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 Qualifications Act II
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: February 2147
Description[?]:
| A bill to ensure as many children as possible are given the best chance in life. |
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 | 00:27:08, November 22, 2005 CET | From |  Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Parental Qualifications Act II |
| Message | Last time this was put up, parties claimed that it was an infringment on civil liberties. The question becomes who's liberties are at stake? Do parents have a right to procreate? What about the child's rights? Does a child not have the right to live in home where he or she is not being abused or neglected? Does this not outweight any "parental rights"? Is it therefore not the responsibility of the government to ensure that doesn't happen? Should we therefore take steps to make this particular job easier? Under this proposal, no one can be stopped from having children, nor will they have them taken away, unless they neglect or abuse their children. However, in order to help our welfare department ensure that they can do the maximum amount of good, it is helpful to know in advance who may be a threat to their children. If you circumvent the test or fail it, you have not even remotely shown that you can be trusted with children and therefore the government will be making sure that the children are not being maltreated. Children are our future and its our job to make sure that they get a good start so they can have a good race. Remember that being a parent is a responsibility, not a right, and parties should, for a change, look out for what's in the best interest of the coming generation, not in the best interest of their voters. One final point, why is that parents who adopt have to go through several rigorous tests to become parents when those who can procreate naturally are assumed to be looking out for the child's best interests? |
| Date | 02:31:32, November 22, 2005 CET | From | Baltusian Pantian Alliance | To | Debating the Parental Qualifications Act II |
| Message | The support of the BPA for this proposal continues. |
| Date | 06:22:36, November 23, 2005 CET | From | Progressive Conservative Party | To | Debating the Parental Qualifications Act II |
| Message | We disagree with the proposed, parents should be 'presumed innocent until proven otherwise'. |
| Date | 10:56:06, November 23, 2005 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Parental Qualifications Act II |
| Message | Then shouldn't adopting parents be likewise treated? |
| Date | 19:33:48, November 26, 2005 CET | From | Baltusian Neo Exsudo Party | To | Debating the Parental Qualifications Act II |
| Message | Doesn't this restrict the rights of the people? |
| Date | 19:36:18, November 26, 2005 CET | From | Baltusian Neo Exsudo Party | To | Debating the Parental Qualifications Act II |
| Message | However the preposal does Hopefully keep abusive or neglective parents from becoming so. |
| Date | 22:31:30, November 26, 2005 CET | From | Revolutionary Socialist Alliance | To | Debating the Parental Qualifications Act II |
| Message | We stick to our old arguments, especially the oversights to social services that the 'liberals' did not pick up on last time. |
| Date | 01:53:40, November 27, 2005 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Parental Qualifications Act II |
| Message | What? Social services? The best funded ministry in Baltusia? |
| Date | 02:03:52, November 27, 2005 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Parental Qualifications Act II |
| Message | Its sad that so few of you see the major logical flaw: if parents who conceive naturally arent put through tests, why are adopting parents? |
| Date | 02:07:01, November 27, 2005 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Parental Qualifications Act II |
| Message | Its sad that so few of you see the major logical flaw: if parents who conceive naturally arent put through tests, why are adopting parents? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 83 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 243 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 16 |
| Random fact: Players are expected to behave in a courteous, co-operative manner and make a reasonable effort to act with the consent of all players involved, even where the rules do not make consent strictly necessary. In particular, players have a responsibility to take reasonable care that other players are not misinformed either about the role-play or the Game Rules. |
| Random quote: "The 20th century has been characterised by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power; and the growth of corporate propaganda against democracy." - Alex Carey |