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: Abortion Restriction Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: National Party of Baltusia
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: April 2341
Description[?]:
| The ISP propose that abortions will be limited to medical circumstances only. Recognising the possible moral implications of abortion, and being unable to reach a consensus on whether an unborn child is "Alive" or not, the ISP suggest that is not the correct moral choice to assume the child is not alive, and throw caution to the wind by allowing abortions. We do not wish to be seen as restricting woman's rights. There are copious contraception options readily available in Baltusia, including the morning-after pill, and we feel that a woman is able to enjoy their sexuality without having a child, without the option of abortion. The adoption system is there for this reason. There are gay and infertile couples out there who would love to have a child, and the adoption system is there for them. It is also there for women who do not wish to have a child. Please, discuss before voting. |
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 entire course of the pregnancy.
Proposed: Abortions are only allowed in medical emergencies.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 02:06:22, January 05, 2007 CET | From |  Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Abortion Restriction Act |
| Message | Bah! You're one of them. "Recognising the possible moral implications of abortion, " Politics should be passionless. Even if it isn't, why should the morality of a few be imposed on the morality of the many? "being unable to reach a consensus on whether an unborn child is "Alive" or not" Have we tried discussing this? "We do not wish to be seen as restricting woman's rights. " Yes, I'm sure women will appreciate your gracious granting them the use of contraceptives. Meanwhile, many of them must carry a child that will be unloved and uncared for when its born. Or it could be shoved into the adoption system, which would probably screw him or her up as much in any case. In either situation, the result is a messed up and depressed child who will probably try to take his or her own life. |
| Date | 04:50:12, January 05, 2007 CET | From | Paraplu party | To | Debating the Abortion Restriction Act |
| Message | What is Granting? Anyway, I am surprised you are for abortion, since in you're description it says you're all about human rights. Though I suppose in the case of abortion, we have to ask ourselves, who's rights are more important, the mother to be who wants an abortion, or the unborn baby's? One might argue that a baby is not really a human and therefore has no right, but is this really, so? And on the other hand one might argue that a baby has the right to be born, and that it is a human, but is this so? I suppose then we must define human. |
| Date | 23:35:38, January 05, 2007 CET | From | Elite Sinn Fein | To | Debating the Abortion Restriction Act |
| Message | the definition of a human: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary So then we ask the question, is an unborn baby a bipedal primate mammal? So lets break it down, bipedal means to have 2 feet, well, haven't we all seen pictures of unborn babies? Clearly they have 2 feet. So they are bipedal. Are they primate? Of course! Inborn children have the basic human genitical traits, so of course they're primate! Are they mammals? lets look : http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/mammals "any of a class (Mammalia) of warm-blooded higher vertebrates...." They are warm-blooded, and females do nourish their young when they get older. Unborn children are indeed humans |
| Date | 23:48:50, January 05, 2007 CET | From | Paraplu party | To | Debating the Abortion Restriction Act |
| Message | so, we then must ask ourselves, whose rights are more important? The baby, or the mother to be? |
| Date | 23:51:12, January 05, 2007 CET | From | Paraplu party | To | Debating the Abortion Restriction Act |
| Message | another small point is that if the girl is gonna get pregnant, she deserves to have a baby, in some opinions. |
| Date | 01:30:33, January 06, 2007 CET | From | Baltusian Pantian Alliance | To | Debating the Abortion Restriction Act |
| Message | Alright Mr Fein party if we are indeed mammals why are we any different then any other mammals and or other sentient life. We choose quite often if a fully healthy sentient being is slain for the betterment of our society what is so vastly different about our species? Intellegence does not make anyone better then anyone else. (This isnt a rant about hippie ideology of not killing animals burgers are damned tasty :) death is natural get used to it.) |
| Date | 03:07:10, January 06, 2007 CET | From | Elite Sinn Fein | To | Debating the Abortion Restriction Act |
| Message | ok, I couldn't understand half of it, but I'll try to debate his argument. First of all, I never said we were different from any other mammals, infact were very much the same. However, I find that point very much irrelevent, we are not talking about other animal species, we are talking about ours. And scientific evidence has very much shown that we are mammals, unless you have evidence stating otherwise? Anyway, we have established that the unborn are indeed humans, so now we have to answer the question, whos right's are more important? |
| Date | 04:41:00, January 06, 2007 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Abortion Restriction Act |
| Message | "Anyway, I am surprised you are for abortion, since in you're description it says you're all about human rights. Though I suppose in the case of abortion, we have to ask ourselves, who's rights are more important, the mother to be who wants an abortion, or the unborn baby's?" An unborn baby has no rights as it is not a human being. It has no cognitive powers. It has no consciousness. It feels no emotions. It may feel pain but then so do many animals that we slaughter on a regular basis. Emotions, cognition, consciousness, intelligence, abstraction, etc are what separates human beings from fetuses and other animals. "Clearly they have 2 feet." Not really. Depends on which stage you're looking at. Some fetuses look more like reptiles than humans. And isn't a wonderful way to debate the subject: it looks human so it must be. "So lets break it down, bipedal means to have 2 feet, well, haven't we all seen pictures of unborn babies?" So do chimps. "Are they primate?" As are chimpanzees. "Are they mammals?" So are chimpanzees. Therefore, as chimps are bipedal primate mammals, they must be human and therefore should be entitled to all of the rights of a human. Chimpanzees for the vote! Man, that has be one of the most stupid lines of reasoning seen in this Senate in a good long time. "They are warm-blooded, and females do nourish their young when they get older." Unborn children do not nourish young. Again, stupid definition of a mammal. "another small point is that if the girl is gonna get pregnant, she deserves to have a baby, in some opinions." So giving birth to a child is a punishment for being loose? I can see how that child will have a perfect childhood and its mother will not resent it for the rest of its life. Are you blind? And the BPA is asking what makes our species so special that we debate the termination of an unwanted fetus yet have no qualms about fishing, hunting, using animals for cosmetic testing. "And scientific evidence has very much shown that we are mammals" You must have a terrible understanding of taxonomy. There's no experiment that shows that a human is a mammal. "Mammal" is a term used to classify a number of species together based on common characteristics. "we have established that the unborn are indeed humans" By that line of reasoning you've presented, chimpanzees are also human. |
| Date | 17:11:42, January 06, 2007 CET | From | National Party of Baltusia | To | Debating the Abortion Restriction Act |
| Message | Motion to vote. I once again cite the adoption system. |
| Date | 00:56:13, January 07, 2007 CET | From | Paraplu party | To | Debating the Abortion Restriction Act |
| Message | orange, i do not respect your habit of simply nay saying and not arguing your point. |
| Date | 11:50:38, January 07, 2007 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Abortion Restriction Act |
| Message | Are you incapable of reading? My stance has been clearly stated repeatedly: a human fetus is not a human being. It exhibits none of the characteristics that make a human being a human being. It is, in a biological sense, a human but so what? Chimpanzees share 97% of their DNA with the human race. As they are close biological relatives (and according to the Sinn Fein, human) but show none of the mental characteristics that define a human being, should we afford them human rights as well? Further, I have every right to rip apart the pathetic basis on which political party stands. The argument that "all you do is criticise" is a logical fallacy if you think thats valid grounds to opine that my party is wrong. The fact is that debate rests on two points: making one's own case (as I have done) and rebutting other cases made (as you criticise me, fallaciously, for doing). Hopefully, your voters and any allies you may have will see the light and turn away from you. |
| Date | 16:31:24, January 07, 2007 CET | From | National Party of Baltusia | To | Debating the Abortion Restriction Act |
| Message | It is absurd that the "Child will take his or her life". Do you realise the amount of healthy children that come out of the adoption system? |
| Date | 02:27:31, January 08, 2007 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Abortion Restriction Act |
| Message | "It is absurd that the "Child will take his or her life"." Suicide is one of the world's leading killers. Is it unreasonable to assume that a broken and unhappy childhood for many people, some no doubt adoptees, contributes to this? |
| Date | 04:51:47, January 08, 2007 CET | From | Elite Sinn Fein | To | Debating the Abortion Restriction Act |
| Message | So we're trading suicide for murder then? Oh and no, suicide is not a leading cause of death. look: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0779147.html it is only #14 on the list causing only 1.5% of deaths. A very insignificant number. If your so interested in saving lives, then why don't you ban sex? Prevent HIV/AIDS? |
| Date | 13:06:22, January 08, 2007 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Abortion Restriction Act |
| Message | "So we're trading suicide for murder then?" By your definition perhaps. Certainly not under a legal definition. "it is only #14 on the list causing only 1.5% of deaths. A very insignificant number." So 14th out of the millions of ways one can die is not a leading cause? 873 000 people died (IRL). Not because of a genetic disease beyond their own control, not because someone drove a car into a power pole, not because they drank, smoked, heroined themselves to death and not because they were landed in a warzone. No, because some fool of a political party decided to make decision for people which is certain to have negative repercussions because they want to take what they view to be the "moral highground". Bah! Live in the real world for five minutes: prohibition of abortion will only send it underground. Wonderful! Bikies with coathangers can perform the operations deemed to "icky" for society to think about. Serious health consequences for the women with no choice will be on your conscience. I hope you can live with the infections, the hemorrhaging and the severe mental scars left by some guy high on acid wiggling a coathanger around inside the countless women who will no doubt turn to them. Or you can force women to give birth to a child they don't want, leading to two things: a. The child is not adopted out and lives under a woman who resents their very existence. b. They get moved into the adoption system and falls through the cracks of society. Either way, they get depressed, they take up drugs, they get messed up in the head and find a length of rope and hang themselves, wishing they'd never been born. If only they hadn't. Good to see you at least used a reference though. "If your so interested in saving lives, then why don't you ban sex? Prevent HIV/AIDS?" That is an excrutiatingly stupid hyperbole. HIV/AIDS can be prevented with contraceptives. Secondly, spreading a STD when you know you have it *is* against the law. Its called grevious bodily harm. Further, sex is necessary for the survival of the species. You would know that if your knowledge of biology was significantly better than has been displayed in this debate. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 11 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 89 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: "Spamming", or the indiscriminate posting of unsolicited messages, is not allowed. |
| Random quote: "What we are doing to the forests of the world is but a mirror reflection of what we are doing to ourselves and to one another." - Gandhi |