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 Reformation
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberty 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: November 2611
Description[?]:
Article 1: Title
section 1: This shall be known as the Adoption Reformation
Article 2: Purpose
To allow for adoption without all the necessary tests but to make sure that people with a history of child abuse do not. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning adoption.
Old value:: Adoption is strictly regulated by the government. Only by passing several tests and by following an intensive program applicants can adopt children.
Current: Adoption is strictly regulated by the government. Only by passing several tests and by following an intensive program applicants can adopt children.
Proposed: Regulation is used to screen out only those with a previous history of child abuse.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 06:26:20, July 23, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Adoption Reformation | | Message | You realise that this requires a person to have abused the child first, before they are denied a child right? So it's like, first child's on the house, later ones you have to really work for.
It's not really even worth giving this proposal much more thought. |
| Date | 06:27:22, July 23, 2008 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Adoption Reformation | | Message | In other words, you love the fact that you want to sap the finances of all people who want to adopt. |
| Date | 06:29:58, July 23, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Adoption Reformation | | Message | Well, no... We like the fact that we are ensuring children are put with parents who can actually look after them, and that we're not giving out children to kiddie-fiddlers. |
| Date | 06:32:53, July 23, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Adoption Reformation | | Message | Well, yes, we are ensuring that parents have some idea of how to look after children. Much like the tests prospective natural parents have to take. It's all for the children. |
| Date | 06:40:42, July 23, 2008 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Adoption Reformation | | Message | As I said! These test ensure nothing. Everyone has an idea of how to look after children. So why the red tape that is very very expensive thus preventing many many couples from adopting? |
| Date | 06:43:58, July 23, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Adoption Reformation | | Message | It is hardly expensive, and no parent has a right to adopt. We however have a duty to ensure that children go to good homes, and not just to whoever rocks up to the adoption office.
And no, there are a number of people who haven't the faintest idea how to look after children. Why do you think there is youth crime, youth suicide, failures to achieve in school, as well as child neglect and child abuse. No, people don't have an inherent idea of how to look after children. |
| Date | 06:45:50, July 23, 2008 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Adoption Reformation | | Message | Not that expensive? Apparenlty you never tried to adopt before. If you had, you would know just how expensive it is to adopt. Between lawyers and forms and all these tests, it runs to a very expensive amount. You are hurting honest people with all this red tape. It is time to eliminate it. |
| Date | 06:46:21, July 23, 2008 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Adoption Reformation | | Message | Oh and to equate all the crap you just stated to parents is false. You do know what peer pressure is right? |
| Date | 06:47:02, July 23, 2008 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Adoption Reformation | | Message | I could also go on a few of those by itself but it will fall on deaf ears. Needless to say, you are full of crap. |
| Date | 06:50:55, July 23, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Adoption Reformation | | Message | Parents are a large part of the problem. Of course even the children of the best parents can have problems, that is beyond dispute, but the largest part of how a child acts is their upbringing. |
| Date | 06:53:30, July 23, 2008 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Adoption Reformation | | Message | So parents who look after their kids all the time and make sure they get good grades and stay out of trouble and the kid still commits suicide because his girlfriend dumped him, it is still the parents fault? Or if they cave in to peer pressure even though the parents taught him better, it is still the parents fault? Thank God I do not subscribe to your party thoughts. I think I would have to kill myself because I would not have any brain cells left. |
| Date | 07:02:20, July 23, 2008 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Adoption Reformation | | Message | Now we have just destroyed your precious adoption stance. That is game set and match. |
| Date | 07:09:18, July 23, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Adoption Reformation | | Message | Er no. There are multiple causes to a child's behaviour. A large part of it is the parents, but that is not the end of the matter. |
| Date | 01:33:20, July 24, 2008 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Adoption Reformation | | Message | So if it will not prevent it then why the hell do you continue to subscribe to the unworkable theory? |
| Date | 02:54:25, July 24, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Adoption Reformation | | Message | Criminal law doesn't prevent crimes, but it helps reduce the incidence of them. Should we thus abandon the criminal law? |
| Date | 03:40:46, July 24, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Adoption Reformation | | Message | No, it's exactly the same idea. Of course these measures won't be flawless, but they help reduce child neglect, and that is a good enough reason to keep them. |
| Date | 05:00:02, July 24, 2008 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Adoption Reformation | | Message | No it does not Judicial Union. All it does is create a mass of red tape that few people cross. You talk of negligence and there is negligence going on. This law is negligent to the children who are looking for homes but can not be in one because of the Judicial Union Red Tape. |
| Date | 06:20:49, July 24, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Adoption Reformation | | Message | You will find that by far there is a higher demand for adoptee children than supply in developed countries. |
| Date | 15:02:51, July 24, 2008 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Adoption Reformation | | Message | With the red tape, there is little adopting going on in Tukarali. We must eliminate the red tape. |
| Date | 15:26:10, July 24, 2008 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Adoption Reformation | | Message | You do not seem to understand how expensive it is and that people do not like red tape. |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
| Vote |
Seats |
| yes | Total Seats: 94 |
| no | Total Seats: 342 |
| abstain | Total Seats: 64 |
| 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: "There is only one difference between dictatorship and democracy. In democracy, you vote and then take orders; in dictatorship you don't waste time voting." - Joseph Stalin
|