There is debate over the onset of life. We (personally) connect it to brain function - so, sometime after the 20th week of gestation - which is why we, personally, favour first-term abortion only. If we are going to set law, it shouldn't be on superstition or feeling, it should be on what is capable of being shown - what is objective. As long as there is debate about when 'life' in utero begins, we'll oppose laws that try to base law on it. |
| Date | 01:47:13, July 17, 2008 CET | From | Red Tory Party | To | Debating the Abortion Act |
| Message | The Sturm und Drang seemed to have contradicted themselves. Preaching that forced gestation is slavery but seeks only first trimester abortions. What of the remaining two? The RTP dismisses the Sturm und Drang's hypocritical wordplay. How is the mother's rights so empowered that she now has the right to destroy another living human entity? No one has that right, with the exception of capital punishment - but that is a different issue. "We do not believe the government has the right to LEGALLY force a mother to carry an embryo, foetus, etc if she does not wish to do so." Alas, we feel that the government does however have the right to say that you cannot kill your innocent children. You speak of an unborn child as though it is something immaterial at all stages. Humanity is invaluable, and it should be treated as such. |
| Date | 02:45:06, July 17, 2008 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Abortion Act |
| Message | In no way have we contradicted ourselves. We do argue that forced gestation is slavery, and we expressed a PERSONAL conviction about first trimester status. We are not trying to change the law to match it. Our 'beliefs', if you will, differ from our stand as lawmakers... and, where there is a conflict, our job is more important than our personal conviction. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't deserve office. How is the mother's right so empowered? Simple - she IS a human with rights. The foetus may or may not make it to fruition even without mdeical abortion. The 'person' with the established rights SHOULD trump the potential rights of the potential child. We do not allow 'potential' rights anywhere else, and we see no reason to indulge special exemption. How does she have the right to 'destroy another living human entity'? The first thing that has to be pointed out is that any 'destruction' that takes place is purely incidental. The purpose of abortion is not to 'destroy' anything, just to remove it. Unfortunately that often destroys it. Then again, since a foetus can't survive without the mother anyway, 'destroying' it is a moot point. If the Tories like, we're willing to compromise. How about a law that says foetuses must be removed intact? That way, if an 8 week feotus wants to make a go of it, it is free to try. The Tories continue to appeal to emotion. We're sure we don't have to explain that this is (yet another) logical fallacy. Your loaded phrasing 'innocent children', 'child', 'humanity' may sway some more emotional voters, but it shouldn't set the law of the land. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 0 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 44 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 31 |
| Random fact: Discuss flag designs at the Flag Designs thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=37 |
| Random quote: "The Revolution needs to progress. We as humans need to evolve into higher beings through better moral virtues. And we can achieve that if we clean ourselves from the immoral. Those who go against the Revolution, go against human progress and must be freed in the most humane way possible. That is why we introduced the guillotine." - Maximus Robertson, former Davostani revolutionary |