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: Sex Reassignment Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Social Liberal 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: March 4234
Description[?]:
| This bill is a generosity act for those who cannot afford the inviolable right to change their gender. Lucy Davis (SL-FA) Responsible for Health and Social Services for Social Liberal Party Senator for Cork Town |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy concerning sex reassignment surgery.
Old value:: There is no policy on sex reassignment surgery.
Current: Sex reassignment surgery is legal but regulated.
Proposed: The government funds sex reassignment surgery for people with low incomes.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 00:48:01, June 28, 2017 CET | From | Federal Heritage Party of Hutori | To | Debating the Sex Reassignment Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, We would like to ask of the SLP why would a person have this right? For what reason would this be a right?Who would endow such a right? Or where would such a right be derived from? In all honesty we tire of the lack of intellectual rigor paraded about by these so called "progressive" parties. The only type of logical philosophy that would allow for such a thing is pure unadulterated subjectivism. In which case there would be no objective reality and we all might as well go live in the forest and sing patter songs while skipping around barefoot. If we are going to be basing our legislation on subjective feelings and emotions instead of logic and facts then what is the point? Why do you even attempt to legislate? I know everyone gives the HPP a hard time but, for the love of God at least their voting record is consistent with their nihilistic worldview. At the very least their worldview is consistent with their fundamental assumptions that's more than any "progressive" party can say. Wyatt McLaughlin (F-AD) Federalist Senate Leader |
| Date | 01:12:04, June 28, 2017 CET | From | Social Liberal Party | To | Debating the Sex Reassignment Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker I didn't expect that civil rights are bothering the Feds. I'm personally proud of my party's legislation because, I suggests the Feds to control it, we proposed, for example, ban of death penality, secularism bills like the taxations of religious institutions or the Secularism Act and a lot of bills concerning devolution and government spending. But since it's clear that Federalist Party wants to play the role of populist party, I'm glad to invite them to our Headquarter in the forest for singing a song about unadulterated subjectivism. Ann Richardson (SL-LA) Social Liberal Senate leader Senator for Constantine OOC: calm down, it's just a bill! |
| Date | 01:32:13, June 28, 2017 CET | From | Federal Heritage Party of Hutori | To | Debating the Sex Reassignment Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, We did not support the SLP in any of the secularization acts because we believed that it was and is objectively wrong. We supported the death penalty act because we affirm the objective value of a human life. Both of which are beliefs that our logically consistent with our fundamental beliefs which not coincidentally can also be logically affirmed. As for the accusation that we are a populist party that is objectively false. By definition a populist party is a party that follows the whim of the people whatever way it sways. However, the Federalist Party has remained steadfast in the face of dire opposition to it's moral character. As for what the SLP thought was a clever distraction they STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED MY DAMN QUESTIONS. Wyatt McLaughlin (F-AD) Federalist Senate Leader OOC: I'm calm, however Senator McLaughlin is not he's lost his party's majority and the presidency. His party has been excluded from government and is the second largest party. Liberals keep posing bills without any logical basis. Yeah I'd say he's a little pissed but, it'll pass that or he'll be replaced. lol |
| Date | 01:53:55, June 28, 2017 CET | From | Social Liberal Party | To | Debating the Sex Reassignment Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker Despite senator McLaughlin's unprofessionalistic tone, I must remind him that as a Legislative Assembly we can propose, vote, debate about a lot of topics at the same time. So we can propose, for example, a bill concerning civil rights, a bill concern implementation of public health and a bill concern tax cut. Now we propose a bill about focusing on the diversity of Hutorian people. We simply can't ignore them. Ann Richardson (SL-LA) Social Liberal Senate leader Senator for Constantine OOC: I see. But this the first that I thought "wtf?!" so far. I mean, I know that the topic of this bill can't match with Feds ideology, but this harsh tone? I believe that this isn't without logical basis, but I think that it's subjective :D |
| Date | 01:54:39, June 28, 2017 CET | From | Social Liberal Party | To | Debating the Sex Reassignment Act |
| Message | *OOC: the first time |
| Date | 03:41:03, June 28, 2017 CET | From |  Liberal Party of Hutori | To | Debating the Sex Reassignment Act |
| Message | OOC: Always recall that we as players are far different then the Characters we RP as. Senator Mitchell Court is highly combative, is actually quite distrustful of the left and the central government, being from the Isle of Sutton, which is about as far from Bekenial you can get and still be in Hutori, and is the Conservative's primary outlet as an attack dog, since the actual Leader is in the cabinet. So far I haven't found anything to truly go to the wall about, but believe me, Senator Court could jump into this wagon with just as much venom lol, but he has to keep some decorum to avoid angering Amelia Woodbury as a member of the government. RIS and I are simply seasoned at this. You'll get there, just remember to never take things personally! IC: Mr. Speaker With respect to the SLP, this is yet another area the government should NOT be involving itself in. If a person wishes to reassign their gender that is an elective operation for a reason and we should not be entering into the equation. How a person choses to live their live is entirely up to them, but our caucus will not support this policy. We stand shoulder to shoulder with our Federalists colleagues and will gladly oppose this Bill. Mitchell Court Conservative Senate Leader Senator for Sutton |
| Date | 04:07:27, June 28, 2017 CET | From | Social Liberal Party | To | Debating the Sex Reassignment Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker We think that our government in the only who can make a real difference in the lifes of those people. We have the possibility to make feel them more accepted into our society. A person who feels that our government stands with him or with her, is more encouraged to live and work for our nation. This is, obviously, not the only way to achieve this objective but we refuse this blind point of view. Ann Richardson (SL-LA) Social Liberal Senate leader Senator for Constantine OOC: I understand, I just felt surprised by the tone of Senator McLaughlin. It was really harsh :D I'll try to be like Frank Underwood. |
| Date | 06:41:09, June 28, 2017 CET | From | Federal Heritage Party of Hutori | To | Debating the Sex Reassignment Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, Can the SLP please just answer the questions posed to them? They keep just talking in circles bringing it back to the subjective. Why is this a right? And who or what endowed people with said right? If you can answer these questions then there is no logical reason anyone should pass this legislation. Wyatt McLaughlin (F-AD) Federalist Senate Leader OOC: I apologize if it seemed like I personally was attacking your party's position. As Vesica has mentioned the characters often take on a life of their own. And if your character believes there is logical basis for it then use it that's what McLaughlin wants. |
| Date | 07:26:37, June 28, 2017 CET | From | Social Liberal Party | To | Debating the Sex Reassignment Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker I'll do a stupid example: a couple who doesn't love each other anymore, should divorce right? It could happen due Divorce Right. I know, these are different matters with different dynamics, but with with common goal: self-determination. But I'm so glad that Feds said that a person choses to live their live is entirely up to them. I would agree with them but these people has no choice. We must stands with them. Ann Richardson (SL-LA) Social Liberal Senate leader Senator for Constantine OOC: It's ok :) I'm still trying to get involve into political ground, so I think I should get used to harsh tone :D. |
| Date | 17:28:07, June 28, 2017 CET | From | Federal Heritage Party of Hutori | To | Debating the Sex Reassignment Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, I must point out that it was the Conservative party that affirmed self-determination not the us. However, we too affirm that people have a right to liberty or in other words the right to freely choose. Though that in and of itself does not justify this legislation. First of all my right to liberty does not trump Ms. Richardson's right to life. I cannot decide that I won't tolerate her anymore and thus kill her. In the aforementioned circumstance life is more important than liberty. In the same way why should a person's pursuit of happiness be my responsibility? As a taxpayer they're essentially forcing me to pay for something that I find morally reprehensible in essence you are denying my moral liberty in favor of someone else. The SLP has deemed my moral and religious rights to be less important than the potentially temporary emotions of a person suffering from gender dysphoria. In our view we uphold life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and in that order. Their liberty is not more valuable than my life and my happiness is not more valuable than their liberty. As a great man once said "You have the right to pursue happiness but, you must catch it for yourself." Just because we affirm the right of the people to make bad decisions does not mean we wish to pay for their said bad decisions. Furthermore, what basis does the SLP claim to have for people's right to choose? Why is there free will? Because, it doesn't seem to us that they hold to any philosophy that would affirm the freedom of the will or that would have any logical foundation for it. Wyatt McLaughlin (F-AD) Federalist Senate Leader OOC: Credit for the quote goes to Ben Franklin. I paraphrased a bit. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 266 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 334 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: If you have a question, post it on the forum. Game Moderators and other players will be happy to help you. http://forum.particracy.net/ |
| Random quote: "Poverty is the parent of revolution and crime." - Aristotle |