NSG Senate (OLD THREAD, DO NOT POST)

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Tsk Tsk Tsk
As a senator with my own staff of scientists, we have determined that, indeed, the fetus is alive and can survive outside the womb after the 22nd week.

It is still within women's body, thereby violating her body if she does not want it there.

I propose an amendment to include alternate methods to abortion

This proposal does nothing to prevent suggestion on alternate method to abortion. It only enables women to choose that option if they wish to.

and an education course of about 2 days to prepare the woman to what she is going to endure after the abortion in terms of physiological and psychological changes in her POV after the 20th week.

This proposal does nothing to prevent voluntary course like that, no one should however be mandated into such course however.

1 - Well, true. Can't argue that there.

2 (and 3) - I know, but I think we should make these options available in the future?

I am 100% behind the BSA though.

[Great Nepal]

1 - Well, they can be induced to have a premature birth? Just asking.

2 (and 3) - I know, but I think we should make these options available in the future?

I am 100% behind the BSA though.

1. If women agrees to it, sure.
2 and 3. I wont mind, but I dont know why legislation would be required for that because wouldn't such advice be covered under freedom of speech anyway?

Thanks for support.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

1 - Well, they can be induced to have a premature birth? Just asking.

2 (and 3) - I know, but I think we should make these options available in the future?

I am 100% behind the BSA though.

1. If women agrees to it, sure.
2 and 3. I wont mind, but I dont know why legislation would be required for that because wouldn't such advice be covered under freedom of speech anyway?

Thanks for support.

2 and 3 - Well, not necessarily legislation for it, but legislation requiring doctors to disclose this information to the patient before she goes through with abortion (at least mentioning it), so that she may know of other options before taking such a step in case she didn't know. However, that would go under a medical bill for the senate.

And you're welcome

[Great Nepal]

1. If women agrees to it, sure.
2 and 3. I wont mind, but I dont know why legislation would be required for that because wouldn't such advice be covered under freedom of speech anyway?

Thanks for support.

2 and 3 - Well, not necessarily legislation for it, but legislation requiring doctors to disclose this information to the patient before she goes through with abortion (at least mentioning it), so that she may know of other options before taking such a step in case she didn't know. However, that would go under a medical bill for the senate.

And you're welcome

Yea, that sounds good. Legislation requiring doctors to get informed consent from indivudal before proceeding with medical procedures, where they have to disclose all alternative procedures.

[The Realm of God]

How about a compromise?

Abortions are always allowed for the pregnant women has bodily sovereignty, however after an abortion is performed after the 22nd week all available medical treatment should be administered to the foetus in the hope that they will survive, if the foetus survives they shall be put up to adoption If no extended family wish to raise the child.

[Ceannairceach]

How about a compromise?

Abortions are always allowed for the pregnant women has bodily sovereignty, however after an abortion is performed after the 22nd week all available medical treatment should be administered to the foetus in the hope that they will survive, if the foetus survives they shall be put up to adoption If no extended family wish to raise the child.

I disapprove of this "compromise." Induced birth should not be mandated by the state.

[Great Nepal]

How about a compromise?

Abortions are always allowed for the pregnant women has bodily sovereignty, however after an abortion is performed after the 22nd week all available medical treatment should be administered to the foetus in the hope that they will survive, if the foetus survives they shall be put up to adoption If no extended family wish to raise the child.

I dont know how a foetus can survive an abortion...
Plus, we have massive support for the bill (80% for) so I dont think compromise is needed.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

How about a compromise?

Abortions are always allowed for the pregnant women has bodily sovereignty, however after an abortion is performed after the 22nd week all available medical treatment should be administered to the foetus in the hope that they will survive, if the foetus survives they shall be put up to adoption If no extended family wish to raise the child.

I think getting informed consent where the doctor lets her know about these methods beforehand is enough, as it opens these options already to the woman.

[The Realm of God]

How about a compromise?

Abortions are always allowed for the pregnant women has bodily sovereignty, however after an abortion is performed after the 22nd week all available medical treatment should be administered to the foetus in the hope that they will survive, if the foetus survives they shall be put up to adoption If no extended family wish to raise the child.

I disapprove of this "compromise." Induced birth should not be mandated by the state.

Well I was going to vote for the Sovereignty Act in its present form, I was just trying to reach an agreement in which the bill would be more palatable to Classical Monarchists and Fascists who compose 39 members of the senate.

[Lemanrussland]

I vote in favor of the Bodily Sovereignty Act.

Edit: We should however put the Limiting Legislation Act up to a vote as soon as possible, it is quite important in my view.

[Fulflood]

How about a compromise?

Abortions are always allowed for the pregnant women has bodily sovereignty, however after an abortion is performed after the 22nd week all available medical treatment should be administered to the foetus in the hope that they will survive, if the foetus survives they shall be put up to adoption If no extended family wish to raise the child.

Yes. I like the sound of something like this as I'm personally a little uneasy with abortions up to birth, but respect the right to be carried out before the child is reasonably conscious or unlikely to survive outside the womb.

[Radiatia]

So what's being debated? I've been away and can't make head or tail of what's going on?

[Lemanrussland]

So what's being debated? I've been away and can't make head or tail of what's going on?

The "Bodily Sovereignty Act" is currently at vote.

Edit: I would like to make a suggestion for the Senate. It would be nice if we had some sort of bulletin where people could go to find current legislation, which is up for debate or up for vote. It seems like many bills are buried in discussion, and people who are coming in from a day at work are sometimes a little confused as to what we're actually voting/debating on.

[Great Nepal]

So what's being debated? I've been away and can't make head or tail of what's going on?

Bodily Sovereignty act is at vote.

Bodily Sovereignty Act
Urgency: Urgent| Drafted by: Great Nepal | Edited for Archiving by Trotskylvania

Findings

§ 1: This senate recognises self ownership and sovereignty of the individual as one of fundamental and inalienable rights held equally by all non-convicted men, women and children. Upholding principles held by philosophers William Rees-Mogg and James Dale Davidson, this senate enacts The Bodily Sovereignty Act (henceforth referred to as the Act).

Definitions

§ 2: When used in this Act:

(1) Person shall be defined as a human individual.

(2) Child shall be defined as a young human being from moment of birth to legal age of majority.

(3) Man shall be defined as an adult human with biological gender as male.

(4) Woman shall be defined as an adult human with biological gender as female.

Rights to Bodily Sovereignty

§ 3: By the powers vested in it, by the people and constitution, this senate hereby grants every non-convicted individual with sound mind, certain inalienable rights, or they are deemed to not be of sound mind by professional examining body. These rights shall fall under umbrella term of "bodily sovereignty rights".

1. Self defence: If an individual is threatened with injury to their life or limb, or loss of bodily materials by actions of third party which may or may not be an individual, they shall be able to engage in self defence to neutralise the said threat by using all necessary and reasonable force.
2. Reproductive rights: An individual will have final authority regarding their reproductive organs, sexual actions and reproduction provided, all indivudal involved in said act have provided informed consent to said act.
3. End of life: An individual shall have final authority regarding their end of life decisions and shall be able to end their own lives without fear of legal consequences. This senate shall make no laws that may criminalise suicide of any kind unless it causes direct harm to individual who has not provided informed consent.
4. Consumption: Individuals shall have final authority on what they input into their bodies unless it is required as material evidence in a court of law. It must be made clear that this does not apply to recreational drugs, which shall be handled by future legislation in this senate.
5. Medical treatment: Individuals shall be able to refuse medical treatment should they see fit unless it is required as material evidence in court of law. Refusal to accept medical treatment however shall be a valid reason to quarantine an individual, if it is professional opinion that disease they carry is highly contagious and hazardous to public.

[Radiatia]

Edit: I would like to make a suggestion for the Senate. It would be nice if we had some sort of bulletin where people could go to find current legislation, which is up for debate or up for vote. It seems like many bills are buried in discussion, and people who are coming in from a day at work are sometimes a little confused as to what we're actually voting/debating on.

I completely agree with this, as it's becoming ridiculously difficult to find out what's going on.

So what's being debated? I've been away and can't make head or tail of what's going on?

Bodily Sovereignty act is at vote.

Bodily Sovereignty Act
Urgency: Urgent| Drafted by: Great Nepal | Edited for Archiving by Trotskylvania

Findings

§ 1: This senate recognises self ownership and sovereignty of the individual as one of fundamental and inalienable rights held equally by all non-convicted men, women and children. Upholding principles held by philosophers William Rees-Mogg and James Dale Davidson, this senate enacts The Bodily Sovereignty Act (henceforth referred to as the Act).

Definitions

§ 2: When used in this Act:

(1) Person shall be defined as a human individual.

(2) Child shall be defined as a young human being from moment of birth to legal age of majority.

(3) Man shall be defined as an adult human with biological gender as male.

(4) Woman shall be defined as an adult human with biological gender as female.

Rights to Bodily Sovereignty

§ 3: By the powers vested in it, by the people and constitution, this senate hereby grants every non-convicted individual with sound mind, certain inalienable rights, or they are deemed to not be of sound mind by professional examining body. These rights shall fall under umbrella term of "bodily sovereignty rights".

1. Self defence: If an individual is threatened with injury to their life or limb, or loss of bodily materials by actions of third party which may or may not be an individual, they shall be able to engage in self defence to neutralise the said threat by using all necessary and reasonable force.
2. Reproductive rights: An individual will have final authority regarding their reproductive organs, sexual actions and reproduction provided, all indivudal involved in said act have provided informed consent to said act.
3. End of life: An individual shall have final authority regarding their end of life decisions and shall be able to end their own lives without fear of legal consequences. This senate shall make no laws that may criminalise suicide of any kind unless it causes direct harm to individual who has not provided informed consent.
4. Consumption: Individuals shall have final authority on what they input into their bodies unless it is required as material evidence in a court of law. It must be made clear that this does not apply to recreational drugs, which shall be handled by future legislation in this senate.
5. Medical treatment: Individuals shall be able to refuse medical treatment should they see fit unless it is required as material evidence in court of law. Refusal to accept medical treatment however shall be a valid reason to quarantine an individual, if it is professional opinion that disease they carry is highly contagious and hazardous to public.

Is it actually at vote, or just being debated?

[Great Nepal]

Is it actually at vote, or just being debated?

Apparently its at vote. Current vote:-
For: 11
Against: 2
(I think thats right)

[Radiatia]

I cannot speak for the Progressive-Conservative Party at this point in time, however personally I stand opposed to the Bodily Sovereignty Act.

I feel that the bill, which contains so many controversial clauses, really ought to have been split into a number of bills rather than hammered through as one bill.

Secondly, the bill conflicts with my own conscience, given that I personally hold moderately pro-life views and do not feel that abortion should be legal except in certain unusual circumstances.

Thirdly, I don't like the slippery slope implied by the first clause, "they shall be able to engage in self defence to neutralise the said threat by using all necessary and reasonable force" with "necessary and reasonable force" both being a vague barometer and with this line having potential to be interpreted as essentially advocating, in extreme cases, killing for the sake of revenge.

While I believe in the individual's right to self defence, this poorly worded clause will, in my mind, only lead to increased violence and is a loophole waiting to be exploited by the criminal underclass.

Summarily, I stand opposed to the poorly worded and poorly thought-out bill and I urge other Senators to do likewise.

[Radiatia]

Ah okay.

Well then if it's at vote, I hereby vote NAY to the Bodily Sovereignty Act.

[Ceannairceach]

I f lend my support to the Bodily Sovereignty Act.

[The Realm of God]

Due to administrative qualms with the Act. I wish to abstain.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

I vote For the Bodily Sovereignty Act.

[Hippostania]

I cast my vote for the Bodily Sovereignty Act.

[Atelia]

I vote against the Bodily Sovereignty Act.

[Silent Majority]

I vote for the Bodily Sovereignty Act

[Great Nepal]

Due to administrative qualms with the Act. I wish to abstain.

If I may ask, what would these "administrative qualms" contain of?