NationStates Jolt Archive

Go on, all delegates endorse this now!

First of all you should post a copy here.

Second, we strongly support the legalisation of Euthanasia.

Giordano,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States

Another M.O.S.S. proposal.

Another M.O.S.S. proposal.
Yay!
Time to go look for it!
Description: UN Resolution #43: Legalise Euthanasia (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Religious Arguments

Euthanasia is against the word and will of God
Hmm?
Whose God might that be?
The God of the major religion over here has stated that no being should be left in suffering like this. Why should we listen to your God?
Euthanasia weakens society's respect for the sanctity of life
In what way might that be?
And why is life so sacred?
Suffering may have value
Ahh, so spending your last days in intense pain could possibly be a good thing.
Might you provide an example?
Voluntary euthanasia is the start of a slippery slope that leads to involuntary euthanasia and the killing of people who are thought undesirable
There is a reason the Slippery Slope Fallacy is called the Slippery Slope Fallacy
Ethical Arguments

Euthanasia weakens society's respect for the sanctity of life
You already said that once.
Accepting euthanasia accepts that some lives (those of the disabled or sick) are worth less than others
Hmm?
It accepts that some people don't want to suffer without cause.
Voluntary euthanasia is the start of a slippery slope that leads to involuntary euthanasia and the killing of people who are thought undesirable
Another repeat.
Euthanasia might not be in a person's best interests
I believe that Legalise Euthanasia has some safeguards in place. However, I may be mistaken, and I can't seem to find it at the moment.
Euthanasia affects other people's rights, not just those of the patient
What rights might those be?
Practical Arguments

Proper palliative care makes euthanasia unnecessary
How so?
Some patients still wish to die.
There's no way of properly regulating euthanasia
Well, if it isn't regulated at all, as repealing this would do, it would be a bit worse than having bad regulation, would it not?
Allowing euthanasia will lead to less good care for the terminally ill
Why might that be?
Allowing euthanasia undermines the committment of doctors and nurses to saving lives
I didn't believe that doctors and nurses ever had a commitment to stretch out a patient's life as long as possible.
Euthanasia may become a cost-effective way to treat the terminally ill
And?
Allowing euthanasia will discourage the search for new cures and treatments for the terminally ill
Again, how so?
Euthanasia undermines the motivation to provide good care for the dying, and good pain relief
Another repeat
Euthanasia givs too much power to doctors
No, it finally give patients the rights they deserve.
Euthanasia exposes vulnerable people to pressure to end their lives
This is one of the few that I can see some basis in fact in. That may be so.
Moral pressure on elderly relatives by selfish families
Moral pressure to free-up medical resources
That could be one drawback.
Patients who are abandoned by their families may feel euthanasia is the only solution
Well, that is entirely possible as well.
Voluntary euthanasia is the start of a slippery slope that leads to involuntary euthanasia and the killing of people who are thought undesirable
Repeat

Taking into account all these factors, King Django III proposes that the UN repeals resolution No. 43

King Django III - UN REPRESENTATION DEPARTMENT

I am sorry, but I cannot support a proposal as deeply flawed as this.

I think I am going to oppose it cause it mentions the "will of god" - a good enough reason to actively campaign against it.

Yeah i'm gonna oppose against it to, don't think it's right.

Go on, all delegates endorse this now!
Hmm, this delegate does'nt like being ordered to endorse any proposal/repeal, especially one that..

A - was'nt posted by the author in this thread.

B - is trying to end something the people of our nation see as a fundamental human right. What others outside our nation think about it is their business. No-one in Crydonia is forced to endure the pain and suffering of a terminal disease if they decide, independant of outside infuence, to end their own life. No individual doctors or nurses are forced to paticipate in voluntary euthenasia if they object to it. We have safeguards and regulations in place to prevent, as best they can, any abuse.

C - mentions "God". The government of our nation is avowedly athiest, and we have very strict separation of church and state. The people of Crydonia are freely allowed to worship whatever God (s) they wish, wherever they wish, and however they wish (within the nations laws of course), but religious bodies are treated as any other money making concern and are regulated and taxed accordingly. No religious body has any rights or influence on how the government runs the nation, so any mention of God (s) automatically turns this delegate off a proposal/repeal that tries to use religious arguments.

So, no, we won't support this repeal.

Automatically opposed, arguement covered ny Neo-Anarchists.

I think I am going to oppose it cause it mentions the "will of god" - a good enough reason to actively campaign against it.

First of all, whats wrong with believing in God? Staight away you are disgarding all the views of the states who believe in the "will of God". Remember there are many nations who worship many different gods. Do you disgard their views too? Or do you have a grudge against one specific god? That said, I do not support this proposal! I believe that if someone is in such pain that they want to end their life and they need someone to help them, it should be granted. As long as they go through the right procedures, I have no problem.

First of all, whats wrong with believing in God? Staight away you are disgarding all the views of the states who believe in the "will of God". Remember there are many nations who worship many different gods. Do you disgard their views too? Or do you have a grudge against one specific god? That said, I do not support this proposal! I believe that if someone is in such pain that they want to end their life and they need someone to help them, it should be granted. As long as they go through the right procedures, I have no problem.maybe I wrong, but I think he try to say that will of god (as national sorveignety and moral) is subjective, and therefore can't used as argument.
anyway, that reason is enough for me to be against it.

First of all, whats wrong with believing in God? Staight away you are disgarding all the views of the states who believe in the "will of God". Remember there are many nations who worship many different gods. Do you disgard their views too? Or do you have a grudge against one specific god? That said, I do not support this proposal! I believe that if someone is in such pain that they want to end their life and they need someone to help them, it should be granted. As long as they go through the right procedures, I have no problem.

As we have yet to encounter anyone who has met the Almighty, we do not listen to anyone who says "It's the WILL OF GOD that you do what we say is necessary!"

If God wanted us to do something, we're sure she'd tell us directly.

She'd? Who said I was defending God anyhow? Was just stating a point that people might be offended by what was said!

She'd? Who said I was defending God anyhow? Was just stating a point that people might be offended by what was said!

Some people view the being as male, some as female, and some otherwise. Among those that follow it.

First of all, whats wrong with believing in God? Staight away you are disgarding all the views of the states who believe in the "will of God". Remember there are many nations who worship many different gods. Do you disgard their views too? Or do you have a grudge against one specific god? That said, I do not support this proposal! I believe that if someone is in such pain that they want to end their life and they need someone to help them, it should be granted. As long as they go through the right procedures, I have no problem.

If you read what I said, I didn't say I oppose people believing in the will of god. The Powers That Be created us, and The Lords Of Order guide us. But in no way does that mean that what I interpret as their will should be imposed on my people, let alone every person in the UN.

This proposal is asking us to repeal the laws about Euthanasia because it is against what he interprets as the will of his god. This is the first reason he gives. Regardless of national sovereignty the idea that a resolution should be repealed because he believes it is against the will of his god - that he is going to force all the people of the UN to fall in line because he believes he knows what his god wants? Its an appalling idea.

I have faith. I have no problem with other people having faith. But faith is a personal thing, and should not be used to subject the faith of others. Which is what this repeal would do.