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 Reform 2.0
Details
Submitted by[?]: Minarchist 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: September 2679
Description[?]:
| In a co-sponsoring with SHH, we seek to turn abortions into a medical emergency only. We also add the additional article of a mother's choice, not a doctor's choice. Article: Abortions are prohibited unless when a doctor declares it a matter of life or death for either the baby or the mother. In that case, the doctor must outline the situation to the mother who chooses whose life is more important. Contracts she may have with another human that are relevant are also binding. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Policy on the legality of abortions
Old value:: Abortion policies are established by local governments
Current: All abortions are illegal.
Proposed: Abortions are only allowed in medical emergencies.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 12:21:50, December 11, 2008 CET | From | Imperial Democratic Coalition | To | Debating the Abortion Reform 2.0 |
| Message | What does 'Contracts she may have with another human that are relevant are also binding' mean? Are you saying the father can force the mother to die for the child's life? |
| Date | 12:34:29, December 11, 2008 CET | From | Minarchist Party | To | Debating the Abortion Reform 2.0 |
| Message | No. I'm saying that any contracts that are relevant, such as contracts of marriage or medical choice, are binding. If a contract gives someone a say, they get a say. It really depends on the contract's wording though. It wouldn't be one strong enough to force the other to do what she doesn't want unless that is expressly written and voluntarily contracted with by the mother. But if its a matter of two people who get to discuss the issue(a badly written contract in my opinion) and they can't come to an agreement, the primary chooser, the mother, would get the final say. I'm going to add that clause in there. Oh, and I believe many fathers would choose the mother's life while many mothers would choose the child's life. |
| Date | 12:35:58, December 11, 2008 CET | From | Minarchist Party | To | Debating the Abortion Reform 2.0 |
| Message | And it was set to vote already. Please consider "If its a matter of two people who get to discuss the issue and they can't come to an agreement(with no means of final decision-making outlined in the contract), the primary chooser, the mother, would get the final say." |
| Date | 14:50:40, December 11, 2008 CET | From | Imperial Democratic Coalition | To | Debating the Abortion Reform 2.0 |
| Message | Different factions in our party must debate this before a conclusion is reached. We shall hopefully vote before the proposal expires/passes. |
| Date | 18:45:55, December 11, 2008 CET | From | Free Radical Party | To | Debating the Abortion Reform 2.0 |
| Message | We are opposed. There should not be a national law that applies to all citizens. You are going back on your "small government policy" here MP, it saddens us. Although we support the sanctity of human life, which we acknowledge begins at conception, there is no need to create a national law in this regards. Besides most of our population seems to be pro-life ( Gather from the current stances on the moral issue) and we believe that the local governments have probably chosen the laws that best correspond with their region. |
| Date | 20:49:54, December 11, 2008 CET | From | Minarchist Party | To | Debating the Abortion Reform 2.0 |
| Message | We are still small government. But we only choose federalism when its the only option for reducing government interference in individuals' lives. We see this as an ethical idea and cannot stand by while people have violence used against them. |
| Date | 00:15:32, December 12, 2008 CET | From | Imperial Democratic Coalition | To | Debating the Abortion Reform 2.0 |
| Message | While we find the Minarchists support for this & opposition to animal rights, concurrently, somewhat objectionable, we shall support. National standards are superior to localised variations. However, we may support a change to first-trimester abortions if proposed as a compromise by another party. In the meantime, though, the pro-compulsion wing of our party has won out over the pro-death wing (we find these appellations more fitting than the oft-used PC terms). |
| Date | 00:20:22, December 12, 2008 CET | From | Imperial Democratic Coalition | To | Debating the Abortion Reform 2.0 |
| Message | Actually, in the interests of party unity, and knowing the bill will pass, we shall abstain |
| Date | 00:32:46, December 12, 2008 CET | From | Imperial Democratic Coalition | To | Debating the Abortion Reform 2.0 |
| Message | Argh. Upon -further- reading of the bill, and the MP's comments in the debate section, we have moved to oppose. We take severe issue with the MP's wording on contractual obligations. This is how we read your comments: (We quote: '...any contracts that are relevant, such as contracts of marriage or medical choice, are binding.') 1. We assume this means, say, a women can make a legal contract to prevent herself from aborting her child in medical emergency 2. This means, we're assuming by extension, the MP support the right of a person to sign away their individual rights via contract - e.g., selling oneself into slavery, granting someone else the ability to execute oneself. Given contracts are often signed under duress, this is unacceptable. Actually, its unacceptable anyway. By extension, we could see a financial products market opening up for people to gamble on their own rights - e.g., options on enslavement, etc. 3. Continuing on from 1, it appears you are effectively saying the following scenario could occur. A women, who has previously signed a contract assuring others she will not abort her child (perhaps under duress), flees from her home/hospital/etc when it becomes clear either she or the baby must die (qualifies as a medical emergency). But she is caught by police as she attempts to escape, and is then sedated while an accompanying physician ensures she gives birth properly. She then dies of blood loss/something similar, entirely due to the state-sanction actions which, due to the MP's support for the inviolability of contracts, have caused the preventable death of a citizen. Having reconsidered the absurd and horrifying legal implications of this doctrine, we have moved to oppose. Even the right-wing of our party cannot condone such a possibility. We would implore the MP to fix this legal condition next time they consider such a modification to the laws of our nation. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 353 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 397 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Once approved, players should copy Cultural Protocols into a bill in the debate section of their nation page, under the title of "OOC: Cultural Protocols". This bill should include links to the passed Cultural Protocol bill and the Moderation approval. |
| Random quote: "In public policy, it matters less who has the best arguments and more who gets heard, and by whom." - Ralph Reed |