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: Science Admendment Act 2151
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal Democrat Party
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: October 2153
Description[?]:
| To protect the rights of animals in scientific research |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The use of animals in cosmetics research.
Old value:: The use of animals to test cosmetic products is unregulated.
Current: Animals may not be used for testing cosmetics products.
Proposed: Animals may not be used for testing cosmetics products.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The use of animals in medical research.
Old value:: There are no restrictions on the use of animals for research.
Current: Animal research projects must apply for a license and submit to regulation.
Proposed: Animal research projects must apply for a license and submit to regulation.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 03:02:15, December 07, 2005 CET | From | Pragmatic Symphony Party | To | Debating the Science Admendment Act 2151 |
| Message | No and no |
| Date | 04:14:28, December 07, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Democrat Party | To | Debating the Science Admendment Act 2151 |
| Message | and why not? |
| Date | 09:47:23, December 07, 2005 CET | From | Pragmatic Symphony Party | To | Debating the Science Admendment Act 2151 |
| Message | Cosmetics are a valuable and lucrative industry. Does an animal die a more meaningful death if it feeds a family for one night than if it earns profit for a domestic company whose shareholders depend on their portfolio for solvency? The cheaper we can get safe cosmetics on the market, the better off our people are. This goes double for medical research where, instead of merely paying wages and providing trade goods, the research saves lives. The cheaper the research, the better off we all are. |
| Date | 03:07:24, December 08, 2005 CET | From | Democratic Socialist Party | To | Debating the Science Admendment Act 2151 |
| Message | We are against article 1. |
| Date | 05:05:28, December 08, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Democrat Party | To | Debating the Science Admendment Act 2151 |
| Message | Well i wouldnt liek to be forced to wear cosmetics.. would you? so why should animals? |
| Date | 05:18:00, December 08, 2005 CET | From | Pragmatic Symphony Party | To | Debating the Science Admendment Act 2151 |
| Message | The obvious retort is, of course, that I wouldn't want to be kept in a pen, fattened up, and slaughtered to feed a primate either, but we do that to animals too. Applying human standards to animals is nonsense. -Marc |
| Date | 00:07:50, December 09, 2005 CET | From | Democratic Socialist Party | To | Debating the Science Admendment Act 2151 |
| Message | For once, I agree with your quote. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 213 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 118 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 229 |
| Random fact: When your party holds the foreign affairs department, you can create new treaties. However, before writing anything new, it is a good idea to search for existing treaties which already accomplish what you desire. |
| Random quote: "My tenure will be controversial and it is, quite obviously, true that I am the most right-wing Prime Minister this country has seen in several decades.” - Margaret Woodhall, former Dranian politician |