NationStates Jolt Archive

Governments should not give people the right to decide their own lives. I have proposed a Repeal to UN Resolution #43- Legalise Euthanasia. It will be seen below. What are the opinions of other people in this forum in regard to Euthanasia?

.............................................
Reasoning:
Article A:
The vote to decide that the legalization of Euthanasia was decided by too narrow of a margin. (Votes For: 10,810; Votes Against: 10,031).
The minority in this issue is too large to be ignored. Out of a total 20,841 votes, The bill passed by 779 votes, this number is not a significant amount in determining a true majority for this issue.

Article B:
Outside of war, humans should not have the power to end another human's life. Only when a person is completely reliant on life support and without brain waves should a doctor or loved ones be able to decide whether or not to pull the plug.

Article C:
People commit suicide in an effort to rid themselves of their problems. Euthanasia is a similar situation, people requesting an end to their life in an effort to relieve themselves of their problems. Those who attempt to commit suicide are given help to change their frame of mind. Instead of putting people out of their misery upon their request, doctors should do all they can to save this person or keep them in the best condition possible until they die naturally.

Proposing:
A repeal of the Legalization of Euthanasia by the UN. The Legalization of Euthanasia would be outside the jurisdiction of the UN. The legality of Euthanasia will not be handled by the UN.
Countries themselves will decide whether Euthanasia would be legal within their own borders. The UN will stand neutral on this issue and countries can do what they please regarding Euthanasia.


Welcome to the Jungle hopes that other nations will realize the closeness of this vote and the substantial minority against the Legalization of Euthanasia at that time. We also hope that nations will reduce the power of human beings to end eachothers lives by REPEALING UN Resolution #43- Legalise Euthanasia.
................................................



I hope that if you are in favor of this repeal that you will endorse it and hopefully enough so we can get a vote for its repeal.

Ah, yes. A Feb 2005 nation. Should be interesting.

Reasoning:
Article A:
The vote to decide that the legalization of Euthanasia was decided by too narrow of a margin. (Votes For: 10,810; Votes Against: 10,031).
The minority in this issue is too large to be ignored. Out of a total 20,841 votes, The bill passed by 779 votes, this number is not a significant amount in determining a true majority for this issue.

Barely valid arguement. It's whether it passed or failed that matters, not by how many votes. Besides, you have few people voting today than then. The number is high enough to establish a true majority, as the majority is the side that got more votes. It's the democratic system in action.

Article B:
Outside of war, humans should not have the power to end another human's life. Only when a person is completely reliant on life support and without brain waves should a doctor or loved ones be able to decide whether or not to pull the plug.

NS isn't just humans, and neither is the UN. Also, self-contradictory. Pulling the plug is still ending a person's life, no matter the amount of brain activity.

Article C:
People commit suicide in an effort to rid themselves of their problems. Euthanasia is a similar situation, people requesting an end to their life in an effort to relieve themselves of their problems. Those who attempt to commit suicide are given help to change their frame of mind. Instead of putting people out of their misery upon their request, doctors should do all they can to save this person or keep them in the best condition possible until they die naturally.

This uses assumptions that are not true of all nations when it comes to how suicide is treated. Also, this contradicts the previous section.

This resolution was established to give people the choice of whether they wish to continue to fight or to end their suffering. It's an issue of choice, and my nation supports that.

Proposing:
A repeal of the Legalization of Euthanasia by the UN. The Legalization of Euthanasia would be outside the jurisdiction of the UN. The legality of Euthanasia will not be handled by the UN.
Countries themselves will decide whether Euthanasia would be legal within their own borders. The UN will stand neutral on this issue and countries can do what they please regarding Euthanasia.

Potentially illegal due to wording having the possible interpretation of limiting future UN proposals on the subject.

Welcome to the Jungle hopes that other nations will realize the closeness of this vote and the substantial minority against the Legalization of Euthanasia at that time. We also hope that nations will reduce the power of human beings to end eachothers lives by REPEALING UN Resolution #43- Legalise Euthanasia.

Repealing this doesn't necessarily limit the power of people to end each other's lives. Banning it would. I have never seen a repeal get to the floor that uses the closeness of vote as an arguement and do not see it as a valid concern.

I hope that if you are in favor of this repeal that you will endorse it and hopefully enough so we can get a vote for its repeal.

No.

Euthanasia is a human rights issue, and I see no reason why people must be forced to live, sometimes for years, in constant suffering when they have no hope for survival. I have yet to see a single good position against euthanasia. None of the mostly abstract moral reasonings you provided quite fit the bill.

Well, I was going to say something about it, but turns out DLE beat me to it.
Ah well, not much more to add except I don't support it.

[QUOTE=DemonLordEnigma]


The number is high enough to establish a true majority, as the majority is the side that got more votes. It's the democratic system in action.

QUOTE]

Yes, indeed, it is the democratic system in action. However, unless regulated, the system becomes corrupt. Issues in Congress require a 2/3 majority in order to pass. This is done in order to protect the minority from majority and vise versa. A one or two percent differential between passing and failing violates the rights of the minority. I am not proposing a ban upon Euthanasia, but a repeal of the resolution regarding it on the grounds that the issue is too hot and too contested to be decided by an ultimate power (the UN) on a result with a narrow voting margin.

I have to agree with the jungle in that this is not an issue for UN to be forcing upon nations. This is a very important diplomatic and moral issue that needs to be address personally. It should be decided for the countries by their people and religious ideas.

Yes, indeed, it is the democratic system in action. However, unless regulated, the system becomes corrupt.

It is regulated, by the members and mods. And regulation doesn't prevent corruption. It just puts guidelines on it.

Issues in Congress require a 2/3 majority in order to pass. This is done in order to protect the minority from majority and vise versa.

This is NS, not the US. On here, it's a true democracy, not a republic. And when you have true democracies, the majority rules over the minority. It's the reality of the system.

A one or two percent differential between passing and failing violates the rights of the minority.

Everything the UN passes violates the rights of the minority. I fail to see why this has to be any different.

I am not proposing a ban upon Euthanasia, but a repeal of the resolution regarding it on the grounds that the issue is too hot and too contested to be decided by an ultimate power (the UN) on a result with a narrow voting margin.

You want hot and contested? Check the last two prostitution topics.

Just because it's a narrow voting margin is no reason to repeal it from the UN. That makes as much sense as repealing a law that makes murder illegal just because only 51% of the people voted in favor of it.

Well basically we have to analyze this arguement piece by piece. Euthanasia is clearly a basic humans rights issue. Most people experience a point in their lives where they wish that it would just end. Things get out of control and cannot seem to correct themselves. Humans should not have the easy option of having physician assisted suicide, because it makes the entire suicide process easier. Humans can make the irrational decision to have their lives ended. While their problems may be resolved, the decision to be killed cannot. This would increase the risk of irrational decisions leading to many people ending their lives for futile reasons. It is the job of the government to protect the people.

Second, the majority of people that would commit suicide under the plan would be the less fortunate. By supporting euthanasia, it is almost implied that the marginalized of society are unworthy. Instead of forcing the marginalized of society to work their way up and better the economy as a whole, we would be releasing them from life. The less fortunate deserve to experience live and strive for greater things. We are going to let them out of life early. This will undermine economies, because these people fill the minimum wage positions that others will not. They are the very base of our economy, and cleary more of the marginalized of society will opt for euthanasia over other groups.


The government of each nation must take control here, and it is not the in the United Nation's power to legalize euthenasia and force all members to abide by it. The United Nations should recognize the divisivness of this issue and not apply a blanket legalization of euthanasia. This is an intrusion of national rights. The death penalty vote awhile ago failed because of this reason. People believed that a blanket ban intruded on the rights of nations. Here we have very much the same issue. Nations should decide this on their own, without having to worry about blanketing laws.

Suppose a highly religious nation that wishes to preserve humans rights wanted to outlaw euthanasia. According to the United Nations, they would not be allowed. This is an intrusion upon national rights because of such nations. Moralist nations may want to embark on international cooperation, and it is the duty of the international community to give them that choice. Certain issues, like humanitarian issues, are real international issues that should be dealt with. However, such a moral and divisive issues as euthanasia should be left to the individual nations.

Please consider my stance on the issue, and i strongly urge all regional delegates to endorse the repeal proposal.

I have to agree with the jungle in that this is not an issue for UN to be forcing upon nations. This is a very important diplomatic and moral issue that needs to be address personally. It should be decided for the countries by their people and religious ideas.

Morality is subjective and the UN doesn't give a damn about your religious views. It's demonstrated that often enough that making such an arguement for a repeal isn't anywhere close to valid or acceptable.

[QUOTE=DemonLordEnigma]


The number is high enough to establish a true majority, as the majority is the side that got more votes. It's the democratic system in action.

QUOTE]

Yes, indeed, it is the democratic system in action. However, unless regulated, the system becomes corrupt. Issues in Congress require a 2/3 majority in order to pass. This is done in order to protect the minority from majority and vise versa. A one or two percent differential between passing and failing violates the rights of the minority. I am not proposing a ban upon Euthanasia, but a repeal of the resolution regarding it on the grounds that the issue is too hot and too contested to be decided by an ultimate power (the UN) on a result with a narrow voting margin.


OOC - that's not actually true any more. In the case of emergencies where a quorum can't be reached, laws can be passed by pretty much anyone who turns up. Cool, isn't it?

IC - As someone pointed out - this is not the US Congress :}

On a topic so evenly divided on the global stage, it would be best for the UN if the resolution was repealed and member nations can do what the please in regard to euthanasia instead of strictly enforcing what 51% of the member nations voted for two years ago.

On a topic so evenly divided on the global stage, it would be best for the UN if the resolution was repealed and member nations can do what the please in regard to euthanasia instead of strictly enforcing what 51% of the member nations voted for two years ago.

Why? It was passed two years ago, and in that time there has not been enough support to repeal it, despite the (three? I think) attempts I have seen since I joined four months ago.

The people would appear to disagree with you.

I view this as a divisive issue. It is a basic issue of human rights. The author of the bill is not outlawing euthanasia, he is simply saying that a blanket decision either way is not good for the general community. Basically we are saying that 49% of the United Nations must live with a requirement that they staunchly disagree with. I believe the author is trying to show how a blanket ban on euthanasia nor a blanket legalization of euthanasia is not good. Social issues such as this are extremely divisive and have separated the political right and left for many years. Both sides structure arguments for their side. The United Nations should not delve into issues like abortion. Issues that are so close to 50-50 should be made an individual choice.

In general, I believe that the author is trying to convey the message that general resolutions on near 50-50 issues are not good for the United Nations.

Remember, it is the job of democracies to respect the majority, but not to disregard the minority.

Thank You


Remember, it is the job of democracies to respect the majority, but not to disregard the minority.

Well basically we have to analyze this arguement piece by piece. Euthanasia is clearly a basic humans rights issue. Most people experience a point in their lives where they wish that it would just end. Things get out of control and cannot seem to correct themselves. Humans should not have the easy option of having physician assisted suicide, because it makes the entire suicide process easier. Humans can make the irrational decision to have their lives ended. While their problems may be resolved, the decision to be killed cannot. This would increase the risk of irrational decisions leading to many people ending their lives for futile reasons. It is the job of the government to protect the people.

It is the job of the government to do what they have to to make their nation prosper and grow in power. This doesn't always mean protecting the people.

Now, if you bothered to read what you are trying to get repealed, you would realize the requirements for it to even be allowed are if the disease is life-threatening, in a coma for years, or has something else seriously wrong with them. If they have a bad case of the flu, the doctor isn't going to be shooting them up with drugs to kill them.

Second, the majority of people that would commit suicide under the plan would be the less fortunate. By supporting euthanasia, it is almost implied that the marginalized of society are unworthy. Instead of forcing the marginalized of society to work their way up and better the economy as a whole, we would be releasing them from life. The less fortunate deserve to experience live and strive for greater things. We are going to let them out of life early. This will undermine economies, because these people fill the minimum wage positions that others will not. They are the very base of our economy, and cleary more of the marginalized of society will opt for euthanasia over other groups.

And where is your evidence to support this? Considering the requirements of it, the people who opt for it are going to be the dying, not the poor. This excuse has no basis in the actual resolution itself.

The government of each nation must take control here, and it is not the in the United Nation's power to legalize euthenasia and force all members to abide by it. The United Nations should recognize the divisivness of this issue and not apply a blanket legalization of euthanasia. This is an intrusion of national rights. The death penalty vote awhile ago failed because of this reason. People believed that a blanket ban intruded on the rights of nations. Here we have very much the same issue. Nations should decide this on their own, without having to worry about blanketing laws.

The UN has the power because it said it does and the majority agreed. The fact it passed the resolution says it has the power to do such. And you gave up your national sovereignity when you joined, so that isn't acceptable either.

If people felt this deserved to be repealed, a repeal would already have been up. People have been trying for a lot longer than this repeal has been around to get that resolution removed.

You need to realize the job of the UN is blanket laws that affect all members. It's written in the FAQ.

Suppose a highly religious nation that wishes to preserve humans rights wanted to outlaw euthanasia. According to the United Nations, they would not be allowed. This is an intrusion upon national rights because of such nations. Moralist nations may want to embark on international cooperation, and it is the duty of the international community to give them that choice. Certain issues, like humanitarian issues, are real international issues that should be dealt with. However, such a moral and divisive issues as euthanasia should be left to the individual nations.

Once again, invalid national sovereignity arguement, only this time using religion as an excuse. See my previous post for what the UN thinks of religion.

Considering this is a humanitarian issue and every issue is divisive in some form, I fail to see how you have a point.

Please consider my stance on the issue, and i strongly urge all regional delegates to endorse the repeal proposal.

I urge all nations who bothered to read the FAQ to do otherwise.

On a topic so evenly divided on the global stage, it would be best for the UN if the resolution was repealed and member nations can do what the please in regard to euthanasia instead of strictly enforcing what 51% of the member nations voted for two years ago.

1. It was last year, not two years ago.

2. The globe is not as divided now as it was on that issue. The evidence is in the lack of a repeal even making it to quorum.

I view this as a divisive issue. It is a basic issue of human rights. The author of the bill is not outlawing euthanasia, he is simply saying that a blanket decision either way is not good for the general community.

If he was trying to outlaw it, this repeal would be illegal and it'd be deleted with him possibly being kicked from the UN.

Basically we are saying that 49% of the United Nations must live with a requirement that they staunchly disagree with. I believe the author is trying to show how a blanket ban on euthanasia nor a blanket legalization of euthanasia is not good. Social issues such as this are extremely divisive and have separated the political right and left for many years. Both sides structure arguments for their side. The United Nations should not delve into issues like abortion. Issues that are so close to 50-50 should be made an individual choice.

Do you have evidence that 49% of the [current UN nations disagree with the resolution? Over a year is a long time for a forum, and the membership changes with ease.

These issues do divide the UN, but the UN is a mob-rule group. You don't like it, remember that membership is optional. And the UN should delve into whatever it feels like, as it has for years now. It's the way the game works.

Also, you are advising a game mechanics change, which is illegal.

In general, I believe that the author is trying to convey the message that general resolutions on near 50-50 issues are not good for the United Nations.

And yet, no one has managed to repeal it. If it's so bad, it would likely be gone by now.

Remember, it is the job of democracies to respect the majority, but not to disregard the minority.

That's the job of republics, not democracies. Big difference.

If people felt this deserved to be repealed, a repeal would already have been up. People have been trying for a lot longer than this repeal has been around to get that resolution removed.




If there have been previous efforts to get this bill repealed than it is obviously still an issue that 49% of the UN is not happy with. I used the reference to Congress to show that the needs of the minority always need to be taken into consideration. I am well aware that this is the UN and not US Congress, however, the amount of people against this resolution in the vote and the supposed numerous repeal attempts show that there are many member nations of the UN that are unhappy with this resolution. If this proposal is defeated, there is no doubt that it will soon come up again by another member of the 49% minority on this issue.

It is the job of the United Nations to act in the best interests of all of its members. If a minoritygroup, and significant minority group, is unhappy about something, the members of the UN should pay attention to the concern.

Let each nation themself decide their position on Euthanasia and legislate for themselves how to handle the issue.

I view this as a divisive issue. It is a basic issue of human rights. The author of the bill is not outlawing euthanasia, he is simply saying that a blanket decision either way is not good for the general community. Basically we are saying that 49% of the United Nations must live with a requirement that they staunchly disagree with. I believe the author is trying to show how a blanket ban on euthanasia nor a blanket legalization of euthanasia is not good. Social issues such as this are extremely divisive and have separated the political right and left for many years. Both sides structure arguments for their side. The United Nations should not delve into issues like abortion. Issues that are so close to 50-50 should be made an individual choice.

In general, I believe that the author is trying to convey the message that general resolutions on near 50-50 issues are not good for the United Nations.

Remember, it is the job of democracies to respect the majority, but not to disregard the minority.

But that is what democracies will always do. If this resolution (the Euthanasia resolution) had been passed by 25,000 votes to 5,000 would that make it more acceptable? Not according to this arguement - because 5000 nations would still have felt ignored and aggrieved.

If a proposal passes, it passes. The narrowness of the vote, in an of itself, is not a reason to repeal it.

If there have been previous efforts to get this bill repealed than it is obviously still an issue that 49% of the UN is not happy with. I used the reference to Congress to show that the needs of the minority always need to be taken into consideration. I am well aware that this is the UN and not US Congress, however, the amount of people against this resolution in the vote and the supposed numerous repeal attempts show that there are many member nations of the UN that are unhappy with this resolution. If this proposal is defeated, there is no doubt that it will soon come up again by another member of the 49% minority on this issue.

It is the job of the United Nations to act in the best interests of all of its members. If a minoritygroup, and significant minority group, is unhappy about something, the members of the UN should pay attention to the concern.

Let each nation themself decide their position on Euthanasia and legislate for themselves how to handle the issue.

Did 49% oppose? Yes.
Have there been a lot of attempted repeals? Yes.

Have any of them made it to the floor? No.
Have any of them suceeded? No.

So while 49% opposed it, in the two years it has been a resolution there have been no votes to repeal it on the floor. That indicates to me that while some people are unhappy about it, the majority of the UN is still in favour of it, and as such it should remain in force.

Your other points - they might be an acceptable reason for proposing a repeal. But the idea that because SOME nations find it offensive it HAS to be repealed right now is, with all due respect, laughable, because from the history aspect, it's clear that a lot of nations still have no problem with it being in force. And if this is the democracy you want it to be, then majority rule is final.

If there have been previous efforts to get this bill repealed than it is obviously still an issue that 49% of the UN is not happy with.

Logical fallacy. Just because people are trying to get it repealed doesn't mean that they are anything more than a minor minority. They usually make up, from my census reports, about 10-12% of the UN, maybe as high as 20%.

I used the reference to Congress to show that the needs of the minority always need to be taken into consideration.

The needs of the minority are often ignored in NSUN because they contradict the wants of the majority. In a majority-rule system, that's how it works. And if you want to get this repealed, you need the majority to agree with you. They have a history of not doing that.

I am well aware that this is the UN and not US Congress, however, the amount of people against this resolution in the vote and the supposed numerous repeal attempts show that there are many member nations of the UN that are unhappy with this resolution.

The many repeal attempts are mostly from a small ultraconservative religious sect that is plaguing the UN or from a bunch that mistakenly believe all nations should have the ability to make all choices for themselves while in the UN. There may be the occasional nation with a valid complaint, but they are typically shouted down by the other two groups. Combined, all three groups might make up a fifth of the UN but are extremely loud.

If this proposal is defeated, there is no doubt that it will soon come up again by another member of the 49% minority on this issue.

This is a repeal, not a proposal. Learn the difference.

And I have yet to see actual evidence the minority is still 49%.

It is the job of the United Nations to act in the best interests of all of its members. If a minoritygroup, and significant minority group, is unhappy about something, the members of the UN should pay attention to the concern.

You obviously haven't bothered to read the FAQ. Nowhere does it state that is the UN's job. It does state the UN's job is to shove your opinions down the throats of others, while the history of the UN states that you must be part of the majority to do so.

Let each nation themself decide their position on Euthanasia and legislate for themselves how to handle the issue.

If you want to legislate it that badly, you always have the choice to leave the UN. That is probably the only way you'll gain that freedom.

Oh, for everyone debating this, see this post:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030048&postcount=44

Note the date it passed: Fri Jan 16 2004

And if this is the democracy you want it to be, then majority rule is final.

Demon also said earlier it is the job of Republics to protect the minority.This is not a true democracy either. Delegates endorsed (elected) by coutnries in their regions are the ones that decide if proposal will be voted upon. The repetitiveness, that you claim, of this issue reoccurring demonstrates the need for it to be addressed. Welcome to the Jungle believes this resolution should be repealed and we are hoping to win support of enough UN members to get a vote on it. There are enough people that feel strongly enough about this issue to bring it to the forefront.

And I have yet to see actual evidence the minority is still 49%.





10,810 For
10,031 Against
20,841 Total Votes

10,031 Against /20,841 Total = 48.131%

I apologize for my error of .87%

Demon also said earlier it is the job of Republics to protect the minority.This is not a true democracy either. Delegates endorsed (elected) by coutnries in their regions are the ones that decide if proposal will be voted upon. The repetitiveness, that you claim, of this issue reoccurring demonstrates the need for it to be addressed. Welcome to the Jungle believes this resolution should be repealed and we are hoping to win support of enough UN members to get a vote on it. There are enough people that feel strongly enough about this issue to bring it to the forefront.

And I would say it has been adressed - every time a repeal fails to make it to the floor it is yet another indication that not enough people want it to be repealed.

10,810 For
10,031 Against
20,841 Total Votes

10,031 Against /20,841 Total = 48.131%

I apologize for my error of .87%

(smirk)

Demon also said earlier it is the job of Republics to protect the minority.This is not a true democracy either. Delegates endorsed (elected) by coutnries in their regions are the ones that decide if proposal will be voted upon. The repetitiveness, that you claim, of this issue reoccurring demonstrates the need for it to be addressed. Welcome to the Jungle believes this resolution should be repealed and we are hoping to win support of enough UN members to get a vote on it. There are enough people that feel strongly enough about this issue to bring it to the forefront.

Okay, time for a basic rundown of how governments work.

It is who passes the law that determines the type of government, not who decides what the government will deal with. The US, for example, has a tiered government style in how it deals with laws and uses committees to determine which laws it will even vote on. The UN can be said to do the same, only the committee in this case are the regional delegates.

In the end, the laws the US deals with need to be passed by each tier on the federal level in order to become laws. This is done through elected representatives. With the NSUN, you are doing a direct vote on the law. Your regional delegate has the power to vote on it, but so do you. I have heard of cases where regional delegates have been contradicted by a majority of those supporting them, but those are rare.

Because the UN uses a direct vote system for passing the law instead of representatives only, it does not fit in the republic category and instead fits in the democracy category. You don't even need a regional delegate to vote on an issue in the NSUN, unlike in the US where you need a representative to have your views used to make laws.

And I would say it has been adressed - every time a repeal fails to make it to the floor it is yet another indication that not enough people want it to be repealed.


Over ten thousand people voted against the resolution. Surely there are 146 people that will endorse this repeal.

10,810 For
10,031 Against
20,841 Total Votes

10,031 Against /20,841 Total = 48.131%

I apologize for my error of .87%

That is for last year, when it was voted on. I want the percentage for this year, which is when you are trying to get it repealed. Just because it was that percentage then doesn't mean it is now.

Over ten thousand people voted against the resolution. Surely there are 146 people that will endorse this repeal.

You would think so. But when I joined the UN, it was only 131 delegates required, and it didn't happen then.

First, I would like to commend demon on his tenacious arguments and I must assert that I respect his position.

Second, I would like to analyze his argument. He has made the assertion that nations give up national sovereignty when the enter the UN. This is far from the truth. Nations still make their own decisions on laws that are sent to them. Not everything is done internationally. Also, nations should have their own rights respected by the United Nations.

Religious and moral views do constitute a valid argument. Religion is the basis of almost every aspect of society. People should have strong morals, and I view euthanasia as a moral issue. This is why the United Nations should abstain from approving such resolutions and allow the sides with different morals to express their views in their own nations.

Also, I did not propose a game change when i said the United Nations should not approve such divisive resolutions. I believe that delegates should vote against such issues so that nations can maintain their sovereignty. Basically the attitude of democratic institutions like the United Nations should not be "too bad you have to live with what we give you". It should be a place of compromise and understanding.

I did in fact read the resolution that is being repealed and i got off on a tangent in my last argument. While the resolution states that only certain cases euthanasia would be acceptable, I fear a general euthanasia bill coming. I would like to know demon's stance on general euthanasia for the sake of argument.

Also, demon brought up that the voting pattern may be different now. I firmly believe this not to be true. I still think that euthanasia is as divisive now as it is back then. Statistically, our sampling size on the last issue is fairly accurate of the general view. I highly doubt that their would be any MAJOR shifts in either direction, as this is a highly contested issue.

I do wish that all regional delegates, myself being one, read both the resolution that is contested and the repeal argument as well as this debate to form an opinion. All delegates now should know both sides and the major arguments.

I realise I have gotten slightly off track with the debate, so I just wanted to make my position clear (and note - I am not a moderator or a delegate, and I have no power at all (sigh)).

I have no problem with the repeal - it's a democracy and people have the right to express their views. And I have no problem with the contents of Articles B and C - that is I totally disagree with them and think you are wrong, but I don't have a problem with them being used as grounds for repeal.

I just don't accept that the tally on which a resolution was passed is grounds for repeal.

So - I wish you well. I don't support it, and will vote against it if it comes to the floor, but good luck with your attempt anyway :}

(and note - I am not a moderator or a delegate, and I have no power at all (sigh)).




Yeah I have no power either. Good debating with you.

Yes it was good debating with all of you and I'd like to see it get up for vote so we can go into mega debate time. I saw the last resolution had like 500 something posts. It would be nice to really revisit this issue.

First, I would like to commend demon on his tenacious arguments and I must assert that I respect his position.

Hmm. This is going to be difficult.

Note that my style of arguing is not meant as disrespect. I argue the same way with everyone. Just ask TilEnca.

Second, I would like to analyze his argument. He has made the assertion that nations give up national sovereignty when the enter the UN. This is far from the truth. Nations still make their own decisions on laws that are sent to them. Not everything is done internationally. Also, nations should have their own rights respected by the United Nations.

Nations have a list of duties as UN members that was passed by the UN. But when it comes to nation rights, it pretty much is summed up by the following quote from the 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.)

Pretty much, the UN has the right to stomp all over you and then wipe its feet on your face if the majority decided to pass it and mods didn't catch it in time. We've had one like that in recent history, though the admins did delete it later.

But considering it's in the FAQ, it's pretty much more binding than any religious teaching.

Religious and moral views do constitute a valid argument. Religion is the basis of almost every aspect of society. People should have strong morals, and I view euthanasia as a moral issue. This is why the United Nations should abstain from approving such resolutions and allow the sides with different morals to express their views in their own nations.

Blanket assertion, making it automatically not true.

Religion is only one of a set of items that can be basis of an aspect of society. Many human societies rely on political or religious ideals for a basis for many aspects, while others result from greed and human laziness. DLE is almost entirely built on trying to discover the entire history of Sarkarasetans, figure out who their ancestors were, and try to rebuild and reclaim what they have lost. And there are others besides those even.

The problem with morality is it doesn't stand up well to logic. Morality is too subjective, as often people of the same religious beliefs can share widely different moralities based on those beliefs. It's given little respect on this forum because of the fact it is pretty much a personal item that varies more than the nations do. Besides, everything is a moral issue for someone. The UN shouldn't waste its time with something you can barely get two people to completely agree on, let alone thousands.

Also, I did not propose a game change when i said the United Nations should not approve such divisive resolutions. I believe that delegates should vote against such issues so that nations can maintain their sovereignty. Basically the attitude of democratic institutions like the United Nations should not be "too bad you have to live with what we give you". It should be a place of compromise and understanding.

Compromise and understanding are for republics. The UN is a democracy, which means it is pretty much a mob-rule affair. The UN never has entirely cared about compromise, and certain issues the members outright refuse to compromise on (prostitution is one of them).

And, yes, saying the UN shouldn't approve certain resolutions is advising a change in game mechanics. It's actually illegal to write a proposal that does nothing but limit the resolutions the UN can vote on. That's what the mods and regional delegates are for. But mainly, I was talking about your comment on vote split.

The UN is the way it is because the site owner and members decided it is to be this way. You wish to change that, take it up with Mac Barry. Good luck on that.

I did in fact read the resolution that is being repealed and i got off on a tangent in my last argument. While the resolution states that only certain cases euthanasia would be acceptable, I fear a general euthanasia bill coming. I would like to know demon's stance on general euthanasia for the sake of argument.

My stance is that the bill we have is enough. It satisfies an area of concern for me and still allows my people the freedom they need.

I doubt you'll get a general euthanasia bill. Mainly because it would be an effective amendment to the one already in place, which is also illegal. That's part of why I haven't spearheaded a movement to get it repealed, cleaned up, and passed again.

Also, demon brought up that the voting pattern may be different now. I firmly believe this not to be true. I still think that euthanasia is as divisive now as it is back then. Statistically, our sampling size on the last issue is fairly accurate of the general view. I highly doubt that their would be any MAJOR shifts in either direction, as this is a highly contested issue.

Actually, I find there have been shifts. For one thing, we have less total votes on resolutions than we have with that one, averaging out to about 17,000 votes. Hell, compare the two prostitution resolutions. The first passed 10,899 votes to 9,310. The second passed 10,558 to 6,452. The repeal of the first prostitution resolution passed at about the same ratio as the resolution itself. Overall, the margin of votes for to votes against increased on that issue.

Another issue of this vein is the one about abortion. It passed 9,368 votes to 6,549, a margin that reveals that the UN was getting used to the idea that some people will choose death for others.

I have examined most of the issues of morality the UN has passed, and few of them actually have a close margin. It seems the majority of the UN goes against the idea of individual morality each time. Just take a look at even Gay Rights or Abortion Rights for examples. And my favorite is still the Definition of Marriage, which passed 11,904 to 7,473. Or Stem Cell Research Funding, a resolution calling for the use of embryonic stem cells, that passed 13,907 to 5,231.

Do you still think that morality is an arguement the UN listens to?

I do wish that all regional delegates, myself being one, read both the resolution that is contested and the repeal argument as well as this debate to form an opinion. All delegates now should know both sides and the major arguments.

Most nations probably won't read past the title before voting.

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites supports this repeal attempt as we believe that this issue should not have been dealt with by the UN.

Yes, indeed, it is the democratic system in action. However, unless regulated, the system becomes corrupt. Issues in Congress require a 2/3 majority in order to pass. This is done in order to protect the minority from majority and vise versa. A one or two percent differential between passing and failing violates the rights of the minority. .

I'd just like to point out that you're completely wrong about this. The US Congress, in both the House and the Senate, require only a simple majority to pass legislation. A two-thirds vote is only required to override a Presidential veto, or by the Senate when confirming a treaty.

Well basically I view it this way:

A. Joining the United Nations IS a double-edged sword, however, I thought the idea of the United Nations was to foster international cooperation. By simply claiming that the United Nations is mob-rule highlights the flaws. While I know we cannot change this, it is still an inherent problem.

B. We really should focus on the issue at hand here. Clearly, there are two sides to the issue. The side that I am arguing for is against euthanasia in all forms. The other side obviously is willing to consent to various "levels" of euthanasia. Basically this is a moral issue. Here, I believe that euthanasia is a terrible and barbaric practice. Human life is meant to be lived to its termination. By advocating this bill, you are basically asserting that people slitting their wrists is an acceptable practice.

C. As for the vote change, it is very hard to speculate what the exact vote would be now. Clearly, there is a substantial base on both sides. I would like to see another vote taken in order to garner a clearer picture of the current United Nations.

D. Close votes are also quite interesting. I mean the United Nations is not entirely a true democracy. Regional delegates, like myself, get more votes than others. The regional delegate from the Pacific gets like 325 votes. So basically, I believe that certain issues can be voted on several times and produce several results. Hence the U.S. Election of 2000. You could vote in Florida on a rainy day, and mabye Gore would have carried the state. (even though things were fishy as they were)

E. I also have to regretably agree that most will not read past the title. I try to read the full description before endorsing something. I really wish that the delegates would.

F. Once again, I would like to see this come up for vote, just to see how the current United Nations feels.

Oh good lord. Why any government feels the need to dictate if (or when) someone should end their life is beyond me but we will have no part in it.

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

Well basically I view it this way:

A. Joining the United Nations IS a double-edged sword, however, I thought the idea of the United Nations was to foster international cooperation. By simply claiming that the United Nations is mob-rule highlights the flaws. While I know we cannot change this, it is still an inherent problem.

I don't see it as a problem. Just how the system works.

B. We really should focus on the issue at hand here. Clearly, there are two sides to the issue. The side that I am arguing for is against euthanasia in all forms. The other side obviously is willing to consent to various "levels" of euthanasia. Basically this is a moral issue. Here, I believe that euthanasia is a terrible and barbaric practice. Human life is meant to be lived to its termination. By advocating this bill, you are basically asserting that people slitting their wrists is an acceptable practice.

This is an issue with a choice of morality or logic. The logic I have at hand disagrees with your morality, and logic always trumps morality.

And if human life is always lived to termination. It's just a case of who or what does the terminating.

C. As for the vote change, it is very hard to speculate what the exact vote would be now. Clearly, there is a substantial base on both sides. I would like to see another vote taken in order to garner a clearer picture of the current United Nations.

A substantial base? Not hardly. Your side has, mostly, the base of what amounts to the dregs of the UN, the people who's proposals are generally ignored and who don't even number enough to get their own proposals up to over 100 endorsements. I fail to see how that is a substantial base.

D. Close votes are also quite interesting. I mean the United Nations is not entirely a true democracy. Regional delegates, like myself, get more votes than others. The regional delegate from the Pacific gets like 325 votes. So basically, I believe that certain issues can be voted on several times and produce several results. Hence the U.S. Election of 2000. You could vote in Florida on a rainy day, and mabye Gore would have carried the state. (even though things were fishy as they were)

You do realize that, in the US, the general populous doesn't actually elect the President, right? The Electoral College is what does the actual electing of Presidents in the US. The common man's vote is just to try to influence their opinion.

E. I also have to regretably agree that most will not read past the title. I try to read the full description before endorsing something. I really wish that the delegates would.

Most delegates don't even look in the proposals section. They have more important things to worry about.

F. Once again, I would like to see this come up for vote, just to see how the current United Nations feels.

Good luck.

My stance is that the bill we have is enough. It satisfies an area of concern for me and still allows my people the freedom they need.
In recognition of the historic trade agreement between our countries, I will approve this proposal because of your support.

When it comes time to vote, I will follow the consensus of my region.

Sorry. This is a repeal? and DLE opposes the repeal?

*sigh* Jungle, you could have named the thread better.

The Oppressed Peoples of Asshelmetta will not be approving this proposal.

You would think so. But when I joined the UN, it was only 131 delegates required, and it didn't happen then.
Random statistic: When I joined (and Legalise Euthanasia was the resolution at vote back then) the delegate requirement was up at about 155-160.

I voted against the resolution in question back then, as I believed then and still believe that it is horribly worded and at times confusing. BUT, I do not think repealing it is the answer. The only repeal attempt of this I would support is one which guaranteed a better replacement resolution soon after.
To put my view on this issue in a nutshell, euthanasia should be legalised. While this resolution stands, it mandates that euthanasia be legalised. Unless someone can come up with a better way of saying that euthanasia is legal, I will support this.

Something is better than nothing.

MY own Repeal for this bill was submitted before, and ends today. Please endorse this

I believe that the resolution itself is a terribly worded resolution. It can be interpreted many different ways. It lays out no clear plan of action nor enforcement. It basically tells a story and does not set a clear mandate. I do not know how such an act could be approved with such terrible wording. This is another reason why I think this act should be repealed.

As for demon's assertion that logic always triumphs over morality, I cannot say that this is true. It is one of the greater questions facing governments. Should governments act pragmatically or morally? I believe that a clearly defined set of morals is needed for an effective leader. You probably disagree with this position, but I firmly believe that strong morals can offset logic.