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: Progressive Moral Reform Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: National Centrist 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: April 2055
Description[?]:
| This Act would, if passed, remove a number of needlessly restrictive laws that are presently NOT favored by the majority of the populace. |
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 first and second trimesters.
Proposed: Abortion is allowed during the entire course of the pregnancy.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The right to euthanasia.
Old value:: Euthanasia is illegal and considered murder.
Current: Euthanasia is allowed with consent from the patient and the treating doctor.
Proposed: Euthanasia is allowed with consent from the patient and the treating doctor.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Government policy towards the cloning of human beings.
Old value:: Research in cloning technologies is legal, but regulated.
Current: Research in cloning technologies is legal, but regulated.
Proposed: Research in cloning technologies is not regulated.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 18:24:09, May 16, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Progressive Moral Reform Act |
| Message | Once the "Wide Reform Act" has finished being voted on, this will be extended to include euthanasia legalization. |
| Date | 20:02:00, May 16, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Progressive Moral Reform Act |
| Message | Those arent progressive morals. those are just irresponsible morals. |
| Date | 23:16:00, May 16, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Progressive Moral Reform Act |
| Message | Perhaps it would be better called the "Government Hands Off! Act" 1. Technological advances should be encouraged. 2. Abortions prevent unwanted children. 3. Anti-euthanasia laws are more or less identical to anti-suicide laws. |
| Date | 22:47:40, May 17, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Progressive Moral Reform Act |
| Message | But should technical advances be encouraged when the wellbeing of the people being experimented with is at stake? And should unwanted children be killed once they have been born? because killing a nine month foetus is just like killing a baby. And should the physical and mental wellbeing of the mother be put below government agendas? I agree with euthanasia in principal, but it is the practice that worries me - it is so easily corruptable. |
| Date | 23:27:29, May 17, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Progressive Moral Reform Act |
| Message | Unwanted children get killed after they're born too, and is killing a nine month old foetus any different than killing an already born one? No, but the difference is that society will always abhor the person who kills a newborn baby, but the popular sentiment isn't against people who abort 9 month old children. Who are we to say that the popular sentiment is wrong? This is a democracy, after all. Yes, technological advances should be encouraged even at the expense to some people's well-being. The industrial revolution damaged a whole ton of people's wellbeing, yet in the long run it was an extremely good thing for humanity. With that idea in mind, we aren't going to stop technologies that seem like they'll ultimately aid health worldwide. On euthanasia: I don't know whether you've got a point or not. How does consensual euthanasia become corrupt, and what happens when that occurs? |
| Date | 00:23:48, May 18, 2005 CET | From | People's Party | To | Debating the Progressive Moral Reform Act |
| Message | Unwanted children get adopted- or atleast they should be...what kind of morality says just because an evil is happening -we should allow it to continue and flourish? The step you forgot is to argue that it can't be stopped..but I don't think you really argue that about this issue.. If popular sentiment is all that matters to you then you not a capitalist, or liberal (aka libertarian)...you should be for tax raises everytime society wants them...for massive government spending (to meet any concievable need) and for increasing governmental control of anything ..whenever people feel it necessary. Instead capitalism and liberalism comes informed with the view that there are certain limits on Government, and certain legitimate boundaries to what the "majority" can demand of the individual. Democracy is good only because it is the most favorable to individual rights, but that doesn't mean democracy can't become dictatorship.. |
| Date | 00:29:07, May 18, 2005 CET | From | People's Party | To | Debating the Progressive Moral Reform Act |
| Message | Euthanasia is easily corruptible. If I was a husband to a dying wife with a big fat life insurance policy, I might just offer the doctor a cut to pull the plug. Usually people in euthanasia have never written a testament or will telling the doctor what to do in such a situation- therfore the decison goes to the nearest of kin ...father, mother, brother or husband. Even if they did a review in this situation..nobody could be charged ..since the decison lies with the husband, and the women is for all purposes-dead. The doctor would just be following orders. |
| Date | 00:32:56, May 18, 2005 CET | From | People's Party | To | Debating the Progressive Moral Reform Act |
| Message | We had the debate on cloning before..but as I can see you're only making these arguments because you think they will help you score with the electorate . If you excuse my cynicism, let me point out that you already voted for cloning regulation before ..so undoing it will harm you..if you really want this, wait for the next election ..where there will be less risk entirely. |
| Date | 03:51:13, May 18, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Progressive Moral Reform Act |
| Message | Your cynicism is excused. I've been waiting for that point to be made for ages - it's rather true. For the most part, we're just trying to score with the electorate. One thing I'd like to point out, though. Deregulating cloning is something that, frankly, the electorate may or may not support and I can't tell the difference. It's just a matter of principle - you can't say that advancing technology is bad, can you? Another: Thousands of children sit on adoption permanently with no hope of being adopted. How can we find them homes? Are we to force them onto parents who don't want them? The ones in the system already, we can't do a whole lot for. We can, however, do something to prevent that system from getting larger. We're morally obligated to do so, aren't we? I see what you mean about euthanasia, but I want you to note that the law says, "consent between patient and doctor". Hence, it only applies to those capable of personally conveying their opinion or who have it written in a will or testament. We do have principles. Crushing governments violate them, as do anarchies. That's why we're a centrist party - because there's no such thing as a functioning extreme. One parting note: If society massively wanted tax raises, then we'd give them tax raises. What choice would we have? If we didn't, then someone else would, and suddenly we wouldn't be a 'national' party at all. We choose our battles. |
| Date | 22:40:27, May 18, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Progressive Moral Reform Act |
| Message | No, most of that sort of corruption is easily avoidable by using the right wording in the legislation. however, imagine this: somebody's elderly mother is in hospital with an illness that means she can't do much by herself, relies on her family and the doctors for everything. her family have to pay for her upkeep in an expensive nursing home, visit her regularly, deal with problems. Now she is offered a legal way to kill herself and she might be easily made to feel that she owes it to everybody to die - that she is a burden and that she has no right to be living any more, and be forced by some feeling of obligation to agree to her own death whether she wants it or not. when people are old and frail- even if they are still perfectly sane - they are easily persuaded of stuff like that, especially by people close to them. that is what you would fear happening most. |
| Date | 23:40:26, May 18, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Progressive Moral Reform Act |
| Message | You should realize that this requires not just a patient's consent but a doctor's consent as well. The doctor's charter is to save life, not destroy it. That's why they're included in the decision - to prevent this from just becoming state-sanctioned suicide. |
| Date | 14:13:06, May 19, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Progressive Moral Reform Act |
| Message | but it is in the doctor's advantage to clear wards and reduce workload, so if a patient requests euthanasia they will be more than happy to grant that without considering the moral issues too hard. What I would be in favour of is euthanasia only permitted when specific cases are passed by an ethics comittee. It would not be standard practice to offer euthanasia as an option unless the patient demands it unprompted, and thus would be a rare ocurrence used in special cases only. |
| Date | 18:22:42, May 19, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Progressive Moral Reform Act |
| Message | Why is it in the doctor's advantage to "clear wards"? That doesn't make economic sense from the doctor's perspective. It would make his or her life easier, but it would also mean fewer paying customers - and most of the treatments euthanasia would become an option during are expensive and get more so the worse a patient gets. Whether a doctor treats this as a moral issue or an economic one, it is still in the doctor's interest to save life. |
| Date | 11:56:27, May 20, 2005 CET | From | Right Wing Liberals Party | To | Debating the Progressive Moral Reform Act |
| Message | Hypicratic oath states that a Doctor shouldnt kill (what ever) Last time i checked these involved killing. I think the People of Likaton have Depression issues so maybe we should pump money into 'Solving' this first. |
| Date | 16:31:59, May 20, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Progressive Moral Reform Act |
| Message | sorry. I'm used to the british NHS, which has a constant bed shortage, so i forgot that in private medical care it is not an issue. that is a point actually... likaton should have an NHS (preferrably without the bed shortages). |
| Date | 20:34:19, May 20, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Progressive Moral Reform Act |
| Message | We probably can't prevent bed shortages in a public healthcare system, but at the same time we can't leave healthcare purely private (it's an essential service - and private industries are rather awful when given control of essentials). We'll need to tightly regulate our public healthcare system so that it doesn't become abused or kill the private sector. I have ideas for how to do that properly and will propose them in the healthcare bill. |
| Date | 20:36:30, May 20, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Progressive Moral Reform Act |
| Message | RWLP: That's what I'm depending on. Cases that can't be treated in any way, shape, or form short of miracles can be euthanized without too much moral pain. Cases that can in any way be treated, no matter what the longshot, can NEVER be euthanized. And no, money should NOT be pumped into curing "depression" issues. That's an irresponsible waste of the people's money - we can use that money in public works or education more effectively. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 80 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 97 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Real-life organisations should not be referenced in Particracy, unless they are simple and generic (eg. "National Organisation for Women" is allowed). |
| Random quote: "I don’t have facts to back this up." - Herman Cain |