NationStates Jolt Archive

There is currently a a repeal of "Legalise Euthanasia" in proposals. Here is it's argument:

We the Undersigned do hereby believe that euthanasia is far to controversal to be decided on a international level and that it should be left up to national governments to determine what is best for their country. A resoltuion which impacts thousands of nations and millions of lives was put into effect by a mere 779 votes. It is not fair for 51.87% to decide what is best for the other 48.13%. This is tyranny by majority and is not just for those peoples who do not believe in euthanasia for whatever reason. We do hereby recomend that this resolution be repealed.

---
This isn't a question of whether you support euphanasia or not, there is already an issue which lets you make euphanasia legal or illegal depending on how you feel. If you agree that this resolution is unfair to those nations who do not believe in euphanasia please endorse it.

I support this repeal, on religous grounds.

Is this not the United nations? is it not majority rules? if we can not abide by our own vote, then why are we in the united Nations? We therefore stay with the resolution as passed.

Respectfully,

Dwarf the Gentle Giant
Ambassador from LOVING YOU

I am fully for repealing this but it will never happen trust me wew have argued this in the past but nothing will ever come of it.

Is this not the United nations? is it not majority rules? if we can not abide by our own vote, then why are we in the united Nations?

I will also remind you that this resolution was passed in January, I'm sure there have been many nations join the UN since then who may be opposed to this so, in fact, it may be that the majority is no longer ruling.
Keep in mind that this resolution barely passed the last time. If it does indeed manage to pass again I will be more than happy to drop the issue as the resolution is still apparently in favor, but we really won't know which side the majority is on till we get this repeal up to vote.

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites supports this repeal attempt.

The Council of Enn supports this repeal attempt. If things like this work, we may consider re-joining the UN.

We have amended the argument and resubmitted:

----
We the Undersigned do hereby believe that euthanasia is far to controversal to be decided on a international level and that it should be left up to national governments to determine what is best for their country. We do not need this resolution, there is already a issue in place to allow you to legalise euphanasia. This resolution was highly controversal at its passing and won with a mere 779 votes. In the time since, many new nations have joined the UN and may be opposed to this, also some nations may have changed their mind after witnessing euphanasia on a large scale.

Even if you still agree with euphanasia, do you really want to force this onto those who don't? What if we passed a resolution which forced all UN nations to adopt some form of capitalism? I don't think the socialist and communist nations would like that very much. I thank you for your time and hope that you at least consider this repeal.
-----

Greetings Noble Fellows,

As a representative of a newly accepted nation into the Unided Nations, as well as the large list of memos I get on a daily bases on other nations who have also been accepted, I would have to say that majority is in flux.

I find it odd that the U.N. can have so mant contradictory proposals. Freedom of Religion, and Legalize Euthanasia. Now my nation's majority agrees with the U.N. and I am sure the laws would be written so. What my nation has expressed concern about is the U.N.'s taking authority away from the nations in ways that would take away from the freedom of the democracy to vote on these laws. Granted some are just coordinating efforts, that add infastructure to certain international dilemnas and oppurtunities. But some are just do this...her's why. Vote and if it passes then all members must obey. Even if it is at odds with the citizens of the country.

We are not Big Brother. Let moral and ethical questions regarding the idividual stay with the nations law system. Let the questions that regard trade, aid, war crimes, and other multi-national levels be our focus. Otherwords the effect of these proposals will not be that much pressure anymore.

The sovereign nation of Tamarket strongly opposes this repeal.

We have amended the argument and resubmitted:

----
We the Undersigned do hereby believe that euthanasia is far to controversal to be decided on a international level and that it should be left up to national governments to determine what is best for their country. We do not need this resolution, there is already a issue in place to allow you to legalise euphanasia. This resolution was highly controversal at its passing and won with a mere 779 votes. In the time since, many new nations have joined the UN and may be opposed to this, also some nations may have changed their mind after witnessing euphanasia on a large scale.

Even if you still agree with euphanasia, do you really want to force this onto those who don't? What if we passed a resolution which forced all UN nations to adopt some form of capitalism? I don't think the socialist and communist nations would like that very much. I thank you for your time and hope that you at least consider this repeal.
-----

I disagree. Your analogy is invalid, as I see it. Euthanasia is an individual right. It is the right of those terminally and incurably ill to choose death for themselves. No one is being killed who does not consent to being killed, and this is where your anlogy falls short.

The sovereign nation of Tamarket strongly opposes this repeal.



I disagree. Your analogy is invalid, as I see it. Euthanasia is an individual right. It is the right of those terminally and incurably ill to choose death for themselves. No one is being killed who does not consent to being killed, and this is where your anlogy falls short.

I agree. I believe you have to be terminally ill to have a valid opinion.

Unless you walk a mile in their shoes...then shut up, you have no idea what you're talking about.

I have chosen to support this repeal on the grounds that this is not a resolution fit for the United Nations, it is a nations matter. I do support euthanasia for the terminally ill, but not in the chambers of the UN.

I have chosen to support this repeal on the grounds that this is not a resolution fit for the United Nations, it is a nations matter. I do support euthanasia for the terminally ill, but not in the chambers of the UN.

This is the position I take. Perhap I should have made that clear before a bunch of know it alls turn hostile for "being against euphanasia." :headbang:

My point was it's not the UN's business what your nation does about euphansia, and we already have an issue to make it legal if you want.

My point was it's not the UN's business what your nation does about euphansia, and we already have an issue to make it legal if you want. If that was the case, the resolution would have never passed in the first place. The UN can do whatever it jolly well wants, especially since you agreed to it when you joined.

I'm sure "national sovereignty" was brought up when this first came about and it did not wash (it's normally thrown around as an argument against a resolution that makes any efforts to promote individual freedoms), history will probably repeat itself.

If that was the case, the resolution would have never passed in the first place. The UN can do whatever it jolly well wants, especially since you agreed to it when you joined.

I'm sure "national sovereignty" was brought up when this first came about and it did not wash (it's normally thrown around as an argument against a resolution that makes any efforts to promote individual freedoms), history will probably repeat itself.

Thank You

If that was the case, the resolution would have never passed in the first place. The UN can do whatever it jolly well wants, especially since you agreed to it when you joined.

I'm sure "national sovereignty" was brought up when this first came about and it did not wash (it's normally thrown around as an argument against a resolution that makes any efforts to promote individual freedoms), history will probably repeat itself.
If simply a resolution's passage is enough of a case to shoot down any argument against it, then why are repeals allowed?

If simply a resolution's passage is enough of a case to shoot down any argument against it, then why are repeals allowed?

So the mods can get rid of that pesky "Fight the Axis of Evil" resolution. Then it will probably be removed.

Although the people of Whinaria do not have their own delegate, we urge those who do to support this repeal. Whiny supports legal euthanasia but not at the cost of a nation's right to declare its own laws.

Another reason to oppose this repeal is that studies have shown that the incidence of unconsented euthanasia is lower when there are checks and balances that the legalisation of euthanasia provides.

*sigh*

http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/101.htm#controversial

Read it. Then come up with some reasons people can't do whatever they want with themselves - including kill themselves.

Their lives, their choices.

Vastiva does not support repeal.

I cant believe somebody even thought of repealing or even voting against it. I personally was absent at the time of vote but i would have voted for and would hope that all civilized people would. I agree that this is a controversial topic but how can you expect anybody to live through endless pain to whose only vice is a heavy hit of morphine that leaves them completely unable to realize they were in pain in the first place. I take it very harshly when somebody for any reason feels it is okay for somebody else to live their lives in pain just because it isnt right to ease their pain in this particular manner. This is a compulsury act and those people not those governments who do not wish to participate in these acts do not have to and it should be up to the world governments to tell the national governments what to allow their people to decide to do with their own lives. I comdone this repeal and hope nothing is ever done in favour of this act.
Yours Truly
The Anarcho-Syndacist-Commune of Kane the Good.

I cant believe somebody even thought of repealing or even voting against it. I personally was absent at the time of vote but i would have voted for and would hope that all civilized people would. I agree that this is a controversial topic but how can you expect anybody to live through endless pain to whose only vice is a heavy hit of morphine that leaves them completely unable to realize they were in pain in the first place. I take it very harshly when somebody for any reason feels it is okay for somebody else to live their lives in pain just because it isnt right to ease their pain in this particular manner. This is a compulsury act and those people not those governments who do not wish to participate in these acts do not have to and it should be up to the world governments to tell the national governments what to allow their people to decide to do with their own lives. I comdone this repeal and hope nothing is ever done in favour of this act.
Yours Truly
The Anarcho-Syndacist-Commune of Kane the Good.

Totally agreed. Support for the repeal seems to be based on ignorance and bigotry.

However, don't you mean to say that you condemn this repeal? Because if you condone something, you support it.

SO just out of curiosity.... What do you guys think about legalising suicide in general? Only those people who wish to die will. So why do nations waste so much time and money trying to keep people alive who would rather be dead?

SO just out of curiosity.... What do you guys think about legalising suicide in general? Only those people who wish to die will. So why do nations waste so much time and money trying to keep people alive who would rather be dead?

Of course suicide should be legal, and in most of the world, it is. Where it is illegal, such as the US bible belt, the reasons are mainly due to religious bigotry and stupidity.

When people are kept alive on life support against their will, it is usually due to paternalism run amok.

Vastiva supports euthanasia, suicide, drug use, prostitution...

We completely support the right of the individual to do whatever they want to their own body and/or property.

We deny the right to do anything to anyone else's body and/or property without their consent.

We do not believe the State should stand in the way of Free Choice.

lets get back to the original basis for the founding of the UN. it is a sociaty designed so that countries can get together and debate international issues, such as trade. I fail to see how euthanasia being leagal or not is an international issue. Alot of countries are willing to leave the UN over this resolution (mine is one of them) not because they oppose euthanasia but because the UN is overstepping it's bounds in attempting to make a position for all member states on a purely domestic issue. If my people vote down euthanasia, who are the United Nations to tell my people that they cannot outlaw it? am I causeing an international incident by doing so? am I hindering trade or threatening the stablity of the world in any way? NO. these are the issues for which the UN was created. Since the UN is not a representative body (the people don't directly elect the delegates of the UN) it should have no legal powers over non-international issues. Is it not unlawful to make laws for people that are not represented in the law makeing process? I believe more than one war has been fought (and justifibly I might add) on such grounds.

This is not a 'Should Euthanasia Be Legal' issue
This is a 'Does The UN Have Athority To Proscribe A Country's Legal Position On Domestic Affairs' issue

This is a group of leaders of nations trying to bully their politics onto everyone else.

A vote to repeal is a vote for representative government, a vote for democracy, a vote to leave politcal power where it belongs, WITH THE PEOPLE!

lets get back to the original basis for the founding of the UN. it is a sociaty designed so that countries can get together and debate international issues, such as trade. I fail to see how euthanasia being leagal or not is an international issue. Alot of countries are willing to leave the UN over this resolution (mine is one of them) not because they oppose euthanasia but because the UN is overstepping it's bounds in attempting to make a position for all member states on a purely domestic issue. If my people vote down euthanasia, who are the United Nations to tell my people that they cannot outlaw it? am I causeing an international incident by doing so? am I hindering trade or threatening the stablity of the world in any way? NO. these are the issues for which the UN was created. Since the UN is not a representative body (the people don't directly elect the delegates of the UN) it should have no legal powers over non-international issues. Is it not unlawful to make laws for people that are not represented in the law makeing process? I believe more than one war has been fought (and justifibly I might add) on such grounds.

This is not a 'Should Euthanasia Be Legal' issue
This is a 'Does The UN Have Athority To Proscribe A Country's Legal Position On Domestic Affairs' issue

This is a group of leaders of nations trying to bully their politics onto everyone else.

A vote to repeal is a vote for representative government, a vote for democracy, a vote to leave politcal power where it belongs, WITH THE PEOPLE!

"Does the UN have the Authority to prescribe a nation's legal position on domestic affairs?" - answer: yes. See the FAQ.

That renders your arguement moot.

Vastiva supports euthanasia, suicide, drug use, prostitution...

We completely support the right of the individual to do whatever they want to their own body and/or property.

We deny the right to do anything to anyone else's body and/or property without their consent.

We do not believe the State should stand in the way of Free Choice.

Acknowledged. But, that is within Vastiva, where the Vastivan governement has full sovereignty, not in the UN, where there it's a joint form of sovereignty between you and all the other UN members.


"Does the UN have the Authority to prescribe a nation's legal position on domestic affairs?" - answer: yes. See the FAQ.

That renders your arguement moot.

Perhaps you'd like to point out where in the FAQ this "moot rendering position" is stated.

Of course suicide should be legal, and in most of the world, it is. Where it is illegal, such as the US bible belt, the reasons are mainly due to religious bigotry and stupidity.

I don't mean to be the international resolution police (though the spandex outfit would be nifty), but we here in the UN usually make it a practice to exercise "religious tolerance" in posts, legislation, and all-around attitude.

"Does the UN have the Authority to prescribe a nation's legal position on domestic affairs?" - answer: yes. See the FAQ.

That renders your arguement moot.Perhaps you'd like to point out where in the FAQ this "moot rendering position" is stated.
Right here: (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=faq)]The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)Also in Rights and Duties of UN States (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=48)
Article 11
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.
Bear in mind that having the right to infringe upon sovereignty does not make infringment on sovereignty "right".

It is the duty of UN members to oppose those proposals that infringe too heavily and keep them from becoming law. Failing that, even those who opposed must accept the democratic decision and abide by it. That's the law.