NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=42 (The Resolution in question.



The General Assembly of the United Nations,

RECOGNIZING that Euthanasia is a controversial topic,

NOTING that individual Nations are currently obliged to pass legislation on this topic within their own jurisdiction,

ALSO NOTING that this Resolution is vague, biased, and contains exterraneous rhetoric which does not have bearing on this topic,

HEREBY repeals Resolution #43.


As this is the first proposal from the delegation from Rhoanon, suggestions and additions are welcome.


The People of the Free States of Rhoanon.

The General Assembly of the United Nations,

RECOGNIZING that Euthanasia is a controversial topic,

NOTING that individual Nations are currently obliged to pass legislation on this topic within their own jurisdiction,

FURTHER NOTING that many UN Member Nations are against this Resolution,

You could probably combine these into one National Sovereignity argument. You don't want to much NatSov, as it's looked down upon and can even make your proposal illegal.

ALSO NOTING that this Resolution is vague, biased, and contains exterraneous rhetoric which does not have bearing on this topic,
I don't see how it's vague. Of course it's biased: it's making a decision! The rhetoric is annoying but I don't think it's a reason to repeal this.

HEREBY repeals Resolution #43.
Always nice to have a good conclusion, and that does the job perfectly.

As this is the first proposal from the delegation from Rhoanon, suggestions and additions are welcome.
http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad45hk.png


Overall, I think you have some good ideas, but you need more. The proposal lacks substance, and isn't very specific. I can't really support this, but I'd be glad to help out a bit. You might seek the help of Gruenberg, if he supports this: he's a good one for repeals.

FURTHER NOTING that many UN Member Nations are against this Resolution,

Drop it and we might support.

Thanks for the tips. As to the NatSov arguements, I was really trying to express the following two things: first, as a democratic organization, the majority opinion on a given issue does have importance to the UN. This resolution was certainly not passed unanimously when it was proposed and the memership of the UN has probably changed enough in the past three years to affect the status quo

Second, Euthanasia is already an Issue. If this resolution was the only way to touch on the topic, I would be all for leaving it as is. However, nations have the option of making an individual judgment. The Issue makes this Resolution unnessecary -- I just wasn't sure how kosher talking about "Issue such and such" would be, so I didn't mention it specifically.

When I say it is biased, I don't mean that it has a feeling towards one side of the issue, but that its statements are overwhelmingly Judeo-Christian in nature. As a non-Christian, I find the wording to be discriminatory.

My personal beliefs aside, I simply wish to improve the UN's books, and I believe that this is an ideal example of a Resolution which, while meaning well, does not accurately represent the UN.

VV Also a good point.

One thing: I would actively condemn it for using the phrase 'God forbid' at the end.

Just explain a little more of what you said in your last post in your porposal, like what you see wrong with the wording of the document our nation would support.

Second, Euthanasia is already an Issue. If this resolution was the only way to touch on the topic, I would be all for leaving it as is. However, nations have the option of making an individual judgment. The Issue makes this Resolution unnessecary -- I just wasn't sure how kosher talking about "Issue such and such" would be, so I didn't mention it specifically.
No. The resolution is an attempt by some member nations to impose their views throughout the world. The daily issue lets nations have a choice -- this doesn't.

When I say it is biased, I don't mean that it has a feeling towards one side of the issue, but that its statements are overwhelmingly Judeo-Christian in nature. As a non-Christian, I find the wording to be discriminatory.
The only religious slant is the part about "being happy in paradise", unless you're talking about something else. However, the main people to oppose this on grounds of religion are Jews and Christians, so it's sort of like fighting fire with fire.

My personal beliefs aside, I simply wish to improve the UN's books, and I believe that this is an ideal example of a Resolution which, while meaning well, does not accurately represent the UN.
Hmmm...since it passed, I'd say it represents the majority of the UN at the time. I see what you mean about the wording, though.

The General Assembly of the United Nations,

RECOGNIZING that Euthanasia is a topic which is open to many disparate interpretations,

NOTING that individual Nations are currently obliged to pass legislation on this topic within their own jurisdiction,

ALSO NOTING that this Resolution is contains exterraneous rhetoric which does not have bearing on this topic,

CONDEMNING the religious bias of this Resolution; for example, the use of the phrase "God forbid," and

AFFIRMING that future Resolutions should be free of cultural or religious discrimination,

HEREBY repeals Resolution #43.

Ok, that's good. Now, I think the draft is a little heavy on attacking the style. You probably need one or two more clauses attacking content. In particular:
1. The vagueness leaves it very open for abuse.
2. There is no allowance for doctors to refuse to participate, which seems unfair.
3. The conditions are not layed out well.

Thanks again, Gruenburg. It has come to my attention, however, that there is already repeal proposed. It seems that my repeal is meatier; so I will continue revising it. However, nations who wish to show support for a repeal may want to look at the existing repeal: http://www.nationstates.net/20121/page=UN_proposal/start=8

More than one repeal can be proposed, though, and yours is significantly better.

The General Assembly of the United Nations,

RECOGNIZING that Euthanasia is a topic which is open to many disparate interpretations,

NOTING that individual Nations are currently obliged to pass legislation on this topic within their own jurisdiction,

ALSO NOTING that this Resolution is contains exterraneous rhetoric which does not have bearing on this topic,

CONDEMNING the religious bias of this Resolution; for example, the use of the phrase "God forbid,"

FURTHER CONDEMNING the lack of clearly-stated conditions under which Euthanasia would be legally appropriate,

SUGGESTING that individual medical personnel be allowed to decline to participate in commission of an act of euthanasia,

REQUESTING that any further Resolutions that regard this topic define such vital terms as "euthanasia," "life-threatening," and "closest relation," and

AFFIRMING that future Resolutions should be free of cultural or religious discrimination,

HEREBY repeals Resolution #43.

As a card-carrying Grammar Nazi, I'd like to see this

ALSO NOTING that this Resolution is contains exterraneous rhetoric which does not have bearing on this topic,
changed to this

ALSO NOTING that this Resolution contains extraneous rhetoric,
or this

ALSO NOTING that this Resolution contains rhetoric which does not have a bearing on this topic,
because


is contains is a typo;

the spelling is 'extraneous';

if you've got 'extraneous', then 'which does not have a bearing on this topic' is redundant, and vice versa;

and


it's 'a bearing', or perhaps 'any bearing' because 'a bearing' is a metaphor from navigation -- "Take a bearing on that rock, Mr Hornblower!" -- and if someone is heading so far away from a topic that he's going to miss it by miles, well, then, he obviously doesn't have a bearing on it.


This doesn't mean I'm supporting or rejecting the proposal. I'm a bureaucrat, not a delegate. But I promise to go dig our UN delegation out of the Strangers' Bar to see what they think.

John McGonagle,
Chief Secretary for Situations Like This.

I'm not so sure about what you call the 'religious bias' of the resolution - I'm either a spiritualist or an atheist, depending on the mood I'm in, and I still use phrases such as 'God forbid', 'thank Christ' and various others. These can be more an indication of your culture and environment than your actual religion.

I'm not so sure about what you call the 'religious bias' of the resolution - I'm either a spiritualist or an atheist, depending on the mood I'm in, and I still use phrases such as 'God forbid', 'thank Christ' and various others. These can be more an indication of your culture and environment than your actual religion.
OOC:

I have no way of backing this up, but I have always been certain that final use of 'God forbid' was intended to be, perhaps not 'religious', but as a targetted theological point. My justification is this:

"And for those using religion as a barrier, don't you think that whoever you believe in would rather see the person happy in paradise, rather than suffering?"

So I think the use of 'God forbid' is a sort of WWJD remark. That's my objection to it. And I really don't on any level think the UN should be passing resolutions with a phrase like 'God forbid' in them, spiritualist or not.

Fair enough. I hadn't remembered that line of the resolution. But, generally, it is better not to assume things without further evidence.

Well... call it cultural bias then... either way it is a culural or religious reference and should not be in UN resolutions because it favours one group of nations that uses "God forbid" rather than others that just don't have it or nations where a phrase like that would be offensive

Fair enough. I hadn't remembered that line of the resolution. But, generally, it is better not to assume things without further evidence.
Yes. I wouldn't suggest my assumption would stand in a repeal, nor should it; the phrase itself is enough.

The resolution is acceptable to Union canada.

[LIST]
is contains is a typo;

No, that's not a typo, just bad grammar.

Timithy Schmidt
PA to Bab Flibble

The General Assembly of the United Nations,

RECOGNIZING that Euthanasia is a topic which is open to many disparate interpretations,

NOTING that individual Nations are currently obliged to pass legislation on this topic within their own jurisdiction,

ALSO NOTING that this Resolution contains rhetoric which has no bearing on this topic,

CONDEMNING the religious bias of this Resolution; for example, the use of the phrase "God forbid,"

FURTHER CONDEMNING the lack of clearly-stated conditions under which Euthanasia would be legally appropriate,

SUGGESTING that individual medical personnel be allowed to decline to participate in commission of an act of euthanasia,

REQUESTING that any further Resolutions that regard this topic define such vital terms as "euthanasia," "life-threatening," and "closest relation," and

AFFIRMING that future Resolutions should be free of cultural or religious discrimination,

HEREBY repeals Resolution #43.



The People of the Free States of Rhoanon would like to thank the delegates and representatives who have aided in bringing this proposal to a level of clarity and formality appropriate to the United Nations, especially the representative from Gruenburg for content additions and Chief Secretary McGonacle for his excellent proofreading. If this proposal now meets the approval of the representatives and delegates present, it will be officially submitted in a few hours.

Pull the trigger.

Now submitted for official support:

http://www.nationstates.net/61235/page=UN_proposal/start=37

Here is my proposal draft:


APPALLED by the infusion of unnecessary rhetoric in Resolution #43, specifically the use of appeal to emotion found throughout the resolution.

APPALLED also by the mention of religion and religious questions found in Resolution #43, which impose religious principals and ideas upon those effected by said resolution.

APPALLED also by the failure of the resolution to define “those closest to them” who are to make the decision regarding the euthanasia of the individual over “a certain age” or with “serious” illness.

APPALLED by the failure of the resolution to specify the age at which euthanasia is to become an option.

APPALLED by the failure of the resolution to define serious illness for the purpose of the resolution.

NOTING that the resolution provides doctors with no means by which to choose to not participate in euthanasia on a basis of morality.

RECOGNIZING that the vague definitions found in the resolution could easily fuel practices that are tantamount to genocide.

1. Renders Resolution #43 null and void.
2. Condemns the style of argument and ill-defined terms of the resolution.

1. Don't copy other people's resolutions; it's stupid, unbecoming, and illegal.
2. A repeal is a repeal. It's not Free Trade. It's a repeal.

1. Don't copy other people's resolutions; it's stupid, unbecoming, and illegal.
2. A repeal is a repeal. It's not Free Trade. It's a repeal.

[ooc]If I copied it, that was very talented of me, since I did so without knowledge of what I was copying (I still haven't read the repeal proposed, I wrote my version as soon as I saw the thread title)

I saw that there was a movement to repeal #43, which I thought should be repealed. I decided that learning to write a repeal would be simpler than learning to write a new resolution (especially a repeal of a resolution as ambiguously written as #43), and since I am new to this whole process and would like to learn, I should start simple. So, I made my own version of a repeal resolution and posted it on this thread for consideration.

Now, to see how much I copied the initial repeal proposed in this thread, I'll read that repeal...

And as for the "free trade" that was an innocent mistake, one of the leavings of my earlier attempt to create a new resolution (which failed miserably).

Ok, I apologise. It sounded a lot like you were copying the second clause of Resolution #142 with your second OC, but perhaps not. Sorry. And yours is a good repeal argument, especially for a first try.

Ok, I apologise. It sounded a lot like you were copying the second clause of Resolution #142 with your second OC, but perhaps not. Sorry. And yours is a good repeal argument, especially for a first try.

I understand now, and I am willing to admit that I did model my second OC on the second clause of Resolution #142, because I was looking through other repeal resolutions to try to figure out how to word that particular statement.

I believe I modified it enough to avoid plagarism, but perhaps not. I assure you that none of the other components of my resolution were as closely modeled as my second OC, and I will be more cautious to avoid such things in the future.

No, I wouldn't worry about it. I'd just omit that clause, though: some of us felt that sort of argument wasn't really needed.

Also: I would mix it up a bit. Resolution #43 is appalling, but seeing APPALLED eight times in a row is a little wearing. There are some suggestions for alternative words at the bottom of this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8681196&postcount=3).

No, I wouldn't worry about it. I'd just omit that clause, though: some of us felt that sort of argument wasn't really needed.

Also: I would mix it up a bit. Resolution #43 is appalling, but seeing APPALLED eight times in a row is a little wearing. There are some suggestions for alternative words at the bottom of this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8681196&postcount=3).

Personally, I thought the repitition of APPALLED was a good effect, then again, I am notorious in certain circles for being a big fan of repitition...

I'll edit the draft.

edit:

INCENSED by the infusion of unnecessary rhetoric in Resolution #43, specifically the use of appeal to emotion found throughout the resolution.

APPALLED by the mention of religion and religious questions found in Resolution #43, which impose religious principals and ideas upon those effected by said resolution.

CONFUSED by the failure of the resolution to define “those closest to them” who are to make the decision regarding the euthanasia of the individual over “a certain age” or with “serious” illness.

CONFUSED also by the failure of the resolution to specify the age at which euthanasia is to become an option, or to specify which institution is to determine said age.

REPRIMANDING the resolution for its failure to define serious illness for the purpose of the resolution.

NOTING that the resolution provides doctors with no means by which to choose to not participate in euthanasia on a basis of morality.

RECOGNIZING that the vague definitions found in the resolution could easily fuel practices that are tantamount to genocide.

PRACTICING the right of the United Nations to repeal pervious resolutions, this resolution renders Resolution #43 null and void.

Please do.

Please do.

Done (check the post again).