| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Welcome to Mock Parliament. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Abortion Bill (2009) | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 24 2009, 04:29 PM (491 Views) | |
| Commoncold0 | Oct 24 2009, 04:29 PM Post #1 |
|
Elder Statesman
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Under this bill, 1. The time period in which a woman may legally request an abortion will be increased from 16 weeks to 17 weeks after conception. The time in which an abortion can legally take place will be increased to 18 weeks after conception. 2. After a request for an abortion is made, a period of at least one week must pass before an abortion can take place. Upon requesting an abortion, a woman is under no obligation to go through with the procedure. 3. Upon requesting an abortion, a woman is to be given detailed information informing her of the nature of the process and it's consequences. The information should be balanced, but also contain a broad range of opinions and arguments. The patient should also be given information about other possible courses of action, such as adoption. Finally, if the abortion is requested after the 13th week of pregnancy, the patient is to be provided with a scan of the fetus. The aim of this is to ensure that the patient is able to make an informed decision about the abortion. 4. No national health funding is to be used to fund abortions. States are free to provide their own funding if they wish. NB: The provisions of this bill only apply to those situations when an abortion is requested. Situations when there is a grave risk to the mother's life or health are unaffected by this legislation. [/bill] Ok, I thought I'd kick this term off with a bang, so here's a new bill on abortion. Because it's an issue of conscience, the terms of this bill should not be considered government policy - this government's policy on abortion is to ensure a debate on the current laws. I suspect people will probably wish to ammend parts of this bill, so I'm happy to delay it being voted on if reasonable ammendments are proposed. |
![]() |
|
| sqeak | Oct 24 2009, 05:18 PM Post #2 |
|
Learned Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I fully support this until someone points out a huge loophole that has somehow missed, which somehow always happens. |
![]() |
|
| Cieran | Oct 24 2009, 05:34 PM Post #3 |
![]()
Should-like-totally-be-the Prime Minister
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Sure why not... |
![]() |
|
| miniyoda008 | Oct 24 2009, 05:53 PM Post #4 |
|
Master of the Force
![]()
|
Is this bill basically extending the time by 2 weeks, and formalising how the process works a bit more? There's been so many abortion bills created that I'm not entirely sure what stage we've reached regarding it. |
![]() |
|
| DynamoJax | Oct 24 2009, 11:12 PM Post #5 |
![]()
17th and 20th PM of Ostentia.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I personally am not sure about this bill. For whatever reason, the mandatory ultrasound scan of the fetus is making me a little bit uncomfortable. I would like to see some substance on this issue before I consider a decision either way. OOC: We had that debate in Texas this past legislative session, so that states a bit of my reasoning behind it. |
![]() |
|
| Cieran | Oct 25 2009, 01:05 AM Post #6 |
![]()
Should-like-totally-be-the Prime Minister
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
As far as I can tell it increases the time, but aims to discourage it and removes federal funding... |
![]() |
|
| plqx | Oct 25 2009, 07:34 AM Post #7 |
![]()
overlord of the Solafian universe
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What is the purpose of the scan? |
![]() |
|
| Commoncold0 | Oct 25 2009, 11:35 AM Post #8 |
|
Elder Statesman
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It's partly to discourage the mother from having the abortion (although it generally fits into the "informed choice" aim of this bill). More generally though, I think I'm right in saying that mothers are supposed to have scans at around 13 weeks anyway. |
![]() |
|
| Lord Wallace Buttersworth | Oct 25 2009, 11:06 PM Post #9 |
|
Right Honourable Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
1.) I'll be voting down this unless the ultrasound is deemed optional. There are some religions / indigenous peoples where taking a photo, in their belief, 'captures their soul.' This means, effectively, this bill will have people of those certain religious / indigenous denominations will have black market abortions. 2.) Lengthening the term is more dangerous to the mother. It is also taking a more pro-life stance (which it seems this whole bill is about, pro-life instead of pro-choice). 3.) Why do you want to rid federal funding of abortions? What if a child (eg a 13 year old) is raped, and wants to abort? Why would you make the child or parents of the child pay for that? Your bill is all about reducing civil liberties, and being more interventionalist on a topic of what is really, the pinnacle of self choice. |
![]() |
|
| Commoncold0 | Oct 26 2009, 01:17 AM Post #10 |
|
Elder Statesman
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Points 2 and 3 are personal opinions on this issue, so arguing about them is unlikely to yield any ground on either side. As for point 1, a scan is considerably different from a photograph, but perhaps more significantly, I doubt that any religion that holds such a view is likely to approve of abortion anyway. Still, if you wish to put down an ammendment striking down that part of the bill, I will delay moving it in order for you to do so. One final point about the arguments for self-choice: even if you do not neccessarily agree with this point of view, you must accept that many people view the unborn child as a person in their own right (nonwithstanding qualifications about length of pregnancy etc.) and that therefore it ceases to be a question of self-choice. Although I may not entirely agree to it, the famous Reagan quote about abortion and choice springs to mind: "With regard to the freedom of the individual for choice with regard to abortion, there's one individual who's not being considered at all. That's the one who is being aborted. And I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born." |
![]() |
|
| DynamoJax | Oct 26 2009, 01:34 AM Post #11 |
![]()
17th and 20th PM of Ostentia.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If an amendment like what CC0 has discussed is offered and passed, then I'm probably going to lean in favor of this bill. Also, LWB's point of funding needs to be evaluated. I'm leaning against federal funding in most situations, but in cases of rape, incest or genuine health threat to the mother (including ending a pregnancy after the embryo/fetus is no longer viable or has "ceased development") I'm beginning to see some grounds and justia for an exception to the rule of no federal funding, but ONLY on these grounds. If such an amendment does not arise, then my decision gets a little tougher. |
![]() |
|
| Lord Wallace Buttersworth | Oct 26 2009, 02:27 AM Post #12 |
|
Right Honourable Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I assume you mean my points 2 and 3? I can assure you point 2 is not personal, it's a fact. The longer the term, the more dangerous it is to abort the unborn to the mother. And nor is point 3 - it's about funding and if there are extenuating circumstances? Edit: with the scan, I can assure you Australian Aboriginies are against it, but are pro-abortion. I can't vouch for Ostentian indigenous, as I don't know the facts, but it is possible we have the same issue. |
![]() |
|
| Cieran | Oct 26 2009, 10:41 AM Post #13 |
![]()
Should-like-totally-be-the Prime Minister
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Just a note, but abortion is still free where there is a risk to the mother's health... |
![]() |
|
| Lord Wallace Buttersworth | Oct 26 2009, 11:34 AM Post #14 |
|
Right Honourable Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Doesn't mention this in CC0's 'bill'? |
![]() |
|
| Commoncold0 | Oct 26 2009, 11:57 AM Post #15 |
|
Elder Statesman
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Legislation · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2





![]](http://z1.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)








12:58 AM Jul 11