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: Parental Qualification Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX
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: July 2141
Description[?]:
| A bill to discuss and see if parental qualifications are required. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning parental qualifications.
Old value:: The government does not hold qualifications for new parents.
Current: The government does not hold qualifications for new parents.
Proposed: The government requires a test for would-be parents, if parents circumvent the test they are allowed to keep the children, but are watched for incompentence.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 04:46:11, November 12, 2005 CET | From |  Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Parental Qualification Act |
| Message | Now the advantages of this proposal are: 1. It doesnt circumvent civil rights. 2. It puts biological parents through the same rigours adoptive parents go through, which is only fair. Why is someone who can procreate treated as a naturally more gifted parent than an adoptive? 3. It allows the government to know, in advance, which family's may or may not require help and which children may or may not need their rights protected. |
| Date | 22:40:42, November 12, 2005 CET | From | Baltusian Pantian Alliance | To | Debating the Parental Qualification Act |
| Message | Full support is given this shall help us raise good moral citizens. |
| Date | 16:17:20, November 13, 2005 CET | From | Revolutionary Socialist Alliance | To | Debating the Parental Qualification Act |
| Message | Do you really believe that one test is adequate to see this? Does the LLP not recognise that better parenting comes from the learning curve and emotional responses that having a child provides? Has the LLP even considered the situation in relation to care homes and social services? Does the LLP recognise that such a test would put mother and father under considerable emotional and psychological stress? What exactly does the LLP recognise as 'watching for incompetence'? These are five questions which we demand answers from before lending any support to such a Bill. |
| Date | 02:19:54, November 14, 2005 CET | From | Baltusian Pantian Alliance | To | Debating the Parental Qualification Act |
| Message | Does the RSA realise what it just said? Mothers and Fathers that are unable to to stand emotional and psychological stress? Do you realise the rigors of raising children? Anyone unable to stand a large amount of emotional and psychological stress shouldent be allowed to raise children. |
| Date | 03:53:24, November 14, 2005 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Parental Qualification Act |
| Message | "Do you really believe that one test is adequate to see this?" Better than none and having to make a blind guess on who's going to be a bad parent. "Does the LLP not recognise that better parenting comes from the learning curve and emotional responses that having a child provides?" Sure, but you need to have a base level. For instance, a pedophile may getting better at parenting as time goes on but they are still a pedophile, likely to prey on the nearest children. Additionally, studying for such a test would give parents a good idea of what to expect and prevent them from having to make a few mistakes with living children to learn. "Has the LLP even considered the situation in relation to care homes and social services?" What does this have to do with anything? It would make their job significantly easier. "Does the LLP recognise that such a test would put mother and father under considerable emotional and psychological stress?" Read what the Pantians said. "What exactly does the LLP recognise as 'watching for incompetence'?" I'm guessing your trying to insinuate that we install video cameras or something and watch parents? That's a ridiculous suggestion. "Watching for incompetence" in this case is 1. Empowering children to reach out to child services if they are being mistreated, abused or having their child benefit squandered. 2. Regular checkups to ensure that everything is alright in the home. |
| Date | 16:55:54, November 14, 2005 CET | From | Revolutionary Socialist Alliance | To | Debating the Parental Qualification Act |
| Message | "What does this have to do with anything? It would make their job significantly easier." Just goes to show that your party don't really think things through. Are the children of failed parents going to be kicked out onto the street? Or, more likely taken into care. To not even consider the surplus of care children that this system would make is downright scandelous. In your position, if the State 'did not allow' you to have children, wouldn't you be put under severe stress as well? All this talk of 'good moral citizens' smacks to me of aryan style fascism. We overwhelmingly reject this proposal which does more damage to society than good. |
| Date | 17:50:33, November 14, 2005 CET | From | National Party of Baltusia | To | Debating the Parental Qualification Act |
| Message | No, most certainly not. This is, firstly, a bizarre flip-flopping on the part of the LibLibs civil rights position, and secondly would utterly agree with the RSA's previous comments. We condemn any kind of effort to put this gross breach of civil rights into Baltusian law. We shall say no more on the matter. |
| Date | 00:12:09, November 15, 2005 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Parental Qualification Act |
| Message | Firstly, its interesting that you fail to pick apart all of my points, since they are, for the most part, quite sound. Secondly, children will not be kicked out onto the street. Where has anyone ever advocated that? Parents who "fail" aren't thrown into prison with the key thrown away in some sort of overbearing socialist police state manner. They will be watched. That is, as I said above, by making sure that children are empowered to make sure that if they are mistreated, that they can do something about it and by ensuring regular checkups keep parents on their toes. A parent who fails the test may not be a bad parent necessarily but may need to be kept under scrutiny. Remember, we are discussing children here. This is the group of people who are entirely dependent on their parents and otherwise have no recourse if their parents fail them. We are giving them a recourse, so that they may not necessarily be dragged down into the generational poverty-abuse cycle that is far too common. Yes, it is a slight infringement on civil rights but no where does it say, "You have the right to procreate". Indeed, one can simply not take the test but, in exchange, you have not shown anyone that you are trustworthy and are responsible enough to care for child properly. In procreating, you are assuming responsibility for another (possibly more than one) human life. It is our duty to ensure the rights of *all* people, not just the ones who can vote, are not trodden on. Of course, socialists never stand up for the little people. |
| Date | 18:58:33, November 15, 2005 CET | From | Revolutionary Socialist Alliance | To | Debating the Parental Qualification Act |
| Message | "Secondly, children will not be kicked out onto the street. Where has anyone ever advocated that?" I assumed that children of 'bad' parents would be put in care homes, but since you said that that had nothing to do with the Bill... |
| Date | 00:53:04, November 16, 2005 CET | From | Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the Parental Qualification Act |
| Message | We are extremely concerned with the potential ramifications for civil rights that this bill contains. We feel that we cannot support this bill as it stands, without additional wording and clarification given in the description to ensure it cannot be abused. Firstly, what is there to stop future governments from abusing the test? If, say, another Crimson Entente came in, and altered the test so that to pass it parents had to demonstrate the ability to indoctrinate views, what would happen? We have already devolved libraries in order to prevent abuse of this scale, and we feel that this is at similar risk. Secondly, many people in the Senate have interpreted the word 'circumvent' to mean 'fail' - as the wording of the bill stands, it ought to mean 'avoid' - if the bill should mean 'fail', then this should be stated in the description. If it means 'avoid', then the penalties for failure must be stated. Thirdly, what level does 'watching for incompetence' mean? Social visits on a regular basis? Constant surveillance? Would there be provisions for ending this, should the parents be seen to be adequate in the eyes of the state? With these concerns, we cannot support this bill at this time. |
| Date | 03:11:30, November 16, 2005 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Parental Qualification Act |
| Message | "Firstly, what is there to stop future governments from abusing the test? If, say, another Crimson Entente came in, and altered the test so that to pass it parents had to demonstrate the ability to indoctrinate views, what would happen?" If there's another Crimson Entente we're all screwed anyway as far as civil rights goes. Remember that the last one nationalised education, presumably to indoctrinate the children. I fail to see how this proposal will assist them in this aim, when they have a monopoly on education, or, how by not having this provision will prevent it. Indeed, there are a number of legal, indoctrinating schools (religious schools?) open as we speak but do you propose to close them down? Additionally, it is the parents' duty not to elect a Crimson Entente. "Secondly, many people in the Senate have interpreted the word 'circumvent' to mean 'fail' - as the wording of the bill stands, it ought to mean 'avoid' - if the bill should mean 'fail', then this should be stated in the description. If it means 'avoid', then the penalties for failure must be stated." It doesn't matter either way. Evading the test or failing it have the same consequence: you have not shown that you can be trusted with children and as such are now to be watched. Of course, parents who fail the test are likely to go away, improve their skills and come back and pass the test before having children, as by taking the test, they have realised it is important to show the world that they can raise children properly. "Thirdly, what level does 'watching for incompetence' mean? Social visits on a regular basis? Constant surveillance? Would there be provisions for ending this, should the parents be seen to be adequate in the eyes of the state?" I think that was explained twice but for a third time, incompetence can be reported in two ways: *Empowering the children to tell on their parents if they're doing a bad job. If they are being abused or are having their child benefit squandered, it is their right to let the authorities know so that the situation can be rectified. *Social services makes regular visits (perhaps surprise visits as well?) to observe the family in action. While likely to be staged situation, there will no doubt be ways of telling whether the children are being forced to put on a show on pain of severe punishment or whether the family reflects the show most of the time. Remember a number of points: *Children are severely underrepresented in society because of their dependence on their parents. It is assumed that the parents know what they are doing but if their parents are bad, then the children will probably fall into the same cycle. This is an opportunity for Baltusia to permanently break the poverty-abuse cycle by watching for abuse from bad parents. *You do not necessarily have a right to procreate. There is nothing in the Bill of Rights that says that. Having children is a responsibility. Parents who wish to adopt go through a rigorous series of tests but do we propose that they don't to save their civil rights? Of course not. So why should those who can conceive naturally get off scot free? *It is the duty of the government to protect the rights of all people, not just those who vote for you. As such, we feel that the benefit to children's rights far outweights the miniscule loses to parent rights. |
| Date | 12:20:19, November 16, 2005 CET | From | Revolutionary Socialist Alliance | To | Debating the Parental Qualification Act |
| Message | A victory for common sense. |
| Date | 00:19:43, November 17, 2005 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Parental Qualification Act |
| Message | So its common sense to put adoptive parents through rigorous testing but not naturally conceiving ones? How unusual. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 146 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 187 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: References to prominent real-life persons are not allowed. This includes references to philosophies featuring the name of a real-life person (eg. "Marxism", "Thatcherism", "Keynesianism"). |
| Random quote: "The European Union and environmental advocacy groups use global warming hysteria to advance their own special agendas. The European Union recognizes any significant reduction in CO2 emissions by the United States will significantly reduce its economic output, thereby bringing it closer to the inferior output of European nations. Environmental advocacy groups work to stifle economic and industrial progress wherever they find it to inhibit the successful advancement of peoples in developing nations, inevitably making mankind a second class citizen of planet Earth." - Dr. Jay Lehr |