MA: No Heart of Stone Act (Passed)

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

amendment

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I oppose Shua's amendment, and all other attempts to play petty politics with this bill.

The main point of this bill is to repeal the Right to Life Act.  The bill's title should reflect this.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I oppose Shua's amendment, and all other attempts to play petty politics with this bill.

The main point of this bill is to repeal the Right to Life Act.  The bill's title should reflect this.

The phrase "Right to Life" is a political jingle, not an actual statement about policy. When a politician says they are "pro-life", they are not being informative: they are attempting to end the discussion by implying their their opponents are "pro-death". I understand that you and other conservatives will likely oppose the substance of this bill, but please do so by making a logical, fact-based argument for your position, not resorting to cheap political tricks.

Is "No Heart of Stone" an actual statement about policy?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I oppose Shua's amendment, and all other attempts to play petty politics with this bill.

The main point of this bill is to repeal the Right to Life Act.  The bill's title should reflect this.

The phrase "Right to Life" is a political jingle, not an actual statement about policy. When a politician says they are "pro-life", they are not being informative: they are attempting to end the discussion by implying their their opponents are "pro-death". I understand that you and other conservatives will likely oppose the substance of this bill, but please do so by making a logical, fact-based argument for your position, not resorting to cheap political tricks.

Is "No Heart of Stone" an actual statement about policy?

"No Heart of Stone" implies that, while the Mideast government does not condone illegal immigration and supports measures to ensure that immigration laws are followed, this position does not prevent us from treating illegal immigrants with dignity. In this sense, we are asserting that our Region does not have a "heart of stone": despite our belief in the rule of law, we remain a compassionate Region and will help people who need our help. As such, the title of this bill is a specific statement about the attitude of the Mideast government towards a particular issue, not a broad generalization that confuses the termination of a pregnancy with genocide or being "anti-life". The crux of the difference is that saying that Mideasterners have "No Right to Life", as you proposed, implies that my colleagues and I want to arbitrarily kill people, while saying that Mideasterners have "No Heart of Stone" sums up the motivations behind Sections 2 and 3 of this bill.

In any case, your amendment has nothing to do with the substance of this bill, and is little more than a brazen attempt to paint me and my colleagues as killers. As I said previously, if you have a rational, fact-based argument for why the MRLA should be preserved, please say it; but do not waste the time of the people of the Mideast proposing frivolous amendments that get us nowhere.

I didn't say you were killers, that is a ridiculous accusation.  I am saying this bill removes the right to life from being protected. Meanwhile you are the one implying that those who oppose this bill have a heart of stone.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Saying that your position is "pro-life" implies that your opponents are "pro-death", just as saying your position is "pro-capitalism" implies that your opponents are "pro-socialism". I understand that you did not invent the term "Right to Life", but saying that this bill should be called the "No Right to Life Act" clearly suggests that those who support it have a disregard for human lives. What is being debated here is the definition of life, not whether those who are alive have a right to stay that way.

I will say this one more time: do you have an argument for why this law should not be passed? So far, all you've contributed to this debate is a string of politically-loaded "gotcha" lines that do nothing to either build a consensus on this topic or explain your reasons for opposing this bill. I would ask that you stop wasting everyone's time with trivial objections and actually do the job you were elected to do.

When I object to the name of a bill it's trivial, but when you object it's not?   

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Why can't section three apply to all illegals? Why is it only children?

Illegal immigration is, by definition, a crime. A 14-year-old who comes to Atlasia in violation of the laws of our Republic probably did not make the decision to do so, so detaining him or her for breaking immigration law is stupid. A 35-year-old, on the other hand, most likely came here of their own volition. There's certainly an argument for extending this to adults, but I feel like that's more of a federal prerogative since what that would amount to is changing the penalty for knowingly committing a federal crime. It's a fine distinction, but I think the source of intent in these cases (present in the adult, probably not in the child) is crucial seeing as the Mideast does not have the authority to override federal laws.

We don't have the authority to override federal laws, but neither do we need to lock people up. We can leave that to the federal government if they so choose.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I will remove my renaming amendment for now, but I reserve my right to enter a more descriptive title for this legislation in future amendments.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

What I see as the problem is this. We failed to separate the abortion discussion from the immigration portion. Laws should not cover multiple subjects in one bill when possible and this still fails that simple premise. I want to have an intelligent discussion over both issues but in order to do that, we need to seperate the two discussions into two different bills.

They should have been two separate bills the first time. The original was passed in a mad rush the last week of the assembly session back last fall. Unfortunately, passing both parts as separate bills is not politically feasible, so we're effectively stuck with either the entire bill or only the immigration parts.

I'd like to point out that even with these abortion restrictions, the Mideast's abortion laws are far, far looser than they were three years ago when abortion was banned with exceptions for rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.

We could quite easily take out the immigration parts and put it in a new bill, leaving the abortion part intact.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Aye

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Aye