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: Return to Normalcy V1.5
Details
Submitted by[?]: Free Reform Coalition (FRP)
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: January 2067
Description[?]:
| Abortion is a tragedy for many people that happens for many reasons. This bill proposes to: *End second trimester abortions unless the doctor's appointment was made early within the first trimester. *Create an education program for graduating high school children in which they learn about the different ways to prevent pregnancy. this will be different from a sex ed class becuase the aim is specifically to do with planned pregnancy. |
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 trimester.
Proposed: Abortion is allowed during the first trimester.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 00:13:02, June 08, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.5 |
| Message | So now we're moving our agenda to infringe upon privacy rights? Well done, FRP, the f must stand for fascist. There is no possible argument for this policy change. |
| Date | 02:12:55, June 08, 2005 CET | From |  Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.5 |
| Message | Why did we stop at second trimester? Using the reasoning listed above we should allow it throughout the pregnancy. Yet we do not see this option pushed forward. Why do privacy rights end 6 months in? We think each person should be free to draw the line where they feel it should be without being labeled a fascist. |
| Date | 08:51:02, June 08, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.5 |
| Message | Because during the third trimester a child can often times survive outside of the womb. This is almost never the case during the first six months of pregnancy, which makes it a very convenient line to draw in an issue that necessarily asks the question when does the life of the child begin. There is no difference between the first and second trimesters when it comes to infant survivability. By drawing the line at the third trimester we strike a reasoned balance between privacy and when life begins. There is no such distinction to be made between the first and second trimesters. So what's the real motivation? The FRP is trying to court conservative voters without actually taking a stand on the issue. Milquetoast politics at its best. |
| Date | 08:53:11, June 08, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.5 |
| Message | please insert 'without life support' after 'almost never the case', which i forgot to add. |
| Date | 10:57:11, June 08, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.5 |
| Message | Well, it seems to the FRP that having an abortion is often the result of poor education on the various options available to a woman in order not to become pregnant. Abortion represents a failure to be able to help women find other means to prevent pregnancy from ever happening. We do not want to outlaw abortion, but we do not want to encourage it. Surely there is a concensus among everyone that regardless of when one considers a foetus to be alive, an abortion is a huge trauma on the potential mother and those around her. Did you know, that in RL the majority of abortions are performed on white, rich, upper class women who already have a child. Surely that seems strange to you? Lower income women, particularly black women have the lowest counts of abortions but mostly becuase there is no access to abortion clinics (all of this in the USA by the way) anyway, the point is that there are major problems with the way abortion is handled. without outlawing abortion, we wish to create a society that thinks ahead first, and has the information to do that. we propose the education plan to support that. We also propose the abortion reduction plan becuase we do not want six months to go by before a woman gets an abortion. yes it is a difficult decision to make, but it should not take so long. |
| Date | 11:53:09, June 08, 2005 CET | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.5 |
| Message | The FRP appears to be arguing for compulsory sex education in schools, which we already have. There is no need to further restrict the availability of abortion. |
| Date | 17:04:52, June 08, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.5 |
| Message | Well, we have a form of it, which must be taught at some point during puberty. What we are suggesting is a follow up course during the final year of school that deals more specifically with issues of contraception, pregnancy, parenting and children. The aim is to educate on both the ways to avoid pregnancy as well as provide a general background and advice on parenting for the future. It is a different take on the same idea, that is true libcom, but we think the focus will have a succesful outcome. the reason we simultaneously want to limit mid-stage abortion is mostly ideological, we believe that it is too close for comfort to tell when the foetus has become a living entity. we also recognize that there are some people who cannot obtain abortions easily which is why we want to allow second trimester abortions so long as the appointment was made early on in the pregnancy. |
| Date | 22:29:56, June 08, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.5 |
| Message | And so the FRP admits this bill is motivated by ideology, not material fact, which conveniently proves our argument exactly. The narrow ideology of the FRP should not be allowed to trump basic rights of our citizens. |
| Date | 11:44:27, June 09, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.5 |
| Message | As if the ridiculous ideas of collectivisation and no copyrights were motivated by anything other than ideology in the face of constant contradictory facts. Come now LevP, were you somehow born on a raft where you didn't realize that politicial parties come with ideologies? you're either naive beyond belief or just trying to find some pithy way to poke at us. |
| Date | 01:11:28, June 10, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.5 |
| Message | There is a difference between ideology and materialism. A materialist does things based on the actual consequences of those actions, and so evaluates their positions based on the physical reality of the situation. An ideologue does things based on principle, and so applies those principles regardless of the actual physical reality. The farms were collectivized to achieve material ends: income equality, needs based production, worker control. Copyrights were abolished for material ends as well: ending information monopoly, increasing innovation through shared ideas, doing away with the ability of companies to post record profits by copying something for a few cents. What the FRP claim are 'contradictory ' facts are nothing more than poorly support suppositions by their party ideologues who, of course, represent the ownership class of Malivia, while the LevP works for the lower classes. It is hardly surprising the FRP can't understand how our policies materially benefit the nation since it is their supporters that have unfairly benefited from an exploitative economy. Equality requires taking power from the ruling classes. |
| Date | 11:36:36, June 10, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.5 |
| Message | i suppose making everyone equally poor is a great way of representing the worker class. if there is no opportunity to excel and to improve your situation then there is not point in trying hard at all. workers have control - its called unionization, but stripping owners of all control seems populist and merely supports the idea that "if i can't be rich, no one should" which is immature. |
| Date | 14:39:52, June 12, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.5 |
| Message | The FRP's grasp of economics is as loose as their grasp of causality. One might note that not once has the LevP objected to anyone getting rich. In fact, we are all for it, provided those people actually earn their money, rather than inheriting it. What the FRP seems to be incapable of understanding is that there is a difference between owners and rich people. Owners are a tiny class of people who get to make decisions that impact the entire population without any oversight from the public. Rich people are people with lots of money. You'll note the difference: one has an inordinate amount of control and serves the drive for profit rather than need, the other has lots of money. While money can buy control, it doesn't become control until it's turned into ownership in the means of production. Not that the FRP has the cognitive faculties to understand the difference, but our objection is, again, to a tiny class of people controlling the fate of an entire nation, which is why we have consistently voted on the side of increased democracy. If the FRP has bothered to read our party statement of purpose, they'd note that we only care about ensuring a basic standard of living, not in capping total earnings. Not that the FRP is interested in the truth. |
| Date | 11:29:09, June 13, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.5 |
| Message | ah yes: you can have money, you just can't own stuff with it, thats a smart plan. |
| Date | 12:11:35, June 13, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.5 |
| Message | What the FRP needs to do is go back to college and study the difference between money, wealth and capital. If they act now and support subsidized university tuition, they can even do it for free, which their penny pinching mentality will love. |
| Date | 06:01:02, June 15, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Return to Normalcy V1.5 |
| Message | Though we feel that every individual has a right of privacy and should have access to an abortion if they wish we are unsure where to draw the line. Currently we will support this bill, but will investigate the matter further. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 27 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 50 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 23 |
| Random fact: RP laws follow the same passing rules as in-game variable laws. Laws that are not of a constitutional nature require a simple majority "Yes" vote from active parties currently holding seats. Laws that are of a constitutional nature require a 2/3 majority "Yes" vote from active parties currently holding seats. RP laws may be abolished a simple majority vote this applies to ANY RP law. |
| Random quote: "Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken |