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: Contraceptive Act of 2073
Details
Submitted by[?]: Proletariat Revolution 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: February 2075
Description[?]:
| If we are to have maternity leave, we should offer free contraceptives. This will help people regulate the size of their families while not being dscriminated against if they want a child or two. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on subsidising contraception.
Old value:: The government subsidises a considerable discount for contraceptives.
Current: The government does not supply free or discounted contraceptives.
Proposed: The government offers free contraceptives in pharmacies and public toilets.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 02:15:54, June 30, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Contraceptive Act of 2073 |
| Message | Even without subsidy, condoms are a very cheap item. As it is now, anyone can afford them, probably just by looking around and picking up spare change off the ground for use in the dispensers. Free condoms, on the other hand, are of course so cheap they get used for other things than contraceptives. You'll change your mind if someone throws a condom water balloon at you. :P Ah, forgive me for being fascetious. Anyways, the subsidy is cost-effective. It makes contraceptives more commonly available, easier to find, and easier to afford. If we make them free, then people will start abusing them. They'll lose their original meaning. Unlike the moralist argument, I don't think this would encourage promiscuity. I just don't think it would slow population growth significantly. Condoms would pass a point where increasing their publicity wouldn't increase their usage any, because their meaning would become corrupted. |
| Date | 05:57:09, June 30, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Contraceptive Act of 2073 |
| Message | Even so, if it's free, people won't have an excuse and those on the lower end of the food chain qill have equal access. |
| Date | 08:52:05, June 30, 2005 CET | From | People's Party | To | Debating the Contraceptive Act of 2073 |
| Message | Condoms are cheap enough so that anyone can afford them....you aren't going to see anyone poor enough so that he can't afford one. They really shouldn't even be subsidised- the money is better spent on medical care or welfare. |
| Date | 11:22:19, June 30, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Contraceptive Act of 2073 |
| Message | I support this, not as a method of population control, but as a method of disease control. As you say, condoms are very cheap, so it should'nt cost us much to do this, and contrary to LFP's argument, I think it will both publicise contraception, and give people no excuse not to use it. I also feel that it is important to promote condoms over the pill, as the latter has no disease control. |
| Date | 14:32:09, June 30, 2005 CET | From | People's Party | To | Debating the Contraceptive Act of 2073 |
| Message | $1 a person is still over $50 million. Cheap is only in consideration with an individual's income. When $50 million could feed and clothe 25,000 people, cheap becomes an expensive waste of money... I support making this a small program-finding a charity that will target the few thousand people who would actually say they can't pay $2 for a condom. |
| Date | 14:32:52, June 30, 2005 CET | From | People's Party | To | Debating the Contraceptive Act of 2073 |
| Message | Or would actually use that as an excuse... |
| Date | 02:33:15, July 02, 2005 CET | From | Söhne der Freiheit | To | Debating the Contraceptive Act of 2073 |
| Message | The Catholic Fascist Party and its members renounce contraception, as it is detrimental to life and the progression of life. To force those who disagree with contraception to fund it is ludicrous. |
| Date | 05:59:08, July 02, 2005 CET | From | Right Wing Liberals Party | To | Debating the Contraceptive Act of 2073 |
| Message | PP your calculations are flawed on the basis that people under 14 shouldnt/cant get pregnant or impregnate and Women past menopouse cant either so it wouldnt be 50Million. One also has to take into account the fact you only need one per person per time. But then there are 365 days in a year. and say the average number of times is X we need to times X by the number of people actually sexually active and whos lifestyle permits its use. YOU WOULD FIND THE COST IS CONSIDERABLY LARGER OR SMALLER. I believe it would be larger. but something for everyone to think about. |
| Date | 07:47:00, July 02, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Contraceptive Act of 2073 |
| Message | CTP - unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases are ludicrous. Condoms help protect the population from illness and allows children to be born to those who want them and into loving families, THUS reducing the need for abortion (so, what do you say now, hypocrite? you want to do away with abortion, so surely to balance it out, you must endorse this, am I not right?) |
| Date | 07:48:06, July 02, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Contraceptive Act of 2073 |
| Message | RWLP - why the vote against? This isn't PP's bill and you can ignore their ranting on the costs and vote on this in the good spirit that we can make our country better by allowing children to be born into welcoming families (regardless of nature). |
| Date | 08:38:33, July 02, 2005 CET | From | Söhne der Freiheit | To | Debating the Contraceptive Act of 2073 |
| Message | The CTP condemns both abortion and contraceptives, but we prefer contraceptives to abortion. We have made no move to ban contraceptives, we are merely speaking up for those who do not condone contraceptives and would rather not fund others' want for it. Calling me a hypocrite is uncalled for and I'd like an apology. And neither is this a place to question other people's votes. You can debate the issue, but don't try to make someone feel guilty for voting the way they did. You are completely out of order. |
| Date | 11:56:03, July 02, 2005 CET | From | People's Party | To | Debating the Contraceptive Act of 2073 |
| Message | I wasn't saying that was the cost of subsidies...so RWL, you're misguided... SLP you've totally ignored the fundamental question ...can you force someone to do something that is religiously abhorrent to him?? |
| Date | 11:56:24, July 02, 2005 CET | From | People's Party | To | Debating the Contraceptive Act of 2073 |
| Message | and yes you should apologize.. |
| Date | 16:10:07, July 02, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Contraceptive Act of 2073 |
| Message | N one is forcing anyone. We already have sex-ed (isn't that forcing someone to do something that is religiously offensive?). Though notably, the populance has shown itself to be generally, quite secular. By publically finding it, we're giving all Likatonians fully funded contraceptives so that regardless of socio-economic class, everyone has equal access. This isn't about the 'want', it's about the need to public safety. If we have it, we can help encourage public safety in regards to sexual relations, even in the marriage bed. If there is wide spread use, we can help drastically reduce the statistics related to sexually transmitted diseases and the number of unwanted children and those born to those who are merely children themselves. Yes it may not be favourable by traditionists, but fundamentally, it is one of the best ways tp help reduce the strain on the medical system. We have funded sexual education at the grade7-9 level, so it's only proper that they know that they have access to such protection. Contrary to the belief that granting wide-spread access will promote sexual indiscretion, even if it does, it is better that it happens when people use condoms and pills (the pills don't kill the fetus, they prevent the woman from releasing an egg). And lastly, CTP, I called you a hypocrite because of how straight out you expressed your views on the main page of this because of your stance towards abortion. And it's clear that because you indicate that you're Catholic, that you oppose contraceptives as well. Buf, truthfully, while you can have one without the other, both help make the system safer for the family because it means fewer unwanted children, fewer cases of sexually transmitted diseases. I'm sorry if you interpretted this as being harsh words, but I do feel as such. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 66 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 107 | ||||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 27 |
| Random fact: If there are no parties in your nation with seats, feel free to visit the forum and request an early election on the Early Election Requests thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4362 |
| Random quote: "The sun, the moon and the stars would have disappeared long ago had they happened to be within the reach of predatory human hands." - Havelock Ellis |