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 IV
Details
Submitted by[?]: Unified Communist Labor 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: May 2058
Description[?]:
| Reproductive decisions should be the responsibility of a woman, her doctor and her God. |
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 | 05:42:27, May 26, 2005 CET | From |  MLC Old Endralonian Resistance | To | Debating the Freedom of Choice Affirmation Act IV |
| Message | still against this because .. well because its idiotic and wholly illogical. |
| Date | 11:48:03, May 26, 2005 CET | From | Communist Party of Endralon | To | Debating the Freedom of Choice Affirmation Act IV |
| Message | We challenge the Unified Communist Labor Party to come up with ONE good reason for this absurd proposal, other than bone-headed ideological support for a woman's "right to choose" to kill a fetus that can survive outside the womb - which basically amounts to "because we say so". |
| Date | 14:44:39, May 26, 2005 CET | From | Unified Communist Labor Party | To | Debating the Freedom of Choice Affirmation Act IV |
| Message | I've already outlined my position on this many times. So have you. |
| Date | 16:35:35, May 26, 2005 CET | From | MLC Old Endralonian Resistance | To | Debating the Freedom of Choice Affirmation Act IV |
| Message | You have indeed but Ive got to say I never understood it, it seemed to roughly translate to "its hard to pick an exact time for the biological development so we should just go for a date we know is definately wrong as opposed to making an informed decision. ceasing abortions at the third trimester ensures both that the woman has a sufficient time to notice pregnancy and have an abortion and that from our current medical information the vast majority of fetus will not have become self aware at the point of abortion and thus become worthy of rights and so forth. Your proposal defies all intelligence on the matter as far as I can see. |
| Date | 18:28:15, May 26, 2005 CET | From | Unified Communist Labor Party | To | Debating the Freedom of Choice Affirmation Act IV |
| Message | Let me re-state my argument. 1) None of us are doctors. None of us have been to medical school. None of us, therefore, have the necessary training or expertise to know for a fact when "life begins" or at what point during a pregnancy a fetus becomes "self-aware." 2) Among doctors, there is not a consensus as to when "life begins" or when a fetus becomes "self-aware." 3) Pregnancy has been arbitrarily divided into "trimesters." These three-month periods have no other purpose than to help determine approximately "how far along" the pregnancy is. The individual nature of each pregnancy, however, makes it impossible to say with any certainty that, for example, "at the beginning of the second trimester, all fetuses have a functioning brain." 4) From the first three points, it therefore follows that neither we nor the medical community can say with absolute certainty when "life begins" or when a fetus becomes "self-aware." 5) Because neither we nor the medical community can determine with any certainty when "life begins" or when a fetus becomes "self-aware," then we must divide jurisdiction over the fetus at some point. 6) Medical science and the progression of a pregnancy are best handled by the medical community. Even though the medical community may not have a consensus as to when "life begins" or when a fetus becomes' self-aware," a medical doctor has significantly more knowledge than we as legislators do when it comes to the biological progression of a pregnancy. 7) Because doctors have more knowledge than we do about the biological progression of pregnancy, the decision as to if/when to terminate a pregnancy, based on the desires or needs of the mother, should lie with them. 8) Because neither we as legislators nor the medical community can say for sure when "life begins" or when a fetus becomes "self-aware" during a pregnancy, and because of the individual nature of pregnancy itself, it is illogical and arbitrary for us as legislators to draw a solid line through the pregnancy, after which termination of that pregnancy is forbidden. 9) Because we cannot draw a solid line at any one point during a pregnancy, we cannot therefore draw a line through any point during a pregnancy. Therefore, it is only logical to give jurisdiction over the whole pregnancy to the mother and her doctor. 10) A clear line is drawn at birth. Before birth, the fetus is controlled completely by its mother--in her womb. Therefore, because the fetus is completely in her control, she should retain jursidiction over it. 11) Once birth happens, the child leaves the body of the mother and the mother thereby gives up an essential element of control over the child. 12) As legislators, this is the point at which our jurisdiction can begin. No longer are we dealing with a fetus encased within the protective womb of its mother. We are now dealing with a baby, who has entered the outside world and is now subject to its laws and protections. And we as legislators are responsible for making those laws and enforcing those protections. 13) The only logical alternative, given the above arguments, is to outlaw abortion completely. The same arguments can be applied to this position--we cannot know when life begins, so we cannot take the risk and therefore abortions should be outlawed. I cannot accept this position, and I imagine not many of you can either. Therefore, the only logical and palatable solution is to leave reproductive decisions to those who know them best--mothers and doctors, and we'll legislate the laws and protections that will apply to the baby once it's born. |
| Date | 23:07:52, May 26, 2005 CET | From | Communist Party of Endralon | To | Debating the Freedom of Choice Affirmation Act IV |
| Message | And let me re-state my counter-arguments: 1) This is a democracy, not a technocracy. We don't give "experts" the power to decide who lives and who dies. 2) True. And, according to the principle "better safe than sorry", when we have an entity that may or may not be alive, we should NOT destroy it - just in case it is alive. 3) We can't say when ALL fetuses have a functioning brain, but we can say when MOST of them do. Every time a legal line must be drawn, it must be drawn based on statistics and probabilities, not absolute certainties. 4) Indeed. Like so many other things in an individual's growth, self-awareness is probably something that develops gradually rather than "switching on" at some definite moment. 5) Agreed. 6) See point 1. Doctors should not have the power to end lives on a whim. 7) See above, Dr. Mengele. 8) There is such a thing as an "informed guess". There are many things in science that are not known for certain (indeed, one could argue that NOTHING is known for certain), but we can make estimates and calculate probabilities. 9) On the contrary, the logical thing to do is to forbid abortions at all points during the pregnancy. If there is even the slightest chance that a fetus might be alive, we cannot take the risk of killing a living human being. 10) A person on life support is controlled completely by the hospital. Should we then give hospitals sole jurisdiction on "pulling the plug"? 11) No human being should have the power of life and death over another human being, EVER. 12) See the two points above. 13) That is correct. The only logical alternative, given the above arguments, is to outlaw abortion completely. But you "cannot accept it"? Why is that? If you willingly take the risk of killing a living human being for trivial reasons, you are irresponsible and incompetent. We oppose all abortions that are not performed for medical reasons. |
| Date | 23:15:45, May 26, 2005 CET | From | Unified Communist Labor Party | To | Debating the Freedom of Choice Affirmation Act IV |
| Message | The fundamental problem as I see it is that we have a very different philsophical-ethical outlook on this issue. I see it as an issue of practical logistics, giving the decision making power to those who can make the most informed decision possible, and the preservation of personal freedom; you see it as a "moral" issue about the preservation of "life." How do you feel about stem cell research using human embryos, by the way? One other question: if a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy, who are you to call her reasons "trivial?" What's your basis for making that accusation? Do you know her personal circumstances? Is it, fundamentally, your business? Why? You weren't involved in creating the pregnancy--unless you're the father--and you're not the doctor, so why do you have a say in the decision at all? |
| Date | 23:19:42, May 26, 2005 CET | From | Unified Communist Labor Party | To | Debating the Freedom of Choice Affirmation Act IV |
| Message | A person on life support is not in a womb. That's the distinction I'm making--not whether the person is helpless. The womb is a physical part of the mother and therefore the mother should have as much control over what happens to it as she does over anything else that happens in her body. Once the baby enters the world, then it becomes our business and our responsibility to legislate for it. Incidentally, I support the current law we have in Endralon allowing euthanasia with consent from patient and doctor. If that answers your question about the person on "life support." |
| Date | 23:21:07, May 26, 2005 CET | From | Unified Communist Labor Party | To | Debating the Freedom of Choice Affirmation Act IV |
| Message | And it's a little bit insulting for me, a proud Jew, to be compared to a Nazi psychopath like Dr. Mengele. So please refrain from such insults in the future. |
| Date | 23:40:45, May 26, 2005 CET | From | Communist Party of Endralon | To | Debating the Freedom of Choice Affirmation Act IV |
| Message | My philosophical and ethical views are strictly based on Utilitarianism. Personal freedom - and freedom in general - has no inherent value. It is only valuable as long as it leads to happiness. If a certain kind of personal freedom can be statistically shown to cause more suffering than happiness, I'm all for outlawing it. Typically, however, a personal freedom is a choice that only affects the person making that choice. And since there is no one more qualified to determine your happiness than yourself, personal freedoms tend to increase happiness. |
| Date | 23:48:31, May 26, 2005 CET | From | Communist Party of Endralon | To | Debating the Freedom of Choice Affirmation Act IV |
| Message | I support stem cell research using human embryos only if we have reasons to expect that said research will save lives in the future. If a woman wants to terminate a perfectly healthy pregnancy, I can and will call her reasons trivial. Why? Because: a) She doesn't have to keep the baby after birth - she can give it up for adoption and be rid of it forever. Therefore b) She only has to put up with the pregnancy itself and the birth. That is painful, granted, but, with widely available contraception, it's her fault if she got pregnant (unless it was rape, in which case I support abortion). We should have a say in all decisions that affect more than just the person making the decision. |
| Date | 23:50:12, May 26, 2005 CET | From | Communist Party of Endralon | To | Debating the Freedom of Choice Affirmation Act IV |
| Message | I also support the current voluntary euthanasia law. Unfortunately, you can't ask for the consent of the fetus in an abortion. |
| Date | 23:51:18, May 26, 2005 CET | From | Communist Party of Endralon | To | Debating the Freedom of Choice Affirmation Act IV |
| Message | And the reason I brought up Mengele was to show that it may NOT be a good idea to leave these decisions up to the doctors. I apologise if I offended you. |
| Date | 02:43:24, May 27, 2005 CET | From | MLC Old Endralonian Resistance | To | Debating the Freedom of Choice Affirmation Act IV |
| Message | lets take a step back and look at the pros and cons of the legislature at hand. if the current legislature remains , on the one hand the vast majority of women who want abortions will still get them , on the other hand the threat that aborted fetuses are self aware at the time of abortion is minimal come statistically insignificant . Now if this bill passes , all women who want abortions get them , yet all the aditional abortions which occur have an increasing liklihood to cause termination of a self aware being up to the point of birth at which termination of a self aware being is definite . So the trade off is giving a very generous figure say 10% more mothers shielded from the hassle of childbirth in exchange for an equal increase in potential murders (I dont use that word lightly when talking about abortion but it is unavoidable). I'd say the risk Vs gains argument swings the other way when you start making abortions illegal too much earlier than the current timescale but frankly , there is still no real argument for this bill to go through , also Id be interested to hear from the DSE as to their take on this discussion. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 291 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 217 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 37 |
| Random fact: Dorvik is a nation based on Germanic and old Prussian cultures, it is located on the far north of Artania, making it an almost arctic nation. |
| Random quote: "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." - Ed Howdershelt |