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: Freedom of Choice Affirmation Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Unified Communist Labor Party
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: August 2051
Description[?]:
| Using the point of physical birth doesn't have any logical reason, that is true. But it does serve a purpose. "Trimesters" do not necessarily represent a defined set of biological developments--all babies at week five, for instance, cannot be said to...oh I don't know, have such and such function of the brain developed in all cases. Birth, on the other hand, while it may not represent a great leap of development--a fetus just before birth is pretty much the same fetus that is born and becomes a baby--birth does represent a major physical event and a change in the baby's circumstances. No longer ensconsed in the protection of the womb, the baby must now face the world at large. It is at that point that society begins to assume responsibility for aiding the mother in raising that child, and our jurisdiction as politicians begins. Before birth, there is simply no easily definable, universal point at which you can say definitively "this is a living being." There just isn't. Therefore, making laws that arbitrarily limit the right to choose makes no sense. Using birth as the point at which the baby moves from the inner sanctum of the womb, and is therefore fully within the protection and control of the mother, to the outer world, and is therefore now the responsibility of all of society as well as the mother, is a much more logical place to start drafting laws about the child. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Policy on the legality of abortions
Old value:: Abortion is allowed during the first and second trimesters.
Current: Abortion is allowed during the entire course of the pregnancy.
Proposed: Abortion is allowed during the entire course of the pregnancy.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 19:12:06, May 12, 2005 CET | From |  Communist Party of Endralon | To | Debating the Freedom of Choice Affirmation Act |
| Message | How many times do we have to beat this insanity into the ground before you get the point? |
| Date | 19:15:14, May 12, 2005 CET | From | Communist Party of Endralon | To | Debating the Freedom of Choice Affirmation Act |
| Message | LIFE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN CHOICE. If one person't right to exist interferes with your right to choose something, TOUGH. And how do I define what a "person" is? Well, a "person" is an entity that belongs to the species Homo Sapiens and has a working brain. Aborting a fetus with a working brain is murder. End of story. |
| Date | 19:17:47, May 12, 2005 CET | From | Unified Communist Labor Party | To | Debating the Freedom of Choice Affirmation Act |
| Message | Ok fine. At what point exactly during a pregnancy do all fetuses have a working brain? And how do you define a "working brain?" |
| Date | 19:24:14, May 12, 2005 CET | From | Communist Party of Endralon | To | Debating the Freedom of Choice Affirmation Act |
| Message | A "working brain" is a brain that allows the fetus to survive outside the womb. Most fetuses can survive outside the womb at 7 months. Besides, if it were up to me, abortions would only be legal when there is a good medical reason for them. I don't support the current status quo - I'd like abortion restricted further. |
| Date | 19:27:26, May 12, 2005 CET | From | Communist Party of Endralon | To | Debating the Freedom of Choice Affirmation Act |
| Message | You see, I go by the principle "better safe than sorry". When you have an entity that may or may not be human, it's best to protect it as if it were human - just in case. |
| Date | 20:06:09, May 12, 2005 CET | From | Unified Communist Labor Party | To | Debating the Freedom of Choice Affirmation Act |
| Message | Ok fine, but you see my logic, right? When a fetus is inside of its mother's womb, it is totally within the purview and protection of the mother. Therefore, the mother should make all decisions as to what's best for that fetus while it is inside of her. Once a fetus is born, it enters the outside world and thereby becomes involved in social relations for the first time. At that point, the mother relinquishes some control over the child and our jurisdiction as politicians begins. Once the baby is in the outside world, we can start to help the mother raise it properly and legislate things around it. When the fetus is in the womb, it is not our concern--it is totally within the control of the mother and her doctor. That's the line I draw. |
| Date | 20:52:22, May 12, 2005 CET | From | MLC Old Endralonian Resistance | To | Debating the Freedom of Choice Affirmation Act |
| Message | as a utilitarian I still cannot accept disregard of the utility of a self aware child wherever it may be , 2 trimesters gives most mothers a great deal of choice and medical opinion is fairly firm that the crucial developments occur in the third trimester, in the first and second trimester we're talking an organism so simple that I cannot justify it as more important than the right to choose. |
| Date | 21:05:25, May 12, 2005 CET | From | MLC Old Endralonian Resistance | To | Debating the Freedom of Choice Affirmation Act |
| Message | also do you mind commiting to only start this bill once per election term?Repeatingly starting a bill you'll loose actually plays with the election algorithm somewhat. |
| Date | 13:17:32, May 13, 2005 CET | From | Communist Party of Endralon | To | Debating the Freedom of Choice Affirmation Act |
| Message | UCLP, I see your logic, but I think it is deeply flawed. Abortion is not a procedure performed by the mother. Human beings don't come equipped with an "abort" button for pregnancies. Abortion must be performed by another member of society - so it DOES come into our jurisdiction as politicians. Besides, I am also an utilitarian, and I will not risk the death of a self-aware human being based on bureaucratic questions of whether or not I have jurisdiction over it. |
| Date | 16:29:42, May 13, 2005 CET | From | Unified Communist Labor Party | To | Debating the Freedom of Choice Affirmation Act |
| Message | Well I'm not a strict utilitarian. I'm an existential utilitarian hedonist. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||
| yes | Total Seats: 203 | ||
| no | Total Seats: 205 | ||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Voters have an extra appreciation for bills that actually get passed, so if you want to maximally take profit from your votes, make sure you compromise with others. |
| Random quote: "Anarchy is the true nature of all things. Monarchy, democracy, communism, all useless forms to control the human mind. But a mind cannot be controlled. It cannot be restrained. It has no boundaries. It has its will. Anarchy is the true nature of all things." - Alex Battig |