This House Supports the Right to Die.

right to die

The 19th Ordinary Meeting of the 165th Session of the Literific took place on the 20th of March in the Senate Room.

Vincent Wooding, Jack Thompson and Naomh Gibson spoke in proposition. Wooding argued that it is unfair to trust a person to do things within society but not allow them the ability to choose how they die. Thompson explained active and passive euthanasia to the House and that dying is a phase. He said that doctors have become good at extending the dying phase which is not in the best interests of the patient. Gibson question how learned the proposition were. Instead of worrying about the required model she asked the House to concentrate on the right to control the last part of your life when so much is out of your hands.

Sammy Wade, Nathan Cantley and Nathan Anderson opposed the motion. Wade argued that it would undermine the basic function of the legal and health authorities which exist to protect life. Cantley said that society is confused about the right to die, that there are no guidelines and no framework for us to be able to support it. Anderson said that everyone has their own perspectives on it but that he believed vulnerable people should be given the best possible care as opposed to the right to die.

The floor debate ensued, summaries were heard and after a vote the motion passed.

This House Would Welcome a Bionic Humanity

10006449_682356691807940_260036856_n

 

The 18th Ordinary Meeting of the 165th session of the Literific took place on the 13th of March in the Senate Room.

Jonny Finlay, Oran Kennedy and Paddy Mallon spoke in favour of bionic humanity. Finlay opened the debate saying that we already have bionic humanity. He argued it was good for advancing humanity and that in this way it is a part of natural evolution. Kennedy said that on a level the input of film, literature and video games has made us realise how wonderful bionic humanity can be. He said that if the technology exists to help a person we cannot deny them it and that ultimately it allows humanity to progress. Mallon determined by welcoming bionic humanity people could have a second chance at work and life but that it was also sheer awesome.

Calvin Black, Owen Wright and Nick Millington all opposed the motion! Black mentioned the increase in selling limbs and being attacked and also how much easier it would be to kill someone if you had guns in your limbs (hence shooting President Kydd, which he did, with a toy gun). Wright warned the House of the dangers of bionic humanity and determined that it would reinforce the divide between classes as the rich would have it first and do we really want a robotic Donald Trump? Millington said bionic humanity was a concern and that currently we are limited by our technology but that we will advance rapidly in the coming years

The debate then went to the floor. We went to a vote and the motion passed.

This House Believes Internment was a Necessary Evil

internment

The 17th Ordinary Meeting of the 165th session of the Literific took place on the 6th of March in the Senate Room. Our guest chair for the evening, Professor John Brewer, had a few opening remarks.

Ryan Jones and Andrew Carruthers proposed the motion. Jones argued that internment is a legitimate tool of war and that the only more effective alternative is extermination. He said it may have been evil but there was no other way to deal with insurgency. Carruthers said that interment showed the people the immorality of Britain and that this forced them to make their voices heard. t forced the people to demand more.

Katy Waller and Harry Adair took centre stage to staunchly oppose internment. Waller told the House that internment took away the rights of stability and movement. Instead of protecting the people, it encourages them to see the state as something to be feared. She said that something that takes rights away should never be seen as necessary. Adair then closed the debate. He said internment was detrimental to community relationships.  The alternative to internment, he argued, was to not put innocent people behind bars.

Professor Brewer then summarised and commented on the speeches. Closing statements were heard and the House then went to a vote. The motion was defeated.