The Mideast Right to Life Act

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

There is currently an attack on the Mideast Right to Life Act in the Mideast Assembly in the form of the "No Heart of Stone Act."  It has been claimed that the "No Heart of Stone Act" would provide emergency care and legal protection for illegal immigrants. The truth is that this is already provided by the Right to Life Act.  The inexplicably named "No Heart of Stone Act" amounts to little more than a repeal of all protections for the unborn throughout development. Mideasterners should not fall for the lies being made against this bill's opponents.  Having a heart for the child in the womb does not mean that we have a "heart of stone."

-assemblyperson shua

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

The inexplicably named "No Heart of Stone Act" amounts to little more than a repeal of all protections for the unborn throughout development.

This is blatantly false. The sole function of the MRLA was to surround abortion services in miles of bureaucratic red tape. Funny how the people who supposedly support a "small government" are all in favor of regulations when they suit their purposes.

As for the "inexplicable" name, I explained it thoroughly in the debate thread. I had to, as you have spent the last 24 hours arguing about the title of the bill instead of the bill itself. I am glad that you're finally explaining your objections to the proposal. It would have been better if you'd done so the first three times I asked, but "better late than never".

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The inexplicably named "No Heart of Stone Act" amounts to little more than a repeal of all protections for the unborn throughout development.

This is blatantly false. The sole function of the MRLA was to surround abortion services in miles of bureaucratic red tape. Funny how the people who supposedly support a "small government" are all in favor of regulations when they suit their purposes.

As for the "inexplicable" name, I explained it thoroughly in the debate thread. I had to, as you have spent the last 24 hours arguing about the title of the bill instead of the bill itself. I am glad that you're finally explaining your objections to the proposal. It would have been better if you'd done so the first three times I asked, but "better late than never".

Yes, I am in favor of a few regulations when it comes to keeping children from being deliberately killed.  Crazy, huh?   The MRLA established protections both for the unborn and the immigrant, to further a consistent ethic of life. The NHOSA is not pro-immigrant or compassionate just because it intends to jetison the protections for the unborn. 

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

The inexplicably named "No Heart of Stone Act" amounts to little more than a repeal of all protections for the unborn throughout development.

This is blatantly false. The sole function of the MRLA was to surround abortion services in miles of bureaucratic red tape. Funny how the people who supposedly support a "small government" are all in favor of regulations when they suit their purposes.

As for the "inexplicable" name, I explained it thoroughly in the debate thread. I had to, as you have spent the last 24 hours arguing about the title of the bill instead of the bill itself. I am glad that you're finally explaining your objections to the proposal. It would have been better if you'd done so the first three times I asked, but "better late than never".

Yes, I am in favor of a few regulations when it comes to keeping children from being deliberately killed.  Crazy, huh?   The MRLA established protections both for the unborn and the immigrant, to further a consistent ethic of life. The NHOSA is not pro-immigrant or compassionate just because it intends to jetison the protections for the unborn. 

I'm starting to feel like a broken record here. What you just said is a standard, right-wing argument against abortion. There's nothing wrong from that, but it is far from incontrovertible fact. Furthermore, the MRLA did not actually prohibit abortions (that would be unconstitutional), it merely mandated a waiting period and a whole bunch of tests before one could have an abortion. That's not going to stop someone from having an abortion if they're set on it, but it does create needless obstacles to getting a procedure that is perfectly legal.

You're comment that you oppose children being "deliberately killed" is misleading because there is serious debate over when a fetus can be considered a living human being. No-one is talking about hunting down five-year-old kids and shooting them; we're merely debating a question that is as yet unanswered. While I do not agree with your definition, I respect your right to hold it. We can and should have an intelligent, level-headed debate on this issue, but fear-mongering and taking to the pulpit every time someone questions your beliefs is getting us nowhere.

Ultimately, what this comes down to is whether you're a pundit or a public servant. If it's the former, then feel free to make bombastic statements and argue about petty details. If you intend to continue representing the people of the Mideast, however, I ask that you set aside the vitriol and the distractions and do the job you were elected to do.

[SWE]

Excellent news!

[MadmanMotley]

The inexplicably named "No Heart of Stone Act" amounts to little more than a repeal of all protections for the unborn throughout development.

This is blatantly false. The sole function of the MRLA was to surround abortion services in miles of bureaucratic red tape. Funny how the people who supposedly support a "small government" are all in favor of regulations when they suit their purposes.

As for the "inexplicable" name, I explained it thoroughly in the debate thread. I had to, as you have spent the last 24 hours arguing about the title of the bill instead of the bill itself. I am glad that you're finally explaining your objections to the proposal. It would have been better if you'd done so the first three times I asked, but "better late than never".

Yes, I am in favor of a few regulations when it comes to keeping children from being deliberately killed.  Crazy, huh?   The MRLA established protections both for the unborn and the immigrant, to further a consistent ethic of life. The NHOSA is not pro-immigrant or compassionate just because it intends to jetison the protections for the unborn. 

I'm starting to feel like a broken record here. What you just said is a standard, right-wing argument against abortion. There's nothing wrong from that, but it is far from incontrovertible fact. Furthermore, the MRLA did not actually prohibit abortions (that would be unconstitutional), it merely mandated a waiting period and a whole bunch of tests before one could have an abortion. That's not going to stop someone from having an abortion if they're set on it, but it does create needless obstacles to getting a procedure that is perfectly legal.

You're comment that you oppose children being "deliberately killed" is misleading because there is serious debate over when a fetus can be considered a living human being. No-one is talking about hunting down five-year-old kids and shooting them; we're merely debating a question that is as yet unanswered. While I do not agree with your definition, I respect your right to hold it. We can and should have an intelligent, level-headed debate on this issue, but fear-mongering and taking to the pulpit every time someone questions your beliefs is getting us nowhere.

Ultimately, what this comes down to is whether you're a pundit or a public servant. If it's the former, then feel free to make bombastic statements and argue about petty details. If you intend to continue representing the people of the Mideast, however, I ask that you set aside the vitriol and the distractions and do the job you were elected to do.

I think you forget Truman, that politicians are not only decision-makers and budget-mongers, but also philosophers. It is mine, and obviously Shua's that it is the government's job to defend life and liberty, and we also believe that an unborn child has the same rights as a child that has been born. It is our job as policy makers to determine the law in what is determined as moral gray areas. That is exactly what we are doing, we are defend the rights of people you do not believe are people, and we do. The fact you haven't grasped this concept from the get-go is astonishing to me.

[Boston Bread]

Relax. If Truman's bill passes there are 3 other laws doing the same thing with regards to abortion.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I think you forget Truman, that politicians are not only decision-makers and budget-mongers, but also philosophers. It is mine, and obviously Shua's that it is the government's job to defend life and liberty, and we also believe that an unborn child has the same rights as a child that has been born. It is our job as policy makers to determine the law in what is determined as moral gray areas. That is exactly what we are doing, we are defend the rights of people you do not believe are people, and we do. The fact you haven't grasped this concept from the get-go is astonishing to me.

I'll admit it has been a little hard for me to understand exactly what Shua's problem with my bill is, as he spent the first day of debate arguing about the name. This thread is the first time I've heard he actually had an opinion about the substance of the bill. I must say, this is a positive development.

If you had actually read my posts in the debate thread (based on your response, I'm assuming you did not, at least not thoroughly), you would know that the bulk of what you are saying - that politicians have an obligation to make judgements about the "moral gray areas" - is what I have been saying from the start. We obviously have a serious disagreement about the definition of life, and that is okay. I respect your right to your own opinion, but acting like whatever you think is the absolute truth goes against the democratic process. Presenting evidence in favor of your position and laying out you perspective is one thing, but standing up and shouting "Abortion is bad; people who disagree with me are killers" is not what a public servant does. Being a politician is not the same as being a philosopher, because while a philosopher can operate on absolutes, a politician has to acknowledge that there are people in the world who don't agree with him. That's something Shua, based on his posts in this thread, seems unable to do.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

The inexplicably named "No Heart of Stone Act" amounts to little more than a repeal of all protections for the unborn throughout development.

This is blatantly false. The sole function of the MRLA was to surround abortion services in miles of bureaucratic red tape. Funny how the people who supposedly support a "small government" are all in favor of regulations when they suit their purposes.

As for the "inexplicable" name, I explained it thoroughly in the debate thread. I had to, as you have spent the last 24 hours arguing about the title of the bill instead of the bill itself. I am glad that you're finally explaining your objections to the proposal. It would have been better if you'd done so the first three times I asked, but "better late than never".

Yes, I am in favor of a few regulations when it comes to keeping children from being deliberately killed.  Crazy, huh?   The MRLA established protections both for the unborn and the immigrant, to further a consistent ethic of life. The NHOSA is not pro-immigrant or compassionate just because it intends to jetison the protections for the unborn. 

mr. assemblyman, you couldn't possibly be suggesting that you care more about the rights of an undeveloped clump of cells that has no sensory perception and no chance of surviving as an independent unit than about the rights of a fully grown adult, could you?

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Shua's points on the government stepping in to protect life. There should at least prohibitions on partial birth abortions and I think most of us agree on that.

[Hifly]

To Assemblyman Harry S Truman:

The Right to Life Act, which I introduced, is for all intents a left-wing bill with humanitarian intentions, and always was so.

To evergreen:

The original bill targets abortion into the second trimester. Fetal sensory perception begins in this trimester, and at 20 weeks the fetus becomes viable. As for "undeveloped", I don't really know what you mean by this.

EDIT: Abortion is already banned in the Mideast from 6 weeks; the restrictions promoted by the bill are liberal measures.

There is no sound argument for the repeal of this act.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The inexplicably named "No Heart of Stone Act" amounts to little more than a repeal of all protections for the unborn throughout development.

This is blatantly false. The sole function of the MRLA was to surround abortion services in miles of bureaucratic red tape. Funny how the people who supposedly support a "small government" are all in favor of regulations when they suit their purposes.

As for the "inexplicable" name, I explained it thoroughly in the debate thread. I had to, as you have spent the last 24 hours arguing about the title of the bill instead of the bill itself. I am glad that you're finally explaining your objections to the proposal. It would have been better if you'd done so the first three times I asked, but "better late than never".

Yes, I am in favor of a few regulations when it comes to keeping children from being deliberately killed.  Crazy, huh?   The MRLA established protections both for the unborn and the immigrant, to further a consistent ethic of life. The NHOSA is not pro-immigrant or compassionate just because it intends to jetison the protections for the unborn. 

I'm starting to feel like a broken record here. What you just said is a standard, right-wing argument against abortion. There's nothing wrong from that, but it is far from incontrovertible fact. Furthermore, the MRLA did not actually prohibit abortions (that would be unconstitutional), it merely mandated a waiting period and a whole bunch of tests before one could have an abortion. That's not going to stop someone from having an abortion if they're set on it, but it does create needless obstacles to getting a procedure that is perfectly legal.

You're comment that you oppose children being "deliberately killed" is misleading because there is serious debate over when a fetus can be considered a living human being. No-one is talking about hunting down five-year-old kids and shooting them; we're merely debating a question that is as yet unanswered. While I do not agree with your definition, I respect your right to hold it. We can and should have an intelligent, level-headed debate on this issue, but fear-mongering and taking to the pulpit every time someone questions your beliefs is getting us nowhere.

Ultimately, what this comes down to is whether you're a pundit or a public servant. If it's the former, then feel free to make bombastic statements and argue about petty details. If you intend to continue representing the people of the Mideast, however, I ask that you set aside the vitriol and the distractions and do the job you were elected to do.

You sound like a broken record to me as well. You keep insisting that I "do the job I was elected to do" as though there is something inconsistent between being an elected representative and opposing bills one disagrees with.  The name of a bill is not a minor detail, it frames the debate and perception of a law. If it were a minor detail, you would not insist so strongly on a name that does not reflect the actual legal changes you seek to make.  It is not a minor detail that the MRLA already contains protections for illegal immigrants.  I find it ironic that you accuse me of "taking the pulpit" on this issue since your office first attacked me publicly before I opened this thread clarifying the record on what this bill really is and why it should be opposed. 

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

To Assemblyman Harry S Truman:

The Right to Life Act, which I introduced, is for all intents a left-wing bill with humanitarian intentions, and always was so.

To evergreen:

The original bill targets abortion into the second trimester. Fetal sensory perception begins in this trimester, and at 20 weeks the fetus becomes viable. As for "undeveloped", I don't really know what you mean by this.

EDIT: Abortion is already banned in the Mideast from 6 weeks; the restrictions promoted by the bill are liberal measures.

There is no sound argument for the repeal of this act.

You seem to forget that roughly a third of the MRLA is devoted to placing roadblocks in the path of those seeking a legal abortion. Consider sections 6 and 7:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Note that these sections refer not to abortions after the 16th week of the pregnancy (which are prohibited by this Act), but to any abortion that take place before the 16th week. In other words, having specified that such an abortion is perfectly legal in the Mideast, the Mideast government then proceeds to make receiving a legal abortion extremely difficult. If I tried to do the same thing for gun sales, the right-wingers would throw a fit.

There should at least prohibitions on partial birth abortions and I think most of us agree on that.

I absolutely agree that there is a need for reasonable restrictions on abortion services, and I'd be willing to work with conservatives to reach an acceptable compromise on this issue. I don't think any reasonable person would argue for permitting abortions at any stage in the pregnancy; the issue is settling on a specific date. That being said, there is no rational argument for including immigration laws and abortion regulations in the same bill. The purpose of the NHSA was to separate these issues.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I consider myself a pro-choice individual and have gone on the record as supporting the legality of second trimester abortions. I support repealing the bill in question, though I would encourage the Assemblypersons of the Mideast to select a less silly name for their bill.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

You sound like a broken record to me as well. You keep insisting that I "do the job I was elected to do" as though there is something inconsistent between being an elected representative and opposing bills one disagrees with.  The name of a bill is not a minor detail, it frames the debate and perception of a law. If it were a minor detail, you would not insist so strongly on a name that does not reflect the actual legal changes you seek to make.  It is not a minor detail that the MRLA already contains protections for illegal immigrants.  I find it ironic that you accuse me of "taking the pulpit" on this issue since your office first attacked me publicly before I opened this thread clarifying the record on what this bill really is and why it should be opposed. 

Are you seriously going to argue that spending 24+ hours trying to rename a bill that you neither support nor contributed to is a legitimate use of your constituents' time? Had I been in the Assembly when the MRLA passed, I wouldn't have tried to rename it the "No Right to Choose" Act (even though, in my opinion, that's exactly what it is) because a) I did not play a part in writing it; and b) I would not have supported it. Bills should be named by the people who contribute to their genesis, not their opponents.

I did not name this bill the "No 'Right to Life Act'" because repealing the MRLA is only part of what this bill does. The other part, and the part that is reflected in "No Heart of Stone", is an expansion of the rights granted to illegal immigrants.[1] Ultimately, this portion of the bill will have a more lasting effect than the repeal of the MRLA and I named the bill accordingly.

You say I attacked you for opposing my bill, but that is not true. I criticized you, not for your opinions, but because you spent over a day trying to change the name of a bill that you have no intention of supporting. During that time, you uttered not one word of commentary on the bill itself. Your job as an Assemblyman is to debate the content of legislation, not to try to change its name because you feel the sponsor does not adequately understand the purpose of the bill he wrote. It's unfortunate that it took me publicly calling you on this to get you to explain your position, but it was apparent that asking you to do so in the debate thread was not working.

[1] It is true that, when I introduced the bill, it did not contain any new immigrant rights provisions. This is because I intended the bill to be a starting point, not a final product. New Canadaland's amendment, if passed, would give illegal immigrants the right to hold a driver's license, a big step forward for our Region.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I would have thought "this bill removes the right to life from being protected" made the reasons for my opposition fairly clear.

[Flake]

It's a bad idea for abortions to be illegal after many women notice they haven't had their period. The length of time that an abortion should be allowed must be lengthened in the Mideast.

[Lief 🗽]

There is currently an attack on the Mideast Right to Life Act in the Mideast Assembly in the form of the "No Heart of Stone Act."  It has been claimed that the "No Heart of Stone Act" would provide emergency care and legal protection for illegal immigrants. The truth is that this is already provided by the Right to Life Act.  The inexplicably named "No Heart of Stone Act" amounts to little more than a repeal of all protections for the unborn throughout development. Mideasterners should not fall for the lies being made against this bill's opponents.  Having a heart for the child in the womb does not mean that we have a "heart of stone."

-assemblyperson shua

Wonderful news! Wishing this attack on the "Right to Life" Act all the best!

[Blair]

The mideast right to life Act seems to just create barriers to abortion-surely if as the 'right' claim abortion is murder why would they be supporting it in any case? I don't think that the various barriers actually do anything either, they just make life harder for the women involved and put them under even more stress and pressure