NationStates Jolt Archive

The People of The Free Land of Brurn1Love have submitted a proposal repealing the mandate that all UN Nations legalize Euthenasia. We are asking for all UN Delegates support, and our reasons are stated clearly on the bill. If there are any questions regarding this issue we would like to answer/debate them here in this thread. Thank you for your time. Peace and Love,

The Free Land of Burn1Love

It's considered common courtesy to quote your repeal text.

Argument: Intro: Every man/woman should be able to live their life according to their own beliefs on moral issues, just so long as no one else is being hurt.

Argument 1: Nobody knows a certain Nations socially accepted belief on a moral issue better the the leaders of the Nation itself

Argument 2: No Region knows its regions own socially accrpted belief on a moral issue better then the regions UN Delegate.

Argument 3: The origional proposition had 10,031 UN Nations oppose it, compared to 10,810 who approved it.

Argument 4: The UN should only make laws regarding obvious moral issues which preserve life in a world full of death fighting, and crime, and should not impose such controversial issues such as Euthenasia on a world which has so many belonging members who oppose it. Is it right for the UN to force apon Nations a law in which they may in fact see as a sin or morally wrong? Or Force a nation to accept a law which is set on death and not on scientific advancement or life?

Resolution: To repeal the law which is forced apon nations and to let the Nations themselves decide if it is what their Nation believes in.

In hope: Hoping that each Nation makes the right decision, and that they are able to live out their moral beliefs, without the government intervening.

We will never support a repeal of legalise euthanasia.

And we believe an individuals right to decide when to die is more important then the governments right to control them. Morally opposed to euthanasia? Just don't do it.

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

Argument: Intro: Every man/woman should be able to live their life according to their own beliefs on moral issues, just so long as no one else is being hurt.

Argument 1: Nobody knows a certain Nations socially accepted belief on a moral issue better the the leaders of the Nation itself

Argument 2: No Region knows its regions own socially accrpted belief on a moral issue better then the regions UN Delegate.

With these three things you seem to be arguing the merit of primacy of UN law. That's an odd thing to do...in a proposed piece of UN law.

Argument 3: The origional proposition had 10,031 UN Nations oppose it, compared to 10,810 who approved it.

That is, more people supported it than opposed it. Seems fair to me.

Argument 4: The UN should only make laws regarding obvious moral issues which preserve life in a world full of death fighting, and crime, and should not impose such controversial issues such as Euthenasia on a world which has so many belonging members who oppose it. Is it right for the UN to force apon Nations a law in which they may in fact see as a sin or morally wrong? Or Force a nation to accept a law which is set on death and not on scientific advancement or life?

There are obvious moral issues? I think quite a few philosophy professors would be pretty interested to hear from you. You are welcome to leave the UN is you believe their laws are 'morally wrong'.

Resolution: To repeal the law which is forced apon nations and to let the Nations themselves decide if it is what their Nation believes in.

Resolutions 2-126 impose beliefs upon nations. Should we repeal them all?

In hope: Hoping that each Nation makes the right decision, and that they are able to live out their moral beliefs, without the government intervening.

...but you earlier said the government knew the moral will of the people best? How, in something like state medical policy, can the government not intervene?

You seem to be arguing that because you believe euthanasia is immoral, it should not be forced upon your nation. Having things you disagree with forced upon you is a price of UN membership. This is not an argument for a repeal; it is an argument for abolition of the UN. I suggest you focus more on the resolution text in your next attempt.

We are not arguing the abolishment of the UN. We are arguing that the UN should not pass laws in which a great minority such as over 10,000 nations oppose and only a few more agree. The UN is to serve the commongood and beliefs of ALL nations. We feel that by legalizing Euthenasia you are forcing many UN Nations to do something they feel is morally wrong. Some countries, such as ourselves, believe in making laws which only preserve life. Euthenasia in no way preserves life, it is bent on the killing of people. As we know this is not a black and white world. There are shades of grey in all issues and solutions. How do we know that the Legalizing of Euthenasia will not lead to corrupt doctors killing people, or family members taking advantage of it to kill off an old wealthy family member. Because you can not deter this from happening completely and that there is always a way for one wrong person to die because of this law, we believe that No laws should be made which revolve around the death of an individual. Instead why not make laws which fund the research of these life threatning illnesses which lead to it. The UN by all means should regulate issues such as slavery, deforestation, torture, and so on, but issues as controversial as Euthenasia should be left alone.

We are not arguing the abolishment of the UN. We are arguing that the UN should not pass laws in which a great minority such as over 10,000 nations oppose and only a few more agree.

So you're arguing against...democracy. Ok.

Changing the vote system is a nice idea, but it's not going to happen: it's a coding change. Even speaking of such things is verboten. Maybe it would be good to have a system based 'not a small margin but, you know, a few more people', but it's beyond the scope of our ability as legislators.

The UN is to serve the commongood and beliefs of ALL nations. We feel that by legalizing Euthenasia you are forcing many UN Nations to do something they feel is morally wrong.

Any UN law creates such a situation. There are, literally, scores of resolutions Gruenbergers find immoral.

Some countries, such as ourselves, believe in making laws which only preserve life. Euthenasia in no way preserves life, it is bent on the killing of people. As we know this is not a black and white world. There are shades of grey in all issues and solutions. How do we know that the Legalizing of Euthenasia will not lead to corrupt doctors killing people, or family members taking advantage of it to kill off an old wealthy family member. Because you can not deter this from happening completely and that there is always a way for one wrong person to die because of this law, we believe that No laws should be made which revolve around the death of an individual. Instead why not make laws which fund the research of these life threatning illnesses which lead to it. The UN by all means should regulate issues such as slavery, deforestation, torture, and so on, but issues as controversial as Euthenasia should be left alone.

I'm not going to do the whole euthanasia debate, because it's really quite dull. You are going to have to present more than 'you kill old people' as an argument, though.

Once again you have missed our point. We do not wish to argue the morallity of Euthenasia either, nor the process of democracy. We are saying instead that the UN should not be making laws which are bent around the killing of ANYBODY. We should be making laws that better society by abolishing things which prohibit people from living, or creating things which enhance ones life. The bill of Euthenasia involves solely the issue of people killing each other, and why would we want to spread global a law which deals with the killing of ones self. Legalize Euthenasia in your own Nation, we don't care. It is your choice, we are not trying to abolish Euthenasia, but rather abolish laws made by the UN which involve legalized killing. Show me another UN proposal which is bent on killing rather then improving life.

Show me another UN proposal which is bent on killing rather then improving life.

UNSA? Right to Self-Defence? Nuclear Armaments? All seem to involve killing to me. Nonetheless, thank you for turning up and telling us what the UN should and shouldn't do. How could we have been so foolish all this time!

***IMPERIAL MESSAGE***

The UN has been going on great since it's beginning. And then a new player comes along and tries to tell us that we are doing wrong? I got some advice. If you don't like how we are running the UN, then you are free to leave it. Otherwise, stating that you want a resolution repealed because you don't agree with it, and not giving some cold hard facts will not get your proposal in Que, and it will not get a quarem with the UN Deligates.

I myself, as a UN Deligate, will not endorce this proposal on the grounds that it does not help the situation at all. It does more harm than good.

UNSA? Right to Self-Defence? Nuclear Armaments? All seem to involve killing to me. Nonetheless, thank you for turning up and telling us what the UN should and shouldn't do. How could we have been so foolish all this time!

First we The People of Burn1Love would like to humbly request that you do not treat us with disrespect based on the fact that we are relatively new and that you disagree with a proposal we have made. We merely want to have a healthy debate leaving sarcastic jokes aimed at criticizing us out.

Now to your statements:
After going through EVERY amendment made by the UN, we have found the same issues you have which deal with violence, or force, but there is one key difference from those and the Euthenasia Bill.


Self Defense:
1. All persons have the right to use reasonable force to defend their person or their legally obtained property from imminent or current unlawful assaults.
2. All persons have the right to use reasonable force to defend other persons or the legally obtained property of other persons from imminent or current unlawful assaults.

This law stresses in both incidents that "reasonable force to defend" can be used. It does not allow the killing at will of themselves or any other people

Nuclear Armaments:
1. DECLARES that UN members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations,

2. PRESERVES the right for individual nations to decide if they want to possess nuclear weapons.

this law does nothing but preserve the right for UN nations to "posses nuclear weapons to DEFEND themselves from hostile nations." It does not allow UN Nations to blow themselves or other countries up freely.

UNSA:

DECLARES that all member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has placed restrictions on that right.

Once again this bill protects the right to "construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to DEFEND their nation from ATTACK". It does not allow UN Nations to freely kill themselves or other Nations with these weapons.


Euthenasia however allows people to kill themselves, and is focused mainly on the killing of the human being, and having nothing to do with defense. It is unique of its kind. There are no laws which allow suicide, and there are no laws which force the death penalty. Why is Euthenasia the only law which forces countries to let people in their country kill each other? That is our point, and that is the reason we want to repeal it.

It is national protection, though. Keeps their grubby mitts off pension money that can be better spent on new electric chairs and guns. (Gruenberg is quite a pro-killing nation, as they go.)

***IMPERIAL MESSAGE***

The UN has been going on great since it's beginning. And then a new player comes along and tries to tell us that we are doing wrong? I got some advice. If you don't like how we are running the UN, then you are free to leave it. Otherwise, stating that you want a resolution repealed because you don't agree with it, and not giving some cold hard facts will not get your proposal in Que, and it will not get a quarem with the UN Deligates.

I myself, as a UN Deligate, will not endorce this proposal on the grounds that it does not help the situation at all. It does more harm than good.

Is it so hard to accept that a fellow UN Nation wants to repeal a law which it sees not fitting for the UN. We have made no statements attacking the UN, but rather suggesting new ideas. Yes, we are a new Nation, we are glad you noticed. Does the fact that we are new automatically render us null and void. If so i want no part of this organization. Our country percieved the UN as a place where countries come together to decide what is best for all, and in our time of being here we have been nothing but criticized. Try not to take this repeal too personal, if you read our writing with closed eyes you will only see what you want to see. We are in no way a huge minority here. Looking at the results of the Euthenasia bill there are at least 10,000 UN Nations which might agree with us. We are not attacking Euthenasia, we are not attacking the UN, we are ot attacking any countries in particular, but rather we are suggesting an idea of making laws based on life and not death.

It is national protection, though. Keeps their grubby mitts off pension money that can be better spent on new electric chairs and guns. (Gruenberg is quite a pro-killing nation, as they go.)


That explains everything.

this law does nothing but preserve the right for UN nations to "posses nuclear weapons to DEFEND themselves from hostile nations." It does not allow UN Nations to blow themselves or other countries up freely.


Nuclear weapons are not defensive. They are offensive. Having them gives people the right to use them, and I would argue that killing millions of people at once is more of a risk to the world than letting one person to chose themselves whether they die or not.


Euthenasia however allows people to kill themselves, and is focused mainly on the killing of the human being, and having nothing to do with defense. It is unique of its kind. There are no laws which allow suicide, and there are no laws which force the death penalty. Why is Euthenasia the only law which forces countries to let people in their country kill each other? That is our point, and that is the reason we want to repeal it.

It defends the right for people not to live in pain and agony because they are incapable of taking action to end their own lives. By forcing someone to live when they are in agony every single day, you are not actually defending their right to life - you are forcing suffering upon them.

You want a resolution to do that?

Nuclear weapons are not defensive. They are offensive. Having them gives people the right to use them, and I would argue that killing millions of people at once is more of a risk to the world than letting one person to chose themselves whether they die or not.



It defends the right for people not to live in pain and agony because they are incapable of taking action to end their own lives. By forcing someone to live when they are in agony every single day, you are not actually defending their right to life - you are forcing suffering upon them.

You want a resolution to do that?


To your first point. Nuclear weapons are defensive if it deters a nation from attacking you because they know they will get blown.

T your second point. In no way does my bill make Euthenasia illegal, instead it states that Euthenasia is an issue which should be decided on by each individual nation.

T your second point. In no way does my bill make Euthenasia illegal, instead it states that Euthenasia is an issue which should be decided on by each individual nation.

Right! You should argue that, though, and make it clearer in your bill, I feel, rather than woolly statements about the UN's moral jurisdiction. A repeal based around the idea that euthanasia is a national, not an international, problem, would probably get my support.

To your first point. Nuclear weapons are defensive if it deters a nation from attacking you because they know they will get blown.


They are a deterrent, and if they are used MILLIONS die. The world would be so much better off without them - they are, by far and away - the most horrible non-scientific weapons ever created and are an abomination in life.

Some would say, and yet you argue for them to be kept because they save lives.


T your second point. In no way does my bill make Euthenasia illegal, instead it states that Euthenasia is an issue which should be decided on by each individual nation.

Which will let those people who think that life, however painful it might be, is sacred ensure that they can feel good about themselves and their moral rightness by condemming lots of other people to a slow, torturous death.

I say it should be kept in the hands of the people, not the governments. If someone doesn't want to kill themselves, they won't.

Right! You should argue that, though, and make it clearer in your bill, I feel, rather than woolly statements about the UN's moral jurisdiction. A repeal based around the idea that euthanasia is a national, not an international, problem, would probably get my support.


Thank You! We are sorry for our confusion. We have not been arguing that Euthenasia is wrong, but instead we have been arguing that the issue should be a national issue based on the amount of Nations which oppose it. We are sorry for our confusion, and we will amend the repeal to make it more clear.

*Edit* The reason we stated those "Arguments" in the repeal proposal was to demonstrate that in cases like Euthenasia, the government of the Nation knows best how the Nation feels socially, and because the local government knows best about the people in which it governs, the UN should let the government decide its stance on Euthenasia.

-Snip-

The reason why i stated what i did is for the following reason:

The resolution in question does not MANDATE that a nation MUST give the person a choice to live or die. It gives them that option. A nation has one of two choices.


Let the subject know about the Euthenasia resolution and tell them they have a choice.
Don't tell them.


Understand now?

Argument: Intro: Every man/woman should be able to live their life according to their own beliefs on moral issues, just so long as no one else is being hurt.

Absolutely. And legalise Euthanasia does just that.

Argument 1: Nobody knows a certain Nations socially accepted belief on a moral issue better the the leaders of the Nation itself

Argument 2: No Region knows its regions own socially accrpted belief on a moral issue better then the regions UN Delegate.

Nor can that nation nor region know the socially or morally acceptable belief by each of its own citizens, just a poll of the majority (just like the UN polls its majority). As such, I shall not allow a nation impose its "moral" belief upon a nation. Legalise Euthanasia only imposes this belief upon nations, it does NOT impose this belief on citizens, for those citizens still have the choice to choose between living or dieing.

Argument 3: The origional proposition had 10,031 UN Nations oppose it, compared to 10,810 who approved it.

Agreed, so a referendum on the matter might be in order, but this is not a good text to have a referendum with. It's a really badly argued repeal attempt. Here's a clue, the UN has passed half a dozen resolutions on Same Sex marriage, it doesn't care about morality.

Argument 4: The UN should only make laws regarding obvious moral issues which preserve life in a world full of death fighting, and crime, and should not impose such controversial issues such as Euthenasia on a world which has so many belonging members who oppose it.

Says who they opposed it. The original resolution was poorly written and is on my to-do list to repeal FOR that reason. I want Euthanasia to be legalised, but I don't want it legalised in a poorly argued resolution. Note: a repeal that's equally poorly argued is worse, because I can't repeal the repeal.

Is it right for the UN to force apon Nations a law in which they may in fact see as a sin or morally wrong?

Yes. When it comes to rights, I don't give a damn about morals. The morality of euthanasia is irrelevant to whether it should be legalised.

Or Force a nation to accept a law which is set on death and not on scientific advancement or life?

Yes.

Just a thought: one of the things that is attached to euthanasia is the concept of right to refuse treatment - especially in cases where death is the consequence of not having that treatment. As such, what about those who's morals say it is morally wrong to operate on a man. Should THEY have their rights revoked because YOU or any other government think that it is morally wrong for them to die?

What about those who will certainly be a vegetable if they continue to live? Should they be given a life where they don't even have a concept of self? Some consider that the greatest form of suffering that can be afforded someone. Or should they be allowed to be disconnected from the system so that they may die a peaceful death?

Resolution: To repeal the law which is forced apon nations and to let the Nations themselves decide if it is what their Nation believes in.

Don't agree with the concept to begin with, so I shall not repeal this law.

In hope: Hoping that each Nation makes the right decision, and that they are able to live out their moral beliefs, without the government intervening.

A government wants to make its own decisions without another government intervening. The other government wants those citizens to be able to make their own decisions without the first government intervening.

Can anyone say "irony"?

Hirota feels that the interests of the individual override national sovereignty issues in this situation. Concerns can be rightly expressed that if this resolution is repealed that the quality of life for individuals in pain and suffering is greatly reduced, and whilst Hirota feels that efforts should be made to prevent the need for Euthanasia, there has to come a point where the well-being, comfort, and quality of life of the individual have to be the overriding consideration.

However, given the small minority in the resolution vote, we do feel this should be voted upon, if only to prevent a repeal returning again.

We do not care how the bill is written. All we want is for Nations to be able to decide whether Euthenasia should be legal or not, based on the fact that there is a large minority.

We do not care how the bill is written. All we want is for Nations to be able to decide whether Euthenasia should be legal or not, based on the fact that there is a large minority.

And all I want is for it to be left in the hands of the people, not the nations. And until the minority is larger than the majority, I would argue that the resolution should stand.

However, given the small minority in the resolution vote, we do feel this should be voted upon, if only to prevent a repeal returning again.

(grin) Cause that always works :}

We do not care how the bill is written. All we want is for Nations to be able to decide whether Euthenasia should be legal or not, based on the fact that there is a large minority.Well, if you are going to be that obstinate....then I'll do everything in my power to make sure if fails. Not because I disagree with you, but simply because you are incapable of listening to positive feedback.

A minority is a minority is a minority. You don't like it? Tough luck. I'm supporting this resolution because of the people who do matter (those in pain and suffering) generally do want the option to exercise the right to die, and I don't give diddly squat about national soverignty in this situation.(grin) Cause that always works :}Nothing wrong with a bit of naive optimism from time to time. ;)

Well, if you are going to be that obstinate....then I'll do everything in my power to make sure if fails. Not because I disagree with you, but simply because you are incapable of listening to positive feedback.
I want it to fail, too. But likely for different reasons.

In this particular case, "Legalize Euthanasia" effectively allows my nation to determine how to address euthanasia (i.e. it doesn't enforce pro-euthanasia legislation on me). Should it be removed, I fear that a replacement would take away my citizens' right to determine what is moral and immoral.


A minority is a minority is a minority. You don't like it? Tough luck
I tend to disagree with this statement, and would suggest that more radical iterations of it (such as "the UN should micromanage everyone according to the majority's will") are why I find a lot of previous UN resolutions and attitudes ideologically distasteful, overly arrogant, and senseless government.

Not that I feel your nation is any of those Hirota :)

*Sends the Hirotan representative a box of the finest Powerhungry Chipmunks Chocolates*

"A minority is a minority is a minority. You don't like it? Tough luck."


So basically you are saying the minority voice has no rights. No matter how big the minority as long as its a minority, screw them. I would like to think that a world government which tries to spread peace and unity among all nations would have a little more compassion for the minority. Except for a small few, all i have seen here are a bunch of powerhungry people who want to take control over the UN and world rather then justly make laws which the whole world agrees apon overwhelmingly not a difference of 500 or so votes when 20,000 were cast.

A minority is a minority is a minority. You don't like it? Tough luck.

You are aware you're subject to legislation that suggests otherwise?

We do not care how the bill is written. All we want is for Nations to be able to decide whether Euthenasia should be legal or not, based on the fact that there is a large minority.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

NatSov might be a major issue, but it doesn't have majority support. It actually has a disproportionately high level of support from those on these forums. You MIGHT get 10% of people to vote against a resolution for NatSov reasons, and you sure as heck aren't going to get a resolution to quarom.

Quality of resolution has a much different status in these halls, and people have and do vote for repeals or against resolutions because the quality was bad. In terms of passing a poor quality resolution, you're probably looking at a 5-10% dip. When you look at repeal side, it's probably closer to 25%. Even better if its not a morally contentious issue.

"A minority is a minority is a minority. You don't like it? Tough luck."


So basically you are saying the minority voice has no rights. No matter how big the minority as long as its a minority, screw them. I would like to think that a world government which tries to spread peace and unity among all nations would have a little more compassion for the minority. Except for a small few, all i have seen here are a bunch of powerhungry people who want to take control over the UN and world rather then justly make laws which the whole world agrees apon overwhelmingly not a difference of 500 or so votes when 20,000 were cast.

No - I am saying that a minority has rights. Gay Rights (for example) secures the rights for a minority that a lot of people take for granted. Further more "definition of marriage" enshrines a lot of minority rights. "Rights of Minorities And Women" (despite it's interesting approach) does the same thing.

The fact is the UN is a democratic, biggest vote wins organization. And the resolution you are trying to repeal was passed nearly a year ago (nigh on ten months now) and since then no one has managed to bring a repeal to the floor, which would imply that although a tiny amount brought it in to power, the UN as it stands now does not support repealing it.

You are not required to kill your citizens under this. You do not have to shoot the old, the infirmed and the sick, the lame and the senile. If no one in your nation wants to put themselves out of their misery, they don't have to - this is not a resolution that requires that (because if it was, it would never have passed).

All you are required to do is let each individual chose the time of their passing if they so want to. Their death will not hurt you - you might not even know they have done it. But you wish to make them suffer by prolonging their life way past the point they think it is worth it.

I think that is cruel and unusual, and one of the main (if not the only) reasons I tend to oppose a repeal.

Just to clarify Hirota has been long seeking to protect minority groups since our membership into the UN was accepted (see Rights of indigenous peoples for the most obvious example of Hirota protecting minorities). So from that perspective we do seek to protect minority groups, sometimes at the expence of the masses.

Indeed, I did say "However, given the small majority in the resolution vote, we do feel this should be voted upon, if only to prevent a repeal returning again."

(I said minority, I meant majority when I initially wrote this in this topic. :| )

BUT, if this repeal is going to have any chance of success, it should have a stronger arguement than it was a close vote last time ("We do not care how the bill is written. All we want is for Nations to be able to decide whether Euthenasia should be legal or not, based on the fact that there is a large minority.")

It's simply because that's such a dumb argument that we oppose the repeal. if it had more substance to it, then we would consider and vote accordingly (probably voting against a repeal, but we keep an open mind on such things, but it would have to be brilliantly argued to change my governments mind).

Moreover, I'm not especially bothered about minorities when it comes to resolutions being voted by nations - but minorities in nations. I'd say the terminally ill and suffering is a minority, thus I'm inclined to protect their freedom to end their suffering however they want. Does that mean stepping on the toes of a few governments? Yup. Am I bothered in the slightest that you are upset that I've taken away your nations rights to legislate? Nope. Am I glad I've give the right choose to the people who matter? Yes, and I'd do it again and again.