NationStates Jolt Archive

I will leave the UN if this current proposal is passed.

Long have I tolerated the nonsense that comes through the UN. Long have I allowed them to define the laws of my countrythrough resolutions which have been internationally agreed upon and passed.

What I will not accept is this current proposal - the legalisation of murder.

If the UN passes this (as I fear the murderous left will do), I will leave the UN. How anybody can vote in favour of this resolution is beyond me. They are signing away the lives of ill people in their nation and that is something which I will not allow to happen in Catholic Europe.

Pope Gregory XVII

See ya.

You might as well go ahead and leave now cuase it's going to pass. And you shouldn't have even joined the UN in the first place becuase you should have known that there might be some stupid proposals.

You might as well go ahead and leave now cuase it's going to pass. And you shouldn't have even joined the UN in the first place becuase you should have known that there might be some stupid proposals.

Well, I never expected for them to reach quorum.

I am currently applying for position in the UN

However if this motion is passed it could send my economy into turmoil!

If the motion is passed my refusal to join will soon be noted

You could come join GCON- an alliance made to counter the UN.

The Holy Empire of Ignatius of Antioch would also be bound to leave the UN if this resolution is passed. As a Catholic nation, we cannot permit the legalization of a form of murder. This is the un-justified taking of a human life. Suffering is not justification, neither is a person's "choice" justification.

You could come join GCON- an alliance made to counter the UN.

No. I am not against the UN, I am strongly against this particular proposal.

Sorry if i caused quarrels, but I am merely standing up for what I believe in, who can argue with that?

I will leave the UN if this current proposal is passed.

Long have I tolerated the nonsense that comes through the UN. Long have I allowed them to define the laws of my countrythrough resolutions which have been internationally agreed upon and passed.

What I will not accept is this current proposal - the legalisation of murder.

If the UN passes this (as I fear the murderous left will do), I will leave the UN. How anybody can vote in favour of this resolution is beyond me. They are signing away the lives of ill people in their nation and that is something which I will not allow to happen in Catholic Europe.

Pope Gregory XVII

If you wish to deny your citizens the right to suicide (and thus by corollary, the right to life), that's up to you.

Hmm. Although I agree with the proposal, I see your problem.

Is there no way you can RP an appeal or something?

If you wish to deny your citizens the right to suicide (and thus by corollary, the right to life), that's up to you.

The right to life does not imply that that life is yours to do whatever you will with. While for the most part we may the ability to do what ever we will, we never have the right to do that which is evil. The right to life stipulates that life is given by God, to which end He wishes them to have that life as a free gift, a gift that we have no "right" to take away. Thus by the same moral law which prohibits murder, prohibits suicide.

There is no way in which we can RP an appeal as the Ministry of Compliance enacts the laws for us. To belong to the UN we sacrifice a little of our sovereignty, however, I retain the right to resign from the UN, and shall never allow laws contrary to our Faith to be enacted as long as I have breath.

If you wish to deny your citizens the right to suicide (and thus by corollary, the right to life), that's up to you.

The right to life does not imply that that life is yours to do whatever you will with. While for the most part we may the ability to do what ever we will, we never have the right to do that which is evil. The right to life stipulates that life is given by God, to which end He wishes them to have that life as a free gift, a gift that we have no "right" to take away. Thus by the same moral law which prohibits murder, prohibits suicide.

The right to something means that you own it. If you own something, common law holds that you can dispose of it in any way that pleases you (so long as you do not prevent others from doing the same with things they own). Therefore, suicide is your right to life.

If your life must be put to the service of God, then it is not really your life... and the right to life becomes a logical contradiciton.

If you wish to deny your citizens the right to suicide (and thus by corollary, the right to life), that's up to you.

The right to life does not imply that that life is yours to do whatever you will with. While for the most part we may the ability to do what ever we will, we never have the right to do that which is evil. The right to life stipulates that life is given by God, to which end He wishes them to have that life as a free gift, a gift that we have no "right" to take away. Thus by the same moral law which prohibits murder, prohibits suicide.

The right to something means that you own it. If you own something, common law holds that you can dispose of it in any way that pleases you (so long as you do not prevent others from doing the same with things they own). Therefore, suicide is your right to life.

If your life must be put to the service of God, then it is not really your life... and the right to life becomes a logical contradiciton.

It is not just murder and the removal of freedom of choice, but also the fact that god chooses when we die and what happens to us, it is not for us to change that, so I will be implored to withdraw from the UN in protest of the legalisation of murder and i may have been able to swallow it better had the resolution not been written in such a patronising way or with such a disregard for Human rights and religion and sarky comments like

'god forbid' in the resolution

so I implore the members of the UN to reject sucha wrong resolution



from the right honourable Pauli Arabia

The right to something means that you own it. If you own something, common law holds that you can dispose of it in any way that pleases you (so long as you do not prevent others from doing the same with things they own). Therefore, suicide is your right to life.

If your life must be put to the service of God, then it is not really your life... and the right to life becomes a logical contradiciton.

We will never agree with you because you do not believe in God and we do.

The fundamental problem with this proposal is that. We believe that only God can choose when we die. To do otherwise is to commit murder which is wrong. This proposal thus commits us to sin and the legalisation of cardinal sin (as it is known in Catholic Europe).

The right to something means that you own it. If you own something, common law holds that you can dispose of it in any way that pleases you (so long as you do not prevent others from doing the same with things they own). Therefore, suicide is your right to life.

If your life must be put to the service of God, then it is not really your life... and the right to life becomes a logical contradiciton.

We will never agree with you because you do not believe in God and we do.

The fundamental problem with this proposal is that. We believe that only God can choose when we die. To do otherwise is to commit murder which is wrong. This proposal thus commits us to sin and the legalisation of cardinal sin (as it is known in Catholic Europe).

I do believe in God. But I am also an empiricist -- this is because there is no way to prove that God exists or not. Basing state policy on Christianity -- whether you believe it or not -- went out of fashion centuries ago.

If only God can choose when you die, then the right to life is a logical inconsistency. That may be fine in the realm of religion, but not in the realm of politics.

I will leave the UN if this current proposal is passed.

Long have I tolerated the nonsense that comes through the UN. Long have I allowed them to define the laws of my countrythrough resolutions which have been internationally agreed upon and passed.

What I will not accept is this current proposal - the legalisation of murder.

If the UN passes this (as I fear the murderous left will do), I will leave the UN. How anybody can vote in favour of this resolution is beyond me. They are signing away the lives of ill people in their nation and that is something which I will not allow to happen in Catholic Europe.

Pope Gregory XVII



Do the obvious thing then, quit CE out the U.N then rejoin it, or quit it altogether and put a puppet into the U.N that's what i did to get away from the Hippo resolution :D

Bravo Catholic Europe! Though I doubt the far lefters will care much. If you still want to have a voice in the U.N., then yes, creating a U.N. buffer state is a good choice. Other than the fact the current resolution is heinous, it is also badly written with many loopholes-which other far lefts are pointing out.

::Bugger--another duplicate post. Sorry, darlings.::

::duplicate post removed--my most sincere apologies::

You might as well go ahead and leave now cuase it's going to pass. And you shouldn't have even joined the UN in the first place becuase you should have known that there might be some stupid proposals.

Pookie, I find this complacent attitude terrifying. Shouldn't we be suppressing the "stupid proposals" rather than just letting them slide by?

And in response to Arizona Nova, if you research Lillibit just a li'l bit, you'll see that we are a fairly left-leaning nation. However, we certainly do care about the predicament of Catholic Europe and those other countries who are in a similar situation.

Lillibit has no intention of resigning from the UN if this proposal should pass, but we do strongly encourage everyone to vote against the euthanasia proposal.

All my love,
Helen A Handbasket

I speak FOR this proposal.

It's quite simple, really...if your religious dogma compels you to struggle along until the last possible moment of your existence, then you sign a document saying "Under NO circumstances do I want my life ended prematurely". Under this proposal, that means you will not be allowed to die until your god deems you worthy.

However, for those who either do not believe in your god, or believe that he gave us Free Will, and if we make a bad decision, he has his own ways to deal with it, they have the choice.

Why force your dogma on everyone? Besides, with them there heathens outta the way, your entire county will be more Godlike and therefore find itself more in it's favor. It's a no-lose situation.

*All of a sudden a man walks in with a black trench coat and cool sun shades*

LEAVE THE UN! ITS ACTUALLY A BUNCH OF ROBOTS TRYING TO CONTROL YOUR MIND! YOUR NOTHING BUT A BUNCH OF D CELL BATTERIES, POWERING AN ARMY OF OVER RATED TICKLE-ME-ELMO DOLLS! RUN, BEFORE ITS TOO...

*army of elmo dolls carrying m16s busts through the doors. the man throws off his coat and glasses to reveal none other than Fidel Castro. He whips out two uzzis and a lobby room matrix-style battle ensues*

BLAM blam POW POW POW ratatatatatatatatatatatat whoooooooOOOOOOP BANG!!!!!! chuga chuga chuga chuga KIPOW chuga chuga chuga WITANG! BLIZZTOW!! whrrrrrrrrrrrrHOING!!!!!!!

;'=- > > > > :( --;=< :twisted:
:x < < < --;=<
;'=- > > > > >
< < < --;=<:evil:

Once again I find myself compelled to speak on the point of national sovereignty. In your arguments against and denial of Catholic Europe's beliefs, you seem to overlook the fact that through this resolution the UN is impinging upon their right to govern their own people, which is the reason they seem willing to leave if necessary, as I am beginning to think I would be. It is clear from their name that they are a religious (specifically Catholic) nation, and as such should be able to have laws that reflect such beliefs, rather than be forced to enact laws that directly conflict with them.

Just my 2 cents :wink:

I agree that this resolution is stupid, because it is a national issue, not a UN issue. But, I'm not gonna leave the UN because of it. As a delegate, I have to stay and project the beliefs of my region.
Even if I wasn't delegate, I'd still stay. It's a game, and the UN descision barely do anything to your nation anyway. Besides, the UN is more fun than not. :wink:

I will leave the UN if this current proposal is passed.

Pope Gregory XVII

Okay, bye. :waves:

Sorry if i caused quarrels, but I am merely standing up for what I believe in, who can argue with that?

Which is well and good, but why make a UN proposal ?

People should vote against this whether or not they believe in it, simply because it shouldn't have been made a proposal in the first place.

You might as well go ahead and leave now cuase it's going to pass. And you shouldn't have even joined the UN in the first place becuase you should have known that there might be some stupid proposals.

Pookie, I find this complacent attitude terrifying. Shouldn't we be suppressing the "stupid proposals" rather than just letting them slide by?

And in response to Arizona Nova, if you research Lillibit just a li'l bit, you'll see that we are a fairly left-leaning nation. However, we certainly do care about the predicament of Catholic Europe and those other countries who are in a similar situation.

Lillibit has no intention of resigning from the UN if this proposal should pass, but we do strongly encourage everyone to vote against the euthanasia proposal.

All my love,
Helen A Handbasket

The States of Stephenson applaud the statements of Lillibit in its recognition of the problems that face UN member nations. Apathy is scary and nations that have leaders and UN delegates that vote for something just "because its going to pass" are scary.

His Royal Highness would encourage the peoples of the world to question their governments regarding this matter and would encourage UN member states to respect each other and their religious beliefs. Just because Catholic Europe chooses to follow a different religious/political structure than other nations does not mean that Catholic Europe is old or outdated. Apathy and complacency are the true enemies of the UN and those issues (along with stupid proposals like this one) should be dealt with. We fully support Catholic Europe in its protest efforts and offer any assistance that we can.

The States of Stephenson

I will leave the UN if this current proposal is passed.

Long have I tolerated the nonsense that comes through the UN. Long have I allowed them to define the laws of my countrythrough resolutions which have been internationally agreed upon and passed.

What I will not accept is this current proposal - the legalisation of murder.

If the UN passes this (as I fear the murderous left will do), I will leave the UN. How anybody can vote in favour of this resolution is beyond me. They are signing away the lives of ill people in their nation and that is something which I will not allow to happen in Catholic Europe.

Pope Gregory XVII

You go do that.

I agree with those against this proposal. Although my nation supports euthanasia, this is definitely not an international issue. In addition, the way the proposal is phrased is ghastly.

Your Back Yard stands beside you in this, Spookistan and Jakalah. My country supports the Right to Die, but it is not up to the UN to decide this for me. The purpose of the UN is to resolve international conflicts, and form trust among the different countries of the world. It is NOT to define laws for us all.

As I stated before, my country supports the Right to Die, but I vote against this travesty of a resolution.

Hang in there CE, the vote is still in progress. If it goes badly, you can leave the UN, but if it favourable to the "AGAINST" group, of which my nation is one, we shall rejoice.

And the "No" votes appear to have gained a lot of ground in the last 24 hours...

I would agree with the nations against this resolution. Although Nerd Island is a secular-Christian state, the issue of euthanisation is hardly one of international consideration. International law should deal with such issues as trade, security, economic issues and such. Issues such as these should never be made in a UN proposal under any circumstances. not only does it impinge a social issue on every member nation, but the wording is also very unclear as it gives "nearest relatives" a choice on whether or not to kill the comotose patient.

Nerd Island regrets to announce that it too will leave the UN if this resolutionm is passed.

Why force your dogma on everyone? Exactly, which is why you should vote against it, because it forces the right to end life on all UN nations.

One reason for me to vote against, is the RP wise, if you have been cloning for medical reasons enough times, have a powerful economy, and a government focused on health, then your nation should have cured most issues euthanasia is supposed to help, thus you would be ending your life when you would have lived.

Bloody Catholics !!! :D

I think that this is great! and even if it wasn't passed in the UN, I would make it compulsory in my Nation! :twisted:

To the Leadership of Catholic Europe:

The RCO understands your predicament, and shares it. As a Catholic nation, we too will have no choice but to leave the UN if this measure is passed. While time and again the RCO and like-minded nations have argued against both inane and wrong-headed resolutions, they too often are passed. But still, nations like ours have stayed in the hope of turning the tide. But, perhaps it was merely a dream. While one would hope the UN would focus on matters of international concern (i.e. dealing with the relations between states), instead it has degenerated into a sounding-board for the political proclivities of those who wish to homogenize other nations to fit their own ideas of a "good" society.

While there have been other resolutions that have sorely tried the RCO's resolve to remain in this formerly august body, in particular the required sexual license of some of them, we have managed to find ways to circumvent these tyrannical incursions into national soveriegnty. But with this resolution, we have no choice - we will not allow ourselves to be party to the murder of citizens within our realm.

To the resolution itself. Leaving aside the potential difficulties involved in practice (i.e. grandma being pressed by family members to do the "right thing" by suicide in order to save the family the hassles of bills and stress), let us consider some of the other difficulties.

First, for all its pulling of heartstrings, the resolution shows a remarkably callous view of human life, especially in its sentence on "carers." Why focus on those who will die, when there are others who can be saved, asks the resolution. Ah. How charitable. Apparently being sickly or dying implies you are no longer really a person, merely an impediment, like some malfunctioning car. Why bother the living, after all? You're dead meat anyway. What a....compassionate view of the dying.

Second, there are the religious arguments against this procedure, which tends towards letting this issue be decided on the state level, not the international level. As there are others to address this, I will leave it to the side. Moreover, there are many who would accuse us of "forcing" our dogma upon them, so we shall spare them that inconvenience.

Third, there is the matter that it does not make sense internally. The resolution is worded in terms of choice. One should be able to choose to die, to go out with dignity. Well, let us consider the matter. Apparently, choice is of the utmost importance, indeed is a cornerstone of the idea of rights. If you cannot choose, your rights are being infringed. Fine. But euthanasia goes directly against the idea of choice. If we are supposed to leave out those dreaded dogmatic religious ideas, all we have is the temporal and mortal world. Once you die, you are no longer able to choose, and you cease to have the ability to exercise any rights. Therefore, the choice to commit euthanasia intrinsically means you are choosing to no longer have choice. It would rather be like making it a right to choose to sell yourself into total and abject slavery. You would be exercising a right to choose that, in the choosing, destroys any future ability to choose or exercise rights. A "right" to euthanasia is a choice that destroys the individual's choices, and a right that destroys all an individual's rights. A right that destroys itself and all other rights seems internally inconsistent.

Of course, if there is something after death, perhaps the situation would be different. But, then religious objections would have to be considered (and apparently some of the proponents of this bill dread the idea of considering that).

This resolution is not a matter for the UN. It is a matter for each state. If it passes, the RCO will sadly have to resign from this organization.

With Respect,
Minister of Foreign Affairs Voegelin, Royal Commonwealth of Oakeshottland.

Sofa king Country will also be leaving over this resolution, which we believe is a direct affront to the sovereignty of all nations. Whether or not the proposal has merits is irrelevant - this is an issue that should be decided on a national level.

We believe the UN has degenerated into an organization mired in banality. We are dismayed that such a proposal would even be approved, let alone passed.

What do you mean leave?! Just because the battle is lost doesn't mean that you just pack up and go home Does IT? Thre will be more battles that the Catholics must fight and you shouldn't desert!

I'm sorry you feel this way CE.

I also see life as a sacred gift, and for that reason am opposed to war, capital punishment, and the use of abortion as a mere means of birth control (not for health reasons etc.)-

But I have had to change my mind on this one issue. At the time the Church's teachings were developed, science had not yet devised means to prolong the life of the hopelessly ill. Now we can, almost indefinitely in some cases.

Despite painkillers, often the people are in agony. I have seen it too many times. For example, asbestosis creates a rocklike lining around your lungs so that they cannot expand. You cannot draw a breath, however hard you try. The natural effort to do so creates excruciating pain. There is no treatment, no hope of recovery. Life is constant pain, struggle, and despair. Minute by minute you wait to suffocate as you strain to draw in one more ounce of air.

I sat by the bedside of such a man (and many others with equally hopeless conditions). He and his wife had decided against euthanasia when they had received the diagnosis. He was a strong brave man and lived longer than expected, until the inevitable end.

If I had been in his position, I would have made a different decision.

Bye!
I find it a bit hopless of you to prevent your people having the benefits of the UN resultions just because you got blown out over one topic, but it's your choice I guess.

Pope, why not try to stay on and get a Supreme Court Started. That way one could define nation and UN rights.

What do you mean leave?! Just because the battle is lost doesn't mean that you just pack up and go home Does IT? Thre will be more battles that the Catholics must fight and you shouldn't desert!

I have to say that I agree with what you have said. If I stay in the UN I can battle for the reversal of this resolution (as it will inveitably pass) or just act in defiance of it altogether (why not? Many other naions do it).

I would also like to take this oppurtuntiy to thank the nations which have supported me and agreed with what I have said. If only the murderous maniacs would listen to reason and realise that this proposal, far from ending people's lives in a dignified way, allows the legalised murder of them. I aks, even pro-euthanasia people, how they can support a proposal that would allow for compulsory euthanasia (which is beyond doubt - murder).

We must continue to fight it and openly act in defiance if it passes. We must continue our plight within the UN and react, not shy away, to this proposal.

Some fights are hopeless. The UN is clearly composed largely of morons. There's nothing you can do about this. Thus, the only sane choice a sane leader can take is to leave the UN.

Why are we already conceding defeat. That is what the proponents of this bill want us to say. If an undecided voter sees a comment like that they may vote for it. Let us cable people. I have sent ou hundreds of cables and am going to keep it up. We should all be doing that.

Why are we already conceding defeat. That is what the proponents of this bill want us to say. If an undecided voter sees a comment like that they may vote for it. Let us cable people. I have sent ou hundreds of cables and am going to keep it up. We should all be doing that.

Be careful you don't get deleted for spam. Thus, I would suggest you deit your post to hide what you have said.

The Free Land of Artisians thinks it is nonsense to walk away everytime a resolution is passed or a decision is made that you do not agree with.
When wil Catholic Europe stop walking away?

Doesn't God want that Catholic Europe will stand their believes? And to fight for them?
I think that the UN is just the place Catholic Europe wants to be! From that spot Catholic Europe can fight unGodly petitions en decisions.

As soon as you see a petition Catholic Europe can not come to terms with, rally other nations, and try to get religion back on the menu.

Why are we already conceding defeat. That is what the proponents of this bill want us to say. If an undecided voter sees a comment like that they may vote for it. Let us cable people. I have sent ou hundreds of cables and am going to keep it up. We should all be doing that.

Be careful you don't get deleted for spam. Thus, I would suggest you deit your post to hide what you have said.

Violet already ruled that UN-related telegrams are not spam.

Violet already ruled that UN-related telegrams are not spam.

Oh, I didn't know that - does that include hundreds?

Violet already ruled that UN-related telegrams are not spam.

Oh, I didn't know that - does that include hundreds?

Instead of quitting create proposels that express your values, if they dont go to vote, then consider leaving.

The right to something means that you own it. If you own something, common law holds that you can dispose of it in any way that pleases you (so long as you do not prevent others from doing the same with things they own). Therefore, suicide is your right to life.

I have an automobile. I have the right to sole use of it, I can drive it where I want, I can put whatever kind of fuel into it I want. I also am responsible for maintaining the vehicle and purchasing insurance on it. I do NOT, however own this vehicle, nor may I dispose of it in any way that pleases me. The company from which I lease this vehicle would be very upset.

Your first statement is false, your second is erroneous, your conclusion is therefore flawed.

Jon
Chief Bottle Washer
Greenspoint

Sofa king Country will also be leaving over this resolution, which we believe is a direct affront to the sovereignty of all nations. Whether or not the proposal has merits is irrelevant - this is an issue that should be decided on a national level.

We believe the UN has degenerated into an organization mired in banality. We are dismayed that such a proposal would even be approved, let alone passed.

A reason why Piperia, most likely along with many others, is not in the UN. Such a body as an international coalition should not dictate the laws of its countries beyond the point of basic human rights, and this issue is not a basic human right, howerver much you want to call it so. Leave the law making for autonomouse countries, and let the UN deal with what a single country cannot.

i'm sorta new to all of this......so how do u actually leave the un anyways

*sigh* pulls calendar off wall. counts days until mars colonization begins...

*sigh* pulls calendar off wall. counts days until mars colonization begins...

The right to something means that you own it. If you own something, common law holds that you can dispose of it in any way that pleases you (so long as you do not prevent others from doing the same with things they own). Therefore, suicide is your right to life.

I have an automobile. I have the right to sole use of it, I can drive it where I want, I can put whatever kind of fuel into it I want. I also am responsible for maintaining the vehicle and purchasing insurance on it. I do NOT, however own this vehicle, nor may I dispose of it in any way that pleases me. The company from which I lease this vehicle would be very upset.

Your first statement is false, your second is erroneous, your conclusion is therefore flawed.

Jon
Chief Bottle Washer
Greenspoint

Using an example of something you don't own as a metaphor for an argument about something you do own doesn't quite work. (if you do consider that you do own your body)

There are many laws about disposing of things such as machinery (such as cars) or chemicals, or waste water (even though you own them). This is because disposing of them irresponsibly causes other people/the environment damage - and you have a responsibility towards your waste.

You could consider euthanasia as the responsible and controlled disposal of something you own (your body), or you could see it as treating people's lives in the same manner as property or capital. Or a combination of the two. This is not an argument for either side.

Using an example of something you don't own as a metaphor for an argument about something you do own doesn't quite work. (if you do consider that you do own your body)

The comparison was to show that the initial statement, 'if you have the right to something, you own it' was false and that the argument, built upon the faulty statement, collapses.

I will leave the UN if this current proposal is passed.

Long have I tolerated the nonsense that comes through the UN. Long have I allowed them to define the laws of my countrythrough resolutions which have been internationally agreed upon and passed.

What I will not accept is this current proposal - the legalisation of murder.

If the UN passes this (as I fear the murderous left will do), I will leave the UN. How anybody can vote in favour of this resolution is beyond me. They are signing away the lives of ill people in their nation and that is something which I will not allow to happen in Catholic Europe.

Pope Gregory XVII

I totally believe you. I can't believe the UN would even consider this proposal, it makes me sick.

This needs to be repealed. Catholic Europe should lead the fight. This will be repealed or defeated if we push enough.

I really hope for all you pro-lifers' sake that you're never in the position to truly understand why sometimes euthanasia is the right thing to do.

I was raised Catholic, but given the choice between spending the last couple of months of the life God has been good enough to give me in total pain which no drug can take away, with little real quality of life, I would gladly take that lethal injection.

Life is a gift - correct. It's not supposed to be spent in agony and misery. Once you're dying a slow painful death, feel free to preach. Until then I suggest you all get off your soap boxes.

Until then I suggest you all get off your soap boxes.

Why don't you get off yours?

No moral person can allow such a sacriledge law pass not only is it the legalisation of murder but also it is flying in the face of the idea that god chooses when we die not us. also i may not have been too outraged by the resolution if it had not been written with such scorn to religion and in such a patronsing manor. so if the world can not see sense i will have to resign out of principle.


the right honourable Pauli Arabia

first...we of the Eastern Alliance have registered our opposition to the current proposal before the UN

that said...the whole idea of legislated euthanasia worries us

at exactly what point does life no longer become worth living ?

is a mind that is suffering under the effects of constant debilitating pain actually rational enough to make such a decision ?

who can guarantee that those closest to the sufferer will make a totally altruistic choice based solely on the needs and best interests of the person whose care they are entrusted with ?

who eventually decides when euthanasia becomes the appropriate alternative...when an individual is physically crippled ? or perhaps when mentally incapacitated ? maybe even after failing mid terms in college ?
what if a child is born deformed or crippled in some manner ?
or even if the wrong sex or hair colour...shall they be euthanized ?

and what about if their politics are wrong ?
as a somewhat right leaning nation...should we be euthanizing those who tend more left of centre ?

when you legislate the Right to Die...what you really do is legislate the
Right to Kill...
and the choice to live may no longer be yours to make

Have fun. By the way, why bother telling everyone? You can just leave...

Have fun. By the way, why bother telling everyone? You can just leave...

I wanted to let everyone know my disgust at the current resolution and to garner support against the resolution.

The right to something means that you own it. If you own something, common law holds that you can dispose of it in any way that pleases you (so long as you do not prevent others from doing the same with things they own). Therefore, suicide is your right to life.

I have an automobile. I have the right to sole use of it, I can drive it where I want, I can put whatever kind of fuel into it I want. I also am responsible for maintaining the vehicle and purchasing insurance on it. I do NOT, however own this vehicle, nor may I dispose of it in any way that pleases me. The company from which I lease this vehicle would be very upset.

Your first statement is false, your second is erroneous, your conclusion is therefore flawed.

Jon
Chief Bottle Washer
Greenspoint

In that istuation, you don't have the right to your car per se, but merely the permission to use it given by contract of the owner. The owner has the right to the car and is temporarily surrendering it through contract. You agree to the owner in a contract that you will only use it in certain ways, etc.

No such contract exists with your body. You have the natural, and not contractual, right to your body. Therefore, you own it.

Since this is such a debated issue, it should not have been proposed as a UN resolution. Rather it should have been left to allow each Nation to make its own decision.

However, it has come to quorum so we have to vote it yay or nay.

This should not be a religious issue. The Catholic church is an outmoded concept if it preaches the denial of free will to all. It has the right to persuade its followers as to the right path but, due to the religious tolerance bill that was passed, has no rights to push its opinion on non-followers.

I agree with Global Market's logical inconsistency arguement of the right to life (and hence right to die) comment. Your life IS yours, you may do with it as you please.

If you wish to leave things up to God or fate or whatever, write this down, make it known that this is your wish. However, if you would rather have the machines keeping you alive turned off when hope is lost, then make this known.

Its your choice. Some people carry a Donor card to allow their organs to be donated to the needy after their death. Maybe there could be a Euthanasia card?

If you wish to deny your citizens the right to suicide (and thus by corollary, the right to life), that's up to you.

The right to life does not imply that that life is yours to do whatever you will with. While for the most part we may the ability to do what ever we will, we never have the right to do that which is evil. The right to life stipulates that life is given by God, to which end He wishes them to have that life as a free gift, a gift that we have no "right" to take away. Thus by the same moral law which prohibits murder, prohibits suicide.

There is no way in which we can RP an appeal as the Ministry of Compliance enacts the laws for us. To belong to the UN we sacrifice a little of our sovereignty, however, I retain the right to resign from the UN, and shall never allow laws contrary to our Faith to be enacted as long as I have breath.

The ever inquisitive and mostly Quaker nation of Berkylvania thinks this raises and interesting point. First of all, who says God isn't making a choice to end someone's life when they suicide? Perhaps that's how God intends for their life to end for some reason. I mean, surely if he is all both omnicient and omnipotent, that means he knows there intent and doesn't his lack of preventative action imply a tacit agreement with thier action? More disturbingly, if the suicide makes this choice and it is indeed against God's will but he does nothing to stop it, does this mean that the suicide is effectively stronger than God?

The other point refers to free will. You claim that we never have the right to chose evil. Well then, what good is having a 'choice' at all?

While the life affirming and God fearing nation of Berkylvania deplores the loss of any life, we do realize that when you die, it will only be you and God who have to work out the particulars. We have extensive counciling services and psychologists to talk with and try to help people considering ending their lives. However, in the end, it's not a government decision, but rather a personal agreement between the individual and their deity. We regret that such bodies as Catholic Europe feel they cannot continue their association with the United Nations, for we feel that the good work done in this organization outweighs the negative decisions such as this. We do understand, though, their concerns and appreciate the tennants of their faith and will send them a suitable fruit basket and hope they give us a call sometime because they could be dead for all we know.

First of all, who says God isn't making a choice to end someone's life when they suicide? Perhaps that's how God intends for their life to end for some reason. I mean, surely if he is all both omnicient and omnipotent, that means he knows there intent and doesn't his lack of preventative action imply a tacit agreement with thier action? More disturbingly, if the suicide makes this choice and it is indeed against God's will but he does nothing to stop it, does this mean that the suicide is effectively stronger than God?

You could argue the same about murder, that God would want this person to be murdered (as Euthanasia does). But, where would the Bible's teachings come into play? Where would the 10 commandments be refered to?

If God had wanted us to die in that way then God would've not sent to us such things as the 10 commandments and biblical teachings would not be against it.

I don't think you're allowed to repeal resolutions. The best you could do is propose another resolution that nullifies and voids it.

I don't think you're allowed to repeal resolutions. The best you could do is propose another resolution that nullifies and voids it.

Yes, that is what I will probably try and do.

If you wish to deny your citizens the right to suicide (and thus by corollary, the right to life), that's up to you.

The right to life does not imply that that life is yours to do whatever you will with. While for the most part we may the ability to do what ever we will, we never have the right to do that which is evil. The right to life stipulates that life is given by God, to which end He wishes them to have that life as a free gift, a gift that we have no "right" to take away. Thus by the same moral law which prohibits murder, prohibits suicide.

There is no way in which we can RP an appeal as the Ministry of Compliance enacts the laws for us. To belong to the UN we sacrifice a little of our sovereignty, however, I retain the right to resign from the UN, and shall never allow laws contrary to our Faith to be enacted as long as I have breath.

and here i was, thinking that Christs sacriface was to promote free will whether good or evil, not religious oppression of any kind. Forcing citicens to suffer by some uncurable, terminal disease in the name of God would be sadistic religious torture with a capital T.

I strongly suggest that countries that, sadly enough, govern their citizens through catholicism should check out what their faith was about every now and then.

everybodies life is their own and I truely believe that this is not a national issue it superceeds all boundaries.We in Dusselmania believe in the universal rights of personhood just because you reside in a particular state does not mean that you are for the want of a better word owned by it. Euthanasia is a transnational issue and should be resolved as one . If someone disagrees with euthanasia then they do not have to partake of it. it is all about personal choice. We are autonmous beings - let us act so.

The ever inquisitive and mostly Quaker nation of Berkylvania thinks this raises and interesting point. First of all, who says God isn't making a choice to end someone's life when they suicide? Perhaps that's how God intends for their life to end for some reason. I mean, surely if he is all both omnicient and omnipotent, that means he knows there intent and doesn't his lack of preventative action imply a tacit agreement with thier action? More disturbingly, if the suicide makes this choice and it is indeed against God's will but he does nothing to stop it, does this mean that the suicide is effectively stronger than God?

The other point refers to free will. You claim that we never have the right to chose evil. Well then, what good is having a 'choice' at all?

God isn't making the choice for them to kill themselves, because he cannot will the commission of a moral evil, it is contrary to the divine nature, and the attribute of goodness.

Then is suicide stronger then God if it proceeds against His Will? It doesn't proceed against his Absolute Will. When we say that God wills a moral evil not to be commited, we do not say that he does so absolutely, but that He wills it contingently. It is necessary for the actions of the person to comply with God's will in order for it to be carried out in this instance. This is a complete affirmation of Free Will. Human actions are truly caused by their human actors as well as being caused by God, without Whom nothing could be accomplished. It is because He wills men to have free will that He wills the physical action of our choice consequently.

What is the point of having a choice if we do not have the right to choose evil? First of all, we must understand what we mean by "right". Right implies a moral power to do something. We certainly have the ability to do that which is wrong, but we don't have a moral right to do it, that would be absurd. To do what you have a moral right to do, is to do something that is morally good. The reason that we have a choice, is because we were created to love God and be loved by Him. Love is impossible though if there is no choice or free will. Can we love something if we have no choice?

Back to the practical aspect of this issue. We have resigned from the UN as there appears no hope of the resolution failing, and we cannot take a chance of being a member when the ministry of compliance comes a knocking. We cannot stay in the UN to "keep up the fight" because as a Catholic government with a responsibility for the protection of its citizens, we cannot legalize murder. To allow these laws to be enacted would be a foundamental violation of our mandate to rule.

God bless and keep all of you.
Sincerely yours,
Emperor Irenaeus Dominicus

and here i was, thinking that Christs sacriface was to promote free will whether good or evil, not religious oppression of any kind. Forcing citicens to suffer by some uncurable, terminal disease in the name of God would be sadistic religious torture with a capital T.

I strongly suggest that countries that, sadly enough, govern their citizens through catholicism should check out what their faith was about every now and then.

And, of course, we should all do as an atheist/secularist tells us..... :roll:

We are not going to make them suffer pain, intentionally, and we will give them as much help and medical assistance as possible but we are not going to allow the legalisation of murder. It is against Gods will.

If you wish to deny your citizens the right to suicide (and thus by corollary, the right to life), that's up to you.

The right to life does not imply that that life is yours to do whatever you will with. While for the most part we may the ability to do what ever we will, we never have the right to do that which is evil. The right to life stipulates that life is given by God, to which end He wishes them to have that life as a free gift, a gift that we have no "right" to take away. Thus by the same moral law which prohibits murder, prohibits suicide.

There is no way in which we can RP an appeal as the Ministry of Compliance enacts the laws for us. To belong to the UN we sacrifice a little of our sovereignty, however, I retain the right to resign from the UN, and shall never allow laws contrary to our Faith to be enacted as long as I have breath.

and here i was, thinking that Christs sacriface was to promote free will whether good or evil, not religious oppression of any kind. Forcing citicens to suffer by some uncurable, terminal disease in the name of God would be sadistic religious torture with a capital T.

I strongly suggest that countries that, sadly enough, govern their citizens through catholicism should check out what their faith was about every now and then.

It is not religious oppression to govern your nation according to the Natural Law? Any nation regardless of religion should be against this legislation, it is murder plain and simple.

It is not religious oppression to govern your nation according to the Natural Law? Any nation regardless of religion should be against this legislation, it is murder plain and simple.

MrQ obviously does not understand this and as an atheist/secular nation he obviously knows more than we do on our own religion. :roll:

and here i was, thinking that Christs sacriface was to promote free will whether good or evil, not religious oppression of any kind. Forcing citicens to suffer by some uncurable, terminal disease in the name of God would be sadistic religious torture with a capital T.

I strongly suggest that countries that, sadly enough, govern their citizens through catholicism should check out what their faith was about every now and then.

And, of course, we should all do as an atheist/secularist tells us..... :roll:

We are not going to make them suffer pain, intentionally, and we will give them as much help and medical assistance as possible but we are not going to allow the legalisation of murder. It is against Gods will.

Governments should be secular. As a percentage of population, the number of people killed by religious governments far outweighs fascism and communism combined. In the Thirty Years' War alone, two-fifths of the people in Germany were slaughtered over how the bible should be interpreted. Even in World War II, Germany suffered only 9% population loss... just over a fifth of that in the Thirty Years' War.

That said, the principle and ideological reason that government should be secular is that--regardless of whether you believe in God or not--there is no way to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there is a God. This applies both ways of course and you cannot prove that there is not a God either. But in a debate, the affirmative side has the burden of proof.

A government, which represents all of its constituents, must therefore act in the negative (assuming no God) since the affirmative has not met its said burden of proof.

I'm not an atheist. I'm an empiricist in the Locke-Hume tradition. Governments ought to base their policies on scientific fact and historical experience. Religion has no basis in scientific fact and, historically, has only been harmful to government. I advocate a strict separation.

Though I will say I don't mind whether or not a judge wants to display the Ten Commandmants in a courthouse or have God in the pledge of allegiance... it's just a symbol. I don't really care. What I do care is when the government bases policies off of this or forces people to perform a religion (i.e. I would object to 'God' if the pledge of allegiance were mandatory, in fact I'd object to the whole thing if it were mandatory).

First of all, who says God isn't making a choice to end someone's life when they suicide? Perhaps that's how God intends for their life to end for some reason. I mean, surely if he is all both omnicient and omnipotent, that means he knows there intent and doesn't his lack of preventative action imply a tacit agreement with thier action? More disturbingly, if the suicide makes this choice and it is indeed against God's will but he does nothing to stop it, does this mean that the suicide is effectively stronger than God?

You could argue the same about murder, that God would want this person to be murdered (as Euthanasia does). But, where would the Bible's teachings come into play? Where would the 10 commandments be refered to?

If God had wanted us to die in that way then God would've not sent to us such things as the 10 commandments and biblical teachings would not be against it.

Yes, you're right, I could argue that way for murder. However, I'm not and you haven't actually answered my questions. Not to get bogged down in theological rules here, but how can you support the 10 commandments yet maintain a standing army or ever send troops into combat?

The point is that to presume to know the will of God is not only Babylonian in it's scope, but almost certainly incorrect. Rarely these days do we see a good old fashioned smiting and that is really the only way to witness the direct hand of God when it comes to life and death.

It is not religious oppression to govern your nation according to the Natural Law? Any nation regardless of religion should be against this legislation, it is murder plain and simple.

MrQ obviously does not understand this and as an atheist/secular nation he obviously knows more than we do on our own religion. :roll:

Funny. I thought it was the religion of the Christ. I had no idea it belonged solely to you.

Governments should be secular. As a percentage of population, the number of people killed by religious governments far outweighs fascism and communism combined. In the Thirty Years' War alone, two-fifths of the people in Germany were slaughtered over how the bible should be interpreted. Even in World War II, Germany suffered only 9% population loss... just over a fifth of that in the Thirty Years' War.

Though I bet if you went by the millions non-religious ideologies have killed far more people than religion.

That said, the principle and ideological reason that government should be secular is that--regardless of whether you believe in God or not--there is no way to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there is a God. This applies both ways of course and you cannot prove that there is not a God either. But in a debate, the affirmative side has the burden of proof.

How can you be sure that there isn't a god. We believe, 100% without doubt, that God exists. There is proof enough amongst this universe that God exists - to us.

A government, which represents all of its constituents, must therefore act in the negative (assuming no God) since the affirmative has not met its said burden of proof.

No. Why should we not follow our beliefs just because you think that there is doubt of whether or not God exists?! There is no problem when it comes to other ideologies taking power and enforcing their beliefs but, when religion is in power, everybody creates.

I'm not an atheist. I'm an empiricist in the Locke-Hume tradition. Governments ought to base their policies on scientific fact and historical experience. Religion has no basis in scientific fact and, historically, has only been harmful to government. I advocate a strict separation.

Well, that's good for you. You run your nation the way you want it, and we'll run our nation the way we want it.

Though I will say I don't mind whether or not a judge wants to display the Ten Commandmants in a courthouse or have God in the pledge of allegiance... it's just a symbol. I don't really care. What I do care is when the government bases policies off of this or forces people to perform a religion (i.e. I would object to 'God' if the pledge of allegiance were mandatory, in fact I'd object to the whole thing if it were mandatory).

We don't force our religious beliefs on anyone.

Governments should be secular. As a percentage of population, the number of people killed by religious governments far outweighs fascism and communism combined. In the Thirty Years' War alone, two-fifths of the people in Germany were slaughtered over how the bible should be interpreted. Even in World War II, Germany suffered only 9% population loss... just over a fifth of that in the Thirty Years' War.

Though I bet if you went by the millions non-religious ideologies have killed far more people than religion.

That's because there were simply more people to kill. But no secular regime since 1500 has ever killed more than 17.5% of the population of a given other area. The German occupation of Poland led to 6.2 million deaths and that was about 17.5% of the population.

They killed more people simply because there were more people to kill.

That said, the principle and ideological reason that government should be secular is that--regardless of whether you believe in God or not--there is no way to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there is a God. This applies both ways of course and you cannot prove that there is not a God either. But in a debate, the affirmative side has the burden of proof.

How can you be sure that there isn't a god. We believe, 100% without doubt, that God exists. There is proof enough amongst this universe that God exists - to us.

As I said, you can't be sure either way. In logic, when you can't be sure either way, you always side with the negative.

In addition, where is there proof that God exists? Proof involves the Empirical Method of noting an observation then setting up an experiment to try to prove it. Where did you 'observe' God? And how can you set up an experiment to reproduce the observation?

And I mean a legitimate, physically observable tests, not this: http://objective.jesussave.us/creationsciencefair.html
[NOTE: As scary as it sounds, this site is not a joke. It's real.]

A government, which represents all of its constituents, must therefore act in the negative (assuming no God) since the affirmative has not met its said burden of proof.

No. Why should we not follow our beliefs just because you think that there is doubt of whether or not God exists?! There is no problem when it comes to other ideologies taking power and enforcing their beliefs but, when religion is in power, everybody creates.

There is a problem when any ideology enforces its beliefs on individuals. That's why, as a Libertarian, I believe that individuals should be free to believe whatever they want and act on it, so long as they respect teh rights of other individuals to do the same.

There's very significant doubt of God's existence. Specifically, there's exactly zero proof either way. If the police arrested someone with zero proof, and that person couldn't prove that he was innocent either, the case would still be thrown out... affirmative has the burden of proof. Unless your the drug czar. But that's an issue for another day.

I'm not an atheist. I'm an empiricist in the Locke-Hume tradition. Governments ought to base their policies on scientific fact and historical experience. Religion has no basis in scientific fact and, historically, has only been harmful to government. I advocate a strict separation.

Well, that's good for you. You run your nation the way you want it, and we'll run our nation the way we want it.

Nations don't have rights in and of themselves. They are social contracts between individuals. Governments aren't sentient; individuals are. If you want to live according to Christian morality, that's fine, in fact, I encourage it, but the moment you, as a public official, make others live according to the same morality, the International Community has a right to step in. It's called federalism. That's why the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees the federal government the right to step in and interfere with states when they harm individual rights, is a perfectly legitimate and necessary amendment to the Constitution.

Though I will say I don't mind whether or not a judge wants to display the Ten Commandmants in a courthouse or have God in the pledge of allegiance... it's just a symbol. I don't really care. What I do care is when the government bases policies off of this or forces people to perform a religion (i.e. I would object to 'God' if the pledge of allegiance were mandatory, in fact I'd object to the whole thing if it were mandatory).

We don't force our religious beliefs on anyone.[/quote]

When your laws deny people the ownership of their own life based on religion, I'd say their rights are being interfered with.

Governments should be secular. As a percentage of population, the number of people killed by religious governments far outweighs fascism and communism combined. In the Thirty Years' War alone, two-fifths of the people in Germany were slaughtered over how the bible should be interpreted. Even in World War II, Germany suffered only 9% population loss... just over a fifth of that in the Thirty Years' War.

Though I bet if you went by the millions non-religious ideologies have killed far more people than religion.

That's because there were simply more people to kill. But no secular regime since 1500 has ever killed more than 17.5% of the population of a given other area. The German occupation of Poland led to 6.2 million deaths and that was about 17.5% of the population.

They killed more people simply because there were more people to kill.

That said, the principle and ideological reason that government should be secular is that--regardless of whether you believe in God or not--there is no way to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there is a God. This applies both ways of course and you cannot prove that there is not a God either. But in a debate, the affirmative side has the burden of proof.

How can you be sure that there isn't a god. We believe, 100% without doubt, that God exists. There is proof enough amongst this universe that God exists - to us.

As I said, you can't be sure either way. In logic, when you can't be sure either way, you always side with the negative.

In addition, where is there proof that God exists? Proof involves the Empirical Method of noting an observation then setting up an experiment to try to prove it. Where did you 'observe' God? And how can you set up an experiment to reproduce the observation?

And I mean a legitimate, physically observable tests, not this: http://objective.jesussave.us/creationsciencefair.html
[NOTE: As scary as it sounds, this site is not a joke. It's real.]

A government, which represents all of its constituents, must therefore act in the negative (assuming no God) since the affirmative has not met its said burden of proof.

No. Why should we not follow our beliefs just because you think that there is doubt of whether or not God exists?! There is no problem when it comes to other ideologies taking power and enforcing their beliefs but, when religion is in power, everybody creates.

There is a problem when any ideology enforces its beliefs on individuals. That's why, as a Libertarian, I believe that individuals should be free to believe whatever they want and act on it, so long as they respect teh rights of other individuals to do the same.

There's very significant doubt of God's existence. Specifically, there's exactly zero proof either way. If the police arrested someone with zero proof, and that person couldn't prove that he was innocent either, the case would still be thrown out... affirmative has the burden of proof. Unless your the drug czar. But that's an issue for another day.

I'm not an atheist. I'm an empiricist in the Locke-Hume tradition. Governments ought to base their policies on scientific fact and historical experience. Religion has no basis in scientific fact and, historically, has only been harmful to government. I advocate a strict separation.

Well, that's good for you. You run your nation the way you want it, and we'll run our nation the way we want it.

Nations don't have rights in and of themselves. They are social contracts between individuals. Governments aren't sentient; individuals are. If you want to live according to Christian morality, that's fine, in fact, I encourage it, but the moment you, as a public official, make others live according to the same morality, the International Community has a right to step in. It's called federalism. That's why the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees the federal government the right to step in and interfere with states when they harm individual rights, is a perfectly legitimate and necessary amendment to the Constitution.

Though I will say I don't mind whether or not a judge wants to display the Ten Commandmants in a courthouse or have God in the pledge of allegiance... it's just a symbol. I don't really care. What I do care is when the government bases policies off of this or forces people to perform a religion (i.e. I would object to 'God' if the pledge of allegiance were mandatory, in fact I'd object to the whole thing if it were mandatory).

We don't force our religious beliefs on anyone.[/quote]

When your laws deny people the ownership of their own life based on religion, I'd say their rights are being interfered with.

hi I'm also a catholic nation trying to figure out what to do if this horrendous legislation is passed. mrQ Christs sacrifice was to redeem the sinners and give them eternal life. We as rational creaturee with souls HAVE the right to free will, but with that we also have the right to abuse it. Christ did not come to enforce free will, christ came to fulfill the covenant and fulfill the promise he amde to the patriarchs and the jewish peple. some things are just wrong. they are intrinsically, morally wrong. they have to be other wise , over a gradual period of time, what is right and wrong gets more and more diluted until any thing goes. there has to be some kind of absolute. if we let euthanasia pass on grounds that no life is better than poor quality life then where will it end? pretty soon the people with special needs will be determined to have poor quality of life, and then the people with birth defects, and then the people with weird speech and then people that are cross eyed, and then people that are too short. forgive me, but isn't that basically what Hitler did? He advocated euthanasia. When you legalize euthanasia, you begin to measure how much a human being is worth, based on their state in life. when you begin to do this you create a very slippery slope, one that i don't know if you can handle sledding on.

hi I'm also a catholic nation trying to figure out what to do if this horrendous legislation is passed. mrQ Christs sacrifice was to redeem the sinners and give them eternal life. We as rational creaturee with souls HAVE the right to free will, but with that we also have the right to abuse it. Christ did not come to enforce free will, christ came to fulfill the covenant and fulfill the promise he amde to the patriarchs and the jewish peple. some things are just wrong. they are intrinsically, morally wrong. they have to be other wise , over a gradual period of time, what is right and wrong gets more and more diluted until any thing goes. there has to be some kind of absolute. if we let euthanasia pass on grounds that no life is better than poor quality life then where will it end? pretty soon the people with special needs will be determined to have poor quality of life, and then the people with birth defects, and then the people with weird speech and then people that are cross eyed, and then people that are too short. forgive me, but isn't that basically what Hitler did? He advocated euthanasia. When you legalize euthanasia, you begin to measure how much a human being is worth, based on their state in life. when you begin to do this you create a very slippery slope, one that i don't know if you can handle sledding on. :shock: :?

hi I'm also a catholic nation trying to figure out what to do if this horrendous legislation is passed. mrQ Christs sacrifice was to redeem the sinners and give them eternal life. We as rational creaturee with souls HAVE the right to free will, but with that we also have the right to abuse it. Christ did not come to enforce free will, christ came to fulfill the covenant and fulfill the promise he amde to the patriarchs and the jewish peple. some things are just wrong. they are intrinsically, morally wrong. they have to be other wise , over a gradual period of time, what is right and wrong gets more and more diluted until any thing goes. there has to be some kind of absolute. if we let euthanasia pass on grounds that no life is better than poor quality life then where will it end? pretty soon the people with special needs will be determined to have poor quality of life, and then the people with birth defects, and then the people with weird speech and then people that are cross eyed, and then people that are too short. forgive me, but isn't that basically what Hitler did? He advocated euthanasia. When you legalize euthanasia, you begin to measure how much a human being is worth, based on their state in life. when you begin to do this you create a very slippery slope, one that i don't know if you can handle sledding on. :shock: :?

hi I'm also a catholic nation trying to figure out what to do if this horrendous legislation is passed. mrQ Christs sacrifice was to redeem the sinners and give them eternal life. We as rational creaturee with souls HAVE the right to free will, but with that we also have the right to abuse it. Christ did not come to enforce free will, christ came to fulfill the covenant and fulfill the promise he amde to the patriarchs and the jewish peple. some things are just wrong. they are intrinsically, morally wrong. they have to be other wise , over a gradual period of time, what is right and wrong gets more and more diluted until any thing goes. there has to be some kind of absolute. if we let euthanasia pass on grounds that no life is better than poor quality life then where will it end? pretty soon the people with special needs will be determined to have poor quality of life, and then the people with birth defects, and then the people with weird speech and then people that are cross eyed, and then people that are too short. forgive me, but isn't that basically what Hitler did? He advocated euthanasia. When you legalize euthanasia, you begin to measure how much a human being is worth, based on their state in life. when you begin to do this you create a very slippery slope, one that i don't know if you can handle sledding on. :shock: :?

The UN is currupt, not fit for rule, which The Socialist Might and The Socialist People will defeat this currupt alliance.

For now, The People must endure its pathetic reign, and, for now, it will be left alone until all who oppose it grow in might.

The UN is currupt, not fit for rule, which The Socialist Might and The Socialist People will defeat this currupt alliance.

For now, The People must endure its pathetic reign, and, for now, it will be left alone until all who oppose it grow in might.

and here i was, thinking that Christs sacriface was to promote free will whether good or evil, not religious oppression of any kind.
You thought wrong. Human beings had free will to act in a manner either good or evil as long as they have existed. Christ's sacrifice was to save those who had sinned.


The nation of Arturia Demigodia, while it sees the choice of death over life as unfavorable, believes that its citizens should not be restricted in decisions that do not have a detrimental affect upon other citizens. This current resolution, however, allows the decision for death to be made by someone else; an entirely unacceptable situation.

The nation of Arturia Demigodia is severely dissapointed with the quality with which the United Nations examines propositions submitted and is seriously considering leaving the body.

The nation of Arturia Demigodia is severely dissapointed with the quality with which the United Nations examines propositions submitted and is seriously considering leaving the body.
The Allied States of Frisbeeteria are equally disappointed, and have thus created a suggestion for enhancing the UN Delegates' responsibility. We believe this will significantly improve the quality of proposals under discussion. Frisbeeteria would appreciate support and comments on this topic currently being considered in the Technical Forum:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=113087

Have fun. By the way, why bother telling everyone? You can just leave...

I wanted to let everyone know my disgust at the current resolution and to garner support against the resolution.

I'd just make a list of people to "Euthanize"

WE SHALL ALSO WITHDRAW FROM THE U.N UPON THE PASSING OF THIS PROPOSAL, AS WE WILL NOT BE DICTATED TO BY AN ACT OF STUPIDITY!
WE SHALL IMMEDIAIELY THROW OPEN OUR BORDERS TO ANYONE THAT WANTS TO SEEK SANCTUARY/ASYLUM FROM THIS ACT OF LUNACY AND PROVIDE FOR ALL HEALTHCARE/TREATMENT AND REHABILITATION, FOR AS LONG AS IT IS NEEDED, AT NO COST!

I've read in this debate that it's not God's will to allow Euthanasia.

I'd like to point out that, as none of you are God, none of you actually know God's opinion on this. The Catholic church may tell you that Euthanasia is wrong, but that church is, in the end, run by humans, and God hasn't had a hand in it for some time.

So please, stop taking the name of your Lord in vain and banding it about like you have access to his deepest plans. God made us all smart enough to choose.

Euthanasia is not murder - it is suicide. Suicide is a last resort for those in constant misery. If there is no possible relief to that living hell beyond ceasing to exist, then let them die. The sanctity of life doesn't mean much, and may not seem like such a marvellous gift, if you have to live it out in agony.

Do you not realize that the choice to die isn't necessarily made by you. The resolution states:

In the case of a freak situation in which a person has no serious illness or is over a certain age, if the person cannot make the decision themselves it would be made by those closest to them on the basis of professional medical advice.

That is clearly murder.
I should also point out though that suicide is also murder by definition of it being an unjustified killing. Suicide, homicide, fratricide, regicide, infanticide, etc are all forms of murder.

Even in extreme suffereing, life is a marvelous gift. Besides, it seems to be the assumption that suffering is objectively evil. While it may be a physical evil, it is still a means of sanctification. That has always been the Christian view of suffering.

As for the claim that we cannot know God's will, that is your opinion, and based on a presumption that the Catholic Church is false. You are mistaken in your premise though, and we can know God's will through His Church.

Do you not realize that the choice to die isn't necessarily made by you. The resolution states:

In the case of a freak situation in which a person has no serious illness or is over a certain age, if the person cannot make the decision themselves it would be made by those closest to them on the basis of professional medical advice.

That is clearly murder.
I should also point out though that suicide is also murder by definition of it being an unjustified killing. Suicide, homicide, fratricide, regicide, infanticide, etc are all forms of murder.


Anyone that commits suicide must have justified it to themselves, otherwise they wouldn't have done it, would they? They chose to do so, after considering all other options.

Hmm, this thread has run its course and tomorrow the proposal will be passed. Thus, I am going to ask for it to be locked.

I make no claims that the Catholic Church is false. I was raised Catholic, and having been to numerous different Christian denominations I decided I would not be subscribing to any, as their internal and inter-denomination squabbles seemed to miss the point of being a Christian.

Each church has it's own interpretation of key points in the Bible - points argued over by mankind. Where the Bible failed to give direction on certain points, men had to interpolate what God's wishes would be. Therefore, every church is flawed - not false - flawed.

I am envious of all of you who are so completely trusting of their church, because I could never stand the various hypocracies and faults within each of them. I truly wish I had a strong faith, but rationally I cannot.

I do not personally agree with others making decisions on another's choice to live or die. I believe there has to be a request made, written or verbal, from the person suffering to be allowed to pass.

You say that in extreme suffering that life is still a gift. Have you seen extreme suffering? Have you experienced extreme suffering? I cannot imagine you have experienced either as you would still call that kind of existence a gift. Euthanasia cannot be a decision that the sufferer takes lightly. In most cases I am sure that person would prefer to live as they once have, but that life is no longer an option for them, so only they can know whether that gift is worth the pain they are in.

The choice should be down to the individual. Those who have life and energy have no right to deny death to those who have no future, other than a few more weeks or months of pain.