Title: Vats? No Tanks!
Description
During a recent meeting, the Director for Infant Hatcheries reported that the @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ Birthing Vats have seen a steady decline in adoptions-per-month. Fingers were pointed at your decision to permit natural birth - with more and more @@DEMONYMNOUNPLURAL@@ choosing that route, concerns have mounted that the vats are looking less like a beneficial institution and more like a budgetary liability.
Validity
Vats are Optional (currently only 1340.4; one day maybe this draft, option 3 as well)
Option 1a
"Obviously, this is a failure of the public sector," argues Vats-R-Us CEO, @@RANDOMNAME_1@@. "Orphanages across @@CAPITAL@@ are filling up with excess, unwanted babies that the government can't find a home for - what a waste! If you gave us control over the vats, I'm sure the free market would keep things efficient and encourage consumers... err, parents, to once again choose the vats as their method of bringing life into the world. All we need to get started is a bit of genetic material, but that can't be too hard to acquire."
Validity
Vats are government owned (any Vat-instituting option except 358.8 and hasn't chosen 1a of this issue before)
Effect
babies are offered with a one-year warranty
Option 1b
"Obviously, this is a failure of the free market," sneers @@RANDOMNAME_2@@, a down-trodden and underpaid vat technician. "These companies simply aren't profitable with the reduced demand, and it's hit the industry hard. All the marketing they're pushing to compensate has sucked the magic out of picking a child! I mean, who wants to be bombarded with slogans and discounts when they're trying to decide on a baby to love and cherish for the rest of their lives? Nationalising the vats will solve this problem - with the vats under government control, they won't need advertising to stay viable, and @@DEMONYMNOUNPLURAL@@ will flock right back."
Validity
Vats are privately owned (has chosen 358.5 or 1a of this issue)
Effect
somehow monotone grey government facilities don't appeal to potential parents
Option 2
"Well, vat babies would be more popular if they offered a bit more than regular kids," suggests @@RANDOMNAME_3@@, rolling out a several-metre-long parchment family tree. "Genetic customisation has been around for years - people can even do it to their pets - so let's offer it on children as well! I'd love to choose my kids' characteristics - gosh, who wouldn't want a full family of perfect children? No need to wait for the DNA of King Oswyn to finally show up in your lineage when you can guarantee your kids will look just like him. You could even have celebrities donate their genes for fans to get their slice of the action!"
Validity
All
Effect
thousands of @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ children bear the likeness of @@LEADER@@
Option 3a
"The vats provide an incredibly useful service that we shouldn't impinge upon," states @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@, whose endometriosis prevents her from having children naturally. "For those with medical conditions, our only options would be IVF, surrogacy or regular adoption - the vats are the best way for us to have children. We don't need free genetic modification or anything wacky, an unmodified kid is plenty good enough for me! Do whatever you need to keep the vats - scale back infant production, prop up the facilities with some government subsidies, even if you have to increase the cost for prospective parents we'll still be grateful. Don't leave us behind!"
Validity
Vats are privately owned (has chosen 358.5 or 1a of this issue)
Effect
families unable to conceive switch their deposit on a house for a deposit on a kid
Option 3b
"The vats provide an incredibly useful service that we shouldn't impinge upon," states @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@, whose endometriosis prevents her from having children naturally. "For those with medical conditions, our only options would be IVF, surrogacy or regular adoption - the vats are the best way for us to have children. We don't need free genetic modification or anything wacky, an unmodified kid is plenty good enough for me! Do whatever you need to keep the vats - scale back infant production, pump their budget up with treasury funds, even if you have to increase the cost for prospective parents we'll still be grateful. Don't leave us behind!"
Validity
Vats are government owned (any Vat-instituting option except 358.8 and hasn't chosen 1a of this issue before)
Effect
families unable to conceive switch their deposit on a house for a deposit on a kid
Option 4
"Oh, how dreadful," exclaims @@RANDOMNAME_5@@, whose name-badge identifies @@HIM_5@@ as a manager at the local vat facilities. "I can't believe you'd consider all these changes - if the wider public don't appreciate the service we provide, then that's their problem! Use of the vats will pick up again if we just ban reproduction and force @@DEMONYMNOUNPLURAL@@ to use the vats again. We'll have to allow for those already pregnant, but give it nine months or so and I'm sure demand will come right back."
Validity
All
Effect
fertility clinics are reporting a massive increase in demand
SherpDaWerp wrote:an issue to implement (and cancel - watch this space) such a policy of vat-optionality
For those of you who were watching, this is my draft to cancel the decision to make vats optional, in the hope that I can get vat-optionality recognised gameside.
The thing I'm most concerned about is the actual option structure - do the current options represent reasonable solutions to the problem, should any be added, should any be removed? The most obvious missing option is a "scale back the vats to fit the demand" option, but that would be quite an easy decision for anyone that wants to keep vat-optionality, so I'm hesitant to add it.