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: Bill NP-84: Complete right to abortion for every woman act
Details
Submitted by[?]: National Progress 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 4234
Description[?]:
| (This bill was proposed by the minister of Health and Social Services John Craig) Only women should have the right to control their own body. No government or religious organization should have the power to impose motherhood to a woman. I say let's give back to women their freedom! Let's give back abortion right during the entire course of the pregnancy! Provision; Article 1) This bill officially grant to everyone in Hutori the Right to physical integrity Article 1.1) The right to physical integrity is defined as being the right of a person not to have a stranger object inside his/her own body and the right of that person to medically removing it. Article 2) This bill officially granted to everyone in Hutori the right to medical autonomy Articlr 2.1)The right to medical autonomy is defined as being the right of a person to decide whether or not he/she will go through a medical operation. Article 3) This bill define a fetus as nothing a more than a mere piece of tissue, and as such a fetus is also a object subject to property right. Article 4) This bill state that if there is a situation where the right to property and the right to medical autonomy are in direct conflict within each other, the right to medical autonomy will always overtrow the right to property. Article 5.1) This bill state that if there is a situation where the right to property and the right to physical integrity are in direct conflict within each other, the right to phisycal intergrity will always overtrow the right to property. Article 5.2) In the case of a pregnancy, the fetus is subject to property right which mean that it is considered the property of both it's mother and it's father. But, as the the right to physical intergrity of the mother overtrow the right to property of the father, the pregnant woman is the only one eho can decide whether or not she is goin to have a abortion. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Policy on the legality of abortions
Old value:: Abortion is allowed during the first trimester.
Current: Abortion is allowed during the first trimester.
Proposed: Abortion is allowed during the entire course of the pregnancy.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Policy of the government concerning the funding of abortions
Old value:: The government provides abortion funding only for low-income earners.
Current: The government only funds abortions for medical emergencies.
Proposed: The government provides funding for abortions.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:27:37, June 15, 2017 CET | From | Federal Heritage Party of Hutori | To | Debating the Bill NP-84: Complete right to abortion for every woman act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, We would sincerely like to inquire as what the NPP's reasoning here is. Where do they draw the line; is killing wrong? Perhaps it is murder where they draw the line? Is it because there is no evidence of consciousness? I must reiterate this is an honest and heartfelt inquiry. What does the NPP see this as? The killing of an organism? The taking of a potential sentient life? The murdering of a human being? Or just the removal of tissue? I truly wish to understand the line of reasoning, the logic behind this legislation. While as a defender of the rights of all humans chiefly among these the right to life we cannot support this legislation. However, it is our wish to understand our colleagues so that we can better empathize with them. Senator Wyatt McLaughlin (F-AD) Federalist Senate Leader |
| Date | 21:15:24, June 16, 2017 CET | From | Hutori Progressives | To | Debating the Bill NP-84: Complete right to abortion for every woman act |
| Message | "Our party would be delighted to support this bill. Giving women greater rights over their own bodies." Brandon Green Hutori Progressives Leader |
| Date | 22:22:44, June 16, 2017 CET | From | Federal Heritage Party of Hutori | To | Debating the Bill NP-84: Complete right to abortion for every woman act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, I would like to open up my inquiry to everyone who would potentially support this initiative. What is their reasoning? Also are they thinking this their positions through? If the unborn is just an object should we not apply property laws to it? If it's because it's an unconscious being then shouldn't we apply similar laws to those who lack consciousness; such as those under general anesthetic, coma patients and those who experience dreamless sleep? If the unborn is a human being then shouldn't we afford it the rights of such? The way I see it is that if the unborn is merely property then it is the property of those who made it not just of the one who houses it. If I were to jointly own a car I do not have the right to demolish it just because it resides in my garage, to do so it would require the consent of the other owner. Now if that's not the opposition's stance then perhaps it is that it is because the unborn is not yet a conscious entity. If this is the case then would it be okay to terminate anyone who lacks consciousness? As I previously mentioned this would include those who experience dreamless sleep, coma patients and those under general anesthetic. If it's because the unborn does not have consciousness that makes this okay, does that not mean we must extend the law to include those who similarly lack a conscious state? The last option I see is that the unborn is a human being and as such endowed with all the rights afforded to such, which would include the right to life and as the opposition would say self-determination. However, this legislation would actively deny that right. These are the potential options that I can see and they all have logical and legal conclusions I would surmise the opposition would rather not deal with. However, I could be wrong and I would welcome, perhaps even plead for the opposition's perspective and line of logical/legal reasoning. As I have said previously, I wish to understand and empathize but every potential avenue of reasoning for this legislation that I have thus explored seems void with either logic or empathy and sometimes both. So please I ask of the opposition to help myself and my party understand where they are coming from. Senator Wyatt McLaughlin (F-AD) Federalist Senate Leader |
| Date | 03:14:53, June 18, 2017 CET | From | National Progress Party | To | Debating the Bill NP-84: Complete right to abortion for every woman act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker I will try to answer to my colleague of the federalist party the best I can. There is two main reasoning behind this legislation. First of all, we do believe that the fetus is a mere piece of tissues. But contrary to what the Federalist were saying, it is not because it's lack consciousness but more because of the fact that it never had one. Even if it sound like the same thing, it's completly different. The thing is that as a fetus never even had a brain, it never tought, it never had any memory. The fetus doesn't have any identity and as such, can not be consider a person yet. In fact, the status of a fetus could be comparable to the one of a spermatozoid or the one of a ovule, which mean that it not a person yet but it could become one if it's parents desire to. But I do understand that some people may perceive a fetus as a living person, and that lead us directly to our second and most important reasoning: health This reasoning could be resume as one single sentence: ''You don't have the obligation to put your safety or health at risk in order to save someone else's life''. I would compare this to a organe donation. People have the right to refuse to donate their organs even if doing so would save somebody else's life. It's the same for a women who fell pregnant by accident, you can't force her to put her own life and health at risk just because you consider a fetus to be a person or even worst, just because the father demands it. And just to make things clear, even modern medicine, bearing children is always a threat the life of the mother. Pregnancy complications is still one the most common cause of death for women between the ages of 20 and 34 in Hutori. And that's not to mention all the physical and psychological health problem that could be related to a unwanted pregnancy. -John Craig minister of Health and Social Services |
| Date | 18:39:58, June 18, 2017 CET | From | Federal Heritage Party of Hutori | To | Debating the Bill NP-84: Complete right to abortion for every woman act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, I would like the NPP to correct me if I am wrong but, if the fetus is a mere piece of tissue then isn't it subject to property law? Thus under Hutorian law consent is required to render it nonfunctional would be up to the creators of the object. Which would include a mother and a father. Thus to follow the NPP's stance to it's legal conclusion if I understand it correctly to abort the fetus would require the consent of both the mother and the father unless the mother's life was in peril. Also under Hutorian law if one does if there is a split in consent then the one who wishes to keep the object must provide compensation to the one who does not. If we are treating the fetus as an object or a non-sentient organism (i.e. a dog, cat, turtle or etc.) then the only logically and legal consistent thing to do would be to apply Hutorian property law. With regards to health I would like to ask what source the NPP is using? Because according to the International Center for Disease Control and Statistics, 98.1% of pregnancies in Hutori are complication free, 1.88999% are treatable complications and the remainder are foreseeable complications. Which means that, that .1% would be completely within their right to protect their life by aborting the fetus regardless of dual consent. Furthermore, according to the ICDC pregnancy complications is one of the least common causes of death for women in Hutori ranking below the H1N5 virus which has virtually been eradicated. So putting the metaphysical debate of brain dependent consciousness aside is this an accurate representation the legal consequences of the facts? If not please, please let me know where I missed something that may have been more nuanced. Senator Wyatt McLaughlin (F-AD) Federalist Senate Leader |
| Date | 06:39:04, June 29, 2017 CET | From | National Progress Party | To | Debating the Bill NP-84: Complete right to abortion for every woman act |
| Message | ''Mr. Speaker I understand the medical concern of senator McLaughlin about the legal consequence of that bill so I added some provision to this law that clearly state that a woman can have a abortion without the consent of the father.'' -John Craig Senator and former minister of Health and Social Services |
| Date | 12:58:41, June 29, 2017 CET | From |  Liberal Party of Hutori | To | Debating the Bill NP-84: Complete right to abortion for every woman act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker Even taking out our party's firm opposition to abortion during the totality of the pregnancy we absolutely will not support the funding of this operations for anything less then a medical emergency. It is not the government's job to subsidize a woman's choice to end a pregnancy as a form of birth control. If a woman wants an elective abortion then it should be up to the woman in question to come up with the funds for the elective procedure. Mitchell Court Conservative Senate Leader Senator for Sutton |
| Date | 17:14:58, June 29, 2017 CET | From | Federal Heritage Party of Hutori | To | Debating the Bill NP-84: Complete right to abortion for every woman act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, We are appalled by the abuse of human rights that this bill advocates for. We deplore the lack of humanity and moral character of the NPP and it's conspirators. This is pure and simple a violation of a human being's right to life under the guise of choice. This is wholesale infanticide under the ruse of bodily autonomy. This is something that no moral man or woman would stand for and only serves to highlight the depravity of the NPP. Senator Wyatt McLaughlin (F-AD) Federalist Senate Leader Leader of the Opposition |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 371 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 229 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Players who consent to a particular role-play by acknowledging it in their own role-play cannot then disown it or withdraw their consent from it. For example, if player A role-plays the assassination of player B's character, and player B then acknowledges the assassination in a news post, but then backtracks and insists the assassination did not happen, then he will be required under the rules to accept the validity of the assassination role-play. |
| Random quote: "Politics is the art of postponing decisions until they are no longer relevant." - Henri Queuille |