NationStates Jolt Archive

How does this sound?

IN ACCORDANCE with the The Universal Bill of Rights, the U.N. hereby declares:

The sacrifice of humans is to be made illegal, no matter what the circumstances.

CLARIFIES that even an event where the sacrifice is a willing participant should be made illegal.

I agree with what you are saying Neoconland, you got the right ideah.

This sounds horribly cold, I know, but I figure if they're stupid enough to want to sacrifice themselves they should be able to. I don't want them polluting the gene pool anyway.

I'm totally with you on outlawing unwilling human sacrifices, though I'm not so fond of the idea of the UN mandating a domestic policy like that. :)

I think we have to remember that people go through points in their lives where they may feel vulnerable and that life isn't worth living, we shouldn't allow organisations to pray on these people.

Fine. The death penalty should be abolished, I suppose, as well, seeing as how difficult it will be to differentiate between a religious nation executing a criminal versus 'sacrificing' said criminal.

I agree, the death penalty should go aswell.

I think we have to remember that people go through points in their lives where they may feel vulnerable and that life isn't worth living, we shouldn't allow organisations to pray on these people.

Then don't. :) (Nice pun with "pray" by the way.)

I just don't think the UN ought to be making domestic policies an international obligation.

The point of the U.N. is to interfere with domestic policies to establish a basic set of rules to which all it's members must abide by.

I think the killing of humans is definitely one of these, don't you?

though i am not a huge fan of the death penalty i think that it should stay. Otherwise we may be more inclined to attempt rehabilitations of prisoners and then release them back into the population which could proof to be a foolish act. The death penalty should be reserved for the most dangerous and killers.

Really, I'm with TH. Assuming you're a sane adult, throwing away one's life is a choice for the individual.

But then, religions which advocate that sort of thing aren't a problem in _Myopia_.

Does someone with depression qualify as insane? How can you draw that line?

There's also the fact that someone choosing to die does not effect just them. It effects their family and friends too.

Of course they may commit suicide otherwise, but let us not glorify suicide by calling it a sacrifice.

There's also the fact that someone choosing to die does not effect just them. It effects their family and friends too.

So does any life choice - choices of friends, of partners, of places to live, of careers, whether or not to smoke etc. all affect the people around you. That doesn't mean that your right to choose ought to be restricted on the basis of the feelings of friends and family.

How can you draw that line?

We tend to consult medical professionals. If their condition can be classified as an actual mental illness (e.g. clinical depression rather than less serious cases), then they are generally deemed unfit to give consent to that kind of thing.

_Myopia_ is fully in support of allowing terminal patients to choose death, and we don't feel it's the place of the government to tell responsible adults that some reasons aren't good enough for them to exercise their rights to their own life. If that makes any sense - basically, we feel it would be inconsistent to allow people to choose death for some reasons but not others, given that it's their life so they should be able to set their own priorities.

Very well that's your position. However, euthanasia is different from legal sacrfices. Euthaniasia prevents pain and gives a respectful death.

Sacrfices can rely on someone who feels they have nothing left to live for, someone who is unable to see the bigger picture of what life may hold in store for them.

Making sacfrices legal is just giving someone another reason to kill themselves, something we are very much against.

Very well that's your position. However, euthanasia is different from legal sacrfices. Euthaniasia prevents pain and gives a respectful death.

Sacrfices can rely on someone who feels they have nothing left to live for, someone who is unable to see the bigger picture of what life may hold in store for them.

Surely patients lying in their deathbeds paralysed who choose death do so because they feel they have nothing left to live for?

And I think it more likely that people will volunteer because they truly believe that it would be a worthwhile death leading to a good afterlife. Who are we to declare that this belief is so blatantly wrong that they can't apply it to their own life choices? I can understand perfectly if you want to say that they can't impose it on others by sacrificing them against their will, but for themselves, its their life and so their priorities.

Please clarify any proposal to exclude military personnel, and to make the rule not apply during times of war.

Also, I disagree with the UN mandating the outlawing of the Death Penalty. This should be left to national government.

Very well that's your position. However, euthanasia is different from legal sacrfices. Euthaniasia prevents pain and gives a respectful death.

Sacrfices can rely on someone who feels they have nothing left to live for, someone who is unable to see the bigger picture of what life may hold in store for them.

Making sacfrices legal is just giving someone another reason to kill themselves, something we are very much against.

Euthaniasia is nothing more than assisted suicide, or worse. I am sorry Neoconland i have agreed alot with the things you have said but it is not right to allow assisted suicide. Even though how much that person may suffer, it is not our decision. Our lives are not our own, and who are we to take anothers life to end suffering.

... and just how do you plan to get around the whole "freedom of religion and right to practice one's religion" thing?

Because however you do it, that will be the method by which I'll sink yours.

Next.

Saint Uriel supports a UN resolution against human sacrifices. Although, the resolution does need, perhaps, some clarification as to what constitutes a sacrifice.

Our national charter already outlaws capital punishment (execution) for any crime. Euthanasia, however, is another matter that is being hotly debated in our parliament.

Our lives are not our own

This view is intensely disturbing to me. If you believe that our lives belong, not to ourselves, but to some deity, then to say anything other than that each individual's death should be decided by that individual based on his/her own personal religious beliefs, is to deny the freedoms of conscience and religion. For the state to lay claim to this decision is to either say that the our lives belong to the state, or that the state is enforcing the law on behalf of some deity - which in turn implies that the state knows better than its citizens when it comes to theological truth.

So which is it?

The point of the U.N. is to interfere with domestic policies to establish a basic set of rules to which all it's members must abide by.

That's just your opinion. The UN has no charter and no mission statement setting the purpose or goal of this organization. The members of the NSUN decide what the purpose of the NSUN is by deciding what it will do by voting on legislation.

I think the killing of humans is definitely one of these, don't you?

Nope. I'm horribly consistent. :)

The sacrifice of humans is to be made illegal, no matter what the circumstances.

CLARIFIES that even an event where the sacrifice is a willing participant should be made illegal.
So a fireman rushing in to a burning building to save otherwise helpless victims would be stopped at the barricade by UN inspectors? The Coast Guard sailor risking likely death to rescue a bunch of stricken swimmers...? The soldier who steps in front of the bullet to save his buddies ...? The mother who stays behind because the helicopter only has room for her three kids? The very concept of nobility in sacrifice is denied by this phrasing.

We will never support any legislation that doesn't allow circumstantial bypass. The world doesn't work that way.

This would be an excellent way of condemning suicide attacks.

ill vote.

Conservative forces will ne notified. Well played neocon.

Well, I'm glad to know that I can mobilize the religious right at will. It truly gives me perverse satisfaction, which, of course, from their perspective is the only kind that one can experience in Krioval. Since this entire thread was spawned from my admission that I executed a single criminal publicly and in a manner that could be called 'ritualistic' (I may have also used the word 'sacrifice'), I'm honored. Really. Anesthetized traitor is executed over the course of two minutes - obviously this needs to be stopped. Never mind that most comprising the religious right are in favor of capital punishment in far more cases than is Krioval - ours applies only to those convicted of treason, and even then, there's no guarantee that we apply the ritual method.

But please, by all means galvanize behind this. Of course, one mention of the words 'God', 'deity', or any other word that connotes religion in the justice system (ex. "In accord with God's law...") means that another nation could legitimately interpret that execution as a human sacrifice, and if it's a reasonably common occurrence, expect a visit from some human rights watchdogs. Watching people shoot themselves in the foot while working themselves into a lather over a non-issue is fun (even when I'm doing it too, I freely admit).

Surely patients lying in their deathbeds paralysed who choose death do so because they feel they have nothing left to live for?

Yes and no. Someone who is on their death bed and knows they are going to die would be rather silly to use euthenasia unless they were under severe pain. They KNOW they are going to die. So shortening it by a few days or weeks is rather pointless, and shortens the time you have with friends and family.

And I think it more likely that people will volunteer because they truly believe that it would be a worthwhile death leading to a good afterlife. Who are we to declare that this belief is so blatantly wrong that they can't apply it to their own life choices? I can understand perfectly if you want to say that they can't impose it on others by sacrificing them against their will, but for themselves, its their life and so their priorities.

Because in lfie people make many choices they regret. They would not be able to regret this.

Euthaniasia is nothing more than assisted suicide, or worse. I am sorry Neoconland i have agreed alot with the things you have said but it is not right to allow assisted suicide. Even though how much that person may suffer, it is not our decision. Our lives are not our own, and who are we to take anothers life to end suffering.

I have not come out in favour of euthanasia, just listed it's merits.

That's just your opinion. The UN has no charter and no mission statement setting the purpose or goal of this organization. The members of the NSUN decide what the purpose of the NSUN is by deciding what it will do by voting on legislation.

You are just fooling yourself if you think the U.N. hasn't meddled inn domestic affairs before.

So a fireman rushing in to a burning building to save otherwise helpless victims would be stopped at the barricade by UN inspectors? The Coast Guard sailor risking likely death to rescue a bunch of stricken swimmers...? The soldier who steps in front of the bullet to save his buddies ...? The mother who stays behind because the helicopter only has room for her three kids? The very concept of nobility in sacrifice is denied by this phrasing.

We will never support any legislation that doesn't allow circumstantial bypass. The world doesn't work that way.

An excellent point, what wording would you suggest be used instead?

... and just how do you plan to get around the whole "freedom of religion and right to practice one's religion" thing?

Because however you do it, that will be the method by which I'll sink yours.

Next.

Before you dismiss it so quickly, think fo this: Do you think people should be allow to rape in the name of their religion? What about pedophilia, should that be ok as long as it's for religious reason?

An excellent point, what wording would you suggest be used instead?
Well ... as it happens, Frisbeeteria doesn't have a problem with the concept of human sacrifice. Presumably you mean this as a religious concept, and we pretty much don't care what religions do in Frisbeeteria as long as the churches pay their taxes on time and they don't do anything to inconvience business. As long as they only sacrifice non-employees, it doesn't really affect the bottom line, so what the heck. Let 'em have their rituals.

The point of the U.N. is to interfere with domestic policies to establish a basic set of rules to which all it's members must abide by.

The ancient ambassador from Mikitivity falls to the floor. After taking a few minutes to catch his breath, he rises again.

My apologies ... that is just a rather strong opinion and caught me off-guard. As you can see, my health is not as good these days as it once was. While that might be your government's opinion as to a good reason to join the United Nations, my government disagrees with that opinion.

We actually believe that in order for a UN resolution to be worthy of consideration, that there must be "international standing". In other words, the United Nations should limit its actions to smoothing interactions between nations and focus on issues that cross national borders.

With that in mind, kidnapping and trafficking in persons is already banned by the United Nations, in its resolution #68 "Ban Trafficking in Persons" (authored by North Koster).

The ambassador from Mikitivity pulls out a hard copy of the resolution.

Hmmm, while my government would prefer a reformatting of this resolution, it does seem to me that the basic principal behind that human rights resolution is that it is wrong to lure people from one country to another country and then to exploit them. The resolution is rather broad in its characterization of exploitation, and it is the opinion of the Confederated City States that misleading or kidnapping people for human sacrafices would be against this resolution.

You are just fooling yourself if you think the U.N. hasn't meddled inn domestic affairs before.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha! Hehe. Aaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaa! Now that was funny. :)

I never said that the UN hasn't meddled in domestic affairs before. I wouldn't have to go around advocating a respect of national sovereignty by the UN if I didn't think the UN was overstepping it's bounds by legislating on domestic affairs, now would I? :)

What I actually pointed out was that your claim that the purpose of the UN was to interfere in domestic policy was just your opinion. One that seems to be held by the majority, but an opinion nonetheless.

I'm suprised nobody has pointed out that their is an issue for this already (#58: Violent Violetists Demand Blood!). So in other words if youi want to ban human sacrifice in your nation just wait for this issue to come up and do it, there's no need to force the issue on all UN members.