This House Would Ban Designer Babies

designer

The 6th Ordinary Meeting of the 165th session of the Literific took place on the 7th of November in the Senate Room. We were joined by the University of Ulster for a war between universities!

Professor McClure ‘set the scene’ by explaining a bit about genetics. There was a little bit of UU hating.

Representing QUB on proposition were Patrick Mallon, Aisha Sobey, Nathan Cantley and James McAlister. Mallon urged the House to embrace natural differences as designer babies would doom our society. Sobey went on to explain that designer babies would only be an option for the rich, resulting in an elite ruling class. Nathan Cantley asked the House how far? He explained that since many genetic disorders are connected to the environment it would not be possible to fully get rid of genetic disorders. McAlister commented that these designer babies would either suffer from low self-esteem or would have a false sense of superiority, e.g. a generation of douchebags.

Representing University of Ulster on opposition were Greene, Catterson, Thomas and Smyth (first names have…disappeared, sorry!) Greene spoke of the advantages of legalising it for medical uses for carriers of a disease who may choose not to have children for fear of passing it on. Catterson talked of our right to freedom and that we could not force a decision on a parent. Thomas highlighted the need for genetic engineering for medical use as it would be a great tool to prevent future suffering. Smyth explained that genetic engineering could remove some of the strain on the NHS in the future and would also prevent pain and suffering.

We then got to hear from Professor McClure again who was really kind of mean to everyone, it was beautiful and sassy. The motion then went to a vote and passed 34 to 32.

This House Would Prepare for the Apocalypse

apacolypseThe 5th Ordinary Meeting of the 165th Session of the Literific took place on the 31st of October in the Senate Room. It was Halloween night, everyone was dressed up in…weird costumes. A banana, Thatcher, Freddie Mercury’s nipples…

Ms Christine Fleming, Tara Pouryahya and Matthew Allen were up for proposition! Ms Fleming urged the House that if you don’t prepare you deserve to die horribly in the apocalypse. We are apparently skipping second prop. and finally we think Mr Allen looked at the motion from a religious and anthropological view, and also from the view of wanting the apocalypse to happen. There were a lot of big words and quotes.

Mr Fionn Rodgers, Mr Harry Adair and Mr Nick Millington wet for opposition. Rodgers said that there was no point preparing for the apocalypse because if it is going to happen then we’re all going to die. Cheery. Mr Adair believed in giving rights to zombies and not discriminating against them. Mr Nick Millington basically said that either it would be so bad that we’d have no chance of survival or someone would save us so not to worry. Yeah… no worries.

The debate then went to the floor

The House then went to a vote to shouts of ‘shameresign’ and ‘show us the nibbles’.
The motion was defeated.

This House Doesn’t Mind Being Watched

watched

The 4th Ordinary Meeting of the 165th session of the Literific took place on the 24th of October in the Senate Room.

The motion was This House Doesn’t Mind Being Watched.

Ms Evie Netto and Mr Ryan Jones sided with the proposition. Ms Netto argued that safety is a human right that should be taken just as seriously as freedom. She told the House that government surveillance has saved lives and that CCTV is nothing to fear. Mr Jones rationalised that so much of what we do is already in the public domain and that we should take the extra step to allowing government surveillance for our own safety.

Mr George Martin and Mr Henry Adams took to the floor in opposition. Mr Martin explained that he no longer trusts the government and that hem having all our information leaves us in a position to be dominated. He stated if we passed the motion there would be no way to take back our privacy. Mr Henry Adams closed the debate for the opposition. He countered that we shouldn’t be okay with surveillance just because it’s legal as there are many bad laws. He explained that the fact surveillance can be misused and abused is enough reason to not allow it.

Questions were waved and the motion went to a vote.
The motion was defeated.