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: Planned Parenting Extension
Details
Submitted by[?]: Front for State Prosperity
Status[?]: passed
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: February 2126
Description[?]:
| Allowing more abortions and encouraging people to think about whether or not they actually want to go through with a pregnancy is an excellent way to reduce suffering and poverty. People should be encouraged to raise only families that they can support on their own. As for concerns over moral degradation, I would like to offer this new form of analogy. When you ban abortions, people who sleep around a lot have a lot of children. This creates a sex-culture and much degradation. When you encourage abortion, people who sleep around a lot... well, they still sleep around, but they don't leave unparented children everywhere anymore. The only people who raise families are the people who actually care to raise families. Thus, over time the culture becomes more responsible. It is hereby officially to be recommended that women make their choice as early as possible to avoid potential health and emotional risks. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Policy on the legality of abortions
Old value:: Abortion is allowed during the first trimester.
Current: Abortion is allowed during the first and second trimesters.
Proposed: Abortion is allowed during the first and second trimesters.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 23:56:48, October 12, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Planned Parenting Extension |
| Message | We support this extension, believing that even at two trimesters the foetus is not sentient, and anything that increases freedom without hurting anyone must be permitted. However, we would like to see added to the legislation the reccomendation that women abort as soon as possible, as late abortions are more traumatic to mothers and carry a slightly higher risk. abortion during the second trimester should be a last resort. |
| Date | 00:21:49, October 13, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the Planned Parenting Extension |
| Message | That is a good point. Is this satisfactory? With health and other productivity risks as a consideration, we are not certain whether or not we would support extending it through the third trimester or not. You have made us reconsider our position on extending it any farther than this. |
| Date | 05:10:07, October 13, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Planned Parenting Extension |
| Message | The AAP considers this issue central to our Sexual Emancipation manifesto. We have been happy to maintain a 'compromise' position on the First Trimester, and are worried that extending the window might cause a more coherent backlash from the less progressive elements. However, since this IS an AAP Core Issue, the AAP supports such legislation. |
| Date | 14:45:39, October 13, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Planned Parenting Extension |
| Message | The RLP mus oppose this, as we feel that the taking of a life without cause cannot be a good thing. |
| Date | 18:57:44, October 13, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Planned Parenting Extension |
| Message | Response to the RLP: Since there is no actual evidence to support the claim of what we define as 'human life' at the end of the First Trimester, the AAP fails to see how 'taking of a life' is relevent to this issue. |
| Date | 20:29:08, October 13, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Planned Parenting Extension |
| Message | To the AAP: First, that depends on what you define as 'human life'. Secondly, this bill would extend the right out to the second trimester. If that makes us a 'less progressive element', then we must be so labeled on this issue. |
| Date | 03:40:48, October 14, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Planned Parenting Extension |
| Message | Response to the RLP: Indeed, it DOES depend on what is defined as human life... and there is the problem with the 'sanctity of life' argument. How can one honestly claim that a 'human life' is being destroyed, when there is no clear delineation of what a human life even IS? Brain activity starts in the Second Trimester (about week 20+)... is that the start of a 'human life', as opposed to a cluster of cells? |
| Date | 15:02:43, October 14, 2005 CET | From | Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Planned Parenting Extension |
| Message | This is morally reprehensible, we should not encourage the mass slaughter of innocents. |
| Date | 16:55:40, October 14, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Planned Parenting Extension |
| Message | To the AAP - with no clear delineation of what a human life is, I feel that the most inclusive defination is the safest one to choose; therefore I stick with moment of fertilization. Since this bill allows abortion during the second trimester, does that not allow the taking of human life even by your defination of brain activity as the touchstone? |
| Date | 14:58:57, October 18, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Planned Parenting Extension |
| Message | Response to the Nationalist Party: Since we have yet to determine the actual 'start' of life... to use the word 'slaughter' is emotionally loaded, but with little logical value to the debate. If one bears in mind that many cultures have considered 'life' to start much later than birth... and that the Christian church has (for most of it's existence) claimed the first breath as the start of life... it seems something like hubris to assume that we can clearly define 'life' in any universally valid fashion, no? |
| Date | 15:04:14, October 18, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Planned Parenting Extension |
| Message | Response to the RLP: The 'moment' of fertilisation is a Philosopher's Stone. There is no such 'moment'. The PROCESS of fertilisation, even after the sperm reaches the egg, takes somewhere in the ballpark of a day - for MOST of which, there is no 'united' functional single entity. Following on from that, fully a third of ALL 'conceived' concepta fail to implant in the uterus - dropping straight through. A pretty inefficient mechanism, one must admit. Since less than a third of all pregnancies end in abortion, it seems that 'god' or 'chance' (whichever you choose to attribute it to) decides to terminate FAR more pregnancies in even the first few days. Regarding your second point: The AAP believes that, while 'rights' for an entity are in debate, the rights that HAVE been ascertained (i.e. the right for a woman to govern her OWN body) might remain. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 166 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 161 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 173 |
| Random fact: If your "Bills under debate" section is cluttered up with old bills created by inactive parties, report them for deletion on the Bill Clearouts Requests thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4363 |
| Random quote: "The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all the people." - Noam Chomsky |