Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 25, 2014, 03:41:48 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Atlas Fantasy Elections
| |-+  Atlas Fantasy Government
| | |-+  Regional Governments (Moderator: Gustaf)
| | | |-+  MA: Amendment to the Mideast Abortion Statute II (Statute)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 Print
Author Topic: MA: Amendment to the Mideast Abortion Statute II (Statute)  (Read 2842 times)
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35790
United States


View Profile WWW
« on: August 11, 2011, 01:57:55 am »
Ignore

Quote
Amendment to the Mideast Abortion Statute II
Section 1 of the Mideast Abortion Statute shall be amended to read:

"1: No abortions shall be permitted except in the cases of threat to the mother's health or a pregnancy caused by rape and/or incest."
Sponsor:ZuWo
« Last Edit: September 18, 2011, 12:09:23 am by P:B R:G P:Y B:O »Logged
ZuWo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4449
Switzerland


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: August 11, 2011, 04:51:41 am »
Ignore

Fellow Assemblymen,

I am inclined to introduce yet another controversial piece of legislation with the intent to protect the lives of thousands of unborn children. Gentlemen, we have the unique opportunity to pass a bill which adheres to the principle of the sanctity of life and allows abortion only in very restricted cases. We as lawmakers have the resposibility to do everything in our power to grant each human being, unborn and born, the right to live.
It is not understandable to me how in the 21st century people still dare to portray the practice of abortion, a practice of killing, as a "right to choose" and a question of individual freedom. It is sad that the very same people who claim that a state has the duty to support the poor and protect those who are discriminated against, cynically referring to themselves as "progressives", do not regard it as extremely disturbing that the concept of abortion targets the weakest members of our society.
In fact, abortion is not a matter of a woman's individual choice because a woman's decision whether or not to abort a baby does not only affect herself but also the existence of an unprotected human being.

As the reading of the bill makes clear, abortions shall not be completely outlawed. Even if I personally believe this would be a desirable state of affairs, the bill recognises that abortion shall be legal in extraordinary circumstances. Gentlemen, I urge you to join me in the fight against an inhumane practice.
Logged
#Ready4Nixon
Cathcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15250
United States


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: August 11, 2011, 08:26:21 am »
Ignore

Here, here!
Logged

Mopsus
MOPolitico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1160
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.74, S: -5.97

P P P
View Profile
« Reply #3 on: August 11, 2011, 11:22:47 am »
Ignore

Personally, I do not believe a fetus to have the same rights as a citizen. However, as this is a deeply controversial issue and we are unlikely to change each-others' minds, I will limit my statements to saying that I oppose this bill, and intend on voting against it in the final vote.
Logged
ZuWo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4449
Switzerland


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: August 11, 2011, 12:31:36 pm »
Ignore

Personally, I do not believe a fetus to have the same rights as a citizen. However, as this is a deeply controversial issue and we are unlikely to change each-others' minds, I will limit my statements to saying that I oppose this bill, and intend on voting against it in the final vote.

You're right, this is a difficult topic to debate. I believe the minds of most (if not all) Assemblymen are probably made up regarding the abortion issue (so hopefully this time - from my perspective - we aren't in for some surprises when it comes to the final vote Tongue)
Logged
Governor TJ
TJ in Cleve
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4962
United States


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: August 11, 2011, 12:56:12 pm »
Ignore

I will not provide a 'surprise' unless of course you are surprised to find I support this bill.
Logged

#Ready4Nixon
Cathcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15250
United States


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: August 11, 2011, 01:33:38 pm »
Ignore

I will not provide a 'surprise' unless of course you are surprised to find I support this bill.
Logged

shua
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11702
Russian Federation


View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: August 11, 2011, 11:43:24 pm »
Ignore

A few thoughts, if I may:

I've always thought the mention of an exception for "incest" is odd. If we are talking about cases of forcible incest, or a family member having sex with a child, that would be covered under rape. If you are concerned about some sort of genetic problem, incest is not at all a good proxy for that - (and if it's consensual incest, at least the case of a genetic problem is preventable). An exception for severe genetic abnormalities that either make life outside the womb impossible or involve painful debilitating conditions would be a reasonable exception to make, though it would probably have to be extended for the majority of the pregnancy since these things aren't often caught early on.

There are a few other things you might consider to help this withstand a possible referendum to overturn it. One is to state that this act does not prohibit emergency contraception or other birth control, since it is sometimes claimed that these are abortificients. I don't think those claims are persuasive, but they exist. A good way might be to just say broadly that any drug or procedure that uninentionally causes an abortion cannot be prosecuted under the act.

Then there's the issue of how to go about prosecuting this, or whether to make it a criminal issue at all. Even as someone passionately pro-life, I'd rather not send people to prison over this, or risk driving a lot of abortions underground. Try to consider other possibilities. Maybe institute a significant tax on abortions and give the money to abortion prevention. Anyway, just my 2c.
Logged

ZuWo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4449
Switzerland


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: August 12, 2011, 04:53:39 am »
Ignore

Thank you Senator Shua for your ideas.

You're right about the difficulty in distinguishing rape from incest in a particular case. Actually, it may be sound to simply leave out the word "incest" in the bill because the cases of incest which are most likely to result in an abortion are those which included rape. As to your second point, the usage of emergency contraception procedures, I haven't made my mind up completely. Yet, because of my belief that life begins at the moment of conception, I'm critical of these methods. Thus, I am against any proposal to explicitly permit the use of emergency contraception, but your formulation is actually a smart one. Finally, I approve of prison sentences for those who carry out an abortion since I believe abortion is a severe crime so I don't intend to offer an amendment regarding this part of the abortion statute.  

Since I acknowledge what you said considering "incest" and the problem of "unintentional abortions" due to the use of a particular drug, I propose the following amendment (I simply leave out the word "incest"):

Amendment to the Mideast Abortion Statute II

Section 1 of the Mideast Abortion Statute shall be amended to read:

"1: No abortions shall be permitted except in the cases of threat to the mother's health or a pregnancy caused by rape. Any drug or procedure which unintentionally causes an abortion shall not be prosecuted under this statute."
« Last Edit: August 12, 2011, 06:40:44 am by Assemblyman of the Mideast ZuWo »Logged
All In For KC
tmthforu94
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18456
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: August 12, 2011, 10:31:04 am »
Ignore


Amendment to the Mideast Abortion Statute II

Section 1 of the Mideast Abortion Statute shall be amended to read:

"1: No abortions shall be permitted except in the cases of threat to the mother's health or a pregnancy caused by rape. Any drug or procedure which unintentionally causes an abortion shall not be prosecuted under this statute."

Maybe I'm thinking too literal, but I think doctor's could easily create a loophole there by "accidentally" killing the baby for the mother.
Logged


"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives."
-Jackie Robinson
ZuWo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4449
Switzerland


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: August 12, 2011, 10:41:23 am »
Ignore


Amendment to the Mideast Abortion Statute II

Section 1 of the Mideast Abortion Statute shall be amended to read:

"1: No abortions shall be permitted except in the cases of threat to the mother's health or a pregnancy caused by rape. Any drug or procedure which unintentionally causes an abortion shall not be prosecuted under this statute."

Maybe I'm thinking too literal, but I think doctor's could easily create a loophole there by "accidentally" killing the baby for the mother.

This is a valid concern. If the other Assemblymen agree with this assessment, they shall vote down the amendment I made. Just to make it clear, I feel very comfortable with the reading of the statute as I introduced it at the beginning of this thread.
Logged
ZuWo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4449
Switzerland


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: August 12, 2011, 12:28:10 pm »
Ignore

On the other hand, carrying out a regular abortion or killing a baby in any other way either includes a medical (by means of particular abortifacients) or surgical procedure so it would be extremely hard for a doctor to claim that he aborted the baby "unintentionally". Thus, these loopholes you mentioned might not even exist.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2011, 12:30:46 pm by Assemblyman of the Mideast ZuWo »Logged
All In For KC
tmthforu94
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18456
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: August 12, 2011, 02:32:55 pm »
Ignore

On the other hand, carrying out a regular abortion or killing a baby in any other way either includes a medical (by means of particular abortifacients) or surgical procedure so it would be extremely hard for a doctor to claim that he aborted the baby "unintentionally". Thus, these loopholes you mentioned might not even exist.
How could the state prove, though, that it was unintentional? Huh
Logged


"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives."
-Jackie Robinson
ZuWo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4449
Switzerland


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: August 12, 2011, 02:59:00 pm »
Ignore

On the other hand, carrying out a regular abortion or killing a baby in any other way either includes a medical (by means of particular abortifacients) or surgical procedure so it would be extremely hard for a doctor to claim that he aborted the baby "unintentionally". Thus, these loopholes you mentioned might not even exist.
How could the state prove, though, that it was unintentional? Huh

Well, I think the intentionality of an abortion is clear as soon as the doctor gives a pregnant woman an abortion drug or carries out surgery in order to abort a baby. If any of these practices are applied, it becomes clear that the procedure is clearly intentional, and according to the statute the doctor and the woman in question have commited a crime.

What, then, could be considered an "unintentional abortion"? I admit that I lack the in-depth knowledge of abortion practices to answer this question very thoroughly. Yet, I guess in a situation where a doctor prescribes a pregnant woman a medicine or medical procedure which is not known as an abortion drug or surgery for reasons not connected with her pregnancy but causes a loss of the baby due to surprising side effects of that drug or procedure, one can refer to it as an "unintentional abortion". I don't think any serious physician would do the latter with the goal to abort the baby of the woman in question as prescribing such a medicine or procedure intentionally could also endanger the woman's life.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2011, 03:01:37 pm by Assemblyman of the Mideast ZuWo »Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35790
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #14 on: August 12, 2011, 05:08:24 pm »
Ignore

Just a thought to ponder: Do the Assemblymen believe a fetus is a life?  If so, how does rape justify the taking of a life?  If not, then it is my opinion that we have no right to restrict abortions.  I've never understood that concession by the pro-life community.
Logged
A-Bob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5928
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 1.13

View Profile
« Reply #15 on: August 12, 2011, 07:10:09 pm »
Ignore

I believe we have a duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves. They have no voice, they have no say. Yes, I realize some of those pregnant live in hard if not terrible conditions, and we must extend harms of compassion not just as a government, but families, friends, and communities, to help. These children never asked to be conceived, but also never asked to not be born. Think about the great life. The potential. A doctor that can cure a form of Cancer. A teacher that will reform her school. A politician that will lead his people out of a path of genocide. A mentor who helps another get off the path of drugs. These are valued lives that are yet to live. Not everyone is going to be successful, but they will make a difference. We owe it to those who cannot fight for themselves yet to give them a chance to make choices, to lay down their own path and destiny. That's why I believe in strict abortion regulation. We too often forget those who cannot speak and one day may be the greatest force of change for good our world has ever seen.
Logged

Governor TJ
TJ in Cleve
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4962
United States


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: August 13, 2011, 12:39:38 am »
Ignore

Just a thought to ponder: Do the Assemblymen believe a fetus is a life?  If so, how does rape justify the taking of a life?  If not, then it is my opinion that we have no right to restrict abortions.  I've never understood that concession by the pro-life community.

My belief is that a fetus is a life from the moment of conception when a human sperm fertilizes a human egg to combine the chromosomes of the gametes into a living human single cell from which all future cells stem. This single cell then implants, grows, and splits into two identical cells, which grow and split into four identical cells, which grow and split into eight identical cells, which grow and split into sixteen cells that are no longer identical. Already, even within a matter of hours, the cells begin to separate themselves toward different tasks. A new person is created. To intentionally kill even the single cell is murder. If I had it my way, I'd ban all abortion except when the mother would die otherwise and ban emergency contraceptives. But, this is never going to happen. Rape does not make murder any less of a murder.

The reason why the rape exception in particular is brought up is because there a lot of people out there that will oppose abortion but stop short of agreeing that it is murder whose opinion is greatly affected by the idea of whether a woman “deserved” to get pregnant. There are also a lot of women out there who fear abortion bans with no rape exception who may be willing to support or at least not loudly oppose a ban with a rape exception. To the pro-life community, abortion is effectively legal under almost any circumstances in the US and mandated as such by Roe v. Wade. There are about 800,000 abortions in the US annually* and the pro-life community is generally willing to make any deal imaginable to reduce this number, especially considering most estimates place the percentage actually done to rape victims ~0.5%-1% depending on the study. It doesn’t make a lot of practical sense to refuse to try and stop the other 99% over this when such a huge number happen.

Stepping away from practical politics for a second and into a thought on moral principles, it is a sad day indeed that we need to discuss mass genocide in terms of “reducing the need”. Sometimes in the whirlwind of politics we tend to forget the true gravity of what our society is doing. For example, there were about 16,000 reported murders in the US last year; abortions outnumber this by a ratio of 50:1. We would need the US to remain in Iraq for about 1600^ years at the casualty rates we sustained during that war to match the number of abortions the US has in one year. In fact, we’ve aborted more in the last 39 years than the entire population of Iraq. In all wars from the American Revolution to modern day combined, we’ve lost 1.3 million American lives.^ It takes us two years to abort more than that. The numbers are just so ridiculous that we have to try every possible option to do something. I look to but never expect to see a day when the pro-life community can start to talk about mass genocide for what it truly is instead of trying to reduce it.

All of this is in real life and I’m not sure the exact state of popular opinion on the matter in Altasia, but I will supply my vote to whatever appears the best way to, unfortunately, reduce mass genocide.

*( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_statistics_in_the_United_States)
^( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war)
Logged

shua
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11702
Russian Federation


View Profile WWW
« Reply #17 on: August 13, 2011, 01:53:55 am »
Ignore

Just a thought to ponder: Do the Assemblymen believe a fetus is a life?  If so, how does rape justify the taking of a life?  If not, then it is my opinion that we have no right to restrict abortions.  I've never understood that concession by the pro-life community.
The reason for the exception is that it means making the woman carry the pregnancy in a case where she didn't consent to the act that made her pregnant in the first place. That does not make the abortion justified in a moral sense, but it does give a sense of the law being particularly burdensome. For someone who respects human life but also has a high regard for liberty, it can be a difficult issue.
Logged

ZuWo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4449
Switzerland


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: August 13, 2011, 02:12:19 am »
Ignore

Just a thought to ponder: Do the Assemblymen believe a fetus is a life?  If so, how does rape justify the taking of a life?  If not, then it is my opinion that we have no right to restrict abortions.  I've never understood that concession by the pro-life community.

Believe me, Speaker Inks, I would much rather see a complete abortion ban and not make any concessions regarding rape. However, as has been previously pointed out, this is a question of political practicability. As of now, a woman in the Mideast may abort her child up to the third month of her pregnancy. The bill we're currently debating would drastically reduce the number of abortions and is probably much more palatable in a possible referendum than a complete ban of abortion. Right now, we have to do everything we can to reduce the number of abortions in any way, even if it means that it would be desirable to go further. I urge the Assemblymen not to reject the bill I've introduced simply because it doesn't go far enough. Pass this now and we can handle the rape issue at a later point if we manage to push through the current bill.

I'm aware that the amendment I've proposed which deals with "unintentional abortions" isn't perfect from a pro-life point of view, either. Yet, if we pass the amendment in question the bill as a whole is more palatable and might stand a better chance withstanding a possible referendum. At the moment, we simply have to take what we can get in our aim to reduce the number of abortions.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2011, 03:59:58 am by Assemblyman of the Mideast ZuWo »Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35790
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #19 on: August 17, 2011, 02:53:40 am »
Ignore

With no further debate, this is brought to a vote.  Members will vote AYE, NAY, or ABSTAIN.  This will be a 48-hour vote.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2011, 07:35:48 pm by The Pauper of the Surf and the Jester of Tortuga »Logged
ZuWo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4449
Switzerland


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: August 17, 2011, 09:26:54 am »
Ignore

(This is one of my rare opportunities to have internet access during my holiday, but I'm glad I'm here in time. Wink)

Aye
Logged
Governor TJ
TJ in Cleve
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4962
United States


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: August 17, 2011, 11:22:31 am »
Ignore

Aye
Logged

Mopsus
MOPolitico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1160
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.74, S: -5.97

P P P
View Profile
« Reply #22 on: August 17, 2011, 08:20:58 pm »
Ignore

Nay
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35790
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #23 on: August 19, 2011, 07:36:18 pm »
Ignore

AYE

I just realized I left this saying "Debating".  I'll allow another 24 hours of voting.
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35790
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #24 on: August 23, 2011, 12:33:06 am »
Ignore

Voting is now closed.  The AYEs are 3, and the NAYs are 1, with 1 not voting.  The AYES have it, and the bill is passed.  The bill is now passed onto the Governor for his signature or veto.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines