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: No More Babies Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: National Bolshevik 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: October 2641
Description[?]:
| 1 |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Policy on the legality of abortions
Old value:: All abortions are illegal.
Current: Abortion is allowed during the first and second trimesters.
Proposed: Abortion is allowed during the entire course of the pregnancy.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 03:16:10, September 23, 2008 CET | From | National Bolshevik Party | To | Debating the No More Babies Act |
| Message | No one should be forced to expend resources for the sake of another's life. |
| Date | 03:57:10, September 23, 2008 CET | From | Party | To | Debating the No More Babies Act |
| Message | Disgusting. The neo-futurist party openly supports the legalization of murder. And do not try to counter with some garbage like, "she can't help that there is a human inside her, she should not be forced to do something because there is a human in her, that she did not choose to be in her" She CHOSE to carry this human life, she chose this when she had sex with the father of her child. Thats like saying, "if you willingly agree to have surgery to have someone attached to you, and then murder that person sometime later because you changed your mind, there is nothing wrong with it and it should be legal." The neo-futurist party have now revealed there perverted agenda, and will in every way we can try to stop them from passing it. |
| Date | 05:04:29, September 23, 2008 CET | From | National Bolshevik Party | To | Debating the No More Babies Act |
| Message | And the capitalist chooses to not hire the worker. |
| Date | 05:07:44, September 23, 2008 CET | From | National Bolshevik Party | To | Debating the No More Babies Act |
| Message | Also choosing something is not the equivalent of choosing an action which carries a potential consequence. |
| Date | 05:10:03, September 23, 2008 CET | From | National Bolshevik Party | To | Debating the No More Babies Act |
| Message | choosing a potential consequence of that action** <sorry> |
| Date | 05:13:29, September 23, 2008 CET | From | Dranland First Party (CC) | To | Debating the No More Babies Act |
| Message | This is an outrage and an abomination. The NFP are shamelessly condoning and sponsoring murder; infanticide; the willful destruction of innocent human life. Our strong suspicions have been confirmed - the NFP view human life as an expendable 'resource'. Even the name of the legislation is absolutely tasteless and shows nothing but contempt for human life. This is perhaps the most disturbing development in the NFP's entire political career. The voters will not stand for such hatred and disdain for life and for human beings; this abhorrent, utterly appalling crime against mankind. |
| Date | 05:15:46, September 23, 2008 CET | From | National Bolshevik Party | To | Debating the No More Babies Act |
| Message | So when is it a human being? Should the government be forced to feed those who cannot provide for themselves? |
| Date | 05:16:28, September 23, 2008 CET | From | National Bolshevik Party | To | Debating the No More Babies Act |
| Message | So when is it a human being? Should the government be forced to feed those who cannot provide for themselves? |
| Date | 05:35:03, September 23, 2008 CET | From | Dranland First Party (CC) | To | Debating the No More Babies Act |
| Message | "..when is it a human being?" This should be self-evident, rather than relying on abstract concepts of 'personhood', dependent on autonomy and consciousness. A human life is a human life from the moment it comes into existence as a living, growing organism - this is simply fact and common sense. A baby is a human life; a fetus is a human life; even a collection of cells is a human life - whether it has a face and can consciously think or not is completely irrelevant. Any attempt to define human beings as autonomous and conscious, as necessary preconditions of humanity, are simply arbitrary definitions of human life, made for the convenience of those who want to engage in reckless intercourse without thinking about the consequences, and then shirk their responsibilities. We reject all such definitions. |
| Date | 05:43:16, September 23, 2008 CET | From | Dranland First Party (CC) | To | Debating the No More Babies Act |
| Message | And all arguments aside - did the NFP expect this legislation to pass? Our legislation banning abortion just passed. It is highly unlikely that any parties are going to suddenly change their mind and support the complete opposite. |
| Date | 05:43:16, September 23, 2008 CET | From | National Bolshevik Party | To | Debating the No More Babies Act |
| Message | So we are obligated then to provide all resources pertinent to survival for all humans incapable of doing so. |
| Date | 05:49:02, September 23, 2008 CET | From | National Bolshevik Party | To | Debating the No More Babies Act |
| Message | We're interested in the philosophical basis of the issue and how Dranland's parties substantiate their draconian legislation. In the recent legislation a woman is required to be inexlicably burdened physically, and most likely financially, for acts committed against like rape. We are also intrigued why the SOL supported the recent law and also some implications that follow from the CC's views on the matter, such as welfare, euthanasia, animal rights etc. |
| Date | 09:03:39, September 23, 2008 CET | From | Dranland First Party (CC) | To | Debating the No More Babies Act |
| Message | "So we are obligated then to provide all resources pertinent to survival for all humans incapable of doing so." Yes we are, when it is a life or death situation like euthanasia or abortion. We have an obligation to protect the innocent from harm - we punish murder, and by the exact same sentiment we should not allow abortion. This does not then infer that we support the federal welfare state - we reject it in its entirety. Individuals who, of their own volition, cannot take responsible for themselves and therefore cannot provide for themselves do not constitute 'humans incapable of (survival)", and they should not expect society's support. The difference is self-evident - in abortion, the child has no means of determining the outcome, where in the case of welfare, there are other options of providing for those who are genuinely in need - ie., people with long-term ailments - such as private charity. We wish to protect those who do not have the means to protect themselves - the innocent unborn. Nevertheless, this is not to say we oppose all welfare - we support the rights of state and local governments to craft welfare policies as they see fit. We are merely imposed to the central welfare state. "We're interested in the philosophical basis of the issue and how Dranland's parties substantiate their draconian legislation." There is no 'philosophical basis' to this issue - it is not a philosophical or 'rational' issue at all, in spite of the Left's constant attempts to make it one. The Left attempts to frame abortion as a question of what it means to be a 'human being', and the implications of this on the woman's 'right to choose'. All abstract nonsense aside, this issue is quite simple - one either supports the right to live of every child, or one supports the 'rights' of a woman to end the child's life prematurely. It is a fact that a fetus is a living, growing human life. This is indisputable. Any 'philisophical' justifications for 'the right to choose' merely cloud the issue. The real question, then, is how much do we value life? The CC value life and believe it to be the most important thing in the human universe. The NFP, evidently, see it as an expendable resource. The ONP does not care for 'rationalism'. Any appeals to rationalism that the NFP make will be completely lost on us. What the NFP is trying to do with this legislation, plain and simple, is to justify and provide some sort of rational basis for legalized murder and infanticide. |
| Date | 09:05:23, September 23, 2008 CET | From | Dranland First Party (CC) | To | Debating the No More Babies Act |
| Message | If, however, the NFP want a much more elaborate explanation of why we oppose abortion, we would be happy to repost all of our previous arguments from previous legislations. |
| Date | 17:44:53, September 23, 2008 CET | From | Freeminded People's Party | To | Debating the No More Babies Act |
| Message | We would prefer a middle-ground policy on this issue - neither of the two extremes (which are the choices presented by this bill) appeal to us at all. |
| Date | 18:51:09, September 23, 2008 CET | From | National Bolshevik Party | To | Debating the No More Babies Act |
| Message | Starving unemployed people do not choose to be so in most situations. Capitalism needs a certain unemployment rate to be remain healthy (~4-6%). They have been aborted from the womb of capitalism and left to die since none are required to feed them, how is removing an organism using your body for subsistence any different? How is a starving 40 yr. old less human than an unconcious clump of cells with the potentiality of personhood? |
| Date | 22:00:35, September 23, 2008 CET | From | National Bolshevik Party | To | Debating the No More Babies Act |
| Message | To FPP: We agree as well and could be satisfied with 'except in emergencies' to perhaps 'first trimester'. But when the justification is that it is human (obviously they're human cells) the argument can be applied to other nonconcious human cells like skin flakes etc. OOC: I'm more interested in the debate of this issue and haven't decided where I stand, though I definitely reject the utilitarian argument for pro-choice and the anti-rationalist feely argument for pro-life. |
| Date | 01:33:08, September 24, 2008 CET | From | Dranland First Party (CC) | To | Debating the No More Babies Act |
| Message | "How is a starving 40 yr. old less human than an unconcious clump of cells with the potentiality of personhood?" He isn't. They're both equally human because they are both, by nature, human beings. That is not the issue - for one thing, the unborn child is a victim of circumstance and has no means to determine anything for his or herself. Many long-term welfare recipients are free-riders who are not victims of anything but themselves. But again, the NFP should not assume that just because we do not support a federal welfare state means that we don't support any welfare. This is a rediculous assumption. We have mentioned previously that we do not oppose local governments crafting their own welfare policies - we passionately support local governments' rights to fund child-care, for example. "They have been aborted from the womb of capitalism and left to die since none are required to feed them". This is an absurd comment. Likening unemployment to abortion is nothing short of insulting. In any case, there should be no shortage of jobs - in a developed country like ours with a largely capitalist structure, there should be an absolute abundance of jobs. Low unemployment rates are inevitable, but they are not caused by capitalism - there is a certain margin of people in society who will always refuse to work and will always try to cheat the system. But this point is largely off topic - the issue here is the willful murder of the unborn. The NFP should not get the impression that we are a laissez-faire capitalist party - we are not at all. "...that it is human (obviously they're human cells) the argument can be applied to other nonconcious human cells like skin flakes etc." A human skin flake does not constitute a human life because it is not a living, growing entity in early stages of development that will become a person if nature runs its course. This is self-evident. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 51 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 163 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 51 |
| Random fact: RP laws follow the same passing rules as in-game variable laws. Laws that are not of a constitutional nature require a simple majority "Yes" vote from active parties currently holding seats. Laws that are of a constitutional nature require a 2/3 majority "Yes" vote from active parties currently holding seats. RP laws may be abolished a simple majority vote this applies to ANY RP law. |
| Random quote: "The National Rifle Association says, 'Guns don't kill people; people kill people,' but I think the gun helps." - Eddie Izzard |