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: Vaccine act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Democratic Workers 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: July 4364
Description[?]:
| We believe that parents have a right to raise their children. However, we also believe that not vaccinating a child does an undue harm to society at large. As the consequences are not under the control of parents, neither should the decision it's self |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's stance on vaccinations.
Old value:: The government mandates vaccination for all children, but parents may opt out for religious or ideological reasons.
Current: The government mandates vaccination for all children.
Proposed: The government mandates vaccination for all children.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:32:49, March 15, 2018 CET | From | Liberal Party of the URK (LURK) | To | Debating the Vaccine act |
| Message | We object to all of these articles (except for #5), and we will go over each ARTICLE 1 - We want to minimize the risk of children being put into abusive or neglectful environments. The current process is doing this well, so let's keep it. Routine check-ups, where information can be easily hidden, has nothing on a heavy screening process. ARTICLE 2 - This law effectively just means that marriages with foreign nationals should be subjected to the same laws as every other marriage, and that marriages taking place in foreign countries between one or two of our nationals should be subjected to these laws too. Why would we give privileges to foreigners that we don't give our own citizens? And why extend the privileges of our own nationals simply because they're out of the country? ARTICLE 3 - Incest, as disgusting as it is, is not inherently harmful. It is, at the end of the day, still two consenting adults. However, the health detriments towards children born from this are unignorable, and so we don't allow close relatives to have children. But illegalizing the relationship itself is not the place of the government. ARTICLE 4 - Again, this is to avoid children being placed in abusive or neglectful environments. We keep it federal in order to avoid confusion and chaos between different regional laws. What if two parents are residents of two different regions? |
| Date | 18:24:43, March 15, 2018 CET | From | National Conservative Party | To | Debating the Vaccine act |
| Message | We echo the qualms of the LURK, besides in the case of a2 which we have no stance on. |
| Date | 00:30:19, March 16, 2018 CET | From | Kalistani Workers Party | To | Debating the Vaccine act |
| Message | We support, although we don't agree with Article 3 or Article 1 to some extent. |
| Date | 12:49:41, March 16, 2018 CET | From | Democratic Workers Party | To | Debating the Vaccine act |
| Message | Article1; The fact is that none of these proposals make child abuse legal. We believe that regular law enforcement should be able to tackle this problem outside of obtrusive house inspections for couples attempting to adopt. Article 2; A change in the law does not provide any new rights to married couples. On the contrary, it would simply recognise rights foreign couples would have enjoyed in the country where they were married. Our nation must be a welcoming one in order to attract the best of the best in a global economy and the current law restricts our ability to do this. Article 3; Incest is a direct harm to children. An environment tolerant of incestuous relationships leads to undue pressure on children to participate in a physical relationship which they are not ready for at a young age. Further, it constitues a direct harm to family cohesion as a result of the above. Waiting until the relationship results in a pregNancy is completely insufficient and effectively amounts to an attempt to close the barn door after the horse have bolted. Article 5; Again, this is what law enforcement is for. Outside of preventing illegality, the government has no right to be the arbiteration of what constitutes a parent. Their values and lifestyle should be put under the scrutiny of the state unless a direct harm is caused. Direct harm which, I might add, is insufficiently protected against by laws in inest and vaccinations |
| Date | 12:55:03, March 16, 2018 CET | From | Democratic Workers Party | To | Debating the Vaccine act |
| Message | I remove the article on recognising foreign marriages as it is really only tangential to the goals of this legislation to strengthen both the independence of the family and protection of children |
| Date | 20:59:26, March 16, 2018 CET | From | Liberal Party of the URK (LURK) | To | Debating the Vaccine act |
| Message | If children are being forced into sexual relationships with family members, that's rape. Needless to say, rape is already illegal in this country. This article refers to whether or not sex should be illegal ON THE GROUNDS OF incest. If it's two consenting adults, ew, but fine, you do you. If it's between an adult and a child, that's rape regardless of the family relationship, and legal action will be taken anyway. Our measures on adoption and childbearing simply help law enforcement carry out the law. It makes no sense to pull back on their ability to enforce child safety and protection laws. |
| Date | 21:49:15, March 16, 2018 CET | From | Democratic Workers Party | To | Debating the Vaccine act |
| Message | Would this revised bill garner any support? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 188 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 562 | |||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Particracy has 464 player slots. |
| Random quote: "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson |