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[?]: Traditional Conservative 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: June 2609
Description[?]:
| Abortion is murder, and it is absolutely disgusting that it is allowed in any form. We do not quite know what the precise meaning of "medical emergencies" is, so we are proposing to make all abortions illegal. The only acception we might make, is if the abortion is not performed, the mother will surely die. And only if the doctors are positive that the mother will die. |
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: All abortions are illegal.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 12:25:24, July 20, 2008 CET | From |  Likaton Coalition of the Willing | To | Debating the Abortion Act |
| Message | We are tempted to support this, as the caveat means that it only applies to women who are proven immortal.... |
| Date | 16:00:42, July 20, 2008 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Abortion Act |
| Message | Well, this is never going to happen, and there's no way the TCP can convince us - but we'll address a couple of the points anyway. 1) Murder is a legal term. It means the UNLAWFUL taking of a HUMAN LIFE. Thus, in order to claim that abortion ws murder, the TCP would have to be able to prove that a foetus was both killed illegally, AND that it was 'a human life'. We've seen no evidence of either. 2) Exception, not acception. We are happy to help. 3) All mothers will surely die. Eventually. 4) All that this law will do is change the way doctors will do business. For the right price, doctors all over Likatonia will simply agree that lives are on the line... |
| Date | 04:53:07, July 21, 2008 CET | From | Traditional Conservative Party | To | Debating the Abortion Act |
| Message | First of all, their is plenty of evidence showing that the fetus is indeed a HUMAN LIFE. If you knew anything about science, you would no that. And stop trying to twist my words by saying "All mothers will eventually die". I meant that if the abortion is not performed, the mother will die from not having the abortion performed. |
| Date | 07:06:11, July 21, 2008 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Abortion Act |
| Message | No... there is evidence that foetal tissue is of the same genetic construction as (other) 'human' tissue. There is evidence that foetal tissue is living. But then - since fecal matter is also of the same genetic construction as other human tissues, and cancers are living tissue - those factors aren't enough to render 'living' and ''human' tissue as 'A human LIFE'. The TCP have failed to demonstrate that abortion affects any 'human lives', except those of the woman undergoing the treatment. OOC: I hope that TCP jab was supposed to be in-character, and was suggesting a difference of opinion with my party politicians, rather than myself? For two reasons - one: personal attacks are NOT tolerated on Particracy, and moderators will take a dim view of it... and two: 'science' is what I do for a living. |
| Date | 15:54:28, July 22, 2008 CET | From | Traditional Conservative Party | To | Debating the Abortion Act |
| Message | I did not make "a personal attack". If you get that upset about what someone who you don't even know says over the internet than you shoudn't be on the internet. |
| Date | 15:58:52, July 22, 2008 CET | From | Traditional Conservative Party | To | Debating the Abortion Act |
| Message | And secondly, what they can't prove, is what state of mind the feotal tissue is in. But they know its alive. Which means it is a LIVING HUMAN. Because thats what a fetus is, a HUMAN. The problem with comparing feotal tissue to cancer is that it is A HUMAN BEING. And cancer is a GROWTH, and the only thing it does is KILL PEOPLE. And the way we know its a human being is because that what you were, thats what I was, thats what every hecking person on this was. |
| Date | 16:00:13, July 22, 2008 CET | From | Traditional Conservative Party | To | Debating the Abortion Act |
| Message | You treat humans as if they are just animals, or science objects. You disgust me. |
| Date | 18:35:02, July 22, 2008 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Abortion Act |
| Message | OOC: I'll take these in order: You say you didn't make a personal attack, but you then go on to say "If you get that upset about what someone who you don't even know says over the internet". As a player, I'm not upset - my party would be.... you still seem to be blurring the boundary between in-character and out-of-character content. Given that you're telling ME that I 'shouldn't be on the internet', I have to assume the other half is out-of-character, also. That makes it a personal attack, against a player - not against the party they play. |
| Date | 18:47:15, July 22, 2008 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Abortion Act |
| Message | Second: OOC: "every hecking person on this" - that sounds an awful lot like you're confusing the in-character and out-of-character postures, again. IC: We can prove what state of mind a 19-week-foetus is in. It's in NO state of mind, because there is no contiguous brain function until after the 20th week. We might as well argue about the 'state of mind' of jelly. We DO know it's living tissue. And we know it genetically matches 'human' tissue - but that doesn't necessarily make it 'a human life'. And the argument that "And the way we know its a human being is because that what you were, thats what I was, thats what..." etc, is a logical fallacy - you're arguing from potential. The problem - fully a third of all fertilised eggs fail to implant. If 'a human life' begins at conception, then more than thirty percent of all 'human lives' are totally wasted, naturally. And 'abortion' isn't the only thing that stops even implanted concepta from coming to term. There' no real logic to trying to argue 'right to life' on entities that - by their very design - are less than 66% likely to even make it out of the uterus. DO we accord the foetus human rights? Just because they MIGHT make it far enough to be born? No - we don't allow infants to drive, we don't bury healthy people, we don't let babies vote, and we don't let 6-year-olds into r-rated movies. Why don't we do those things? Because we are conscious of the fact that just saying something WILL happen, isn't a good enough reason to apply later rights to earlier stages. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 2 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 73 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: In cases where a party has no seat, the default presumption should be that the party is able to contribute to debates in the legislature due to one of its members winning a seat at a by-election. However, players may collectively improvise arrangements of their own to provide a satisfying explanation for how parties with no seats in the legislature can speak and vote there. |
| Random quote: "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." - George W. Bush |