NSG Senate (OLD THREAD, DO NOT POST)

[Wolfmanne]

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.

I recognise Radiatia's concerns. I too believe that it was poorly worded. This is essentially a one-sized fits all bill. In regards to abortion, I am unsure on whether or whether not to support this. Abortions tears me up an individual; on one hand, as a Roman Catholic, I should oppose, but on the other hand, in some cases, it can be right. I would abstain on this issue.

However, the right to choose to end your life is something that I oppose. Cure is always the best step forward. Individuals must recognise that not all hope is lost. Treatment can save them. I think that medical professionals should be listened to: euthanasia should be a no-no. It's God's will, not an individual's, to decide on whether a patient must die.

Due to this, I Oppose this act.

[Britcan]

I vote FOR the Bodily Sovereignty Act.

[The Realm of God]

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

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

I wish for the components of the Act to be broken up into several smaller Acts to be debated on and voted on individually.

[Soviet Canuckistan]

I vote YES for the BSA.

[Silent Majority]

Aye: 17
Nay: 5
Abstain: 1

[Demphor]

I vote FOR the BSA

[Raurosia]

I vote AYE.

[Strykla]

As part of the CMP I vote AGAINST the BSA.

[Ragnarum]

I vote for the Bodily sovreignity act.

[Hathradic States]

As Chairman of the NIFP I vote AGAINST the Bodily Sovereignty Act.

[Priory Academy USSR]

In line with the TR Party's views, I vote YES to the Bodily Sovereignty Act.

[Unicario]

As Chairman of the NIFP I vote AGAINST the Bodily Sovereignty Act.

Following party lines of the NIFP, I hereby vote AGAINST the Bodily Sovereignity Act.

[Yankee Empire]

As Chairman of the NIFP I vote AGAINST the Bodily Sovereignty Act.

Following party lines of the NIFP, I hereby vote AGAINST the Bodily Sovereignity Act.

I also vote AGAINST the Bodily Sovereignity Act. it leaves too much room to abuse social responsibility at the whims of individualitic Selfishness.

[Manahakatouki]

I abstain from voting on the Bodily Sovereignty Act...

[Crata]

Ladies and gentlemen, I rise to speak in favour of the proposed piece of legislation. I would also like remind you to please announce how many Senators voted in favour and against the Act, since you are otherwise placing a burden on other Senators and the staff.

Including me, there are 21 Senators voting for the Act, 9 against. One Senator is abstaining so far.

Thank you.

[Yankee Empire]

Ladies and gentlemen, I rise to speak in favour of the proposed piece of legislation. I would also like remind you to please announce how many Senators voted in favour and against the Act, since you are otherwise placing a burden on other Senators and the staff.

Including me, there are 21 Senators voting for the Act, 9 against. One Senator is abstaining so far.

Thank you.

2 are abstaining

[Polvia]

I must voice my concern on the issue of the clause regarding "consumption". Does this in any way disallow the government, or other legal entity, from regulating what items companies might purchase, use in the production of, or the selling of their goods and services?

I'm probably reading far too into the bill, but better safe than sorry.

[Great Nepal]

I must voice my concern on the issue of the clause regarding "consumption". Does this in any way disallow the government, or other legal entity, from regulating what items companies might purchase, use in the production of, or the selling of their goods and services?

I'm probably reading far too into the bill, but better safe than sorry.

It only addresses consumption, so what person eats and has clause exempting drugs from this act (leaving it to future legislation).

[The Pacistien Republic]

I hereby vote against this piece of legislature.

[Yankee Empire]

I must voice my concern on the issue of the clause regarding "consumption". Does this in any way disallow the government, or other legal entity, from regulating what items companies might purchase, use in the production of, or the selling of their goods and services?

I'm probably reading far too into the bill, but better safe than sorry.

No your reading the proper amount, that is all of it.

It seems like a perfectly reasonable bill on the surface but therw are significant flaws with it, people with concerns should vote against it, and then when it's fixed it can be voted on again.

Don't vote for it just because it "sounds nice".

[The Treorai]

I Abstain on the Bodily Sovereignty Act.

[Polvia]

I must voice my concern on the issue of the clause regarding "consumption". Does this in any way disallow the government, or other legal entity, from regulating what items companies might purchase, use in the production of, or the selling of their goods and services?

I'm probably reading far too into the bill, but better safe than sorry.

It only addresses consumption, so what person eats and has clause exempting drugs from this act (leaving it to future legislation).

So, for final clarification, those goods available on the market may all be consumed freely, but what those items are, and what they have in them, can potentially be regulated by the government? I'm I correct in this interpretation?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It only addresses consumption, so what person eats and has clause exempting drugs from this act (leaving it to future legislation).

So, for final clarification, those goods available on the market may all be consumed freely, but what those items are, and what they have in them, can potentially be regulated by the government? I'm I correct in this interpretation?

From what I understand yes.

[Crata]

I hereby vote against this piece of legislature.

For fuck's sake. Excuse my language Senator, but have you been paying attention to what I've been saying at all? You are placing a burden on other Senators and the staff.

21 Senators voting for the Act, 10 against. Three Senators are abstaining so far.

[Great Nepal]

It only addresses consumption, so what person eats and has clause exempting drugs from this act (leaving it to future legislation).

So, for final clarification, those goods available on the market may all be consumed freely, but what those items are, and what they have in them, can potentially be regulated by the government? I'm I correct in this interpretation?

Basically, anyone can eat anything they want (ignoring drugs) and no one will be forced to eat anything (unless required as material evidence in court).