Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Temi

The Right To Life Act

Recommended Posts

Preamble: Through the course of history many have fought and died for their basic fundamental rights; The right to an education, freedom of speech, press, and religion. However many people continue to ignore a problem that is both fundamentally and morally inadequate. The act of an abortion.

I. Hereby recognizes life at the moment of conception and formally denounces abortion as a act of evil.

II. Defines abortion as an ethical and moral evil, in which one proceeds to murder their child. Evil (in this context) shall be defined as the premature killing of a person.

III. Formally recognizes that all life is sacred and whether in a womb or out in the world is akin to murder.

IV. The act of an abortion shall be made illegal except in the cases of:

A. The pregnancy is life threatening.

If the pregnancy is liable to kill the woman, she has the right to terminate any point during her pregnancy.

V.In the event the parents do not wish to take up responsibility for the child's education and welfare , the State shall put up the child for adoption for a minimum for 17 years. The state must bear the cost of General Education and Welfare for the child during this period, failing which the below clauses come into effect.

A)Beyond the age of 17 , based on the State's assessment of the individual's strengths/weaknesses , he/she will be provided higher education for a profession of their choice.

The adoption window is CLOSED for the individual.

B)The individual will continue to be sponsored by the State until which time they have successfully completed their mandated education, or reach the age of 18, and choose to discontinue the program/If the individual fails to complete their education (either through disinterest or lack of ability) within the stipulated time (adjustable based on the difficulty of the course) , CLAUSE (F) comes into effect.

C) Upon acquiring the skills pertinent to their job , the individual will is mandated to serve the State in their allotted field for a period of 2 years. Yearly reviews will be held to measure the child's success.

D) In the aforementioned 3 years of mandatory service, the individual will receive State sponsored accommodations , food and transport. No salary will be given to the individual during this period.

E) Upon completion of the mandatory 3 years , two choices are presented to the individual:

1) He/She can choose to continue to work for the State , they will be provided a Salary and full social security benefits. State sponsored accommodation, food and transport are withdrawn. A sum of money is also given to the candidate (variable, depends on performance during the mandatory service period) . However, they are free to leave at any point and will be provided full retirement benefits for the duration of the service EXCLUDING the 3 years of service.

2) He/She can pursue their own career outside of the State. The State will provide the individual a sum of money to get them started (variable , depends on performance during the mandatory service period) and full social security benefits. State sponsored accommodation, food and transport are withdrawn. The State will also extend assistance in helping them search for a job if the individual requires it.

F) Failing the conditions outlined in CLAUSE ( B ) , the individual will be relegated to Community Service in various institutions of the State for a mandatory period of 5 years. However, the State can at it's discretion restore the individual to their previous training course on promise of good behavior. Once the mandatory servitude period has elapsed, CLAUSE (G) comes into effect.

G)The individual will now be paid for any further Community Service to the state. .State sponsored food and transport are withdrawn, but accommodation will be provided. Social Security Benefits are extended. The individual can leave the State's service at any point. Retirement benefits will be provided for all years of service EXCLUDING the mandatory 5 YEAR PERIOD. Following retirement, State sponsored accommodation is withdrawn too.

Edited by Temi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because people conceived in rape do not have rights.

I will support this once the rape and incest exceptions are removed.

I completely behind you on that. When I wrote the legislation I wasn't happy with the exceptions either, but I feared that I would lose support if I didn't make the bill more...unified. You know, for both the left and rights of Yggdrasil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I completely behind you on that. When I wrote the legislation I wasn't happy with the exceptions either, but I feared that I would lose support if I didn't make the bill more...unified. You know, for both the left and rights of Yggdrasil.

Word of advice: Do not ever compromise. Especially when it would the deaths of innocents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Against, a women should have control over the contents of her body, as it is created and grown as a part of her body, and government legislation has no right to enact any laws regarding it and other such anomaly, like tumors and parasites.

1) Remove Article I, it is unnecessary and destructive to the mental health of young women, and I believe society as a whole. The State has no right to label it as an of "Evil" when:

I) Not all agree that it is an act of Evil

II) that would be a kin to me telling you masturbation is murder, and you should be put in prison.

III) It makes no sense when you don't explain where it comes from. WHy is it Evil? Because it kills a child? Is it even a child? Please be more specific what denotes Evil.

2) Change the terms of Abortion from 3 weeks to 3 months, and leave it open to all forms of conception. If only special cases are met, than again, it is destructive to the mental and physical health of all involved, and will only cause cases of Rape and Incest to be more prevalent in society. Not because the crime is committed, but for the abortion to be legalized, and young men will be sent to prison as a result.

I also believe that women will put themselves through painful procedures in order to not have the child that could just as easily damage her body and reproductive organs, which she would not otherwise have to put herself through if not for the legislation.

3 Months is the average amount of time when the conception starts to develop into an actual fetus, and as such, begins to develop consciousness. 3 weeks is an Arbitrary date, where in most cases women don't even know their pregnant, and just start to realize it, let alone let them think about keeping it.

Edited by Vrolondia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And so it begins.

Against, a women should have control over the contents of her body, as it is created and grown as a part of her body, and government legislation has no right to enact any laws regarding it and other such anomaly, like tumors and parasites.

A fetus is not a tumor, and it is not a parasite.

1) Remove Article I, it is unnecessary and destructive to the mental health of young women, and I believe society as a whole. The State has no right to label it as an of "Evil" when:

I) Not all agree that it is an act of Evil

Not all believe that the Holocaust was evil, that does not at all change the fact that it was.

II) that would be a kin to me telling you masturbation is murder, and you should be put in prison.

It would not be, because sperm is not human.

III) It makes no sense when you don't explain where it comes from. WHy is it Evil? Because it kills a child? Is it even a child? Please be more specific what denotes Evil.

I agree.

2) Change the terms of Abortion from 3 weeks to 3 months, and leave it open to all forms of conception. If only special cases are met, than again, it is destructive to the mental and physical health of all involved, and will only cause cases of Rape and Incest to be more prevalent in society. Not because the crime is committed, but for the abortion to be legalized, and young men will be sent to prison as a result.

I agree that all humans life should be valued regardless of method of conception.

I also believe that women will put themselves through painful procedures in order to not have the child that could just as easily damage her body and reproductive organs, which she would not otherwise have to put herself through if not for the legislation.

I do not care if a law to stop murder makes it harder to stop murder.

3 Months is the average amount of time when the conception starts to develop into an actual fetus, and as such, begins to develop consciousness. 3 weeks is an Arbitrary date, where in most cases women don't even know their pregnant, and just start to realize it, let alone let them think about keeping it.

I agree that 3 weeks is an arbitrary number, as the moment that it becomes a human being is conception, I did not notice this, thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evil is subjective, I'm an Ethical Nihilist, so I don't believe in Good and Evil. Please be more specific in your definitions of it.

par·a·site

/ˈparəˌsīt/

Noun

An organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.

Technically, the fetus cannot live on it's own until it is removed from the womb, so they are Parasites by definition. They are grown inside of a women, so they are a part of the women's body, this is fact. It is attached to the mother, it feeds off the mother, it is a part of the mother, to argue it is not is redundant, because without the mother, it cannot grow.

The fetus cannot make it's own decisions, and as such, it is not a conscious, living organism in its own right; It is the mother, Plain and simple, Like a Tumor.

A Fancy Tumor with Fingernails, that eventually gets popped out and then it becomes it's own person.

Fetuses are Human, but their Human because their the mothers body, and the mother should have the right to do with her body as she sees fit.

Edited by Vrolondia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am in complete agreement with Vrolondia and reject this bill in it's entirety.

Regardless of whatever opinions anyone should hold; nothing gives one the right to strip a woman of her bodily autonomy. No matter how "evil" you think abortion is, you have no solid basis for implementing such a statute beyond the realm of subjective morality. Not only that; there is no universal consensus on when human life starts, so an attempt to stratify such is foolish in every sense :noway:

My personal belief is that a fetus-to-child is not human until it attains self-awareness. With this in mind, I agree with aforementioned 'parasite' comparison and place the utmost importance upon the mother, and not a potential being. I am a staunch supporter of the pro-choice movement and feel that anyone who wishes to endanger, restrict or control pregnant women in this regard, is a misogynistic remnant of a by-gone era.

Edited by Kelewan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Word of advice: Do not ever compromise. Especially when it would the deaths of innocents.

You are right, and I have rectified the problem.

Against, a women should have control over the contents of her body, as it is created and grown as a part of her body, and government legislation has no right to enact any laws regarding it and other such anomaly, like tumors and parasites.

A fetus ,for thousands of years, have been widely been considered a person and not a tumor. Just because we have the technology and resources to kill babies doesn't mean we need to kill them.

Remove Article I, it is unnecessary and destructive to the mental health of young women, and I believe society as a whole.

It's also quite destructive to a woman's mental and physical health when she has a miscarriage.

The State has no right to label it as an act of "Evil"

Governments for thousands of years have been labeling stuff evil (ex. murder, theft, rape, and child mistreatment). This is no different.

that would be a kin to me telling you masturbation is murder, and you should be put in prison

Masturbation is a normal act committed by many normal people. Can you really say killing a baby in your womb is normal in any sense of the word.

It makes no sense when you don't explain where it comes from. WHy is it Evil? Because it kills a child? Is it even a child? Please be more specific what denotes Evil.

I have fixed it, and it's duly noted in the legislation.

I also believe that women will put themselves through painful procedures in order to not have the child that could just as easily damage her body and reproductive organs, which she would not otherwise have to put herself through if not for the legislation.

Not to be condescending, but here's a crazy idea: Adoption. It can not be anymore painful then having in untrained doctor shove stuff into your genital.

3 Months is the average amount of time when the conception starts to develop into an actual fetus, and as such, begins to develop consciousness. 3 weeks is an Arbitrary date, where in most cases women don't even know their pregnant, and just start to realize it, let alone let them think about keeping it.

3 weeks was me being lenient. As far as I can tell, it's human the moment it's conceived.

It is attached to the mother, it feeds off the mother, it is a part of the mother, to argue it is not is redundant, because without the mother, it cannot grow.

Well isn't that just a child.

Children are generally attached to their mothers. The mother feeds it, so their technical feeding off of her. And if the mother(considering she is its only caretaker) leaves it will die.

Technically, the fetus cannot live on it's own until it is removed from the womb, so they are Parasites by definition;The fetus cannot make it's own decisions, and as such, it is not a conscious, living organism in its own right

So your saying all children are deadly parasites?

The fetus cannot make it's own decisions, and as such, it is not a conscious, living organism in its own right; It is the mother, Plain and simple, Like a Tumor.

A Fancy Tumor with Fingernails, that eventually gets popped out and then it becomes it's own person.

Except tumors are deadly and fetus are not. And in the case that they are, I left the exception in the bill for terminating pregnancies in the event that they are likely to kill the mother.

mother should have the right to do with her body as she sees fit.

Yes but killing her child should not be one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A fetus ,for thousands of years, have been widely been considered a person and not a tumor. Just because we have the technology and resources to kill babies doesn't mean we need to kill them.

I never said they were tumors, I said they were parasites. I used Tumor as an Example of another thing that grows inside of the body and is part of the mother.

For thousands of years women have gotten abortions, as well. They used abortifacient herbs, the use of sharpened implements, the application of abdominal pressure, and Physical activities like strenuous labor, climbing, paddling, weightlifting, or diving were a common techniques. Others included the use of irritant leaves, fasting, bloodletting, pouring hot water onto the abdomen, and lying on a heated coconut shell.

This isn't some new issue, this has been argued since 1750 BCE.

It's also quite destructive to a woman's mental and physical health when she has a miscarriage.

That's her choice to have, isn't it? I would rather live around 100 Abortions than be forced to live with children who were never wanted. This is a Fact; Low Income Houses tend to have the most children, and if they can't afford that child, or they don't want it, then that child will suffer, that family will suffer, and that society will suffer.

Governments for thousands of years have been labeling stuff evil (ex. murder, theft, rape, and child mistreatment). This is no different.

Just because some guy in power tells me something is Evil doesn't mean it's actually Evil. Evil is a Subjective term used to easily color things in Black and White, and that doesn't fly in the Real World. I can tell you that My left testicle is the god of all creation, and my Right arm is Perfect and All Good. Will that make me right? Of course not. I gave no reasons as to why, and just because I told you it is doesn't make me correct. Your logic is essentially "I don't believe in it, so it's wrong" and that's a Dangerous way to think. This is where Critical Thinking comes into play. If you only see two spectrum's you will never see the rainbow.

Masturbation is a normal act committed by many normal people. Can you really say killing a baby in your womb is normal in any sense of the word.

Again, that was an example. I was getting at how Sperm is created inside of the body, so it's almost the same issue. If you want to get religious, spilling it is, in many religions, a Sin, while Abortion is not.

Not to be condescending, but here's a crazy idea: Adoption. It can not be anymore painful then having in untrained doctor shove stuff into your genital.

Again, it's the woman's choice to have a man shove things inside of her. The only way the doctor would be Untrained is if it was Illegal, In countries where Abortion is Legal deaths from failures drastically decrease, because Doctors are aloud to practice it, and women aren't going to extremes to break the law.

3 weeks was me being lenient. As far as I can tell, it's human the moment it's conceived.

This is a personal statement, if you were put on the FBI's Terrorist Watch List and never told, would you be pissed since you can fight it after 3 weeks? Just because it's common doesn't mean it's right.

Well isn't that just a child.

Children are generally attached to their mothers. The mother feeds it, so their technical feeding off of her. And if the mother(considering she is its only caretaker) leaves it will die.

The difference is that outside of the womb, children can take care of themselves, they have a father, friends, and family to look after them. Inside the womb, it's just the mother, and they aren't even conscious. Do you remember being in your mothers womb? Of course not.

So your saying all children are deadly parasites?

Not Deadly. Just Parasites and only by definition.

Except tumors are deadly and fetus are not. And in the case that they are, I left the exception in the bill for terminating pregnancies in the event that they are likely to kill the mother.

Again, who is the Government to decide what is good or bad for a woman? Eating Arsenic is bound to kill me, but I can still buy that at convenience stores.

If I want to remove my kidney, I will remove my god damn kidney and you can't tell me I can't.

Yes but killing her child should not be one of them.

The Fetus is part of her body to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I never said they were tumors, I said they were parasites. I used Tumor as an Example of another thing that grows inside of the body and is part of the mother.

For thousands of years women have gotten abortions, as well. They used abortifacient herbs, the use of sharpened implements, the application of abdominal pressure, and Physical activities like strenuous labor, climbing, paddling, weightlifting, or diving were a common techniques. Others included the use of irritant leaves, fasting, bloodletting, pouring hot water onto the abdomen, and lying on a heated coconut shell.

This isn't some new issue, this has been argued since 1750 BCE.

Yes i'll admit abortion has been around for a while. But you can not say the people back then were as knowledgeable as us.

We as a people continue to grow and as we grow were able to make more informed decisions. Whether these decisions be on the morality of abortion or just a menial legislature.

That's her choice to have, isn't it? I would rather live around 100 Abortions than be forced to live with children who were never wanted. This is a Fact; Low Income Houses tend to have the most children, and if they can't afford that child, or they don't want it, then that child will suffer, that family will suffer, and that society will suffer.

So you are saying that you would like to live around a hundred dead babies who's future has been stopped, as opposed to a child who could still make something of himself. Yes low income households tend to have a lot of children, however if money is just the problem, they can work around that. It is quite possible to have a financially struggling family and still be a happy family. Sure the child won't have everything he wants growing up, and it might even be difficult, but frankly that's life .Life will always be tough, but it helps build character and instills a sense of responsibility in the child.

Now granted some of these children will turn out bad, maybe they get into drugs or gangs or stuff like that. But you cannot persecute the babies that have not even made a choice on which way they'll take their life.

And yes they'll be families that don't want their child, so I once again refer to the better option: Adoption. If a family really doesn't want their child, place it up for adoption. At least in this way the child will be given a chance for success.

Just because some guy in power tells me something is Evil doesn't mean it's actually Evil.

Yes it does. Thus has been the law of life for millenniums. A person, deity, political figure, or someone of great importance will set a rule and people will abide by it.

Evil is a Subjective term used to easily color things in Black and White, and that doesn't fly in the Real World.

It's true that the world is not always black and white, but what your saying is wrong For example:

A man has a family to provide for but he lost his job and has no money.

So he robs a bank or something.

Then the man goes to jail.

Now despite the circumstances of the man, it is still wrong to steal. It's wrong to rob a bank. Yes you want to say, he was only providing for his family or he was just trying to be a good father. But the fact of the matter is, no matter what your reasoning behind it it, what's wrong is is wrong. He did a bad thing, and despite his reasons it cannot be justified. This is the very case with abortion.

This is where Critical Thinking comes into play. If you only see two spectrum's you will never see the rainbow.

Yes critical thinking is important, but when does morality and ethics come into play. I personally can not sit idly by while millions upon millions of children are murdered before they can even take their first breath because it's "convenient" for some. There comes a point one must examine their own conscious and think "Is this really okay?"

Again, that was an example. I was getting at how Sperm is created inside of the body, so it's almost the same issue. If you want to get religious, spilling it is, in many religions, a Sin, while Abortion is not.

It's most definitely not the same issue. Unless that sperm rolling around in our "junk" is growing into a human being, then masturbation is nowhere near as bad as an abortion.

Moreover, I was trying to avoid religion. It's in fact a huge factor in the abortion case, but that's a argument for another day.

Again, it's the woman's choice to have a man shove things inside of her. The only way the doctor would be Untrained is if it was Illegal, In countries where Abortion is Legal deaths from failures drastically decrease, because Doctors are aloud to practice it, and women aren't going to extremes to break the law

So your telling me my options on this one is either legalize abortions so it's easier to kill that annoying little fetus in that womb.

or make it illegal so that it's harder and less safer to kill an innocent child, which in all likelihoods could discourage others from having an abortion.

Hmm decisions decisions.

This is a personal statement, if you were put on the FBI's Terrorist Watch List and never told, would you be pissed since you can fight it after 3 weeks? Just because it's common doesn't mean it's right.

Well no Senator, I would not be all that pissed. I was given the chance to fight after 3 weeks, so i'll wait. If I know i'm not a terrorist being placed on the watch list really wont affect me.

The difference is that outside of the womb, children can take care of themselves, they have a father, friends, and family to look after them. Inside the womb, it's just the mother, and they aren't even conscious. Do you remember being in your mothers womb? Of course not.

For the first couple years of life there is no difference from being in the womb and out of it. Out of the womb the child will still have to rely on his mother. And yes maybe they'll have a father, but as you know the divorce rate seems to get higher every year. So theirs a chance that father will just leave. So it will be the mother who will have to take care of the child.

And you can not say because they are unconscious it's okay. A coma patient is unconscious but your generally not allowed to kill them(with the exception of failing organs and being brain dead.) so why is a fetus any different.

Again, who is the Government to decide what is good or bad for a woman? Eating Arsenic is bound to kill me, but I can still buy that at convenience stores.

If I want to remove my kidney, I will remove my god damn kidney and you can't tell me I can't.

When you buy arsenic, it's generally under the pretense that your not going to murder your self with it.

Moreover, if you survive that suicide attempt, you will be placed into a treatment facility by law. Which is the government telling you not to kill yourself.

That's them telling you what you can and cannot do. It's not like laws are passed threw secret votes. People can and are informed of it and vote on it how they please. And if they can't vote, they tell their representative how to vote. Then once theirs a rule saying you can't do this with your body, they have the right to enforce it.

The Fetus is part of her body to begin with.

So it's alright to kill it?

Because it was placed inside of you(and it definitely did not ask for that) you can kill it.

I'm curious Senator at what point does personal responsibility become involved in this.

If you have sex you run the risk of getting pregnant. If you do get pregnant you can not just run to the nearest abortion clinic, that in and of itself is wrong.

Now I understand rape is bad. But it's not like the baby wanted it's father to be a rapist. You can not kill it because of the sins of it's father. Adoption still seems like the best way to go for the baby, if it's not wanted by the mother.

As for incest, I don't think people really ave incestuous sex without it being rape. So I refer to the point on rape made above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree that forcefully cutting off life is cruel , we have to consider another picture.

Temi , as you've explained above that there is a possibility that the unwanted child may get into drugs/gangs/other vices. Is it really worth it to bring a child into a world of suffering & pain , only to die a horrible death at the hands of the law or some unscrupulous elements/practices?

Taking that into consideration, I really think that giving the Women the prerogative to abort might be in the best interests of the child.

However , I'm willing to give your act some leeway if you add the following clauses. I apologize for the length and I know they may sound radical and even draconian, but let's see what you think:

a) In the event the parents do not wish to take up responsibility for the child's education and welfare , the State shall put up the child for adoption for a minimum for 13 years. The state must bear the cost of General Education and Welfare for the child during this period, failing which the below clauses come into effect.

B)Beyond the age of 13 , based on the State's assessment of the individual's strengths/weaknesses , he/she will be provided higher education for a profession best suited to their abilities. The adoption window is CLOSED for the individual.

c) The individual will continue to be sponsored by the State until which time they have successfully completed their mandated education. If the individual fails to complete their education (either through disinterest or lack of ability) within the stipulated time (adjustable based on the difficulty of the course) , CLAUSE (g) comes into effect.

d) Upon acquiring the skills pertinent to their job , the individual will is mandated to serve the State in their allotted field for a period of 3 years. Yearly reviews will be held , and failing them will lead to an extra year of servitude.

e) In the aforementioned 3 years of mandatory service, the individual will receive State sponsored accommodations , food and transport. No salary will be given to the individual during this period.

f) Upon completion of the mandatory 3 years , two choices are presented to the individual:

1. He/She can choose to continue to work for the State , they will be provided a Salary and full social security benefits. State sponsored accommodation, food and transport are withdrawn. A sum of money is also given to the candidate (variable, depends on performance during the mandatory service period) . However, they are free to leave at any point and will be provided full retirement benefits for the duration of the service EXCLUDING the 3 years of service.

2. He/She can pursue their own career outside of the State. The State will provide the individual a sum of money to get them started (variable , depends on performance during the mandatory service period) and full social security benefits. State sponsored accommodation, food and transport are withdrawn. The State will also extend assistance in helping them search for a job if the individual requires it.

g) Failing the conditions outlined in CLAUSE © , the individual will be relegated to Community Service in various institutions of the State for a mandatory period of 5 years. However, the State can at it's discretion restore the individual to their previous training course on promise of good behaviour. Once the mandatory servitude period has elapsed, CLAUSE (H) comes into effect.

h) The individual will now be paid for any further Community Service to the state. .State sponsored food and transport are withdrawn, but accommodation will be provided. Social Security Benefits are extended. The individual can leave the State's service at any point. Retirement benefits will be provided for all years of service EXCLUDING the mandatory 5 YEAR PERIOD. Following retirement, State sponsored accommodation is withdrawn too.

Well, there you have it. Essentially, we're ensuring that the unadopted child doesn't fall into a life of poverty and crime. The state also benefits from the child's periods of mandatory service and this in turn turns the person into a productive member of society. Even if the child should screw up his training , Community Service gives him a chance to redeem himself. Failing that , the State shows a sense of leniency by paying him for further Community Service but also doesn't prevent him from staking out his own career.

*Dodges Pie thrown by Vrolondia*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Preamble: Through the course of history many have fought and died for their basic fundamental rights; The right to an education, freedom of speech, press, and religion. However many people continue to ignore a problem that is both fundamentally and morally inadequate. The act of an abortion.

I. Hereby recognizes life at the moment of conception and formally denounces abortion as a act of evil.

II. Defines abortion as an ethical and moral evil, in which one proceeds to murder their child.

III. Formally recognizes that all life is sacred and whether in a womb or out in the world is akin to murder.

IV. The act of an abortion shall be made illegal except in the cases of:

A. The pregnancy is life threatening.

If the pregnancy is liable to kill the woman, she has the right to terminate any point during her pregnancy.

Firmly against, on the simple basis that you construct this around some sort of ill defined morality, as was brought up before. That being said, I wouldn't support this no matter how you framed it. You have no right telling a woman what to do with her body, and as far as I'm concerned that fetus is part of her body. If it feeds off her, grows in her, and cannot survive outside of her, it is her. You can say abortion is a moral evil, that's your prerogative, but you have no right to deny a woman the choice on this basis alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you South Titania. Your suggestion was actually quite intriguing. There in fact should be a plan for the child. I approve of your whole plan.

Now with the addition of clause,we have a plan for the child. Now if the parent doesn't want the child, there's no need to abort.

Obviously there is much division against the morality of abortion. But now that we have a plan to turn the child into a functioning member of society, I don't believe there's any reason to want to abort the child.

Edited by Temi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like South Titanias plan, it just doesn't give enough choices to the Individual Child.

13 is a very young age, and they are sill in the market for adoption well into 16. Please also note that most children end Highschool around 17, and are out of the adoption system entirely at 18. With that in mind, they go through 3-5 years Post Secondary, and a mandatory 3 years of working with The Government, you have essentially turned them into 6-8 years of Domestic Slavery, while denying it a family.

Raise the Minimum Age to 16, and allow the child the choice to Drop Out or Continue with their Education.

I say we modify it this way:

a) In the event the parents do not wish to take up responsibility for the child's education and welfare , the State shall put up the child for adoption for a minimum for 16 years. The state must bear the cost of General Education and Welfare for the child during this period, failing which the below clauses come into effect.

B) Beyond the age of 16 , based on the State's assessment of the individual's strengths/weaknesses , he/she will be provided higher education for a profession of their choice.

c) The individual will continue to be sponsored by the State until which time they have successfully completed their mandated education, or reach the age of 18, and choose to discontinue the program. In this case the State will pull out all funding, and the child will be removed from the Support System in its entirety.

d) Upon acquiring the skills pertinent to their job , the individual is mandated to serve the State in their allotted field for a period of 3 years. Yearly reviews will be held to measure the child's success.

e) In the aforementioned 3 years of mandatory service, the individual will receive State sponsored accommodations , food and transport. A small, lump sum of money will be given monthly for personal use. This sum will range anywhere from $50 - $100 based of Needs, and Work Reviews.

f) Upon completion of the mandatory 3 years , two choices are presented to the individual:

1. He/She can choose to continue to work for the State , they will be provided a Salary and full social security benefits. State sponsored accommodation, food and transport are withdrawn. A sum of money is also given to the candidate (variable, depends on performance during the mandatory service period) . However, they are free to leave at any point and will be provided full retirement benefits for the duration of the service EXCLUDING the 3 years of service.

2. He/She can pursue their own career outside of the State. The State will provide the individual a sum of money to get them started (variable , depends on performance during the mandatory service period) and full social security benefits. State sponsored accommodation, food and transport are withdrawn. The State will also extend assistance in helping them search for a job if the individual requires it.

And as your Your reply, Temi,

So you are saying that you would like to live around a hundred dead babies who's future has been stopped, as opposed to a child who could still make something of himself. Yes low income households tend to have a lot of children, however if money is just the problem, they can work around that. It is quite possible to have a financially struggling family and still be a happy family. Sure the child won't have everything he wants growing up, and it might even be difficult, but frankly that's life .Life will always be tough, but it helps build character and instills a sense of responsibility in the child.

Now granted some of these children will turn out bad, maybe they get into drugs or gangs or stuff like that. But you cannot persecute the babies that have not even made a choice on which way they'll take their life.

And yes they'll be families that don't want their child, so I once again refer to the better option: Adoption. If a family really doesn't want their child, place it up for adoption. At least in this way the child will be given a chance for success.

The Adoption Process is long and Strenuous. In many cases, the State wont remove children it needs to remove, and it will remove children from fit and able parents. I'm not Persecuting the Baby. I'm persecuting their parents. I'm not saying a lack of Money means bad Parenting. I'm telling you that if the parents don't want the child, they wont care for the child, and that's called Neglect.

Yes it does. Thus has been the law of life for millenniums. A person, deity, political figure, or someone of great importance will set a rule and people will abide by it.

In Nazi Germany the law was to Persecute Jews and send people to their death, that wasn't considered "Evil" in Nazi Germany, and if they had won, it would have never been. It's Evil because the Allies said it's Evil, and the Allies Won.

Was the Atomic Bombing of Japan Evil? 200'000+ Civilians murdered with two bombs, and children suffered for a century afterwords. It was Unprovoked, It was on a Civilian Population, it was Unnecessary because Japan was trying to Surrender, and the Allies wanted that Surrender to be Unconditional.

Founding of Israel, is it lawful or unlawful? Good or Evil? Nothing is ever clear cut. If you follow what the State says is Good and Evil without questioning anything, its dangerous.

It's true that the world is not always black and white, but what your saying is wrong For example:

A man has a family to provide for but he lost his job and has no money.

So he robs a bank or something.

Then the man goes to jail.

Now despite the circumstances of the man, it is still wrong to steal. It's wrong to rob a bank. Yes you want to say, he was only providing for his family or he was just trying to be a good father. But the fact of the matter is, no matter what your reasoning behind it it, what's wrong is is wrong. He did a bad thing, and despite his reasons it cannot be justified. This is the very case with abortion.

A man is caught in a ship wreck, and his little boat can barely support his weight and 12 other passengers. Along comes his buddy, and he grabs hold, but the boat begins to sink, so he pushes his friend away and his friend drowns.

If he hadn't pushed him away, everybody would have died. Is he still wrong? is Inaction worse that Action? A Moral Victory would tell him not to act, and then nobody would know the truth, nobody would question it, and this wouldn't be an issue because he followed the law.

But the fact of the matter is he didn't follow the law. He knew that his Morality was pointless in this situation, and he caused his friend to drown in order to save 13 other people.

Is he still an Evil man?

Yes critical thinking is important, but when does morality and ethics come into play. I personally can not sit idly by while millions upon millions of children are murdered before they can even take their first breath because it's "convenient" for some. There comes a point one must examine their own conscious and think "Is this really okay?"

And I morally think it's wrong to put a limit of peoples bodies, with absolutely no room to negotiate.

It's most definitely not the same issue. Unless that sperm rolling around in our "junk" is growing into a human being, then masturbation is nowhere near as bad as an abortion.

Moreover, I was trying to avoid religion. It's in fact a huge factor in the abortion case, but that's a argument for another day.

Again, you missed my point. The idea is that since your a male, this isn't your issue to argue.

So your telling me my options on this one is either legalize abortions so it's easier to kill that annoying little fetus in that womb.

or make it illegal so that it's harder and less safer to kill an innocent child, which in all likelihoods could discourage others from having an abortion.

Hmm decisions decisions.

If they don't want that child, their not having that child. Miscarriages are easy, and it's easy to mess up their womb because of it. If it's going to happen anyways, we might as well make it safe.

Well no Senator, I would not be all that pissed. I was given the chance to fight after 3 weeks, so i'll wait. If I know i'm not a terrorist being placed on the watch list really wont affect me.

Your call, I don't like my government putting me on things without my permission.

For the first couple years of life there is no difference from being in the womb and out of it. Out of the womb the child will still have to rely on his mother. And yes maybe they'll have a father, but as you know the divorce rate seems to get higher every year. So theirs a chance that father will just leave. So it will be the mother who will have to take care of the child.

And you can not say because they are unconscious it's okay. A coma patient is unconscious but your generally not allowed to kill them(with the exception of failing organs and being brain dead.) so why is a fetus any different.

Wrong. Once outside of the womb, children can rely on ANYBODY. Their mother is not Child-Specific. And in that case, if she wanted to abort it, then this wouldnt even be an issue because she would be with her man still and not a single parent.

I'm saying its okay because it's literally another organ or limb to the mother until it's born.

When you buy arsenic, it's generally under the pretense that your not going to murder your self with it.

Moreover, if you survive that suicide attempt, you will be placed into a treatment facility by law. Which is the government telling you not to kill yourself.

That's them telling you what you can and cannot do. It's not like laws are passed threw secret votes. People can and are informed of it and vote on it how they please. And if they can't vote, they tell their representative how to vote. Then once theirs a rule saying you can't do this with your body, they have the right to enforce it.

Female Orgasms and Small Breasts in the Media are Illegal in Australia, does that mean it's morally right? And the police have a right to know when you've been Orgasming and then punish you for it? No. If that was Male orgasms it would be the biggest thing since Sliced bread. But their women, so nobody cares.

If they tell you that you have to cut off your left finger to show support for the All Knowing Obama, with that logic, you would.

So it's alright to kill it?

Because it was placed inside of you(and it definitely did not ask for that) you can kill it.

I'm curious Senator at what point does personal responsibility become involved in this.

If you have sex you run the risk of getting pregnant. If you do get pregnant you can not just run to the nearest abortion clinic, that in and of itself is wrong.

Now I understand rape is bad. But it's not like the baby wanted it's father to be a rapist. You can not kill it because of the sins of it's father. Adoption still seems like the best way to go for the baby, if it's not wanted by the mother.

As for incest, I don't think people really ave incestuous sex without it being rape. So I refer to the point on rape made above.

So if the mother is a little 6 year old rape victim of her daddy's drunken rage, she's forced by law to carry it to term and take care of it? She never asked for it.

She never even had a choice. That child will just be a constant reminder for the next 18 years of everything her father did to her, and that's no way to live.

You don't seem to understand that just because they can doesn't mean they will. It takes a very special kind of person to be able to do that, because it feels wrong. My friend who was pregnant was going to get it done, and couldn't do it, So she carried to term. that happens a lot, Very few people actually get the abortion done, and those are the ones who actually want it. The rest will find out they don't want it and love the child, instead of raising it like its a burden.

Incest is Sex between family member, you don't think that's possible unless its rape? That's preposterous. Two consenting adults who happen to be brother and sister is automatically rape, but who is raping who?

Edited by Vrolondia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, I want to throughly review your changes. A quick skim threw your revisments and I noticed about one rule I didn't like so, I plan to seek an alternative plan on that point.

But as a whole it seems that it is pretty decent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
e) In the aforementioned 3 years of mandatory service, the individual will receive State sponsored accommodations , food and transport. A small, lump sum of money will be given monthly for personal use. This sum will range anywhere from $50 - $100 based of Needs, and Work Reviews.

Since we are already paying for food and other essentials, what is the point of the $50-$100 dollars?

I left out the modifying of the point e for now, however I updated the bill. So just re-read and see if it suits you.

Now in response to your response:

The Adoption Process is long and Strenuous. In many cases, the State wont remove children it needs to remove, and it will remove children from fit and able parents.

The adoption process is long and sometimes tiring, because they are looking for people who won't take child rearing lightly. It is a serious matter.

The system isn't perfect, I know that, but I just want the child to be given a fair chance. Child Services has been cracking down, at least where I live, in order to make sure there isn't child abuse for adopted children. But that really can only go so far, and sometimes there will be mistakes. But they are constantly trying to improve to fix these mistakes so that the children will have a safe environment.

In Nazi Germany the law was to Persecute Jews and send people to their death, that wasn't considered "Evil" in Nazi Germany, and if they had won, it would have never been. It's Evil because the Allies said it's Evil, and the Allies Won.

Was the Atomic Bombing of Japan Evil? 200'000+ Civilians murdered with two bombs, and children suffered for a century afterwords. It was Unprovoked, It was on a Civilian Population, it was Unnecessary because Japan was trying to Surrender, and the Allies wanted that Surrender to be Unconditional.

Founding of Israel, is it lawful or unlawful? Good or Evil? Nothing is ever clear cut. If you follow what the State says is Good and Evil without questioning anything, its dangerous.

The Holocaust was most definitely evil, and that's why Nazi Germany kept it a secret. They knew what they were doing was wrong. And yes the citizens persecuted the Jews, but they did not know that because of there persecution over 6 million were murdered in concentration camps. As a matter of fact most Nazi soldiers didn't even know. The information was kept within the higher ups and the SS which ran the camps.

Now the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki...is a bad example. Japan during the war pissed off lot of western powers. Yes Japan would have surrendered conditionally however between pearl harbor, and the invasion of countless British territories, and the vast amount of war crimes commited against the Chinese and POW s(ie massacres, looting, rape, infant murder, civilian torture, POW torture,etc) Neither Britain,The US, or China would have settled for anything less than complete and utter surrender,which the top brass of Japan refused, due to wanting to protect their emperor and their following of the Bushido Way. This means either 1 million people could die in a ground assault or we drop two bombs two important cities and scare them to surrender. A decision had to be made, and frankly sending a million of your own men to their death, or killing 200,000 thousand of your enemies population. Frankly the A-bomb looks like the better choice.

The founding of Israel was because we felt bad for the extreme loss of Jewish life in the holocaust. It seemed like a good idea at the time, and from the good intentions it was formed out of, it cannot be called evil. Annoying, yes. Ill-advised, Yes. But evil is defiantly not the word for it.

My point is the state tries to do what is best for the general population. And if you don't like it, you can try to amend it.

A man is caught in a ship wreck, and his little boat can barely support his weight and 12 other passengers. Along comes his buddy, and he grabs hold, but the boat begins to sink, so he pushes his friend away and his friend drowns.

If he hadn't pushed him away, everybody would have died. Is he still wrong? is Inaction worse that Action? A Moral Victory would tell him not to act, and then nobody would know the truth, nobody would question it, and this wouldn't be an issue because he followed the law.

But the fact of the matter is he didn't follow the law. He knew that his Morality was pointless in this situation, and he caused his friend to drown in order to save 13 other people.

Is he still an Evil man?

Well first and foremost, that man is a dick.

But yes I understand what you are saying. In those situation primitive instinct takes over, and when it takes over you do what you need to survive. For the sake of the many sacrifice the few. However that is in the most extreme situation. Meaning that is such a moral loss okay for anything less than the loss of life? If your life is not an immediate danger why do you not choose the moral high ground.

The man cannot be called evil. But in extreme cases like that exceptions are made. Same with abortion. If the mother is going to die because of the baby, it's a do or die situation and an abortion is applicable. However if her life is not in immediate danger, then why do it.

And I morally think it's wrong to put a limit of peoples bodies, with absolutely no room to negotiate.

There's always room to negotiate. you just have to know what you can negotiate with.

If they don't want that child, their not having that child. Miscarriages are easy, and it's easy to mess up their womb because of it. If it's going to happen anyways, we might as well make it safe.

That's like saying no matter what, my kid is going to be an addict no matter what I do. And since there's absoultly no way to stop them, i'll just go and buy him/her clean needles.

I'm saying its okay because it's literally another organ or limb to the mother until it's born.

That just sounds horrible. When you think of another living being you think of a heart beat. From a dog to a rat. A fetus heart starts beating after about 18 days.

So even if it is just a "limb at conception" it's a being after about 18 days.

Female Orgasms and Small Breasts in the Media are Illegal in Australia,

That is terrible. Why would they do something like that. :sadangel:

Female Orgasms and Small Breasts in the Media are Illegal in Australia, does that mean it's morally right? And the police have a right to know when you've been Orgasming and then punish you for it? No. If that was Male orgasms it would be the biggest thing since Sliced bread. But their women, so nobody cares.

Well boys tend to accidently orgasm in their sleep sometimes...so that would be kinda mean to slap a fine or jail sentence on them for that.

And no they don't have the right to know you have been orgasming unless you do it on camera and put it on PBS or BBC or whatever channel they use for public broadcasting in Australia.

This also raises the question: Do you have a lot of male orgasms in your media? And is Australia a Eutopia where only the biggest breasted women can be shown on television.

If they tell you that you have to cut off your left finger to show support for the All Knowing Obama, with that logic, you would.

All hail the almighty Obeezy.

But in all seriousness that question is void because i'm an American and I don't have to support him.

But if that question was valid, A large of people wouldn't follow it. When passing laws it comes down to moral and common sense. If a law has neither, I think you have the right to start a "civil disobedience" group or something.

So if the mother is a little 6 year old rape victim of her daddy's drunken rage, she's forced by law to carry it to term and take care of it? She never asked for it.

She never even had a choice. That child will just be a constant reminder for the next 18 years of everything her father did to her, and that's no way to live.

First let's bump that age up to 13, cause thats childbearing age.

Now I understand what your saying, but she could always look for a new couple who want to have a child and can't and then give it to them. And if that isn't an option, adoption. The baby shouldn't have to stay with a mother who doesn't love it nor be murder cause the father's a rapist.

Incest is Sex between family member, you don't think that's possible unless its rape? That's preposterous. Two consenting adults who happen to be brother and sister is automatically rape, but who is raping who?

You misunderstand me senator.

Generally that won't happen because society dictates it as "disgusting".

(Though, surprisingly, it happens a lot in anime. )

As with your 6-year-old eaxample, that's generaly how incest occurs nowadays.

Edited by Temi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Temi - found some errors , edited for you.

A)Beyond the age of 16 17 , based on the State's assessment of the individual's strengths/weaknesses , he/she will be provided higher education for a profession of their choice.

The adoption window is CLOSED for the individual.

B)The individual will continue to be sponsored by the State until which time they have successfully completed their mandated education, or reach the age of 18 and choose to discontinue the program/If the individual fails to complete their education (either through disinterest or lack of ability) within the stipulated time (adjustable based on the difficulty of the course) , CLAUSE (G) CLAUSE (F) comes into effect.

F) Failing the conditions outlined in CLAUSE C CLAUSE B , the individual will be relegated to Community Service in various institutions of the State for a mandatory period of 5 years. However, the State can at it's discretion restore the individual to their previous training course on promise of good behavior. Once the mandatory servitude period has elapsed, CLAUSE (G) comes into effect.

e) In the aforementioned 3 years of mandatory service, the individual will receive State sponsored accommodations , food and transport. A small, lump sum of money will be given monthly for personal use. This sum will range anywhere from $50 - $100 based of Needs, and Work Reviews.

As Temi put it , we don't need to pay the individual any amount. The state has already invested a fortune in shaping the very life and career of the individual , though it could have easily chosen to abandon him/her on the streets. In any case , he/she will be rewarded at the end of his/her mandatory service, so it's not really a deal breaker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the proposal didn't pass. So the 54% against the proposal please explain what you would like to see within this proposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The changes will be made in exacly 2 days

The changes have been made. Please read it over and see if it pleases you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×