NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal "Legalise Euthanasia"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #43
Proposed by: Blu-tac

Description: UN Resolution #43: Legalise Euthanasia (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: I respect the fact that a state has the right to choose their own opinions on issues, something which obviously this proposal does not.

This proposal goes into realms I do not like to see the UN going into. It restricts an individual nations choice on it's own laws on a very topical issue. There are Christian nations who are vehemently against euthanasia and see it as an act of murder. This proposal is going against their views and putting them off the UN, leaving them feeling alone and isloated from the international community.

This proposal follows idealogical agendas and does nothing for the world in general. It is an individual nations right to choose on such a topical issue and I respect that.

I feel that this should be rendered void and the issue of euthanasia left alone for an individual nation to choose on.

The narrow margin that this proposal originally passed by shows how divided the UN is on such an issue and this does not respect the rights of individual nations.

Wow, those Christian nations are lucky. Because they all hate euthanasia, none of them will request it, so the resolution won't really matter.

We Wenaists are in a far harder position: we don't all disapprove of euthanasia, so some of our citizens do request it.

I see it as a realm that the UN should not be going into. Yes the UN can go into something and legislate on something like child abuse, but not on such an issue where the UN members are so split on it.

Wow, those Christian nations are lucky. Because they all hate euthanasia, none of them will request it, so the resolution won't really matter.

We Wenaists are in a far harder position: we don't all disapprove of euthanasia, so some of our citizens do request it.

*heavy sound of jaw dropping on the floor*
Gruenberg is defending such a controversial "human right"???

I see it as a realm that the UN should not be going into. Yes the UN can go into something and legislise on something like child abuse, but not on such an issue where the UN members are so split on it.

I would be strongly against legalising child abuse. :p

This proposal goes into realms I do not like to see the UN going into. It restricts an individual nations choice on it's own laws on a very topical issue. There are Christian nations who are vehemently against euthanasia and see it as an act of murder. This proposal is going against their views and putting them off the UN, leaving them feeling alone and isloated from the international community.

Christian nations require a mandate from a majority of their citizens to approve of their Christian nature, therefore it is unlikely that many of their citizens would exercise the right to euthanasia in the first place. For the remainder who are not Christian, there is no guarantee that they will accept, nor should they be required to accept the dictates of the Christian/religious majority, if they have no social objection to it. On these matters, the U.N. has acted to enshrine the rights of those who are in need of their presence, not necessarily to please everyone.

This proposal follows idealogical agendas and does nothing for the world in general. It is an individual nations right to choose on such a topical issue and I respect that.

The U.N. is a political entity and ideology and politics go hand in hand. A topical issue requires clarification so that there is a common standard of provision and acknowledgment of human rights values amongst U.N. members.

The narrow margin that this proposal originally passed by shows how divided the UN is on such an issue and this does not respect the rights of individual nations.

No it shows that the U.N. is a democracy and that a democratic decision, allbeit a narrow one, has been made. If we had to govern by super-majority, nothing would get done, which would hardly be an improvement.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

*heavy sound of jaw dropping on the floor*
Gruenberg is defending such a controversial "human right"???

Not at all. I favour a repeal of "Legalise Euthanasia". Just not one that tries to glorify the heathen cult of a Jewish carpenter.

Not at all. I favour a repeal of "Legalise Euthanasia". Just not one that tries to glorify the heathen cult of a Jewish carpenter.

We too favour a repeal of this resolution, but not on religious or sovereignty grounds - we would favour a repeal with intent to replace on the grounds that the current legislation is utter rubbish which can very easily be dodged.

Not at all. I favour a repeal of "Legalise Euthanasia". Just not one that tries to glorify the heathen cult of a Jewish carpenter.

Damn. It would be fun to see you on the other side.

I would favour a repeal as well. Although I do support the legalisation of euthanasia, this issue stems from a balance between the right to decide on one's own body, and the right to life (which is assumed unforfeitable by some). As such, it is much too delicate for international legislation.

I would be strongly against legalising child abuse. :p

i meant legislate, changed.

I don't support a repeal of this, as I find the original resolution fairly benign.

However, you might want to take the "I"s out of the proposal, as that borders on branding.

Good Goddess...I just read the old resolution. What a bucket of shit. Ok, I very strongly support a repeal now; just not this one. I think we should hit the vagueness of it, the offensive inclusion of the word 'God', its status as a rambling horseshit essay (not sure we can include that exact phrase), and anyway the fact that this sort of blanket legislation is not appropriate.

"I...I...I...I..."

No.

Ecopoeia will happily support a repeal that makes no reference to fuzzy-headed mumbo-jumbo.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

I don't support a repeal of this, as I find the original resolution fairly benign.That's largely my opinion. I don't think the UN should be determining whether euthanasia is legal ('let the people decide', I say), so the current resolution, as swiss cheesy as it is, is as good as no resolution on the matter. At least, it's better than the likely absolutist replacement that'd replace.