NationStates Jolt Archive

This one had better fucking pass or I'm going to be so annoyed.

Repeal "Legalise Euthanasia"

Argument: RECOGNIZES that the issue of Euthanasia is a difficult issue in which good people may, and often do, disagree.

ARGUES that euthanasia proposes to eliminate suffering by eliminating the one who suffers. Euthanasia violates the principle that each human being has intrinsic dignity and value, regardless of age, physical or mental condition, or state of dependency.

ACKNOWLEDGES this repeal will not prohibit Euthanasia in any nation, but permit it to be a daily issue in which a nation may decid
e this issue for themselves.

RECALLS Resolution #147 "Abortion Legality Convention" in which the controverial issue of abortion was taken out of the jurisdiction of the United Nations and returned to nations to decide. Euthanasia is a similar issue that should not have the world body mandate how every nation should believe.

FURTHER ARGUES The United Nations should be able to welcome nations that have differing opinions on controversial issues such as this one. The original vote on this resolution was 10,810 (for) to 10,031 (against). Such an obviously divisive issue should not be mandated upon nations one way or the other. Resolution #43 does exactly that.

REPEALS Resolution #43 "Legalize Euthanasia"
This repeal is fucking stupid for the following reasons:
- points out that, however slim the margin, a democratic majority supported it
- argues that euthanasia is intrinsically wrong...yet at the same time says it's not for the UN to judge the issue
- references a resolution that has no bearing on this issue
- has no actual reference to the text of the original resolution whatsoever

What bullshit, what utter bullshit. Legalise Euthanasia is such a pile of tripe, and if this crappy repeal fails, it'll totally skewer the chances of one that actually makes the occasional, you know, argument or textual criticism, from getting anywhere. So this had better fucking pass, or else, yet again, the sovereigntists will have notched that shotgun up nicely aimed on their own big toe.

:rolleyes:

Dammit. :mad:

FURTHER ARGUES The United Nations should be able to welcome nations that have differing opinions on controversial issues such as this one. The original vote on this resolution was 10,810 (for) to 10,031 (against). Such an obviously divisive issue should not be mandated upon nations one way or the other. Resolution #43 does exactly that.
Mod ruling on this section? It seems to be pushing the boundaries of Games Mechanics to me. "should be able to welcome nations that have differing opinions"...invitation to non-compliance/striking out every resolution. "should not be mandated"...limiting the powers of the UN.

And furthermore, the whole repeal is just an extension of the NatSov argument.

Wonderful, just wonderful. :mad:

Ok, once again my post will goes inside the yuck factor, but I really think we have to look at reality, even when it’s difficult.

With the progress of medicine we are able to postpone life for significant time of many patients (and many more to come) in leguminous state condition, or suffering conditions, while on morphine, one of the very rare legalized drug.

I hope than in the decades to come this people may recover with cell regeneration medicine, but this techniques will sadly not been available for a while.

So I think it’s interesting to look at what happen today in our hospitals.

As I have already said in this forum, a friend of me who is anaesthetist in RL, told me one day:

“We are gods, everyday we decide to whom persons we will postpone life and to whom ones we will not”

This can seems sad, but it’s everyday reality. It’s why the border between euthanasia and no-euthanasia is disappearing very fast.

So the question is: do we prefer to continue to live with beliefs, which seems to me disconnected to reality, or do we want to try to establish some ethical standards, pragmatical limits and guidelines, the best we can, and to improve them when possible.

On a side note, an interesting news about Beating-heart transplant:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5041054.stm

:headbang: Anyway of getting it removed for illegality? or persuading the author to withdraw it?

I knew we should have rushed that draft out when we had a happyish form...

*snip*Do you have an argument either for or against the actual repeal?

Mod ruling on this section? It seems to be pushing the boundaries of Games Mechanics to me. "should be able to welcome nations that have differing opinions"...invitation to non-compliance/striking out every resolution. "should not be mandated"...limiting the powers of the UN.

And furthermore, the whole repeal is just an extension of the NatSov argument.
Sorry, I don't buy the first argument. In the context of a proposal, maybe. In a repeal, no. The objective of this repeal is in fact to make it nation-optional, and a repeal will do precisely that. At least temporarily, until somebody passes a replacement.

The second one may have more merit, but I think it squeaks by. I'll bring it to the attention of the other active UN mods, but don't hold your breath. Your best bet it to convince the author to remove it.

There are other repeals of this in the works at the moment. Much better than this one, at the very least.

Is there a possible MetaGaming/Games Mechanics violation regarding the direct reference to Daily Issues? I was of the understanding that writers were not allowed to refer to parts of the game itself.

ACKNOWLEDGES this repeal will not prohibit Euthanasia in any nation, but permit it to be a daily issue in which a nation may decide this issue for themselves.

Is there a possible MetaGaming/Games Mechanics violation regarding the direct reference to Daily Issues? I was of the understanding that writers were not allowed to refer to parts of the game itself.

I spotted that, too, and was wondering the same thing.

i remember suggesting that to the author a while ago. He felt it wasn't since it had been used in a previous resolution that passed.

There IS an argument on how it could not be a metagaming issue.....while it clearly is intended to refer to the mechanic, the fact is that it will become an issue for the legislatures to hand in their day-to-day affairs rather than something decided for them.

It's the exact same line as was used in Repeal "Abortion Rights" - I think we protested it then, too, but it was allowed, so I actually think it'd be unreasonable to delete this for that, as there is precedent for allowing it.

But I still think if the new NatSov rule applies to anything, it applies to this proposal.

Well, if it was allowed in the past, theoreticaly teh daily issue remark should slide through again this time...however, if there is a certain elongaated amount of time between rulings, then changes in mod attitude, rulset, and general deletion practice would mean the issue of whether or not this is a MetaGaming violation.


Mods?

Well, if it was allowed in the past, theoreticaly teh daily issue remark should slide through again this time...however, if there is a certain elongaated amount of time between rulings, then changes in mod attitude, rulset, and general deletion practice would mean the issue of whether or not this is a MetaGaming violation.


Mods?

Yeah, but there's been little discussion on the matter so I seriously doubt that there's been a chance. Plus we're only talking three months here.

This one had better fucking pass or I'm going to be so annoyed.

What bullshit, what utter bullshit. Legalise Euthanasia is such a pile of tripe, and if this crappy repeal fails, it'll totally skewer the chances of one that actually makes the occasional, you know, argument or textual criticism, from getting anywhere. So this had better fucking pass, or else, yet again, the sovereigntists will have notched that shotgun up nicely aimed on their own big toe.

:rolleyes:

This isn't what I'd call a convincing argument to vote in favour. If a repeal has some problems, even if the resolution is one my government agrees should be repealed (and/or revisited), Mikitivity will vote against the repeal in the hopes that a better version is proposed.