Northeast Assembly Thread
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:02:11 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government
  Regional Governments (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  Northeast Assembly Thread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 123 124 125 126 127 [128] 129 130 131 132 133 ... 239
Author Topic: Northeast Assembly Thread  (Read 377524 times)
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3175 on: January 15, 2011, 06:25:41 AM »

The Bill has passed.

Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3176 on: January 16, 2011, 12:17:40 AM »

Alright, the Assembly will now look at Rep Wormguy's Bill

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I move that the Assembly consider this Bill, all in favour say 'aye' ... the ayes have it.

Rep Wormguy, please speak to your Bill, debate on this Bill will last 48 hours from now.
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3177 on: January 16, 2011, 12:53:34 AM »

Thank you, speaker.

As I am sure everyone is well aware, there is an acute shortage of organ donors, and waiting lists can be months long.  However, if only a miniscule percentage of the population chose to donate nonessential organs, such as a kidney or a lobe of their liver, the waiting list for those organs could be totally eliminated.

Now, there are several ways one could go about doing that.  One would be to choose people by random lottery and force them to donate their nonessential organs.  That would be an unethical, Orwellian nightmare.  Another is to simply acknowledge that people are the owners of their own bodies, and let them do with their bodies as they please, including selling their nonessential organs.  It is for the same reason that people are allowed to obtain body piercings or tattoos (including if they are being paid to have "PartyPoker.com" written on them) - because there is no more fitting custodian of a person's body that that self-same person.  Every argument that I have ever seen advocating for legalized abortion has rested on this notion of self-ownership - that a woman has the right to do with what is inside her own body as she pleases.  This bill relies on the same concept, except that nothing is being killed.  Indeed, it saves lives.

I suspect there will be two major objections made to this bill.  The first will be that it will result in the poor being "taken advantage" of.  One must think of the types of people who would sell their nonessential organs.  The first might be simply persons who are looking to make a quick buck.  These are the sorts of people who agree to be paid to be guinea pigs for drug trials (potentially far more dangerous than this).  The second is people who are doing so out of desperation.  This second group, if they are denied this opportunity, will turn to something even more degrading, such as prostitution, or a life of crime.  Who are we as an assembly to tell that person "no?"  To tell them to become a prostitute.  Become a drug dealer.  Become a bank robber.  Perhaps it is better to simply let each individual person decide what is best to do for themselves, especially when we are discussing something which ought to be considered theirs in the first place, their own bodies.

The second will be the somewhat populist-tinged objection that "it will only benefit the rich."  I would ask:  Are the rich less human, or less deserving?  Do they not have the right to do everything in their power to save the lives of themselves and their loved ones?  Furthermore, I must make two rather obvious points; as the supply of organs increases, so too will the cost decrease, and also that this proposal would greatly cut down on the length of waiting lists for uncompensated organ donations, so every recipient would benefit, even those unable to purchase one directly.

As for the tax credit, I doubt that's controversial, but I am open to discussing or modifying it.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3178 on: January 16, 2011, 05:53:58 PM »

I personally find the goal of the Bill quite positive... we need more organ donorship, without question.

I do have some issues with the overall tone of the Bill however, it stresses what rights people should have, but without any significant safeguards for abuse.

I would certainly consider supporting this Bill if it were more actually targeted on increasing organ donation... and less on 'rights' ...
Logged
Rowan
RowanBrandon
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,692


Political Matrix
E: 1.94, S: 4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3179 on: January 16, 2011, 06:10:15 PM »

Selling body organs? No. Just no.
Logged
Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey
hantheguitarman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,025


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3180 on: January 16, 2011, 11:15:51 PM »

I endorse this bill.

I personally find the goal of the Bill quite positive... we need more organ donorship, without question.

I do have some issues with the overall tone of the Bill however, it stresses what rights people should have, but without any significant safeguards for abuse.

I would certainly consider supporting this Bill if it were more actually targeted on increasing organ donation... and less on 'rights' ...

The second half of wormy's bill is to provide safeguards against abuse. If you don't think there are enough safeguards and wish to provide some ideas, please let us know. Also, what exactly about the 'rights' aspect of the bill worries you? Do you oppose these rights and if so why? The only real effect of his bill is that people that need organ transplants will have an easier time receiving organs that they need. What could be wrong with that?
Logged
Free Palestine
FallenMorgan
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,022
United States
Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -10.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3181 on: January 17, 2011, 01:12:07 AM »

I support this bill as well.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3182 on: January 17, 2011, 04:01:02 AM »

I endorse this bill.

I personally find the goal of the Bill quite positive... we need more organ donorship, without question.

I do have some issues with the overall tone of the Bill however, it stresses what rights people should have, but without any significant safeguards for abuse.

I would certainly consider supporting this Bill if it were more actually targeted on increasing organ donation... and less on 'rights' ...

The second half of wormy's bill is to provide safeguards against abuse. If you don't think there are enough safeguards and wish to provide some ideas, please let us know. Also, what exactly about the 'rights' aspect of the bill worries you? Do you oppose these rights and if so why? The only real effect of his bill is that people that need organ transplants will have an easier time receiving organs that they need. What could be wrong with that?

I don't see significant safeguards at all, aside from "if they want to do it, let them"

Which isn't a safeguard.

I would not support this Bill unless there is a clear medical oversight. People cannot go ahead with considering this process unless a Doctor has signed off that they are not in any way mentally deficient and that they will not be otherwise be put in medical jeopardy.

I oppose the idea that a right exists without an equal responsibility attached to it.

I do believe that people have the fundamental right to determine what happens to their bodies, but I would consider it a considerable dereliction of our duty of care to encourage potentially risky acts without considerable oversight.

Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3183 on: January 17, 2011, 11:03:58 AM »

Hmm...

6. A surgeon may, at his or her own discretion, declare a person mentally incompetent for the purposes of selling his or her bodily organs.

In the future, you may want to read the bill first.
Logged
Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey
hantheguitarman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,025


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3184 on: January 17, 2011, 11:19:44 AM »
« Edited: January 17, 2011, 11:25:45 AM by Governor Han »


There are safeguards in this bill...
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3185 on: January 17, 2011, 07:37:15 PM »

Hmm...

6. A surgeon may, at his or her own discretion, declare a person mentally incompetent for the purposes of selling his or her bodily organs.

In the future, you may want to read the bill first.

Apologies.... my brain has clearly been a touch frazzled...
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3186 on: January 17, 2011, 09:26:50 PM »

So... after reading this Bill again... yes reading it.

I note some pretty basic concerns.

1. It's a very simplistic approach to a complex problem.
2. The belief that the individual has the right to determine what happens to their body, does therefore equal that being able to sell organs for money is a natural progression... maybe that makes perfect sense to you, but not to me.
3. The safeguards appear there, but the language doesn't seem that strong there's a lot of 'may's in there and no clear contraventions with exception of court declared mental instability... which is a very high standard.

Logged
Free Palestine
FallenMorgan
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,022
United States
Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -10.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3187 on: January 17, 2011, 10:21:17 PM »

Naturally, if people have dominion over their own bodies, they should be able to do whatever they wish as long as they do not harm others.
Logged
courts
Ghost_white
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,466
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3188 on: January 17, 2011, 11:20:11 PM »
« Edited: January 17, 2011, 11:23:02 PM by Ghost_white »

So... after reading this Bill again... yes reading it.

I note some pretty basic concerns.

1. It's a very simplistic approach to a complex problem.
2. The belief that the individual has the right to determine what happens to their body, does therefore equal that being able to sell organs for money is a natural progression... maybe that makes perfect sense to you, but not to me.
3. The safeguards appear there, but the language doesn't seem that strong there's a lot of 'may's in there and no clear contraventions with exception of court declared mental instability... which is a very high standard.



1. Why is that inherently bad? It seems like lately all the left has to propose here is additional taxes, mandates or spending for problems. I would call all of those simple solutions frankly although that alone has no bearing on whether or not they're valid policies..
2. So why is one protected and not the other then? What makes you draw that distinction? At least in the case of abortion you could argue that it's a separate body you're also going to be effecting so your own professed right to 'self ownership' might not apply.. But how is deciding to donate or sell your own organs (particularly if it saves lives) not a valid choice for individuals? Either people have a right to decide what they want to do with their bodies or they don't, in which case it is simply another privilege.
3. What other "standard" do you have in mind besides the good judgment of the doctors and/or a court of law?
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3189 on: January 18, 2011, 12:56:28 AM »

The period for Debate has concluded.

We will now move for a vote on this Bill.

You will have 24 hours to vote 'aye' or 'nay'
Logged
Free Palestine
FallenMorgan
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,022
United States
Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -10.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3190 on: January 18, 2011, 11:23:33 AM »

AYE
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3191 on: January 18, 2011, 11:25:17 AM »

Aye
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3192 on: January 18, 2011, 11:53:16 AM »

Nay
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3193 on: January 18, 2011, 10:52:47 PM »

Nay
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3194 on: January 19, 2011, 03:57:26 AM »

Voting period has ended.

2-2 tie
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3195 on: January 19, 2011, 06:31:48 AM »

The most saddening thing is the lack of participation of most of Representatives there. Half of them didn't even bother to vote, apparently.

PS : I swear this is the last time I intervent in the NE Assembly's business. Sorry people but for whatever reason a part of me still cares about this region. Tongue
Logged
Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey
hantheguitarman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,025


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3196 on: January 19, 2011, 07:39:03 AM »



I, as Governor of the Northeast, will break the tie by signing The Self-Ownership Bill (Or, the If You Are Pro-Choice and You Oppose This Then You Are a Hypocrite Bill)l

Governor Han

Logged
Psychic Octopus
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,948
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3197 on: January 19, 2011, 09:44:11 PM »

Sorry about missing the vote, I would have supported the measure for the record. I've been really busy the last two days...
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3198 on: January 19, 2011, 11:47:46 PM »

We will now move to consideration of Rep Wormguy's Bill.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I move that the Bill be considered, all in favour say 'aye'.... the 'aye's have it.

Can Rep Wormguy speak to this Bill - debate will last for 48 hours.


...also a procedural note for those proposing legislation - please refer to it as a Bill, not an Act, as we all know it's a Bill until the Governor signs it.

Thanks Smiley
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3199 on: January 20, 2011, 12:07:32 AM »

As was reported by the media, when Jared Lee Loughner bought the gun that he used in the Tucson, AZ shooting, the gun shop that sold it to him did not actually want to sell him the gun (noticing his erratic behavior), but were required to by a state law mandating that guns be sold to anyone who passes the federal background check.  This bill would have prevented that tragedy, and has as its aim preventing future ones, by removing all such restrictions on firearms retailers so that they may deny a sale to anyone their good judgment tells them not to sell to.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 123 124 125 126 127 [128] 129 130 131 132 133 ... 239  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.1 seconds with 13 queries.