NationStates Jolt Archive

Please add your support here for a mass walk-out from the UN should this rediculous motion be passed.

Istahan will not withdraw from the UN, as we believe that we can do more to fight this proposal that infringes upon national sovereignty by remaining within the United Nations. We will lend our support to any resolution which will counter the current one.

There are thousands of UN members who have not yet voted on the resolution. Before we all storm out or work on writing strike-down resolutions, perhaps we could go back to our regions and find those missing voters in the next 36 hours or so?

At least make sure that your vote and your delegate's vote(s) have been placed!

I am my region's delegate, an my region has voted en mass against this proposal, but I fear that it will be passed anyway and game mech says that it can't be unpassed so there is nothing we can do.

It wouldn't be so bad if the proposal wasn't so badly written. A CHILD was asked to turn his mother off?

I've just applied to join the UN, and will be voting against it, but if it means this "legal murder" will be placed in my constitution, then I'm with you on the walkout

This is a bloody travesty. I cannot believe that this resolution is actually going to pass. There is no way it isn't. First the UN defeats the resolution to ban pop-up, and now this. The UN is losing its sanity.

It also makes you wonder what resolutions have passed before I created my nation. Is there any way to look at your constitution?

To those who wish to resign, I offer this thought. If the motion passes it means that there is a majority who disagrees with your views. In a democracy the majority decides. If you do not like the rules, it is up to you, by force of argument to propose and win a counter argument. Resignation is a purely negative reaction.

To those who wish to resign, I offer this thought. If the motion passes it means that there is a majority who disagrees with your views. In a democracy the majority decides. If you do not like the rules, it is up to you, by force of argument to propose and win a counter argument. Resignation is a purely negative reaction.

Resignation from a body such as the United Nations because I disagree with resolutions passed is not negative. It is a diplomatic move to ensure that I get the best for my country. By force of argument the resolution should be defeated, but it is my opinion that the vast majority of UN members do not view the debate and do not even read or consider the resolution's content. They simply look at the title 'Legalise Euthanasia' and go 'yes I agree with that' and click 'vote for'. It is the only explaination that I can come up with that explains the current scenario. Why should I waste time on the UN if that is how it works?

The UN has no business involving itself in local political decisions of this nature; I am sure there are far more pressing international issues which should be addressed. The UN is not the right forum for this.

There are thousands of UN members who have not yet voted on the resolution. Before we all storm out or work on writing strike-down resolutions, perhaps we could go back to our regions and find those missing voters in the next 36 hours or so?

At least make sure that your vote and your delegate's vote(s) have been placed!

I agree completely! And it works, folks; based on telegrams from regional UN members (such as my own) my regional delegate recently voted against this proposal. If it works in a region as large as the Rejected Realms, it's surely worth trying in yours!

This is a bloody travesty. I cannot believe that this resolution is actually going to pass. There is no way it isn't. First the UN defeats the resolution to ban pop-up, and now this. The UN is losing its sanity.

That resolution was extremely poorly written, improperly classified, and an infringement on national sovereignty. I helped lead the fight against it on precisely those grounds and submitted a proper resolution to counter its failure.

Sometimes proposals are just bad

Stop trying to to kill civil rights.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

I agree with the other honourable delegates. This motion is in direct contradiction to the principle of the UN: that of an international body dealing with international affairs. This resolution threatens individual right to sovreignty of UN memebr states. If we allow the UN to start applying national level legislation the function and purpose of state governmant is effectively removed. It is a shame that such a useful and potentially effective body as the UN is destroying itself by adopting self-contradictory motions. The scholars amongst Fib's elite establishments are currently discussing the matter of putting withdrawel from the UN to the population in the form of a vote. I only hope that it does not come to resigning, as by doing so we would effectively be giving up the UN and its principles as a lost cause, and it would be a sad day when that becomes necessary. I hope that by furthering the understanding of the reality of International Relations we can produce a more acceptable and effective UN.

The game mechanics are created to be as simple as possible. This includes UN Resolutions being binding on all UN members.

For all that threaten to leave because of the Euthanesia bill, please do so.

With you gone we will have a much greater chance to win other other controversial votes. I think we will push gay rights first and after more religious nuts leave we will finally make a push on the abortion issue.

Pinthazar - are you serious? Do you really think those issues have any business being debated by the UN? Individual nations are free to pass laws on those issues themselves. the UN has absolutely no reason to discuss anything like those you mentioned.

I dont really think that people voting for the proposal will change their minds because a bunch of people are going to resign form the UN if it passes. If anything, many of them will stand by their decision as it will dispel those who disagree with them on issues such as this.

Nibbleton.

After deciding to permanently quit the UN, I have decided it would be better to leave today, then return on Saturday.

After deciding to permanently quit the UN, I have decided it would be better to leave today, then return on Saturday.

Could someone write a resolution project condemning such fraudulous maneuvres ? :roll:

first of all it's the UNITED nations, you don't just resign because you don't like something.

After deciding to permanently quit the UN, I have decided it would be better to leave today, then return on Saturday.

Could someone write a resolution project condemning such fraudulous maneuvres ? :roll:

Why? If I want to do that then I can.

To those who wish to resign, I offer this thought. If the motion passes it means that there is a majority who disagrees with your views. In a democracy the majority decides. If you do not like the rules, it is up to you, by force of argument to propose and win a counter argument. Resignation is a purely negative reaction.
Exactly! It sounds like American Democracy. I think Ford started it: you can have any colour you want, as long as it is black. It seems it is widely adopted since. If you don't like the outcome of a democratic process, it must be wrong.

Maybe the motion system should be changed so that a committee of UN delegates judges a motion before it is presented to all UN members for voting. If it is decided that, like some say, the motion infringes on the souvereignity of individual states it can be turned down. Maybe that's an idea.

[edit]double post

Dear Friends,

My country is also in great stress over this resolution, and from a moral stance it would seem to make sense to leave the UN, thus preventing such a law from taking affect in your country. However, shall we withdraw admitting defeat? Shall we let the voice of wisdom and reason leave the world? Shall we abandon the world and leave it to its own ends? I would hope not. If you must duck out until after the bill passes returniing Saturday, please do return. ( I am not sure, does ducking out on the final vote day prevent the law from being binding in your nation even if you return?) Do not let wisdon become folly, there is no greater good to be had by leaving permanantly. If you leave and do not return you will leave those of your allies who have remained to stand against the wave alone. Do not give up, do not abandon the UN, stay and fight for what your country believes!


~Tsar Mikhail Romanov I~

After deciding to permanently quit the UN, I have decided it would be better to leave today, then return on Saturday.

Could someone write a resolution project condemning such fraudulous maneuvres ? :roll:

Why? If I want to do that then I can.

confer post supra ...
So what can remain of the legetimacy of a body where anyone can leave or enter when it is more convenient for them ? (USA on Iraq war anyone ?) . Exploiting a legal loophole such as the possibility of quiting /joining to avoid resolutions that annoy you is a blatant contradiction with the very spirit of the UN.
Would you allow your citizens to renounce their nationalty the day taxes are voted, and re-join the day after ?

confer post supra ...
So what can remain of the legetimacy of a body where anyone can leave or enter when it is more convenient for them ? (USA on Iraq war anyone ?) . Exploiting a legal loophole such as the possibility of quiting /joining to avoid resolutions that annoy you is a blatant contradiction with the very spirit of the UN.
Would you allow your citizens to renounce their nationalty the day taxes are voted, and re-join the day after ?

Well, I can just plain defy it if you wish. There is no way Catholic Europe will adhere to the current resolution. No way at all.

Clearly some people do not understand what democracy means. In addition to my previous remarks about 'American Democracy' I'd like to add that there is a very simple way to use the democratic process instead of fighting it.

If you don't like this motion and it does get UN approval (and it looks like it) why don't you draft a motion to ammend it? I'm in favour of the motion, but I could approve of an ammendement that creates some exclusions for states that are religiously opposed to euthanasia or some stricter (or less stricter) rules.

Use the democratic process, don't fight it!

[quote=Ar Mor]confer post supra ...
Well, I can just plain defy it if you wish. There is no way Catholic Europe will adhere to the current resolution. No way at all.

well, resign if you want ..
However re-joining would be plainly hypocitical .
A Rogue nation should logically remain so for a while ...

Do you know what else is against the spirit of the UN? Ending lives, like euthanasia does, but we are voting on it and it will most likely pass. The UN is off it's rocker and it is up to us to bring it back. If Catholic Europe decides to leave and join back on Saturday, I support his nation in that motive, it is one my nation may very well look into in the next 24 hours. I also support his decision to return, he has been one of the few voices of decency in this debate. Loopholes are part of the game regardless of how well you like it. So unless you have something to say about the issue currently at vote, do hold your tongue, you aren't accomplishing anything. If you must do something about this issue, get some endorsements and move to have a rule changed.

~Tsar Mikhail Romanov I~

[quote=Ar Mor]confer post supra ...
Well, I can just plain defy it if you wish. There is no way Catholic Europe will adhere to the current resolution. No way at all.

well, resign if you want ..
However re-joining would be plainly hypocitical .
A Rogue nation should logically remain so for a while ...

Do you know what else is against the spirit of the UN? Ending lives, like euthanasia does,

so is letting people suffer ...
2 contradictory wishes ...
hence the vote .

Joccia and her people will follow the lead of Catholic Europe. We have been careful not to involve any religious arguments in our dissention from this bill, we have tried to point out the insidious loopholes in the proposal which will allow governments to commit legal genocide. The problem - AR MOR and MAXIMILLIANUS is not one of refusing to comply with a democratic vote - The UN is not a democracy!!! get it! It is a meeting place for Governments - some of whom are NOT democracies! This bleeding heart and wooly proposal has no place being raised - it relies solely on emotive language and the gullability of wet behind the ears fools who aren't able to give the bill the consideration it needs.

Thus my King wishes me to say

A Rogue nation should logically remain so for a while ...

We are not a rogue nation though.

The problem - AR MOR and MAXIMILLIANUS is not one of refusing to comply with a democratic vote - The UN is not a democracy!!! get it! It is a meeting place for Governments - some of whom are NOT democracies!
Why then are you participating in a democratic system? You did join the UN and now you turn your back because there's a motion you don't like... So all is good as long as it is all in your favour. Nice one.

What is the problem in drafting in new motion amending this one? Don't you think that is a better way of dealing wit it? The UN is not a democracy in itself, but it used democratic processes. And clearly not everybody is up to that as it seems from all the opposition.

The United Nations is simply one more governmental level. It has every right to vote on national-level issues like this. The United States government steps in every so often and speaks their mind on state and local issues. I simply view it as the very tippy-top of government: district, local, county, state, country, world.

Do you know what else is against the spirit of the UN? Ending lives, like euthanasia does,

so is letting people suffer ...
2 contradictory wishes ...
hence the vote .

That is the most ridiculous reply I have heard. Yes the UN does like to relieve suffering, that is why they have programs like UNICEF. The is no United Nations Commitee for Ending the Lives of the Elderly and Sick. Suffering in a hospital before death is far more different than feeding the starving or helping those who suffer from political oppresion, the kind of suffering the UN tries to alleviate. How much can one really suffer in a hospital bed under the care of profeesionals? Please think before you write.

~Tsar Mikhail Romanov I~

The problem - AR MOR and MAXIMILLIANUS is not one of refusing to comply with a democratic vote - The UN is not a democracy!!! get it! It is a meeting place for Governments - some of whom are NOT democracies!
Why then are you participating in a democratic system? You did join the UN and now you turn your back because there's a motion you don't like... So all is good as long as it is all in your favour. Nice one.

What is the problem in drafting in new motion amending this one? Don't you think that is a better way of dealing wit it? The UN is not a democracy in itself, but it used democratic processes. And clearly not everybody is up to that as it seems from all the opposition.

If you notice, the UN also allows certain countries - USA, UK etc to have a totally undemocratic VETO for use when some prat comes up with a resolution like this!!!!

My friends,
It is with great regret that I have decided to leave the UN if this bill is passed. This bill is in direct controvention of what the united nations stands for. If such a bill is passed, then my people would revolt if I was knowingly part of a group that not only advocates, but enforces mercy killings. May I ask how this bill would affect families? Does this apply to drunk drivers who have killed innocents and are now paraplegic? In no way shape or form should euthanasia be legal - it is simply immoral.

Aside from my personal views and the views of my people the United Nations have no right whatsoever to impose such a law. It is impossible to have a blanket law for euthanasia as each case needs to be dealt with on an individual bases and therefore should be dealt with on state level.

Regards
Milwamber
Supreme ruler of Telewest

WHAT IS THIS???/

The act also must be carried out in the most painless way possible.

SOUNDS LIKE :twisted: !!!!

WHAT IS THIS???

The act also must be carried out in the most painless way possible.

SOUNDS LIKE :twisted: !!!!

WHAT IS THIS???

The act also must be carried out in the most painless way possible.

SOUNDS LIKE :twisted: !!!!

The un is not a restaurant you simply 'walk out of' if you dont like the food. It is, or is supposed to be, a gathering of like-minded and responsible nations. Part of that responsibility involves accepting the ideas of others and the will of the whole. It does not involve sulking in the corner if you dont get your way.


However, if the un does not vote me 100,00 marks in aid i will resign. :?:

The United Nations is most certainly NOT a gathering of like-minded nations, their varying levels of responsibility notwithstanding. As far as accepting others ideas goes, I'll accept any idea if its proponent can persuade me that it's right.

This isn't a 'let's-all-get-along' debating society. Nor is it a union to the death. Any nation that joins of its own free will can resign of its own free will. That's why there's a button on the U.N. page.

DAMMIT THIS RESOLUTION IS . iv already banned this issue from my nation, u can choose to kill people in u nation in ur issues but dont drag the rest of us who banned this thing from our nations into the grave as well. New Vuhifell will gladly endorse any resolution or nation that bans this outrage.

I for one wouldn't be leaving because I don't like it. I would be leaving because it would be clear that the UN doesn't work.

Thankfully the euthanasia issue hasn't been raised in my nation yet so I'll be able to overturn this proposal.

While most of our nations who will be resigning would like to participate in this global democracy as you say it is, the problem is that at this point the UN is a simple tyranny of the majority. The only way in which the UN can be an effective organization is if it protects the rights of the minority of nations from such an invasive law that categoricaly violates the most charished principles of the minority. If the minority is so opposed they should by all means leave.

Tyranny of the Majority aside, the UN is a system in which there can be no re-debate of a passed issue, and there is no way to repeal it. If one thinks that an issue is outside the responsibility or authority of the UN, then one's only protest is to resign.

I personally support euthanasia as I feel it is sometimes the only way to preserve the inherent dignity of humanity. However, I don't feel this issue is one that should be universally enforced. Instead I believe the choice to euthanize or not should be decided on a case-to-case basis in the courts because there are simply too many variable conditions that can apply.

The UN has absolutely no right to force compulsory euthanasia on all members, this is an indidivual nation matter to decide if they will allow the executions of their citizens. To try to force all nations to carry out euthanasia is sick. Schweinfurt stands with Catholic Europe in this matter. We will not leave the UN, but neither will we acknowledge or obey this proposal if it is voted into law. We will defeat this law on our own soil by ignoring it.

The UN has absolutely no right to force compulsory euthanasia on all members, this is an indidivual nation matter to decide if they will allow the executions of their citizens. To try to force all nations to carry out euthanasia is sick. Schweinfurt stands with Catholic Europe in this matter. We will not leave the UN, but neither will we acknowledge or obey this proposal if it is voted into law. We will defeat this law on our own soil by ignoring it.

If you say you're going to resign from the UN, resign, or it will all be meaningless prattle.

Personally, I'm convinced the UN is composed almost entirely of nations led by complete morons. If someone is simply an idiot, there's not a lot you can do to convince them of anything.

I fail to see the logic of saying 'stay in the UN, you can fight these endlessly idiotic proposals'. Yeah, good idea. I'll just stay in the UN forever, and lose every time! No thanks.

i think that the motion should be passed.

[quote="Supreme Awesome"]If you say you're going to resign from the UN, resign, or it will all be meaningless prattle.

Joccia has resigned from the UN

I have misgivings, but would prefer to remain.
Maybe problems in the proposal can be ironed out by amendment.

This resolution will not affect the state of euthanasia in each individual nation, it will merely increase political freedoms. The text of the resolution could be abcdefg and the impact would be exactly the same!

The Sacrum Hapsburg Imperium of Byzanthine will not resing from the UN, but will defitnely start to question if it really worth to stay. As a matter of fact, the majority of our population and, particullary the mediccal sectros has already start to complain and warn that they will totally reject to acknowledge such proposal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OOC : I am against Euthanassia. I have my motives and the principals are NOT religious. But thats not ther point.

The point is simply the following : THERE IS AN ISSUE ABOUT IT!
On it you can pick whatever you want, and everybody gets happy.

But now we are trying to get impossed something that is being deeply rejected and that deals with a very touchy and extreme case.

I really dont find any sense to this proposal when there is already an issue dealing about it. This assembles more a dictatorship that an organization that searchs for world union.

This is stoppping civil rights! is not us rejecting, is the UN putting us things like this when you can choose them on an issue.

Its a mess! ANYONE WHO VOTED TO THE RESOLUTION YES please withdraw your vote and vote against this resolution!!!!!!!!!

I have resigned, as this pathetic proposal is an affront to national sovereignty.

Welcome to life folks. It may not be fair but you have to accept it.

I voted no but have no option but accept it as a part of the UN. Resigning over one proposal would not be in the best interests of my citizens. They enjoy the benefits that membership offers.

Its a mess! ANYONE WHO VOTED TO THE RESOLUTION YES please withdraw your vote and vote against this resolution!!!!!!!!!

Why?

I rather think it's an appropriate resolution.

The U.N. is supposed to be a safeguard of human rights. This resolution preserves human rights. My country likes human rights.

Savvy?

Its a mess! ANYONE WHO VOTED TO THE RESOLUTION YES please withdraw your vote and vote against this resolution!!!!!!!!!

Why?

I rather think it's an appropriate resolution.

The U.N. is supposed to be a safeguard of human rights. This resolution preserves human rights. My country likes human rights.

Savvy?

That's the view of far too many people in this game. They see a resolution that will gain them plus points in their Civil Liberties and vote for it, regardless of the actual textual implications of what it does to their nation.

Resolutions in the UN to many are another way of gaining a few more figures. It's this attitude we need to stop to create a useful and worthy United Nations body. Otherwise, everyone's just milking the benefits from it without putting anything back into it.

Its a mess! ANYONE WHO VOTED TO THE RESOLUTION YES please withdraw your vote and vote against this resolution!!!!!!!!!

Why?

I rather think it's an appropriate resolution.

The U.N. is supposed to be a safeguard of human rights. This resolution preserves human rights. My country likes human rights.

Savvy?
Does the real life UN tell everyone that it is a human's God given right to kill themselves?

What's so dear in a life that can't be lived? Besides, only the ones who want to finish their suffering will terminate their own lives, it won't be mandatory. I voted yes. Life is whatever one wants it to be... since he does not mess with other people's lives.

What's so dear in a life that can't be lived? Besides, only the ones who want to finish their suffering will terminate their own lives, it won't be mandatory. I voted yes. Life is whatever one wants it to be... since he does not mess with other people's lives.
Look at the wording, what does unable mean? Anything the goverment wants. Life threatening is basically any condition, because you can die from the common cold, a broken leg, even a cut (not a big one a tiny one) can theorectically kill you. To many variables, too easy to turn into state supported murder.

Life is whatever one wants it to be... since he does not mess with other people's lives.

But that's exactly the point. This resolution makes it legal for other people to mess with yours, deciding if you should live or die. If you want the freedom of the individual to choose for themselves on whether or not they want to continue or end their life, allowing the resolution to pass is Not the way forward.

Why?

I rather think it's an appropriate resolution.

The U.N. is supposed to be a safeguard of human rights. This resolution preserves human rights. My country likes human rights.

Savvy?

This has utterly nothing to do with human rights!
It's a morale question!

"Is euthanasia murder? Is assisted suicide murder?"

As issues can't be repealed either, countries who have already voted against euthanasia will still have it. This resolution is completely contradictory and should never even have come to vote!

Why?

I rather think it's an appropriate resolution.

The U.N. is supposed to be a safeguard of human rights. This resolution preserves human rights. My country likes human rights.

Savvy?

This has utterly nothing to do with human rights!
It's a morale question!

"Is euthanasia murder? Is assisted suicide murder?"

As issues can't be repealed either, countries who have already voted against euthanasia will still have it. This resolution is completely contradictory and should never even have come to vote!

With people like Pinthazar in the U.N these rediculous proposals such as the Euthanasia issue will continue to be proposed and passed. His stupid comments have enthused our resolve to leave the U.N immediately when this grotesque act of monumental assinine stupidity is passed.

Personally I'm for euthanasia in serious terminal cases, but I agree that passing this resolution would be idiotic. It's poorly written, and makes painfully dramatic emotional appeals that have no business being in legislation. I also agree that this is not a matter for the UN, but rather individual nations. Don't give up hope yet, there still some pretty big votes out there.

It should have been ruled by the mods or SOMEONE, that this is not for Civil Rights... how is in favor of freedom to let someone else have the liberty of killing you?!

I said it like five times already, euthanasia is OK to me as long as it is equal to suicide, you cannot let anyone take the decition of "pulling the plug" but the pacient.

If all of you out there who are in favor of Civil Rights are voting in favor of this resolution, then learn how to read, because you didn't understand the proposal.

Its a mess! ANYONE WHO VOTED TO THE RESOLUTION YES please withdraw your vote and vote against this resolution!!!!!!!!!

Why?

I rather think it's an appropriate resolution.

The U.N. is supposed to be a safeguard of human rights. This resolution preserves human rights. My country likes human rights.

Savvy?

That's the view of far too many people in this game. They see a resolution that will gain them plus points in their Civil Liberties and vote for it, regardless of the actual textual implications of what it does to their nation.

Resolutions in the UN to many are another way of gaining a few more figures. It's this attitude we need to stop to create a useful and worthy United Nations body. Otherwise, everyone's just milking the benefits from it without putting anything back into it.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I would follow up with various profanities, but I'll choose not to.

I don't care about the actual "ranking" of my society in that regard. If I cared only about "points" I would have voted for the previous "pop-ups should be band you know what I mean wtf rofl noobs!!!111!11!11oneoneone" resolution. I read, analyze, and then vote for a resolution regardless of the actual point effect in game.

My country's principles mandated that I, a roleplayer, vote for this resolution. It advances the cause of human rights, and my nation in most cases is very much pro-human rights and believe they should be expanded in all nations. We also believe that it is the proper role of the U.N. to expand those rights.

Do you get it now? And do you see why you shouldn't put words in other people's mouths to suit your petty little perceptual filters?

Golden Simatar will not resign but declare it illegal. If the UN disagrees I'll turn a deaf ear to them.

Golden Simatar will not resign but declare it illegal. If the UN disagrees I'll turn a deaf ear to them.

I second that. If aprobbed, i may even make it public, I WILL NOT LEGALIZE IT!

it will be even better if THE ISSUE appears to me, lets say tonight or tomorrow morning, to make it "The proof".

I am pro-civil rights, as long as they dont mess with human lives. As a person and a medicine student, i disagree with euthanassia.

As a devout nation that Byzanthine is, the vast majority its against it as well.

My regional delegate (who voted for the resolution) suggested I place my argument against it here.

I object to Euthanasia on humanitarian grounds. My religious views are irrelevant to the argument.

I agree that the issue was poorly worded and inflamatory and biased in content.

Euthanasia is an anathema to the majority of world religions, but to decry it on the basis of 'God said no', is not doing any of the religions or the argument justice. It in itself is a woefully inadequate and lazy answer.

If you look at the Holland model, where euthanasia is legal, 1 in 12 people die by lawful euthanasia. Are all these people in a persistive vegetative state or critically and painfully ill. WHO statistics suggest not. In addition, how many of these people had the true freedom of choice? Or did some feel that they didn't really want to die, but didn't want to be a burden, either?

The system of lawful euthanasia is too easily open to abuse, as we can see from the practical application of the British Abortion Act 1968. Whether life is sacred, and controlled by God, or whether we all should look at the long-term ramifications of this bill and it's susceptibilities is up to your own persuasion. Whilst the initial arguments appeal compelling, the risk to civil liberty is enormous.

I don't want too sensationalise by overuse of references to Logan's Run, but parallels can be clearly drawn.

My regional delegate (who voted for the resolution) suggested I place my argument against it here.

I object to Euthanasia on humanitarian grounds. My religious views are irrelevant to the argument.

I agree that the issue was poorly worded and inflamatory and biased in content.

Euthanasia is an anathema to the majority of world religions, but to decry it on the basis of 'God said no', is not doing any of the religions or the argument justice. It in itself is a woefully inadequate and lazy answer.

If you look at the Holland model, where euthanasia is legal, 1 in 12 people die by lawful euthanasia. Are all these people in a persistive vegetative state or critically and painfully ill. WHO statistics suggest not. In addition, how many of these people had the true freedom of choice? Or did some feel that they didn't really want to die, but didn't want to be a burden, either?

The system of lawful euthanasia is too easily open to abuse, as we can see from the practical application of the British Abortion Act 1968. Whether life is sacred, and controlled by God, or whether we all should look at the long-term ramifications of this bill and it's susceptibilities is up to your own persuasion. Whilst the initial arguments appeal compelling, the risk to civil liberty is enormous.

I don't want too sensationalise by overuse of references to Logan's Run, but parallels can be clearly drawn.

Look at my resolution "Above the Animals"

Cheronton shall never resign from the UN. Someone has to take a stand against the ignorant fools who pass pathetic Resolutions like this

The resolution was a direct attack on national sovereignty. The real UN does not interfere in the internal affairs of member nations except in the most extreme cases, such as genocides and the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weaponry to rogue states and terrorists. Euthanasia was a moral issue, and what's more, the issue is already available as a decision on the national level. If people would have taken that in mind when voting, the issue should have been soundly defeated.

Still, it's not worth leaving the UN over. Not yet anyway.

cmon people help repeal legalize euthansia


Repeal Legalize Euthansia



As you all know the resolution Legalize Euthansia was passes on Friday January 16th, 2004. This resolution proposes to repeal this resolution from vote and to also re-criminalize it in many nations. For Human Rights, For Social Justice, and For The improvment and not eradication of many lives worldwide.

We would like to inform the participants in this discussion that Thracia has withdrawn from the United Nations.

After the legalization of euthanasia, a terrible resolution that opens the door to klling (albeit "humanely" :? ) the old, the disabled and the ill, in other words, the people who need our help, our protection, and our care the most, it became impossible for us to stay in this organization.

Demosthenes Yagcioglu, president of Thracia.

New Vuhifell stays in the UN to hopefully one day to repeal this act of careless atrocoties,if genocide, possession of chem and bio weapons are illegal than euthansia should be too :!:

To all those who resigned....

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

I voted against the proposal but stnd behind the fine institution that is the UN.

:arrow:

The gentle people of the Republic of Amygdaland have decided to comply with the majority vote. However, our people have also elected to make the question of euthanasia a purely ethical one, and thus is to be decided by a local board of ethics which is closely regulated, according to the will of the people.

We will adhere to the letter of the law, but would feel more comfortable if it were appealed.

Executive Head Honcho (Health and Welfare Division)
The Republic of Amygdaland

If you people resign because you lost out on this issue, you just make it easier for this sort of issue to get passed again.

Instead, you should be doing the opposite, and joining in droves to ram a repeal of the issue through the UN, and vote against any similar measures

What should be done its to create and help a Proposal to revert the law. The explination, to make it more passable to the so called "liberals" (i am one, but i have my own believes at well, and killing aint one of them), we most focus on the facts :

A-) This is an individual subject. The theme of Euthanassia is very delicate and its point of views will be different according to each nations traditions. therefore, each nation should have the sovereighnity of choosing their position by their own constitution.

B-) We should remember that there is already an issue that deals the subject. The issue its explicit, and, more important, INDIVIDUAL.

C-) This kind of matter are too private to be impossed by the UN. This is a violation of the nations sovereignity and it is beyond UN authorithy.

Lets fight this people.

Don't you guys find it kind of oximoronic to claim that its not right for the UN to force it's beliefs on people by allowing this; while at the same time, you are trying to force your opinion on the citizens of your countries by not letting them have the right to make this decision? Isn't it possible that everyone in your country doesn't have the same belief system as you and your government? Just thought I might point that out.

We are all Humanoids are still within the UN, however we are only here in the hope we can persuade others to block some of these ridiculous invasions of national sovereignty!

To those who said leave we can pass more proposals may we make a point, .....the less members here the less effect your proposals have!

We have recently put forward a proposal to restrict the role of the UN, it will almost certainly fail the Game Mechanics law despite the poll being 66% in favour, so much for democracy, it would appear that in NS democracy is only good as long as it does not involve too much mork for the mods. Perhaps whoever 'owns' this 'game' can sell it to a professional insitiution who can amend as required rather than being the dictator over democracy!

I ask all of you thinking of resignation to please look at my proposal entitled, "Repeal Legalise Euthanasia".

The UN has gone too far with this last proposal.

Right to die laws should be the decision of each nation, and the UN should not interfere with this.

I thank you in advance.

--Maguro

Ehm, Bob... No, its not an oximoron. Besides, my population majority is against Euthanassia (remember, Byzanthine = Byzantine. very devout, very cultural, but attached to their religious believes...in a more personal level, im against it mostly because of my profesional-to-be point of view)

Besides, i will keep bringit it again : THERE IS AN ISSUE FOR THAT!

This kind of topics are too delicate, and most be handled individually by each nation.

I notice that some people in this thread are still members of the UN, with the resolution passed, even after saying they will quit. Come on!! Follow through!

I have resigned.

Brethren, there is still hope. Voice your support: http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=115949

Cefwyn, Supreme Lord Commander of the Christian Alliance

The United Nations is simply one more governmental level. It has every right to vote on national-level issues like this. The United States government steps in every so often and speaks their mind on state and local issues. I simply view it as the very tippy-top of government: district, local, county, state, country, world.

Well, in real life there are strict limits set by the Constitution on what the United States federal government *can't* interfere with regarding state matters. In a federalist government (as opposed to a unitary government, like the relationship between the British Crown and English counties) there are strict rules about what the top-level government can do. For example, murder laws are determined by individual states, and the federal government has no right to interfere. School curriculums are determined by states, and the federal government can only interfere indirectly; it can tinker with how much money it sends to each state to assist the states in setting up schools, but it can't directly dictate to the states how to run schools.

In this century, federal government power in the USA has expanded thanks to broad interpretation of the feds' power to regulate "interstate commerce" in the Constitution, but in theory and to a great extent in practice the US remains a federalist nation.

This makes sense, because people do have some right to run their own affairs even if they swear allegiance to some overarching super-body. People probably know better how to run their local affairs better than some bureaucrat from the capital; countries like the USSR didn't believe this, trying to regulate every little bit of people's lives from the Kremlin, and paid a bitter price for it.

In *real life*, the UN is like this, only even more so. The countries that created the UN in the first place intended the UN to be a way for countries to consensually agree to resolutions. National sovereignty is a very big deal; we have yet to prove that it's fair to shove people of very different cultures from completely different geographic, social and cultural conditions into a single democratic machine. A simple mass-democracy UN, like the NS-UN, with total power to implement any kind of legislation, would in real life be a terrible and dangerous thing.

What Bill or resolution is being passd in UN??? :roll:

Well, I can just plain defy it if you wish. There is no way Catholic Europe will adhere to the current resolution. No way at all.
Of course, you know, this means war?
Or at least enforcement of UN resolution. A member nation shall not defy the UN. Not even by a cheap method as temporarily resigning. All UN resolutions in force are accepted when you join.
The UN is the world's governing body. It proposes and votes on resolutions, which are then binding on all member nations.
Nothing in that about skipping out for a day and thus escaping the rule of law.

This is a bloody travesty. I cannot believe that this resolution is actually going to pass. There is no way it isn't. First the UN defeats the resolution to ban pop-up, and now this. The UN is losing its sanity.

That resolution was extremely poorly written, improperly classified, and an infringement on national sovereignty. I helped lead the fight against it on precisely those grounds and submitted a proper resolution to counter its failure.

Sometimes proposals are just bad

Saying no to this resolution is an infringement on personal sovereignity. If you have moral or religious problems with it... make sure you never make use of it.

If you decide this for other people... what does it have to do with freedom, sovereignity or anything?

This was a perfect resolution, and all those who rejected it have no business in an institution that stands for freedom, democracy, sovereignity and generally a better quality of life for all.

Go ahead and leave.

Don't you guys find it kind of oximoronic to claim that its not right for the UN to force it's beliefs on people by allowing this; while at the same time, you are trying to force your opinion on the citizens of your countries by not letting them have the right to make this decision? Isn't it possible that everyone in your country doesn't have the same belief system as you and your government? Just thought I might point that out.

No. The difference is, we are not trying to ban euthanasia in every nation, we are willing to leave it up to the individual countries to decide. The resolution forces everyone to legalize the practice, even those in nations who deem it morally wrong.

As for defying the resolution... come up with some confusing laws that make it impossible for anyone to be euthanized. Decide that you cannot find a "painless" method of euthanasia, because, after all, even lethal injection causes pain, with the needles and all. Pass legislation to protect life-support machines from "accidental" shutdown, such as requiring that plugs be bolted to the wall. Claim that every drug that someone suggests as a possible way to euthanize people contains carcinogens. Plus there's nothing wrong with a propaganda campaign.

Just because you aren't forcing your view on other nations doesn't make it not oximoronic. Even if your nation only had 1% of people that believed it should be legalized, it doesnt make it okay to force them to live long periods of time suffering when they could simply end their pain, if they have no problem with it. You are saying that most people in your nation would be against it, so in your nation that 99% could just choose not to do that if they ever were in a horribly painful/terminally ill situation. The point is, no matter how small of your population is opposed to your views, you are still forcing your beliefs on them. No one is forcing the devout people who believe it is wrong to end their own life if they get sick, they are just giving them that option. It's fairly oppressive to not let that percentage of people end their own suffering. You all give these weird scenarios that say stuff like "oh but the government can kill you if they want to if it is passed" but couldnt you say the exact opposite "the government can keep you alive on a respirator and feeding tubes if we don't pass this"? It's just as crazy... Anyway, you really should realize that people with the religious opposition to it arent being forced to do anything, but the others are simply given a choice. It's all about freedom.