NationStates Jolt Archive

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

Argument: REVISING the original Repeal "Legalise Euthanasia" proposal,

REALISING that occasions will happen when death seems an easier path to people who are in pain or dying (or both),

AFFIRMING that all human life is precious and should not be thrown away lightly,

PRESENTING the point that unrestricted legal euthinasia can be used by doctors who can't be bothered with a patient or by families who have no time for their sick relatives,

DISPUTING the standing of resolution #43 as a good resolution because it does not set standards or restrictions outlining which situations are suitable for euthanasia (such as a patient being brain-dead) and which ones are not ,

ARGUING that resolution #43 is nothing more than an emotive, story-telling resolution that should be repealed, leaving the gap open for a better resolution should a UN member wish to write one,

and REMINDING the UN that resolution #43 was passed by a small margin of votes and should now be brought to reconsideration.

REPEALS Resolution #43 "Legalise Euthanasia.
_____________________________________________________
Requires 124 more approvals before American Monday

And please don't hijack the thread this time.

I really do suggest that with your future proposals you post drafts on the forum before submitting them.

The logic of this proposal seems muddled. You start out arguing against euthanasia, on the grounds of human life/potential abuses, but then you criticise #43 for not being an effective resolution in allowing euthanasia, and even make it clear a replacement could follow.

What is your actual line?

I'm tackling it from both angles here. I'm also a little new to writing proposals so any and all advice I get here willl be very valuable and greatly appreciated.

PRESENTING the point that unrestricted legal euthinasia can be used by doctors who can't be bothered with a patient or by families who have no time for their sick relatives,

Not if a nation sets up thier laws around what is legal and what is not legal in regards to what can be done. I don't believe that 43 resticts nations from doing this and thus believe that many will do it. Thus no need to worry about abuse of such.

DISPUTING the standing of resolution #43 as a good resolution because it does not set standards or restrictions outlining which situations are suitable for euthanasia (such as a patient being brain-dead) and which ones are not ,

Thus it don't step on the toes of any single nation in regards to their views in this issue and leaves that to them to set up. Thus it only allows them to do it without others taking actions against them for doing whatever they do in regards to this.

ARGUING that resolution #43 is nothing more than an emotive, story-telling resolution that should be repealed, leaving the gap open for a better resolution should a UN member wish to write one,

Trouble is what may pass may be worse than what is up now. Since you are still ARGUING on this issue then you need to think about what might get passed it this is repealed. As yet have not seen what might come up on issue. That just might get passed and you end up with a lot worse.

In trying to attack from both sides you have made both sides unwilling to support. I look at this and I see the anti-euthanasia position - I object. Someone else might come along hearing that this was ineffective and a better replacement might be coming and you'll be looking at some of that support disappear. What you end up with is support from those looking for a better resolution and unconcerned about the arguments.

I'll give suggestions in a bit.

Hmmph...merge this with the previous topic and we'll see if we can get a nice repeal written that'll win everyone's support.

I'm sorry, but I just cannot repeal such an important resolution protecting Euthanasia. Seriously, if you where lying in bed, dying of a disease and the doctor says "You can spend another month alive, although you will be in constant severe pain, and draining your loved ones income, or we can unplug you, saving money and easing your suffering your choice." Don't you want to be guaranteed you have the option to end your suffering? I firmly beleive this. Now, i understand the author wanting to repeal what may be a poorly written resolution, and perhaps trying to find a happy middle ground, but at this time I think the risk of legislation in any way not protecting Euthanasia coming into its place is a significant one.

I'm sorry, but I just cannot repeal such an important resolution protecting Euthanasia. Seriously, if you where lying in bed, dying of a disease and the doctor says "You can spend another month alive, although you will be in constant severe pain, and draining your loved ones income, or we can unplug you, saving money and easing your suffering your choice." Don't you want to be guaranteed you have the option to end your suffering? I firmly beleive this. Now, i understand the author wanting to repeal what may be a poorly written resolution, and perhaps trying to find a happy middle ground, but at this time I think the risk of legislation in any way not protecting Euthanasia coming into its place is a significant one.

i disagree. my keeping Euthanasia legal we are playing god and messing up deaths work. Death will be like la la la this perosn isn't due for another 2 years... uddently they get unplug and he will be like WTF they are not due yet. Euthanasia is murder pure and simple. ALl people that have humans Euthanasied whould be tired for murder in the 1st degree.

<snip> [pro-euthanasia]</snip>
i d<snip> [anti-active-euthanasia]</snip>
In two posts we have exactly the reason why the resolution needs to be repealed.

Just because there isn't a resolution doesn't mean 'euthanasia can't happen'.
It means each state decides. So in Dancing Bananaland you could be euthanasied, but not in the state of Windhurst.

Hmmph...I'll write it myself, if someone else proposes it later.

In two posts we have exactly the reason why the resolution needs to be repealed.

Just because there isn't a resolution doesn't mean 'euthanasia can't happen'.
It means each state decides. So in Dancing Bananaland you could be euthanasied, but not in the state of Windhurst.

Hmmph...I'll write it myself, if someone else proposes it later.
I have a repeal, which I could try reasonably soon, if there was sufficient interest. Certainly, regardless of one's view on euthanasia, it's a terrible resolution.

i disagree. my keeping Euthanasia legal we are playing god and messing up deaths work. Death will be like la la la this perosn isn't due for another 2 years... uddently they get unplug and he will be like WTF they are not due yet. Euthanasia is murder pure and simple. ALl people that have humans Euthanasied whould be tired for murder in the 1st degree.

1st degree murder? Sheesh, aren't we wound a little tight.

How do you know that we didn't defy God's will by putting them on the machine in the first place? How do you know that God's will isn't being made in the action of pulling the plug? How do you know what God's thinking?

Meanwhile, the family member is forced to pay ungodly amounts to the hospital - or the government on taxpayer dollars who may or may not agree with that position - to keep a person who may never wake up, may never do a THING beyond continue breathing for the rest of their life. In the case of vegitated people, you put undue hardship upon the family - if he/she ever does wake up, they may be stuck for years thinking of the person that could've been while paying more medical bills so this person can live even LONGER. But no, the single and most important thing is God's will and our belief that somehow, we already know God's will.

And yet, the thing that gets me the most is when you guys go ahead and using this argument, ban ALL forms of euthanasia, including the patient's right to refuse treatment. You go and ban the ability for a person to decide when they should die. And of course, you do it in the name of God. It baffles me how you can proclaim yourselves as morally superior when you force your beliefs on the individuals around you.

Interesting how claims of moral superiority are only invalid when based on religious principles...

Interesting how claims of moral superiority are only invalid when based on religious principles...

Interesting that you yet again fail to see a discrepency between the nation and the individual.

Could the Gruenbergian representative get that repeal out the to do tray before I start hitting my head against Neville's bar repeatedly, please?

Ms. Hodgelett Tirith,
Randomean Representative.

edit:ooc: well there's my 'leet' post.

Interesting that you yet again fail to see a discrepency between the nation and the individual.

I wasn't coming down on either side of this particular issue. I was merely suggesting that claims of moral superiority are shite no matter what they're based on.

I wasn't coming down on either side of this particular issue. I was merely suggesting that claims of moral superiority are shite no matter what they're based on.

No you didn't. You claimed a contradiction in my beliefs. By the same token, you feel you're morally superior to me because you don't force your beliefs upon other nations and then get pissed when I suggest that your beliefs aren't predominant in the UN, or a thousand other things.

No you didn't. You claimed a contradiction in my beliefs. By the same token, you feel you're morally superior to me because you don't force your beliefs upon other nations and then get pissed when I suggest that your beliefs aren't predominant in the UN, or a thousand other things.

I don't force my beliefs on anyone, because they're just that -- beliefs. They're not facts, just how I feel about a particular issue, and feelings are no basis for law.

OOC: I will not be furthering this threadjack. Argue on about euthanasia!

Nonono, you just force me not to force my "moral superiority" on nations, just like I force nations not to force their "moral superiority" on their populace.

Again I smile at your inability to distinguish between the individual and the nation

Nonono, you just force me not to force my "moral superiority" on nations, just like I force nations not to force their "moral superiority" on their populace.

Again I smile at your inability to distinguish between the individual and the nation

And I sneer at your inability to distinguish between international and national issues.

And I sneer at your inability to distinguish between international and national issues.
Do tell. You never did define the difference.

And I sneer at your inability to distinguish between international and national issues.

Oh I can distinguish between the two, I just disagree with you on what constitutes a national or international issue.

Do tell. You never did define the difference.

Simple. Does a national policy in Cluichstan, for instance, affect Golgothastan? If so, then it's an international issue. If not, this body has no business shoving its nose into it.

Oh I can distinguish between the two, I just disagree with you on what constitutes a national or international issue.

We'll just have to agree to disagree then, and continue to butt heads here over it. ;)

We'll just have to agree to disagree then, and continue to butt heads here over it. ;)

Congrats. In the meantime, I note that you just claimed a moral superiority of your personal concept of what constitutes an national and international issue in the UN

Simple. Does a national policy in Cluichstan, for instance, affect Golgothastan? If so, then it's an international issue. If not, this body has no business shoving its nose into it.
I disagree. For example, sale tax rates in Cluichstan undoubtedly affect (well, ok, not Golgothastan, but) other nations you trade with. Yet that would seem to be a 'national issue': I wouldn't want the UN dictating something on that level.

Congrats. In the meantime, I note that you just claimed a moral superiority of your personal concept of what constitutes an national and international issue in the UN

I claimed no such thing.

OOC: Come now, don't be an arse.

I disagree. For example, sale tax rates in Cluichstan undoubtedly affect (well, ok, not Golgothastan, but) other nations you trade with. Yet that would seem to be a 'national issue': I wouldn't want the UN dictating something on that level.

Sorry...directly affects.

Sorry...directly affects.
Well, you're going to have to define "directly". Because otherwise it seems like you're saying it's ok for the UN to dictate your immigration policies.

Well, you're going to have to define "directly". Because otherwise it seems like you're saying it's ok for the UN to dictate your immigration policies.

Not a bit, and if you'd like to discuss this further, you can TG me. Immigration has precious little to do with euthanasia. Let's not hijack this thread any further.

I claimed no such thing.

OOC: Come now, don't be an arse.

Oh, you didn't use the words "morally superior", but you did claim it. What else would a sneer be?

Please, how many claiming moral superiority actually use the term "moral superiority".

OOC: I'm not being an arse. Read your own work.

Ok. My apologies to the OP; this discussion is for another time.

Cluich, Golg

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10637173#post10637173

Randomea said:

In two posts we have exactly the reason why the resolution needs to be repealed.

Just because there isn't a resolution doesn't mean 'euthanasia can't happen'.
It means each state decides. So in Dancing Bananaland you could be euthanasied, but not in the state of Windhurst.

Hmmph...I'll write it myself, if someone else proposes it later


This is exactly why I don't want it repealed, I am afraid another resolution, not protecting Euthanasia will slide into it's place. Certainly I would have a better written pro-Euthanasia resolution in place, but I feel it is a right that needs to be protected outright, not legislated to indevidual nations or, forbid, banned altogether.

But why?
Why should you impose your nation's opinion on someone else's.
There are of course those who think it contradicts their religious or moral stance.
Others who believe it could lead to euthanasia for the wrong reasons.
Those who believe they have the right to die.
Those who believe 'passive euthanasia' is cruel - starving a patient to death by withdrawing a feeding tube etc.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
There is no moral high ground here, and as such, this should be a Nation's choice.

If abortion has been determined to be a Nation's decision why should euthanasia be different?

But why?

Because I consider it an important human right

Why should you impose your nation's opinion on someone else's.

Why should your nation impose its view upon its citizens? And if the UN passes legislation, is it really him or the UN body as a whole?

There are of course those who think it contradicts their religious or moral stance.

And they can choose not to be euthanized or have their loved ones euthanized. Why should they be permitted to decide the issue for their fellow citizens?

Others who believe it could lead to euthanasia for the wrong reasons.

Yeah, like "not because God said so." Seriously, who gets to decide the right reasons?

Those who believe they have the right to die.

Yeah, so it would legalize their ability to make that choice for themselves.

Those who believe 'passive euthanasia' is cruel - starving a patient to death by withdrawing a feeding tube etc.

Which is why active euthanasia should be legalized.

Etc. Etc. Etc.

Etc, etc, etc

There is no moral high ground here,

Agreed

and as such, this should be a Nation's choice.

2+2=5?

Somehow we jumped from the conclusion that because INDIVIDUALS have different beliefs about euthanasia, nations should have the right to ban INDIVIDUALS from being euthanised.

If abortion has been determined to be a Nation's decision why should euthanasia be different?

Because ALC should be repealed. I think it's a disgrace to the UN.

Because I consider it an important human right
I don't.

I don't.

I know, its your government's job to decide when your people should die, not the individual's. Congrats.

I know, its your government's job to decide when your people should die, not the individual's. Congrats.
Yes.

And we should change that...why? You haven't made a case as to why euthanasia is a right. That you think it is one doesn't cut it.

Yes.

And we should change that...why? You haven't made a case as to why euthanasia is a right. That you think it is one doesn't cut it.

Because trying to convince you you're wrong is like firing a nail gun into a cement wall.

I was trying to give a sample of the differing opinions.
When I say for 'the wrong reasons' you can get a slippery slope of 'their life won't ever be the same/the surgery is too expensive/they're too old for it to be worth it.'
Remembering that legalising euthansia is not just putting the decision in the patients' hands, there's the next of kin and the doctor. If a doctor recommends euthanasia for a patient in a coma, to free up beds/time/money, despite the fact the patient could wake up perfectly fine, who do you think the family are going to trust 9 times out of 10?
Or an unscrupulous family might say the patient wants euthanasia, so a) they don't have to look after them or b) they get the will quicker.
Now some might say this particular risk is worth it. Or any of the others. A nation is perfectly able to hold a referendum if it so wishes.

The UN is not an elected body - there is no guarantee it respects the wishes of the people. Who are we to tell doctors 'by the way - if someone asks you to kill them, you have to obey.'?

I was trying to give a sample of the differing opinions.
When I say for 'the wrong reasons' you can get a slippery slope

*groans*

of 'their life won't ever be the same

Valid argument

/the surgery is too expensive

Valid argument

/they're too old for it to be worth it.'

Valid argument

Remembering that legalising euthansia is not just putting the decision in the patients' hands, there's the next of kin and the doctor.

False. Legalizing Euthanasia is not akin to deciding who gets to make that decision. That is a completely different debate and one where you will find my opinions are much more timid.

If a doctor recommends euthanasia for a patient in a coma, to free up beds/time/money, despite the fact the patient could wake up perfectly fine,

Oh, boo hoo.

who do you think the family are going to trust 9 times out of 10?

Themselves. Their raw gut. Their personal beliefs and what they think the person sitting in that bed would want. I actually think this statement is somewhat insulting to the families that do decide on euthanasia, it's almost a claim that they don't think seriously about the decision before they make it.

Or an unscrupulous family might say the patient wants euthanasia, so a) they don't have to look after them or b) they get the will quicker.

Any right that has ever existed has the potential for abuse. However, I do not believe that this in itself is justification for revoking such a right.

Now some might say this particular risk is worth it. Or any of the others. A nation is perfectly able to hold a referendum if it so wishes.

And if it realizes it won't win a referendum, it'll just impose its beliefs upon its citizens without the referendum. Funny how so many nations (glares at Gruenberg) claim they have the support of the nation but when a resolution like ALC passes through, they don't have a referendum but force the opinion down their citizen's throats without a second thought.

The UN is not an elected body

I'm sorry, what? The UN is the largest form of representative democracy to have ever existed. It VOTES on every single proposal that goes through. There isn't some mighty being at the top that we didn't elect deciding these things for us, we vote on everything as representatives of our nations. Yes some of our representatives aren't elected, but that doesn't mean it isn't an elected body.

OOC: It's like saying the Canadian government isn't an elected body because you only vote for your own constituency, not for all MPs, or the senate, or the house of representatives..... What a poor claim

- there is no guarantee it respects the wishes of the people. Who are we to tell doctors 'by the way - if someone asks you to kill them, you have to obey.'?

Who are we to tell someone who says "I don't want to live", "Well you must because the government said so"?

Suicide is not illegal. Getting someone else to do it for you is conceivably murder.


The UN is not an elected body

I'm sorry, what? The UN is the largest form of representative democracy to have ever existed. It VOTES on every single proposal that goes through. There isn't some mighty being at the top that we didn't elect deciding these things for us, we vote on everything as representatives of our nations. Yes some of our representatives aren't elected, but that doesn't mean it isn't an elected body.

OOC: It's like saying the Canadian government isn't an elected body because you only vote for your own constituency, not for all MPs, or the senate, or the house of representatives..... What a poor claim

The UN representatives might vote, but who votes for them?
Myself, I am a civil servant, with no allegiance to any of the political parties. I confer with both the government and Her Royal Randomness, the Queen, but not with the parliaments as a whole.
It is also no guarantee that a UN State is ruled by a democracy at all.

ooc: the EU is only semi-democratic because the Parliament is elected, but the Commission is appointed. I tend to consider the NSUN closer the the EU than the legislative structures such as a two chamber democracy. Noting that the legislative system I know best, the UK one, has an unelected second chamber, which in itself is under criticism, and the PM has Royal prerogative rights.
Ok..if I don't stop reading my stomach is going to go onstrike if it doesn't get at least one meal a day.

Suicide is not illegal.
It is in Gruenberg.

Suicide is not illegal. Getting someone else to do it for you is conceivably murder.

Getting someone to pull the plug - that's passive euthanasia. Oh look, a form of suicide. Oh look, that's what my post seems to have referred to.

The UN representatives might vote, but who votes for them?

I vote at the behest of Forgottenlord, the elected President of the Forgotten Territories. He decides the vote and I cast it in his absence. Since our vote is public, he has no issue with trying to find out what my vote was.

Myself, I am a civil servant, with no allegiance to any of the political parties. I confer with both the government and Her Royal Randomness, the Queen, but not with the parliaments as a whole.

The failings of your own national government are not of my concern, so far as the UN Secretariat are concerned. Since we have no wish to invade you and you are not a member of Aberdeen, all other reasons to consider your government are not relevant. I find it humorous that you complain about a lack of elected representation when the failing for that is within your own nation's position, not mine.

It is also no guarantee that a UN State is ruled by a democracy at all.

Indeed. Your point?

ooc: the EU is only semi-democratic because the Parliament is elected, but the Commission is appointed. I tend to consider the NSUN closer the the EU than the legislative structures such as a two chamber democracy. Noting that the legislative system I know best, the UK one, has an unelected second chamber, which in itself is under criticism, and the PM has Royal prerogative rights.

Congrats. They still serve at the behest of the elected representative and will be removed if they act counter to what the elected representative wants to do. The Canadian equivelent to the House of Lords (interestingly, called the Senate) has been the laughing stock of Canadian politics for years. It too has its positions assigned by the Prime Minister. Problem is, the appointments cannot be reversed - something that's not true about ambassadors to the UN.

Ok..if I don't stop reading my stomach is going to go onstrike if it doesn't get at least one meal a day.

Heh.

ooc: woo! Noodles!...wtf? who puts carrots in noodles? I propose we should ban unexpected ingrediants from meals unless they were included in the description. This includes carrots, real, crunchy, dead frog, lark's vomit, steel bolts, or ram's bladder.

ic:
We do not consider our government as failing in the respect to the UN. It is our decision for it to be structured this way, a trained civil servant has greater expertise at negotiation than a figurehead politician.
I am not complaining that the UN is undemocratic, merely stating that it is our belief that contentious issues such as this should remain at a National level.

It is in Gruenberg.
Out of curiousity (although I'd also like to know for the purpose of this debate), how do you enforce that?

Out of curiousity (although I'd also like to know for the purpose of this debate), how do you enforce that?
Their estate is seized and they are ritually dishonoured. If they don't die, they also face the death penalty.

Their estate is seized and they are ritually dishonoured. If they don't die, they also face the death penalty.
How can you tell if it was suicide, natural causes or murder if a person just disappears with no apparent explanation or reason?

How can you tell if it was suicide, natural causes or murder if a person just disappears with no apparent explanation or reason?
Well, obviously it's assessed on a case-by-case basis. It's pretty standard practice in any country, regardless of its suicide laws, to have coroners' reports on deaths. In the case of their being some doubt, it usually depends on how much the relevant authority stands to profit from its being made out as suicide.

ooc: woo! Noodles!...wtf? who puts carrots in noodles? I propose we should ban unexpected ingrediants from meals unless they were included in the description. This includes carrots, real, crunchy, dead frog, lark's vomit, steel bolts, or ram's bladder.

Um....ok

ic:
We do not consider our government as failing in the respect to the UN. It is our decision for it to be structured this way, a trained civil servant has greater expertise at negotiation than a figurehead politician.

Fine then. Then don't complain about the lack of democratic representation for your nation. It isn't the fault of the UN, nor did I claim it was such.

I am not complaining that the UN is undemocratic,

No, you're merely saying

The UN is not an elected body

This is not our fault, it's yours.

merely stating that it is our belief that contentious issues such as this should remain at a National level.

Contentious issues should be left at the individual level, but since some nations can't get that wired through their brains, the UN has to step in to protect that right.

How can you tell if it was suicide, natural causes or murder if a person just disappears with no apparent explanation or reason?

It isn't too difficult to figure out the difference with well trained people

Oh wait....I forgot who we were dealing with

Well, obviously it's assessed on a case-by-case basis. It's pretty standard practice in any country, regardless of its suicide laws, to have coroners' reports on deaths. In the case of their being some doubt, it usually depends on how much the relevant authority stands to profit from its being made out as suicide.

Of course

How can you tell if it was suicide, natural causes or murder if a person just disappears with no apparent explanation or reason?It isn't too difficult to figure out the difference with well trained people

Oh wait....I forgot who we were dealing with

It may not be too difficult in the majority of cases, but there are always exceptions, where certain factors mask others, where extenuating circumstances lead people away from the correct conclusion, etc. Not every crime is as easy to solve as it looks on CSI.

And just who are we dealing with, may I ask? I somehow don't think they warrant that response. We really don't need to take this down to a personal level here... Issues can be argued well enough without resorting to personal attacks.

And just who are we dealing with, may I ask? I somehow don't think they warrant that response. We really don't need to take this down to a personal level here... Issues can be argued well enough without resorting to personal attacks.

OOC: I am sure that was all in good fun. FL and Gruen tend to have a very unique style when pitted against each other.

Contentious issues should be left at the individual level, but since some nations can't get that wired through their brains, the UN has to step in to protect that right.


A thousand times no. There is no right involved.

It may not be too difficult in the majority of cases, but there are always exceptions, where certain factors mask others, where extenuating circumstances lead people away from the correct conclusion, etc. Not every crime is as easy to solve as it looks on CSI.

Yeah, but there's always going to be those exceptions.

And just who are we dealing with, may I ask? I somehow don't think they warrant that response. We really don't need to take this down to a personal level here... Issues can be argued well enough without resorting to personal attacks.

Gruen. When we have time for them, we have some pretty interesting drawn out debates. Kinda helps that he's got a semi-1984 type government going.

Edit: I should expand. One of the components of Gruen's state is the question of control. He's actually stated in a few debates that the question isn't about the beliefs of wena, but about controlling his citizens. This means issues like corruption are extreme and you're more likely to find a police chief ignore getting an autopsy done if he can get the house instead.

A thousand times no. There is no right involved.

And yet, you think, for some reason, that nations have the right to decide this stuff

:rolleyes:

Nations do have the right to decide whether or not to decide things, like the legalization of euthanasia. Forcing all member nations to legalize it is simple arrogance. Although euthanasia might be viewed as good in other places, in Caratia it is regarded as a form of heresy, and her full support goes out to this.

Contentious issues should be left at the individual level, but since some nations can't get that wired through their brains, the UN has to step in to protect that right.So the UN should delegate the choice on "contentious issues" to the individual? Does that include recreational drug use? That's pretty contentious issue. ... Oh, wait. That's right. You oppose UN legislation on recreational drug use. OK. But, but what about gun ownership? That's a pretty contentious issue too. ... Oh, right. You oppose UN legislation on gun ownership as well. Gambling? ... OK, OK. Same difference there.

So I guess your issue here is not some overarching principle of individual empowerment, but your own arrogant presumption that your opinions on contentious matters are morally correct, and thus should be incorporated into international law? Thank you for clearing that up.

Speaking for the Republic of Krioval, our government tends toward the libertarian philosophy on these issues. And while there are always going to be citizens who disagree with an individual's right to smoke marijuana, get an abortion, own a firearm, or allow a terminally ill relative to die by removing that person from life support, the Senate does not see its place as imposing its will onto the population. If anything, the role of our government is to moderate the voices that call for immediate and disproportionate response to emotionally charged situations that arise. The personal morality of individual Senators should not enter into legislation - nor should that of the Great Temples, the Paladins' Guild, or major corporations.

With regard to the debate on euthanasia, it is the stance of the population of Krioval that individuals suffering from terminal illness be able to dictate their own fate, in accordance with our history of allowing exactly that.

Kara Tyvok
Senate President (D - Torokara)
Republic of Krioval

So the UN should delegate the choice on "contentious issues" to the individual? Does that include recreational drug use? That's pretty contentious issue. ... Oh, wait. That's right. You oppose UN legislation on recreational drug use. OK.

*sighs*

You'll notice that the issue of drug legislation I abstained upon because I DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH DETAILS. My understanding of the drug world is unfortunately rather limited and so I haven't yet decided my position on the matter. It isn't a matter of contentious, it's a matter of I don't know enough to say one way or the other or what must be done about it. There are significant questions that go beyond just simple drug USE, and any drug legislation would need to consider these issues far beyond the simple use. Ownership, possession, rehabilitation, growing/manufacturing, trafficking, societal effect. I do not yet understand enough of this to be able to pick a position and considering the way proposals have been written in the past, I cannot actually take a position.

Thank you, move on

But, but what about gun ownership? That's a pretty contentious issue too. ... Oh, right. You oppose UN legislation on gun ownership as well.

Actually, I oppose outright bans because it should be left to the individual level. I also oppose legislating on how registration works because that is a perfect example of a national issue (seriously, how could registration and such be an individual issue). If someone came along with a proposal legalizing guns but permitting any manner of restrictions or licensing issues with actual logical reasons (not "oh it limits crime because then robbers will be afraid of becoming victims of homocide while doing their work"), I'd actually probably support it. Shall we move on?

Gambling? ... OK, OK. Same difference there.

Gambling I actually would support legalization of. I see nothing wrong with the matter. Again, things like rehabilitation programs and such I would support being moved in, but that's beside the point.

Shall we move on?

So I guess your issue here is not some overarching principle of individual empowerment, but your own arrogant presumption that your opinions on contentious matters are morally correct, and thus should be incorporated into international law? Thank you for clearing that up.

I hope my explanation did indeed clear up what my positions on those 3 subjects are any my motivations behind them.

Forgottenlands said to Gruenberg:
Because trying to convince you you're wrong is like firing a nail gun into a cement wall.

OOC: Well I've seen some really powerful nail guns in my day. I'd say its more like a nerf-gun or water cannon. End OOC:

The delegates from the forgotten territories make a good point here, this is one of those issues where 99% of peoples minds are made up. I know no amount of argument could sway my position on the matter. People have brought up the issue that no nation should be able to enforce its morals on another nation. If that is so, why do we have a UN? Because if you have morals, you try to make other people follow them. If I beleive that Euthanasia is a fundemental right, am I going to sit back and let it be taken away from people, even if they are not my people? No. I will try and make it so everyone has that right, and other people beleive it is immoral. Will they sit back and let people do what they think is wrong? No. They will fight. Put simply, this is an issue that no-one will change minds on, and everyone will fight for.

OOC: Well I've seen some really powerful nail guns in my day. I'd say its more like a nerf-gun or water cannon.Well... water cannons are used to disrupt bombs and cut steel...

We will make our position on this matter clear.

We in Gruenberg do not believe in a right to euthanasia (well, at least, the Court does not believe in a right to euthanasia - maybe some of the peasants do, but they don't really matter). However, we are perfectly happy for the present resolution to remain in place, as it is sufficiently loophole-ridden to allow:
1. Governments fundamentally opposed to euthanasia to restrict it.
2. Us to compulsorily euthanise our elderly, disabled or generally funny-looking citizens, thus easing the strain on the national coffers.

We would equally support a repeal, however, and if we did so, we would not be fully opposed to a replacement - so long as it did not close out compulsory euthanasia, which we consider an integral feature of Gruenberg's world renowned welfare system.

Ooc: could you at least see how much support your already written proposal would obtain? My representative is getting extremely drunk in the Strangers Bar trying to avoid hitting her head on it, if there's one thing that can be said about her, she keeps her word, which is why she stuck to the civil service and not become a proper politician.:D