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: Pro-Life Bill of Septmeber 2131
Details
Submitted by[?]: Parti Monarchiste Catholique
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 2132
Description[?]:
| Honourable Colleagues, We propose this bill in order to ensure that the right to life is respected throughout the kingdom of Rildanor. We wish to ensure that our kingdom will participate in the culture of life, rather than the culture of death. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Policy on the legality of abortions
Old value:: Abortions are only allowed in medical emergencies.
Current: Abortion is allowed during the first trimester.
Proposed: All abortions are illegal.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The right to euthanasia.
Old value:: Euthanasia is only allowed with consent from the patient and a court order.
Current: Euthanasia is allowed with consent from the patient and the treating doctor.
Proposed: Euthanasia is illegal and considered murder.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 08:02:10, October 27, 2005 CET | From | Union for the Rights of Christian Women | To | Debating the Pro-Life Bill of Septmeber 2131 |
| Message | With the second we agree, the first is pointless. |
| Date | 17:34:33, October 27, 2005 CET | From |  Mouvement des Conservateurs | To | Debating the Pro-Life Bill of Septmeber 2131 |
| Message | Both are moral issues. Article 1: We don't agree due the fact that 'medical emergencies' could imply 'saving the life' of the concerning patient in these kind of situations. Abortion acc. to our party's standards still an act of murder but we think that the exception should be made - carefully - if the life of the mother is in serious danger. Article 2: The current situation puts a big part of the responsibility in hands of the jurisdiction what is, in our view, not the right approach. But we also ask ourself the question that we, as a government, can enforce, the patient not to (be able to) make a choice about his life - putting religious principles aside -. Unless the debate and/or proposals take a change of course, we will oppose this act. |
| Date | 15:15:32, October 28, 2005 CET | From | Union for the Rights of Christian Women | To | Debating the Pro-Life Bill of Septmeber 2131 |
| Message | Now that it's up for voting under the current version we are in a difficult situation. However, we will not have the blood of innocents on our hads. We will vote yes. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 32 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 35 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 22 |
| Random fact: Unless otherwise stated, monarchs and their royal houses will be presumed to be owned by the player who introduced the bill appointing them to their position. |
| Random quote: "He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god." - Aristotle |