NationStates Jolt Archive

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

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #43
Proposed by: Pro-Sovereignty Babes

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

Argument: RECOGNIZES that the issue of Euthanasia is a difficult issue in which good people may, and often do, disagree.

ARGUES that euthanasia proposes to eliminate suffering by eliminating the one who suffers. Euthanasia violates the principle that each human being has intrinsic dignity and value, regardless of age, physical or mental condition, or state of dependency.

ACKNOWLEDGES this repeal will not prohibit Euthanasia in any nation, but permit it to be a daily issue in which a nation may decide this issue for themselves.

RECALLS Resolution #147 "Abortion Legality Convention" in which the controverial issue of abortion was taken out of the jurisdiction of the United Nations and returned to nations to decide. Euthanasia is a similar issue that should not have the world body mandate how every nation should believe.

FURTHER ARGUES The United Nations should be able to welcome nations that have differing opinions on controversial issues such as this one. The original vote on this resolution was 10,810 (for) to 10,031 (against). Such an obviously divisive issue should not be mandated upon nations one way or the other. Resolution #43 does exactly that.

REPEALS Resolution #43 "Legalize Euthanasia"

Approvals: 145 (Pro-Sovereignty Babes, Kinthland, Adolf Barham, Valcoma, Flibbleites, Innoffensivenessland, White Kanatia, Leg-ends, Palentine UN Office, Mallowblasters, Neo Republic, Nevadar, Ultrasilvania, Windsor-Bainbridge, Backa Palanka, RoboCanada24, A MANS WEE STONER, The Great Commonwealth, Gaming Dragons, Compulsoria, SaintlyLand, James_xenoland, Kelwarr, PirateRubberDuckies, Upper Ramsbottom, PandorasCasket, ShivaShiva, Habemik, Shorak, SPASTIC COLON, DJTrump, Kamikastan, Discoveria, Teropolis, Roystovia, Queen Fairy, San Timetheos, Desert Storm Iraq, Llamartina, Eurora, Naughty Slave Girls, Zachyd, Ddee, Renzy, Vakaringrad, Maidens and Faries, Bracketyheadness, Defcon One, NewTexas, Insequa, The Big 4, Delta Storm, Kilt Lifter, Phoot, Hotti, Germania Libra, Blackdom, Versalia, Bradendon, Papalists, Forum Cornelii, Al Kassad, Drynwhyl, Zeirem, Amistres, Wincapowley, Di Gladius, Yuma Payne, Ceile Dei, Southern Joi Karyl, Malachoria, Trimsa, Conchland, Kuro Hi, Mataichi, Kevcompman, Dahveedland, Darnaysia, Lygonia, Guns A-Plenty, F-Carthage III, Pantocratoria, Arwing City, Velvetopia, Ferretburg, Emerald Seas, Christlanka, Cecilia Maribel, Uhl, Fenbeans, Srboslavija, Rilkan Knowledge, Monkecia, Seemannia, McGhoo, Dinsey Characters, Poitter, Ternovia, Ebfan2, New kLemon, Finklestadt, ST-Onet, D--Generation X, Dorienne, Spareknikov, Brings, Selueces, Mernania, Da Kingz of Crunk, Lexidom, Great Vogons, Free Music and Chicken, Brians Room, Seigneurdesanneaux, Carpathos, The Norlands, Garden Fete Organisers, Kerplopistahn, Morirasal, BlobbDobb, Clarinettic Geeks, Futuristic America, Yetilaends, Farnboroughingia, Kenny Boi, Bay de Noc, Cyreal, Wickedly evil people, Gyunwap, Dizziness, Askewness, Gorgamin, Zuhl, Lenshow, Sparksalot, MetaOrkney, Macatobia, BlackAdder goes Forth, Nicktenstien, Algdon, Cantr, Silveriron, Ms Kickly, Indochinese Colonies, Kandarin)

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

The Official Protesting Nation of Pro-Sovereignty Babes has approved this proposal.

I believe this has been the most attempted repeal and it has now reached queue. We will have an up or down vote on this in a matter of days.

I'm trusting we will all be able to have a good conversation on this one in this forum and not degenerate to stupid stuff. I believe the repeal proposal clearly notes that the purpose of this repeal is to make Euthanasia an issue for nations to decide instead of the United Nations. Therefore, we stand opposed to any attempt to pass a resolution to outlaw Euthanasia in all nations as that would be an equally bad law for the U.N. to trample national sovereignty.

Having been a participant in the "Repeal Abortion Rights" thread earlier this year, I have a feeling I know where this is going. Basically you will feel like myself and many others that the United Nations should not take on intra-national issues like this one and stick to international issues; or you will feel that Euthanasia falls under the category of human rights and should therefore be protected by the U.N. I am worried that if the U.N. rules black & white, one way or the other on issues such as this one, that we will polarize the United Nations and make it unwelcome for more nations to be a part of it. The U.N. should seek to be more inclusive and welcome nations that would disagree on issues like this where many good people disagree. We cannot allow ourselves to settle for an argument that says, "If you don't see it our way, then you can always resign from the U.N."

Where I am personally opposed to Euthanasia as a legal option, I do not feel that this repeal effort is a debate on Euthanasia. It's a debate on who should be able to make the laws on issues like these - The United Nations or Nations. I hope that by taking this issue out of the United Nations that our nations will be able to stay united.


Thanks to all the U.N. delegates who have added their approval to this repeal.

The UN has not been polarized by this resolution, which really does the same thing as a blocker, since its effect seems to be close to nil, IIRC. What will polarize the UN is a debate on this issue after the old resolution gets repealed.

The UN has not been polarized by this resolution, which really does the same thing as a blocker, since its effect seems to be close to nil, IIRC. What will polarize the UN is a debate on this issue after the old resolution gets repealed.

I am in favor of a proposal after this one passes, similar to abortion legality convention, that continues to make Euthanasia an issue for nations instead of the united nations. One cannot ignore that a repeal for this has been in the proposals list non-stop every week. And there are nations that have chosen not to be a part of the U.N. because of laws like this one. Once it's repealed, we will be more united.

I think it is telling when some of the biggest named sovereigntists start a threat where all they did was vent about how this had reached quarom and tried to find a legal challenge of somesort.

Alas, I'm sure we're stuck with this and our rather enlightening exchange earlier, I'm sure, is going to make the value of my statements near nil. However, it just wouldn't be me if I took a NatSov based attempt at repealing Legalize Euthanasia and treated it like a pile of dogturds

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

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #43
Proposed by: Pro-Sovereignty Babes

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

Indeed it shall, and it probably did deserve its strong strength making it, really, the one strong resolution I actually agree with.

Well....if it had actually worked

Argument: RECOGNIZES that the issue of Euthanasia is a difficult issue in which good people may, and often do, disagree.

Considering there's been little disagreement yet on euthanasia and our debates have been rather civil, I'd have to disagree with this statement.

ARGUES that euthanasia proposes to eliminate suffering by eliminating the one who suffers. Euthanasia violates the principle that each human being has intrinsic dignity and value, regardless of age, physical or mental condition, or state of dependency.

And how does the latter refute the belief that it ends the suffering? How is it that suffering is changed at all because they have an intrinsic value? And why isn't it the right of the individual to decide whether they want to be of further value to society or not?

ACKNOWLEDGES this repeal will not prohibit Euthanasia in any nation, but permit it to be a daily issue in which a nation may decide this issue for themselves.

I've made my opinions known before about the use of the term daily issue.

RECALLS Resolution #147 "Abortion Legality Convention" in which the controverial issue of abortion was taken out of the jurisdiction of the United Nations and returned to nations to decide. Euthanasia is a similar issue that should not have the world body mandate how every nation should believe.

Abortion Legality Clinic ended up being even more divisive than UNR #61 did which it replaced. Rather humorous considering the net effect of the two was probably more or less the same. Alas, UNR #147 is one of the most hated resolutions by the anti-sovereignty camp and the only thing preventing an all-out "do-or-die" push is the note that since it is so bloody divisive, it's repeal will be equally divisive and all subsequent debates will be even more divisive and on and one we go down the chain to the point where, quite frankly, we know we will be reopenning the old wounds that still sting us. YOU, however, seem to be under the dilusion that trying to open an emotionally charged field to an absolutely MASSIVE debate from the core members of the UN will make this an even less divisive issue. Tell me, how is it that open insults and angry snapping at one another is less concerning than a mild tooth ache every month when the topic is brought up again?

FURTHER ARGUES The United Nations should be able to welcome nations that have differing opinions on controversial issues such as this one. The original vote on this resolution was 10,810 (for) to 10,031 (against). Such an obviously divisive issue should not be mandated upon nations one way or the other. Resolution #43 does exactly that.

Yet the UN seems content with the decision that in the year and a half since the resolution was passed, despite being the third most targetted area of the "must repeal" list, it has yet to have a single proposal reach quarom until now. Why is that?

REPEALS Resolution #43 "Legalize Euthanasia"

I sure as hell hope not

I believe this has been the most attempted repeal and it has now reached queue. We will have an up or down vote on this in a matter of days.

No. You'd have a hard tim exceeding Abortion Rights or Gay Rights (both of which, are, now repealed) and might even be losing to the old Definition of Marriage.

I'm trusting we will all be able to have a good conversation on this one in this forum and not degenerate to stupid stuff.

Keep dreaming. Everyone is muttering that this topic finally came around. We're still voting on who should be lynched for it.

I believe the repeal proposal clearly notes that the purpose of this repeal is to make Euthanasia an issue for nations to decide instead of the United Nations.

Yes, it does make that quite clear. So?

Therefore, we stand opposed to any attempt to pass a resolution to outlaw Euthanasia in all nations as that would be an equally bad law for the U.N. to trample national sovereignty.

That's great, because we fully intend to replace it with a much more effective protection of euthanasia.

Having been a participant in the "Repeal Abortion Rights" thread earlier this year, I have a feeling I know where this is going.

Yet you try this again....

Basically you will feel like myself and many others that the United Nations should not take on intra-national issues like this one and stick to international issues; or you will feel that Euthanasia falls under the category of human rights and should therefore be protected by the U.N.

That's probably true

I am worried that if the U.N. rules black & white, one way or the other on issues such as this one, that we will polarize the United Nations and make it unwelcome for more nations to be a part of it.

And yet, you picked black and, dare I say it, FIRMLY STATED YOUR OPINION THAT BLACK SHOULD BE THE FINAL ANSWER. If we should spend so much time fighting, in your opinion, why'd you pick a side?

The U.N. should seek to be more inclusive and welcome nations that would disagree on issues like this where many good people disagree.

Perhaps the UN should stop recognizing those that openly abuse their citizens as members instead. Perhaps we should not be pandering to those that destroy the value of the individual in the belief of a "Brother Knows Best" state should rule over them. Perhaps we should be protecting human rights instead of saying "oh, it's ok to abuse your people". Perhaps we should be promoting a way of thinking that is better for all UN citizens rather than pandering to the nations that would otherwise abuse these individuals.

We cannot allow ourselves to settle for an argument that says, "If you don't see it our way, then you can always resign from the U.N."

Good for you.

I do mean it

Where I am personally opposed to Euthanasia as a legal option, I do not feel that this repeal effort is a debate on Euthanasia. It's a debate on who should be able to make the laws on issues like these - The United Nations or Nations. I hope that by taking this issue out of the United Nations that our nations will be able to stay united.

It is a question of whether Euthanasia is important enough of a human right that it should be protected by the United Nations or not. That's what you said, only slightly reworded. Therefore, the question of whether Euthanasia should be legal or not SHOULD be debated upon and I will not stand for such blatant attempts to control the debate.

Thanks to all the U.N. delegates who have added their approval to this repeal.

I actually will thank them too - for at least endorsing a proposal. It is a shame how few will endorse proposals these days and I am thankful that there are many who will still take a stand.

I'd just like to congratulate Pro-Sovereignty Babes on pulling off what none of us could, getting a proposal for a repeal of #43 approved to resolution voting...well done.

I'd just like to congratulate Pro-Sovereignty Babes on pulling off what none of us couldn't, getting a proposal for a repeal of #43 approved to resolution voting...well done.

Here here. but then again i've seen a alot of Un nations that have Euthranasia appear in there issue logs and voet to keep it Illegal ingoreing this resolution and yet still be in the UN. and besides i'll be happy to see #43 kick the buket. its just a lon gwidened story in my eyes not to mention i find it offenseive it involed teh use of GOD in it.

. Such an obviously divisive issue should not be mandated upon nations one way or the other. Resolution #43 does exactly that. I have yet to see where R43 mandates that any nation take any specific action for or against Euthanasia. What it does is simply protect both sides of the issue from each other in saying that it's legal. This simply means that Nation A can't nuke Nation B if they Euthanise somebody and in turn Nation B can't nuke Nation A if they don't Euthanise somebody. Each nation under R43 could still set the rules under which it might or might not be done in the borders of their nation. Thus R43 as poorly done as it might have been allowed individual nations to deal with this issue on their own terms.

To repeal it means a possible one sided proposal will be passed that doesn't respect any nation on the issue. So I pray that this one fails to get the votes to pass as I hate to see what comes along to replace R43 get in. As this issue has folks just waiting in the shadows to push their side of the issue and thus no nation will get proper respect on this issue. As what comes up may be one sided based on what a few nations manage to shove down the throats of the rest of us.

I for one will not be voting for this repeal... As consider R43 effective in protecting all member nations and letting them continue to set policy on this issue rather than have a few members shove their views down our throats on this issue..

Oh no, the current resolution mandates its legality. Also, trust me, the replacement will be merely a clause stating it is the individual nation's right to make a decision on euthanasia.

And how does the latter refute the belief that it ends the suffering? How is it that suffering is changed at all because they have an intrinsic value? And why isn't it the right of the individual to decide whether they want to be of further value to society or not?

It may prevent the family from suffering. It may end something as beautiful as life, just before health care can restore the same life. (Not exactly my beliefs, but those of others I know).


It is a question of whether Euthanasia is important enough of a human right that it should be protected by the United Nations or not. That's what you said, only slightly reworded. Therefore, the question of whether Euthanasia should be legal or not SHOULD be debated upon and I will not stand for such blatant attempts to control the debate.

That is not the question at all. The question is whether or not the United Nations respects the individual nation's right to a functioning and proper government, where the laws of the country are supposedto be legislated. The United Nations is not the joint governing body of the comprising nations. It exists for international co-operation, and co-ordination of rescue, aid, etc. undertakings.

QUOTE=Forgottenlands
Considering there's been little disagreement yet on euthanasia and our debates have been rather civil, I'd have to disagree with this statement.

Proving my point that good people will disagree on this issue. I'm assuming you're not disagreeing that I'm "good people" :)

I still believe our debates can be civil here. But don't think that me nor 150 other delegates who have supported this effort so far are comfortable with the U.N. ruling on this issue for us. Again, it's not about what your or I believe about euthanasia, it's about who governs these types of decisions - Nations or The United Nations. If it's the United Nations, we're not very united on it and so this repeal reaching queue will help aid that. It is only those who will believe they are right and everyone else should believe as they that will be hurt by an effort such as this one to bring unity.



And how does the latter refute the belief that it ends the suffering? How is it that suffering is changed at all because they have an intrinsic value? And why isn't it the right of the individual to decide whether they want to be of further value to society or not?

Good questions. Questions for national governments to decide. Not the United Nations. Again, I do not plan for this to be a debate about euthanasia.


I've made my opinions known before about the use of the term daily issue.

:)

Abortion Legality Clinic ended up being even more divisive than UNR #61 did which it replaced. Rather humorous considering the net effect of the two was probably more or less the same. Alas, UNR #147 is one of the most hated resolutions by the anti-sovereignty camp and the only thing preventing an all-out "do-or-die" push is the note that since it is so bloody divisive, it's repeal will be equally divisive and all subsequent debates will be even more divisive and on and one we go down the chain to the point where, quite frankly, we know we will be reopenning the old wounds that still sting us. YOU, however, seem to be under the dilusion that trying to open an emotionally charged field to an absolutely MASSIVE debate from the core members of the UN will make this an even less divisive issue. Tell me, how is it that open insults and angry snapping at one another is less concerning than a mild tooth ache every month when the topic is brought up again?

Only if you were in favor of abortion being legal. The other half of nations found it quite offensive. At least ALC had the support of many of those who believed both ways on the issue.

I'm sure some more dogmatic ones here will make a scene and say some things they might regret. I hope that doesn't happen. I find unity within the U.N. over divisive issue in the greater good. I don't believe ignoring an issue is going to bring healing. I also don't believe we're going to be able to convince each other over our personal views on euthanasia. So let's not try to do that. Rule on this, according to your system of government, the way you choose.

Yet the UN seems content with the decision that in the year and a half since the resolution was passed, despite being the third most targetted area of the "must repeal" list, it has yet to have a single proposal reach quarom until now. Why is that?

Maybe because of the fear of it being a divided issue. My proposal comes with the hope of unity for those who disagree. Again, those who are more dogmatic on this issue - one way or the other - will probably not be happy. But they will be more happy than those right now whose people disagree with euthanasia and yet are forced to have it legal because a narrow margin of nations in the united nations tell the other nations what to think.

I sure as hell hope not
ok. Obviously, I do. Touche!

No. You'd have a hard tim exceeding Abortion Rights or Gay Rights (both of which, are, now repealed) and might even be losing to the old Definition of Marriage.

Sorry for those who thought I was making a case for this law to be the most divisive and attempted to be repealed in all of Nationstates history. I was only referring to those that are current laws.


Keep dreaming. Everyone is muttering that this topic finally came around. We're still voting on who should be lynched for it.

I'm not old, comotose, or dying, so stay away from me :)

Seriously, I hope I would win that election since I authored the repeal and helped lobby for its support :)


Yes, it does make that quite clear. So?

That's great, because we fully intend to replace it with a much more effective protection of euthanasia.

I heard that one before also. People desire Unity for the UNITED nations. Don't be a divider. Be a uniter. To threaten with stronger euthanasia bills is dogmatic and a clear threat that will not weaken our resolve for the greater good.

Yet you try this again....
Because it will make the U.N. stronger and healthier.

That's probably true
probably. We'll see.

And yet, you picked black and, dare I say it, FIRMLY STATED YOUR OPINION THAT BLACK SHOULD BE THE FINAL ANSWER. If we should spend so much time fighting, in your opinion, why'd you pick a side?

I did not do that at all. If I picked black I would say Euthanasia is to be legal in all nations. Actually black represents the status quo this proposal hopes to repeal. Instead, I believe national governments should decide national issues like this one. I believe the U.N. should decide international issues. I cannot see euthanasia being an international issue.


Perhaps the UN should stop recognizing those that openly abuse their citizens as members instead. Perhaps we should not be pandering to those that destroy the value of the individual in the belief of a "Brother Knows Best" state should rule over them. Perhaps we should be protecting human rights instead of saying "oh, it's ok to abuse your people". Perhaps we should be promoting a way of thinking that is better for all UN citizens rather than pandering to the nations that would otherwise abuse these individuals.

I hear what you're saying, but I'm not in favor of my brother being able to have the say over killing me. I believe we could get into a huge debate over what are "human rights" concerning this issue. Not going there. I don't believe nations having a divided opinion over DIVISIVE issues is all that unhealthy. I'm perfectly comfortable for you deciding on this issue however you choose - in your country. But I am extremely uncomfortable with a slight majority of nations deciding these deeply divided issues for themselves and others on moral grounds. Whether it's cloaked in "God", "Human rights", or something else, people disagree.


Good for you.

I do mean it

I believe you. But you seem to think the 50% who disagree with you are against "human rights". If I understood you correctly above, you believe the U.N. should stop recognizing nations that disagree on issues like this. I would like to see the U.N. be more inclusive than that. I believe there are human rights issues the U.N. should take a stand on. I don't believe issues like abortion and euthanasia fall in that category. That is a clear difference in opinion.



It is a question of whether Euthanasia is important enough of a human right that it should be protected by the United Nations or not. That's what you said, only slightly reworded. Therefore, the question of whether Euthanasia should be legal or not SHOULD be debated upon and I will not stand for such blatant attempts to control the debate.

Fine. Debate what you want. But I don't care to debate about euthanasia since that's not what this repeal is about. As the author of the repeal, and the thread, I'm just making it clear I'm not going there. This repeal is about a position of unity.

I actually will thank them too - for at least endorsing a proposal. It is a shame how few will endorse proposals these days and I am thankful that there are many who will still take a stand.
agreed.

I have yet to see where R43 mandates that any nation take any specific action for or against Euthanasia. What it does is simply protect both sides of the issue from each other in saying that it's legal. This simply means that Nation A can't nuke Nation B if they Euthanise somebody and in turn Nation B can't nuke Nation A if they don't Euthanise somebody. Each nation under R43 could still set the rules under which it might or might not be done in the borders of their nation. Thus R43 as poorly done as it might have been allowed individual nations to deal with this issue on their own terms.

To repeal it means a possible one sided proposal will be passed that doesn't respect any nation on the issue. So I pray that this one fails to get the votes to pass as I hate to see what comes along to replace R43 get in. As this issue has folks just waiting in the shadows to push their side of the issue and thus no nation will get proper respect on this issue. As what comes up may be one sided based on what a few nations manage to shove down the throats of the rest of us.

I for one will not be voting for this repeal... As consider R43 effective in protecting all member nations and letting them continue to set policy on this issue rather than have a few members shove their views down our throats on this issue..

Again, that's what kept being said during the repeal of "Abortion Rights". But this didn't happen. The international community felt it better to vote in a bill that respected the rights of individual nations on divisive issues like that. That is why I am in favor of a similar bill for euthanasia. I hope we have your support for that.

Considering there's been little disagreement yet on euthanasia and our debates have been rather civil, I'd have to disagree with this statement.

Last I checked, someone needs to disagree with something for there to be a debate in the first place. I didn't realize it had to be uncivil for it to be called a disargeement. But I could be imagining things. :D

And yet, you picked black and, dare I say it, FIRMLY STATED YOUR OPINION THAT BLACK SHOULD BE THE FINAL ANSWER. If we should spend so much time fighting, in your opinion, why'd you pick a side?

Are you suggesting someone can't have an opinion and believe nations should decide for themselves? I believe that euthanasia should be available in certain cases, but I also believe that it should be up to the nation to decide. I didn't read that he said "NO EUTHANASIA EVER," and I don't see where you got it. All I see is that he simply stated his belief, as did I.

Again, that's what kept being said during the repeal of "Abortion Rights". But this didn't happen. The international community felt it better to vote in a bill that respected the rights of individual nations on divisive issues like that. That is why I am in favor of a similar bill for euthanasia. I hope we have your support for that.We happen to believe that both abortions and euthanasia are individual rights but also that individuals must be protected from those who would abuse them especialy themselves.

Thus we have laws on both abortion and euthanasia that restrict and limit them to some point yet allow them if one follows the laws. As to just 'legalize' something don't mean a person can go out and do it anyway, anyplace, anytime they select to. We legalize ownership of guns yet we restrict what they may do with a gun. A person who murders another person is not sent to hang because they used a gun but because the murdered somebody. Thus they owned a legal gun just used it wrong. Same with certain drugs and such as they may be legal but to abuse them and cause harm to others or even self can be a crime, while it's legal to have the drug just not abuse it or others when using it.

I believe they yelled the same about abortion being legalized as they are now on euthanasia.. We saw nothing that gave free reign on abortion and see nothing to give free reign on euthanasia in R43. Thus nations still have the right to make laws governing both.. that make it easy or hard to get either. Any resolution that comes in and sets rules for euthanasia is stepping on the toes of some nation and thus not respecting them. R43 simply put protected both sides of the issue of euthanasia and thus respected all nations on the issue.

I'm with you Forgottenlands. This is like opening a Pandora's Box after we managed to keep it closed.

The Resolution is crap, but for the sake of all things pretty and good, it doesn't do a damn thing!

Euthanasia is legislated on, and the effect of it is non-existent. It's still completely up to the UN members. It doesn't matter what Norderia's decision about Euthanasia is (though it wouldn't be hard to guess) because we get to do what we want about it anyway!

You're all naive if you think that this debate is going to go away.

Norderia is going to be against this repeal, because of as opposed to in spite of, it's toothless wording. Norderia has its policy on euthanasia. No UN Resolution conflicts that. This Repeal here says (whether the author knows it or not) "Well, this issue is locked away in some prison. Let's take it out so we can try to move it to another one!"

If the purpose of this Repeal is the pave the way for a UN non-action Resolution, then you were better off leaving the original on the books, because it IS a non-actor.

If the purpose of this Repeal is NOT as stated above, then you damn well better expect one nasty fight. Because the debate will NOT be civil, and it will NOT be short.

Such bullshit. Completely screwing over the chance of repealing this: nice work, sovereigntist allies.

Okay.

I was around when Legalise Euthanasia was debated. I voted against, though admittedly had very little influence at the time - my only nation at the time was a week old, and was only just finding out about NS. I recognised then, and realise still that there are significant problems with the resolution. I accept that it will likely be repealed, and hopefully replaced with a superior resolution.

However, I can never accept a repeal based upon these principles. I find the assertion that euthanasia degrades human dignity to be repugnant. I sincerely hope that this repeal is defeated.

[edit] I'm curious over the legality, particularly the part referring directly to Daily Issues.

ACKNOWLEDGES this repeal will not prohibit Euthanasia in any nation, but permit it to be a daily issue in which a nation may decide this issue for themselves.

I was of the understanding that direct references to parts of the game were against the rules.

Meh, the resolution is wonderful. Really, because in it's vague and boring way it actually eliminates a whole set of euthanasia options that many people are actively pushing for in the real world. They include, but are not limited to:

Involuntary Euthanasia determined by decisions of insurances companies and hospitals. (You're too expensive to keep alive.)

Non-voluntary Euthanasia under the veneer that it would be too traumatic to actually let the patient know they have a terminal condition, so we will just kill them now and be done with it.

It's better than the ALC. Why open this pandora's box?

Actually, as has been stated before in the many repeal attempts of Resolution #43, the bill we are attempting to repeal contains no definition of Euthanasia. As a result, the resolution unintentionally legalizes all forms of euthanasia including the situations you described above. So in its "vague and boring way" the bill is dangerous - at least that is the opinion of many nations here.

The original resolution, aside from being a poorly written essay on euthanasia that no longer fits the standards of a UN resolution, could also be used to justify infanticide, as another nation has already pointed out, since Resolution #43 has not specified an age. The wording used is "over a CERTAIN age." The legislation could therefore be used to justify infanticide, that is the killing of babies, under the pretense that their life will not be worth living due to the presence of a terminal illness, physical or mental handicap.

Other arguments made in the past by My Travelling Harem include:

"NOTING THAT Resolution #43 does not define the individual responsible for the decision to terminate life where the patient is unable. The phrase "closest to them" is ambiguous. It could refer either to next of kin, a romantic attachment, close friend or other unspecified individual. As such, conflict could arise as to who has the best interest of the patient at heart."

ALSO POINTING OUT that Resolution #43 has not directly defined a "life-threatening illness." As such, there can be no consensus as to which illnesses should be treated and which should result in the termination of care.

ALSO AWARE of numerous health related resolutions, including UN Resolution #20, which supports the right to basic healthcare and Resolution #42 which supports increased access to medicine for the citizens of UN member states. As such, there can be no resolution which could undermine this support of basic health care or could contradict other health-related resolutions, all of which are intented to provide more health care and not less.

NOTING WITH CONCERN the apparent lack of value placed on the life of the dying, terminally ill or wounded, as evidenced by such phrases as "Why should carers use up time on those certain to die..." Since all individuals are accorded the same rights and freedoms under the Universal Bill of Rights, and the Resolution on Fairness and Equality, Resolution #88, it is inappropriate to compare the worth of the dying to the worth of "those with a chance for life" in a resolution.

ALSO NOTING WITH CONCERN the use of anti-religious language such as "And for those using religion as a barrier, don't you think..." present in the bill. Such language is opposed to the religious tolerance guaranteed by UN Resolution #19. On this basis alone, the bill should have been previously overturned or at the very least reworded, but it has been allowed to stand as is. The UN Universal Bill of Rights, Resolution #26 also guarantees the right to freedom of religion for member nations. As such, there can be no resolution that may conflict with this right, either in meaning, intent or idea.



There are many reasons Resolution #43 should be repealed. To state that R43 was fine and there was no reason to go into this - is a misunderstanding of the vagueness of the bill and feelings of the international community that would like to see this addressed appropriately.

My Travelling Harem made alot of good points in their past attempts to repeal this bill and has influenced my resolve to repeal it.

Oh no, the current resolution mandates its legality. Also, trust me, the replacement will be merely a clause stating it is the individual nation's right to make a decision on euthanasia.

One hopes, at least

It may prevent the family from suffering. It may end something as beautiful as life, just before health care can restore the same life. (Not exactly my beliefs, but those of others I know).

Oh yes, having the stress of a loved one clinging to his life plus a death afterwards is less suffering than just having a death.

It's really not a question of less suffering, it's about more of elements other than suffering - joy, pleasure, happiness, etc. That was my point - it's a false argument. I think that those things are irrelevant as a general policy for a government and it's really up to the individual to decide. Is it selfish for him to accept euthanasia - 90% of the time, yes. However, is it even more selfish for the family to block his wish to die - you bet your ass.

(Yes, I know, you didn't mention selfishness. Shush)

That is not the question at all. The question is whether or not the United Nations respects the individual nation's right to a functioning and proper government, where the laws of the country are supposedto be legislated.

Right.

Side A: The UN should be legislating on these matters
Side B: This matter is important enough of a human right to be legislated on.

Side A keeps saying "The UN shouldn't interfere" without disproving the claim from Side B.

I'm saying that Side A should stop trying to limit this debate to "The state should be sovereign from the UN" and refusing to fight the question of whether this issue is important enough that the UN should be legislating on it.

The United Nations is not the joint governing body of the comprising nations. It exists for international co-operation, and co-ordination of rescue, aid, etc. undertakings.

And I would find an article stating that this is a fact.....where?

You may think that's what it should be, but that certainly isn't what it is.

---------------------

Proving my point that good people will disagree on this issue.

You're right, they will. Why you need to restart the debate, however, is beyond me.

I'm assuming you're not disagreeing that I'm "good people"

You've been a very bad boy for getting this to quarom *wagging finger*

I still believe our debates can be civil here. But don't think that me nor 150 other delegates who have supported this effort so far are comfortable with the U.N. ruling on this issue for us. Again, it's not about what your or I believe about euthanasia, it's about who governs these types of decisions - Nations or The United Nations. If it's the United Nations, we're not very united on it and so this repeal reaching queue will help aid that. It is only those who will believe they are right and everyone else should believe as they that will be hurt by an effort such as this one to bring unity.

Those that have a goddamned clue about the net effect of euthanasia and actually understand how the UN works were quite satisfied with it, even if they disagreed completely about the issue of Euthanasia itself. And guess what, THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT WILL BE DEBATING THE ISSUE. Considering the bloodbath that was the repeal of "Gay Rights" and "Abortion Rights", I expect crying, I expect namecalling, I expect behaviour that I would never have thought possible from some of our longest standing and most extraordinary members. I expect to see the community disintigrate and I expect there will be little in terms of compliments for you whether you succeed or fail at passing this repeal.

Good questions. Questions for national governments to decide. Not the United Nations. Again, I do not plan for this to be a debate about euthanasia.

YOUR GROUP PUT THOSE QUESTIONS INTO THE REPEAL. YOUR GROUP IS ARGUING THESE POINTS. DON'T MAKE AN ARGUMENT THEN TELL THE COUNTER-ARGUMENT "I don't want to talk about this". YOUR GROUP set the standard of what is a fair game argument. YOUR GROUP is trying to get a repeal through that includes statements that give a moral value on euthanasia while stating "it should be left to national governments". PICK your arguments BEFORE you write your repeal. Don't tell me I can't debate a point in your repeal. That's total bullshit on the stick ripped off the ugly tree.

Only if you were in favor of abortion being legal. The other half of nations found it quite offensive. At least ALC had the support of many of those who believed both ways on the issue.

That's right......you just reminded me of a heads up I got from one of my friends.

The jury's still out on what the results from ALC actually meant. One of the problems we're running into is that there were a lot of campaigns that completely screwed with the stats.

I've got other comments.....but I probably should hold my tongue. Regardless, ALC has ended up being the statue of the most disgraceful mark in the history of the UN - not because of the resolution itself (it has its own problems, but they're nothing compared to Ban Slavery), but because of what it's done to this community.

I'm sure some more dogmatic ones here will make a scene and say some things they might regret. I hope that doesn't happen. I find unity within the U.N. over divisive issue in the greater good.

Oh good, then you'll withdraw your proposal so that the UN can be unified instead of a boiling sespot of anger

I don't believe ignoring an issue is going to bring healing.

On that, we're agreed.

I also don't believe we're going to be able to convince each other over our personal views on euthanasia. So let's not try to do that. Rule on this, according to your system of government, the way you choose.

I have thus far fired about 20 arguments at you on why this shouldn't be sent to vote. Go ahead, count how many have actually dealt with the issue of euthanasia. Go ahead, count how many have actually dealt with the issue of nation's rights. If you want me to go there, I'm more than happy to - I deal with those issues on a weekly basis and we can begin the ragtag sesspot tomorrow and Cluich and Kenny descend upon my beliefs regarding how much sovereignty the UN has, while Gruenberg bashes his head against the wall at the disaster that's about to come out of it knowing the replacement is going to remove his ability to kill his eldest citizens. Meanwhile Enn, TH, TBlack and VL struggle in vain as the cracks of war within the UNOG start widenning and the various major members from LAE, to Waterana, to Ausserland, and on begin their debates. I can begin this fight, but I'm not starting it until you realize that you're playing with Pandora

And she isn't the nicest person in the world.

Maybe because of the fear of it being a divided issue. My proposal comes with the hope of unity for those who disagree. Again, those who are more dogmatic on this issue - one way or the other - will probably not be happy. But they will be more happy than those right now whose people disagree with euthanasia and yet are forced to have it legal because a narrow margin of nations in the united nations tell the other nations what to think.

Unity? I find it amazing that you claim it'll bring unity. That's wonderful wishful thinking. Unity, I think not. It'll bring anger and frustration. The average person cares little about UNR #43, but you open it up and force everyone to discuss it, and you will see just how much unity will be left in the UN.

Sorry for those who thought I was making a case for this law to be the most divisive and attempted to be repealed in all of Nationstates history. I was only referring to those that are current laws.

And your basis for this information would be....?

I'm not old, comotose, or dying, so stay away from me

Seriously, I hope I would win that election since I authored the repeal and helped lobby for its support

Y'know.....we didn't even put you on the list. Or Republicans Armed for that matter. We were choosing between Gruenberg, LAE, Yelda and TH.

It would've made sense to actually put at least someone who actually worked on it

I heard that one before also. People desire Unity for the UNITED nations. Don't be a divider. Be a uniter. To threaten with stronger euthanasia bills is dogmatic and a clear threat that will not weaken our resolve for the greater good.

The greater good? Over a trillion citizens of the UN and you speak of the greater good for the 30,000 self-serving national legislatures?

And which people desire this unity? You seem so knowledgable about what everyone wants, so where does your great knowledge come from? I don't see you debating very often with your opponents, so where do you get this wealth of experience of what everyone wants?

Because it will make the U.N. stronger and healthier.

Define

I did not do that at all. If I picked black I would say Euthanasia is to be legal in all nations. Actually black represents the status quo this proposal hopes to repeal. Instead, I believe national governments should decide national issues like this one. I believe the U.N. should decide international issues. I cannot see euthanasia being an international issue.

Fine, you picked white. Whatever. You complain about how it's either "Pro-Euthanasia" or "Pro-sovereignty" and then complain about how it's only one or the other - yet your repeal supports only one of those policies so you're complaining about white while picking white.

I hear what you're saying, but I'm not in favor of my brother being able to have the say over killing me.

What's the matter? Don't trust your brother to make the decision he'll know you wanted?

I believe we could get into a huge debate over what are "human rights" concerning this issue. Not going there.

Whatever. It'll get there, whether you want to control the debate on the matter or not.

I don't believe nations having a divided opinion over DIVISIVE issues is all that unhealthy. I'm perfectly comfortable for you deciding on this issue however you choose - in your country. But I am extremely uncomfortable with a slight majority of nations deciding these deeply divided issues for themselves and others on moral grounds. Whether it's cloaked in "God", "Human rights", or something else, people disagree.

We'll see how divided they actually are when a much better written version is passed.

Fine. Debate what you want. But I don't care to debate about euthanasia since that's not what this repeal is about. As the author of the repeal, and the thread, I'm just making it clear I'm not going there. This repeal is about a position of unity.

Something I've been bashing you over the head with because the last thing it'll bring is unity.

Again, that's what kept being said during the repeal of "Abortion Rights". But this didn't happen. The international community felt it better to vote in a bill that respected the rights of individual nations on divisive issues like that. That is why I am in favor of a similar bill for euthanasia. I hope we have your support for that.

Actually, it did happen. Gruenberg made a proposal which he was thoroughly disgusted with at the last minute and it was a "down-to-the-wire" race with supposedly less than a minute between a pro-abortion replacement and ALC.

Your memory of history is a bit foggy.

Are you suggesting someone can't have an opinion and believe nations should decide for themselves? I believe that euthanasia should be available in certain cases, but I also believe that it should be up to the nation to decide. I didn't read that he said "NO EUTHANASIA EVER," and I don't see where you got it. All I see is that he simply stated his belief, as did I.

No. I'm saying his complaint is contradictory (god....there's a better term for it) since he's equally guilty of picking black or white.

--------------------------------

I honestly don't give a shit whether we open pandora's box or not. I do, however, hate it when people start spewing off a stream of bullshit. This repeal will not bring unity, it will not bring resolution, and it isn't the extremists that oppose it. The majority of the UN is not pro-sovereignty no matter how much the sovereigntists kid themselves, and Change isn't the innocent child in this game. I find my dealings with your nation continually deteriorate and I have many opinions that I care not to express here about where your place in history should be. This repeal is bullshit, this argument is crap, and I think the only person who deserves any fair treatment is, honestly, Pro-Sovereignty Babies, but even that I question since he is the delegate of the region with which I have so much frustration. I guess it's more I have yet to find the dirt that'll make me add him to the ranks. I doubt this opinion will hold through to the end of the debate, but I may yet be surprised. He's so far been intelligent and level-headed - even if he is a bit dillusional.

Who, afterall, isn't.

[edit] I'm curious over the legality, particularly the part referring directly to Daily Issues.


Quote:
ACKNOWLEDGES this repeal will not prohibit Euthanasia in any nation, but permit it to be a daily issue in which a nation may decide this issue for themselves.


I was of the understanding that direct references to parts of the game were against the rules.

The precedent has been set as this is the exact wording used in the repeal that passed on repeal abortion rights. It's not a metagaming issue. It's merely a further mention that nations should decide this issue for themselves instead of being voted on by the UN. I'm well aware that there are differences between the U.N. part of this game and the "issues" that nations may daily vote for different options that influence their nation. This resolution is not suggesting there is a relation between the two and is not making any suggestions for new actions - as that would be illegal.


This is simply a repeal and the wording of this part some may not like is under the classification "Acknowledges". The main purpose for this clause is for everyone to understand that repealing this resolution does not make euthanasia illegal. There has been some confusion in the past concerning this and some repeal proposals on this have been deleted in the past on the misunderstanding that repealing this bill would make euthanasia illegal. This bill proposes no new legislation. It simply repeals the bill making euthanasia legal in all nations and makes it an issue for nations to decide for themselves and work out the details - as it should be a national issue.

:eek: FINALLY, A REPEAL OF RES 43 GOT THROUGH.:p Allelujah Allelujah.

I can't wait to see this go. I have selected none of the above to the poll question for this reason. There are 6 types of euthanasia:

Active Voluntary
Active In-Voluntary
Active Non-Voluntary
Passive Voluntary
Passive In-Voluntary
Passive Non-Voluntary

I believe that a simple resolution should be made whereby all of these are defined and both forms of In-Voluntary euthanasia are illegalised. Also, it should be mandated that nations clearly state whether or not the other 4 types are legal or illegal in their nation. This would ensure that there is no confusion in any nation and to ensure that the issue of Euthanasia is not ignored. I would illegalise in-voluntary euthanasia because I believe that the ultimate choice as to whether or not someone is 'euthanised' should be on the person who it affects (unless they are unable to - this is non-voluntary).

Anyway, that is my view, but I wouldn't mind too much if no other resolution is made regarding euthanasia.

Mod rulings only work one way.

Just because it was legal before doesn't mean it is legal now.

However, if it wasn't legal before, you can probably bet good money that it's not legal now.

Mods don't have time to do a 5 seat tribunal on each proposal ever written and they often miss minor problems. Just because they missed it last time doesn't mean they will always miss it. Hell, the UN regulars who not only have time to do a 15 person tribunal on each proposal brought forth can't get all of the points that are illegal.

QUOTE=Forgottenlands:
Those that have a goddamned clue about the net effect of euthanasia and actually understand how the UN works were quite satisfied with it, even if they disagreed completely about the issue of Euthanasia itself. And guess what, THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT WILL BE DEBATING THE ISSUE. Considering the bloodbath that was the repeal of "Gay Rights" and "Abortion Rights", I expect crying, I expect namecalling, I expect behaviour that I would never have thought possible from some of our longest standing and most extraordinary members. I expect to see the community disintigrate and I expect there will be little in terms of compliments for you whether you succeed or fail at passing this repeal.

Nice start. Please don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. I disagree with your assessment of the impact of this repeal. There's no need to get personal and cry over euthanasia at all. I, frankly, don't care what you believe about it. It's a sovereignty issue. I think there's really only so much that can be debated about that. It appears that one either agrees or disagrees over who should have the power to decided these things.


YOUR GROUP PUT THOSE QUESTIONS INTO THE REPEAL. YOUR GROUP IS ARGUING THESE POINTS. DON'T MAKE AN ARGUMENT THEN TELL THE COUNTER-ARGUMENT "I don't want to talk about this". YOUR GROUP set the standard of what is a fair game argument. YOUR GROUP is trying to get a repeal through that includes statements that give a moral value on euthanasia while stating "it should be left to national governments". PICK your arguments BEFORE you write your repeal. Don't tell me I can't debate a point in your repeal. That's total bullshit on the stick ripped off the ugly tree.

No, regardless of what "my group" believes - and there is a wide variety of opinions on the issue of euthanasia from the camp that wants to see this repealed - the argument stated in the repeal is there to show there are two sides to the issue. The point is to re-enforce why good people disagree over this issue - in which you continue to prove quite well for me. I have no desire and will not argue the merits of euthanasia. The driving force of this repeal is national sovereignty - who decides on issues of intra-national affairs. I have a feeling I might get tired of saying this.


I've got other comments.....but I probably should hold my tongue.

ROFL! I really cannot imagine. It's all in jest, my friend!


Regardless, ALC has ended up being the statue of the most disgraceful mark in the history of the UN - not because of the resolution itself (it has its own problems, but they're nothing compared to Ban Slavery), but because of what it's done to this community.

ALC is a high point in the UN - showing this body can actually unify over deeply divisive issues. Please don't continue what appears to be this charade of believing a bill that made abortion legal in every nation; or even a bill making abortion illegal in every nation - would be better than ALC which sought the middle ground. You're sounding a bit like an extremist partisan. I don't believe you are really all that. I notice you have your beliefs wrapped in a lot of emotion.


Oh good, then you'll withdraw your proposal so that the UN can be unified instead of a boiling sespot of anger

The only boiling sespot of anger I'm hearing is coming from you. I'm sorry you feel the way you do. However, there is a contingency that believe this will bring more healing to the U.N. than hurt. The black mark on the U.N. is for taking a side on this issue and forcing all nations to believe that way if you want to be a part of it. We believe the U.N. should be more tolerant than that.


I have thus far fired about 20 arguments at you on why this shouldn't be sent to vote. Go ahead, count how many have actually dealt with the issue of euthanasia. Go ahead, count how many have actually dealt with the issue of nation's rights. If you want me to go there, I'm more than happy to - I deal with those issues on a weekly basis and we can begin the ragtag sesspot tomorrow and Cluich and Kenny descend upon my beliefs regarding how much sovereignty the UN has, while Gruenberg bashes his head against the wall at the disaster that's about to come out of it knowing the replacement is going to remove his ability to kill his eldest citizens. Meanwhile Enn, TH, TBlack and VL struggle in vain as the cracks of war within the UNOG start widenning and the various major members from LAE, to Waterana, to Ausserland, and on begin their debates. I can begin this fight, but I'm not starting it until you realize that you're playing with Pandora

And she isn't the nicest person in the world.

And I'm the one with foggy history? "Exaggeration" - I understand. I agree that there will be nations that disagree. However, you discount the fact that there are nations that disagree now. Also, that the resolution is a poor one and needs to be repealed. I'm fully aware that you and some others might be happy if this were never brought up. However, there are others who are not happy if it's not. We are seeking the middle ground.

Unity? I find it amazing that you claim it'll bring unity. That's wonderful wishful thinking. Unity, I think not. It'll bring anger and frustration. The average person cares little about UNR #43, but you open it up and force everyone to discuss it, and you will see just how much unity will be left in the UN.

The average person does not want the U.N. to decide on issues like this for them. That is why they create a nation and establish a system of government to run that nation. Whether or not you agree with Scandinavian Duchies:

The United Nations is not the joint governing body of the comprising nations. It exists for international co-operation, and co-ordination of rescue, aid, etc. undertakings.

There are many of us who believe that's what the U.N. should be. I'm well aware that you would like to see the U.N. take away more rights of nations to decide on things for themselves. Your position is heard. My position echoes SD's above. We disagree. Nothing personal.



Y'know.....we didn't even put you on the list. Or Republicans Armed for that matter. We were choosing between Gruenberg, LAE, Yelda and TH.

It would've made sense to actually put at least someone who actually worked on it

:(

Everyone hear that? It wasn't me! :)

If bringing this up was a crime, I have a feeling I can get away with murder around here, since I actually authored the bill and was the main lobbyist for it's support. But blame one of those other guys if you wish.


Fine, you picked white. Whatever. You complain about how it's either "Pro-Euthanasia" or "Pro-sovereignty" and then complain about how it's only one or the other - yet your repeal supports only one of those policies so you're complaining about white while picking white.

What's the matter? Don't trust your brother to make the decision he'll know you wanted?

Whatever. It'll get there, whether you want to control the debate on the matter or not.

Again, this is not about euthanasia...

And I have not take a position of one or the other. I am against any resolution that takes either side in a deeply divided issue and makes it a position of the United Nations. I believe this stands in contrast to "United." If the U.N. continues to take a position on abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, etc. then we should probably be called the Disunited Nations. I fail to understand why you paint me in the corner of being an extremist while I'm clearly the moderate here. When one paints a moderate as being an extremist, you have to be an extremist. Just calling it like I see it.


We'll see how divided they actually are when a much better written version is passed.

If it's another resolution that seeks to divide the U.N. by enforcing one side of this on everyone, I understand why you are not comfortable with the unifying position here. A position of division, as you suggest, will not pass again. I also understand this as a veiled threat for those considering voting for the repeal. That doesn't work with me.


Something I've been bashing you over the head with because the last thing it'll bring is unity.

Ok, it won't bring unity for you. For most people I believe it will. We're looking to the greater good. Headache.


Actually, it did happen. Gruenberg made a proposal which he was thoroughly disgusted with at the last minute and it was a "down-to-the-wire" race with supposedly less than a minute between a pro-abortion replacement and ALC.

Your memory of history is a bit foggy.

Again, I understand you want to make this a dividing issue and I'm fully aware that you or someone else is probably drafting a more dividing proposal on this issue as we speak. I'm just saying the issue that won was the unifying position of ALC. That is history. We understand you wish it were not that way. Forces were in line to ensure a more dividing bill on abortion would not have passed. The historical record shows the unifying position on that debate won. I am aware that extremists who would like to see abortion legal in all nations; as well as those extremists who would like to see it outlawed in all nations are not happy with ALC. We have alot of enemies, but many more friends. (P.S. I'm not saying you're an enemy. You're actually quite fun).



No. I'm saying his complaint is contradictory (god....there's a better term for it) since he's equally guilty of picking black or white.

--------------------------------

I'm obviously not making this black and white. You obviously are.



I honestly don't give a shit whether we open pandora's box or not. I do, however, hate it when people start spewing off a stream of bullshit. This repeal will not bring unity, it will not bring resolution, and it isn't the extremists that oppose it. The majority of the UN is not pro-sovereignty no matter how much the sovereigntists kid themselves, and Change isn't the innocent child in this game. I find my dealings with your nation continually deteriorate and I have many opinions that I care not to express here about where your place in history should be. This repeal is bullshit, this argument is crap, and I think the only person who deserves any fair treatment is, honestly, Pro-Sovereignty Babies, but even that I question since he is the delegate of the region with which I have so much frustration. I guess it's more I have yet to find the dirt that'll make me add him to the ranks. I doubt this opinion will hold through to the end of the debate, but I may yet be surprised. He's so far been intelligent and level-headed - even if he is a bit dillusional.

Who, afterall, isn't.

Thanks?

Look, this boils down to a disagreement over United Socialism vs. United Sovereignty. I'm not going to heat up the argument by responding to all of this the same way you do. You are obviously very passionate about what you believe and I respect that. I also respectfully disagree with you. However, many of my closest friends are people I disagree with sharply about things. I will not attack you or your character, or make any jokes about your nation's name. I am understanding a little bit more clearly now why you may have been involved in some emotional discourse in the past.

If I haven't addressed some of your issues to your liking, I'll admit that I see little point in attempting to convert you to a sovereignist position. You won't convert me into being an anti-sovereignist. I've learned from the past that these are core beliefs. To anyone else reading this, vote with your core beliefs and the right thing will happen here whether this repeal passes or not. I hope it does. I think I'm not as passionate about all of this as some of you are though, so you won't succeed much in getting a rise out of me.

Announcement:

This proposal will not be voted on until Saturday, and I will not have that much time between now and then to respond to comments here since I will be watching three of our children (oldest is six) and working while my other half is away visiting parents. I will probably not be able to have that much time to check in here. But I'll hopefully find a couple times to do that.

I just wanted to say that in case someone thought I was ignoring them or not answering any other questions that may be brought to the table between now and then :)

ALC is a high point in the UN
Lol. You clearly weren't around for that particular "high point". Never have I seen so much damage caused by a single resolution.

And I have not take a position of one or the other.
Yep, you have:
ARGUES that euthanasia proposes to eliminate suffering by eliminating the one who suffers. Euthanasia violates the principle that each human being has intrinsic dignity and value, regardless of age, physical or mental condition, or state of dependency.
Now defend it, please.

I'm just saying the issue that won was the unifying position of ALC.
Bahahaha! "unifying position"? Ok, you really weren't paying attention then, obviously.

Look, this boils down to a disagreement over United Socialism vs. United Sovereignty.
Trolling too. Wow, it just keeps getting better.

Lol. You clearly weren't around for that particular "high point". Never have I seen so much damage caused by a single resolution.



I do agree that the ALC -- as legislation -- has been one of the high points. The behaviour of extremists on either side of the debate (i.e., both those for or against abortion seeking to impose their particular view on everyone) was deplorable.

Just a quick glance at it. I'll fully read through the proposal and thread later on. There is one point that has probably already been brought up regarding leaving euthanasia as an issue for the nations to decide upon.

Patient Rights Act. Euthanasia is a medical procedure (or refusal of treatment, depending on your paradigm) and as such is protected (in all forms) under the aforementioned act. Nations can't ban euthanasia while PRA is in effect. There may still be some validity to the repeal, I'll read the rest when I've a little more time. I just wanted to bring that point uo in case it hadn't been.

Ok, there's one thing I need to make explicitly clear here.

The most divisive issue in the UN isn't abortion, gay rights, euthanasia, worker rights, environmental considerations, corporate corruption, Gruenberg's dictatorship or Yelda's fine cheeses. The number one most divisive issue in the UN is National Sovereignty vs International Federalism. Why? Because these two sides end up duking it out over just about every resolution and it is seen as a success if you can get the support of both sides.

It's a matter of what the UN should be that divides us, not what it should believe.

The most divisive issue in the UN isn't abortion, gay rights, euthanasia, worker rights, environmental considerations, corporate corruption, Gruenberg's dictatorship or Yelda's fine cheeses. The number one most divisive issue in the UN is National Sovereignty vs International Federalism. Why? Because these two sides end up duking it out over just about every resolution and it is seen as a success if you can get the support of both sides.
No, I disagree. There are plenty of examples of "bipartisan" agreement. The most divisive issue is abortion. After that, probably nuclear weapons.

I notice you have your beliefs wrapped in a lot of emotion.

Actually, I just have a lot of pent up emotion right now that's been given an exit point

I think Gruenberg summarized the problems with just about all of your other statements.

I do agree that the ALC -- as legislation -- has been one of the high points. The behaviour of extremists on either side of the debate (i.e., both those for or against abortion seeking to impose their particular view on everyone) was deplorable.

I am always amazed when you complain about us being still frustrated by ALC being passed. You act totally pissed off about your terrorism proposal failing yet and leave some mention somewhere about how deplorable an action it was for the UN to do so and then act as if we're morons for not being satisfied with ALC. Those that think ALC brought resolution are either ignorant of what is happening (which is clearly not what's happening in your case) or they are so bloody extremist in their belief of what is good for the UN that they refuse to see that any damage could possibly be their fault.

All OOC here:

I am always amazed when you complain about us being still frustrated by ALC being passed.

I complain because I'm sick of people trying to enforce their beliefs on everyone when it comes to such a decisive issue.

You act totally pissed off about your terrorism proposal failing yet and leave some mention somewhere about how deplorable an action it was for the UN to do so and then act as if we're morons for not being satisfied with ALC.

Not pissed off about the Anti-Terror Act failing. That stuff was IC. Admittedly, I did get extremely frustrated a the inability of some to get past that "freedom fighter" bullshit and a host of other stupid arguments against it -- e.g., "It doesn't address state terror," which is nothing more than code for the U.S is evil for invading Afghanistan and Iraq and had nothing whatsoever to do with the proposal.

Those that think ALC brought resolution are either ignorant of what is happening (which is clearly not what's happening in your case) or they are so bloody extremist in their belief of what is good for the UN that they refuse to see that any damage could possibly be their fault.

No, you're right, I'm not ignorant of what is happening. The ALC means those on either side of the fence on the abortion issue can now shut the fuck up. There has been no damage here, other than that done by those extremists on both sides of the debate -- which should be over -- who continue to beat the issue to death.

I've been very up-front about my position on abortion all along. I'm personally against it; however, the fact that I am personally against it doesn't give me the right to decide it for someone else, and I sure as hell don't want some international body doing just that. That, my friend, is precisely what the ALC does, and I'm flabbergasted that you are amazed about anything concering my position on this issue.

Lol. You clearly weren't around for that particular "high point". Never have I seen so much damage caused by a single resolution.
Well I definitely remember being around for the ALC and I consider it a high point in quick thinking diplomacy. Yes there was a fierce battle of the queues but once the resolution hit quorum it was quickly agreed by both sides. It is one of the few resolutions that still have people from both sides still strongly defending it against a repeal. That has to count for something.

You see, there's your problem. You think the debate ended. However, there are very few issues where the debate has ever truly ended. Considering the longest running debate is on whether Human Rights or National Soverignty should be put first is STILL going on, I can't imagine why you'd think the debate actually ended.

And no matter how much you want to yell and scream and shout about these "extremists", Compardia and I are bitching about you and Kenny being the extremists on the other side. Why? Because to us the other side isn't the anti-abortion crowd. The other side is the NatSovs who think that their nation should be put ahead of their citizens.

Well I definitely remember being around for the ALC and I consider it a high point in quick thinking diplomacy. Yes there was a fierce battle of the queues but once the resolution hit quorum it was quickly agreed by both sides. It is one of the few resolutions that still have people from both sides still strongly defending it against a repeal. That has to count for something.

I'm sorry.....my memory is a bit fuzzy here

Which IntFed is defending it?

Well I definitely remember being around for the ALC and I consider it a high point in quick thinking diplomacy. Yes there was a fierce battle of the queues but once the resolution hit quorum it was quickly agreed by both sides. It is one of the few resolutions that still have people from both sides still strongly defending it against a repeal. That has to count for something.
Nah, ALC was written mainly to try to stop all the bickering, fighting and trolling, and only led to more of it. I'm being selfish here: maybe for the UN as a whole, it was a measure of resolve, but for the UN forum community, it's made some pretty irreparable rifts.

Of course, probably any resolution on the subject would have done the same, leading me back to the conclusion that stirring the issue up wasn't exactly the brightest thing to do. I don't think the fraction will be so bad this time, and I do favour a repeal of #43 - to the extent I'm annoyed such a shit one made it to quorum - but I just wish people would knock it off with the rosy revisionism of ALC.

Nations can't ban euthanasia while PRA is in effect.

Nor can they expand the definition of euthanasia to include non close relation third party involuntary euthanasia and non-voluntary euthanasia. The resolution presents a glass half empty and half full, which could go either way if the resolution was removed. From a nat sov perspective this makes good sense to repeal, but from a person on either side of the issue, repealing might make the condition worse in individual nations without a replacement which could just as easily be a bitter fight with repeal forces not far behind it.

I'm sorry.....my memory is a bit fuzzy here

Which IntFed is defending it?

IntFed? I was talking ProChoice/ProLife. Remember that any one who is passionate about something tends to be more IntFed than NatSov at least for that particular topic.

IntFed? I was talking ProChoice/ProLife. Remember that any one who is passionate about something tends to be more IntFed than NatSov at least for that particular topic.

Ok, which REGULAR took an IntFed position on ProLife?

I'm being selfish here: maybe for the UN as a whole, it was a measure of resolve, but for the UN forum community, it's made some pretty irreparable rifts.

I honestly am not sure if the average person in the UN cared.

Y'know, I sometimes wonder what would've happened had ALC passed without a proposal like CAR sitting in the wings. The fact that Waterana had spent so long on it and it had been purposefully blocked was certainly a large part of the blow to many.

The fact that Waterana had spent so long on it and it had been purposefully blocked was certainly a large part of the blow to many.
Agreed, but this hijack has probably gone on long enough.

We should get back to saying how appalling this repeal is! Doesn't even contain one reference to the text of #43. No attempt to appeal to those who support euthanasia as a right - which is perfectly possible, given all the flaws of #43. And it uses the most widely mocked arguments as though they're something impressive or new.

The author's refusal to defend their own proposal is also pretty disgusting.

As a nation who has recently joined the UN, we humbly seek understanding from the other Honored Ambassadors.

Many here have acknowledged a need to repeal resolution #43, but oppose this repeal resolution based on what they see as flaws. Inexperienced in the ways of the UN, we ask for explanation on why it matters. If it repeals resolution #43, why is there concern over the resolution itself?

Humbly,
Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

We should get back to saying how appalling this repeal is!

Oh, it is.

Doesn't even contain one reference to the text of #43.

Indeed, only has a NatSov argument and an appeal to anti-euthanasiasts (such as the author!).

No attempt to appeal to those who support euthanasia as a right - which is perfectly possible, given all the flaws of #43.

See above.

And it uses the most widely mocked arguments as though they're something impressive or new.

The Rules: Furthermore, simply stating "National Sovereignty" is not sufficient grounds for a Repeal. Since such a stance could be used on every single Resolution, it is little more than saying "I don't like it."

Also, Repealing on the grounds of an old Resolution violating the current rules is not sufficient. Many old Resolutions were in existence before this rule set (or the Enodian rules) were in effect; some were in effect before Moderators existed. On a more practical side, Repealing because a Resolution violates the rules is itself a MetaGaming violation: the laws do not "exist" from an In Character standpoint.

The author's refusal to defend their own proposal is also pretty disgusting.

I believe in his posts that he's trying to defend it, though just not actually addressing points in his defenses.

the fact that I am personally against it doesn't give me the right to decide it for someone else

I applaud your statement. As you admit yourself that you don't have the right to decide it for someone else, I suppose you agree to let any women in the world (whatever the nation this woman is living in) decide for herself. I fully agree with you.

QUOTE=GruenbergLol. You clearly weren't around for that particular "high point". Never have I seen so much damage caused by a single resolution.

Oh, but I was. I was extremely involved with it.

The resolution has brought the U.N. to a point of more unity over the issue of abortion. I'm not an extremist, nor one to take a game that seriously, so I wasn't that hurt by it. Why should that be a point to not pursue the best options for the U.N. on euthanasia? And I don't see a whole lot of people feeling damage about it. I'm sorry that you were. We'll try to keep the language and rhetoric down here so you're not hurt again.



Now defend it, please.

I already did. I said it further established the case that good people disagree on the issue. I could care less if you agree with it or not. People who disagree with it are still in favor of the repeal. The repeal is not so much about that one statement.

If you want to debate euthanasia, I'm sure there's a thread on here somewhere for that. I won't be visiting it. I do not care about it that much. I care more about unity in the U.N. I will not get off on the peripheral issues which will only make it heated here.

Bahahaha! "unifying position"? Ok, you really weren't paying attention then, obviously.

I didn't say it would bring unity among the half dozen or so active people here. Although I do believe, as much as there is disagreement over sovereignty vs. anti-sovereignty, that the sovereignty position is the middle road concerning the actual issues. But if you all get so upset that you swear and lose sleep over the issue of sovereignty, I'm sorry for you. I believe more people would be active here if the U.N. didn't have polarizing positions such as this one.


Trolling too. Wow, it just keeps getting better.

I would respond to that... but I have no idea what it means. My original comment regarded something about United Nations vs. United Socialism. My point being that if we're going to have the U.N. involved in national issues like this, pretty soon there will be no difference at all between us. I believe diversity is a good thing.

If it repeals resolution #43, why is there concern over the resolution itself?
For us, it's threefold:
1. Our office has put time and effort into passing several repeals. The insinuation that "the argument doesn't matter" annoys us, thus, because it implies all of our work in crafting an argument are null, and we should simply submit blank repeals.
2. We hope this will pass...but we don't think it will. And, if it fails, it will put pay to the hopes of repealing this resolution for some time.
3. We dislike endorsing arguments we disagree with, or repeals we find wanting. This repeal is poorly composed, and contains no real arguments. Though we agree with its aim, we are unwilling to ally ourselves to its execution.

~Lori Jiffjeff
Acting Ambassador
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair of "Mothers Against Weird Shit"

I applaud your statement. As you admit yourself that you don't have the right to decide it for someone else, please may you let any women in the world (whatever the nation or the government this women is living in) to decide for herself, thank you.

No thanks, we'll let the baby decide if it wants to be killed. Once its, oh say 5 years old, we'll ask "hey little boy, do you want to die?" and will perform the abortion depending upon his answer. ;) [/Opening up a HUGE can of worms that doesn't belong in this discussion]

I already did. I said it further established the case that good people disagree on the issue. I could care less if you agree with it or not. People who disagree with it are still in favor of the repeal. The repeal is not so much about that one statement.

If you want to debate euthanasia, I'm sure there's a thread on here somewhere for that. I won't be visiting it. I do not care about it that much. I care more about unity in the U.N. I will not get off on the peripheral issues which will only make it heated here.
Ok, I'll speak slowly, so you can understand.

Your. Repeal. Makes. A. Negative. Statement. About. Euthanasia.

Defend it.

I would respond to that... but I have no idea what it means. My original comment regarded something about United Nations vs. United Socialism. My point being that if we're going to have the U.N. involved in national issues like this, pretty soon there will be no difference at all between us. I believe diversity is a good thing.
What the fuck are you talking about? The Gruenberg UN office has repealed 4 anti-sovereigntist resolutions, wrote the fucking Abortion Legality Convention, and wrote two other sovereignty-friendly resolutions (which, of course, you voted against, because they existed, which goes too far for Change). I was, until last week, a member of the National Sovereignty Organization, and I've been active in Gatesville's UN section

I don't think your repeal is a crock of shite because I'm a federalist. I think it's a crock of shite because I'm a sovereigntist - and because it's a crock of shite.

Oh, and the trolling is in the braindead assumption that 'socialism' constitutes federalism.

Now will you please defend your own proposal?

Oh, but I was. I was extremely involved with it.

You were extremely involved? I don't recall your name, but I do recall Gruen writing the damn thing and then realizing it was a fuckup from hell.

I would respond to that... but I have no idea what it means. My original comment regarded something about United Nations vs. United Socialism.

Translation: "If I was trolling, I didn't intend it nor did I make those statements with intent to offend"

Considering the wording, and the rest of the post, I'd agree. I think Gruen was being a bit jumpy

I think a lot of the regulars are a bit jumpy right now.

For a lot of reasons

That have been stated many many times

Oh, I'm very clear about my arguments for repealing this resolution. Some people here just disagree with them. That's ok.

Oh, I'm very clear about my arguments for repealing this resolution. Some people here just disagree with them. That's ok.

Translation: "I've made my arguments, and just because you put counter arguments doesn't mean I have to refute your arguments. You have the right to your own opinion...blah blah blah"

If you honestly think these debates are about convincing your opponents, you've learnt nothing about politics in your life. It's about convincing everyone else.

Oh, I'm very clear about my arguments for repealing this resolution. Some people here just disagree with them. That's ok.
No, you're not at all clear. Because everything in your repeal says euthanasia is something the UN should not be ruled on. Yet it also says "ARGUES that euthanasia proposes to eliminate suffering by eliminating the one who suffers. Euthanasia violates the principle that each human being has intrinsic dignity and value, regardless of age, physical or mental condition, or state of dependency."

If this repeal is passed, the UN will have approved that sentiment. It will have ruled on euthanasia. So you will have violated your own argument.

Oh, I'm very clear about my arguments for repealing this resolution. Some people here just disagree with them. That's ok.

No, you're not. You don't even mention the original resolution at all. All you do is say that euthanasia is wrong and that nations should be able to decide.

Still OOC:

You see, there's your problem. You think the debate ended. However, there are very few issues where the debate has ever truly ended. Considering the longest running debate is on whether Human Rights or National Soverignty should be put first is STILL going on, I can't imagine why you'd think the debate actually ended.

Not my problem anymore. The problem is yours. You lost, but you can't get over it. The UN decided, nearly 7-3, that the issue was best left to nations to decide, because there is no firm agreement that abortion is a fundamental human right. Get over it and move on already.

[QUOTE=Forgottenlands]And no matter how much you want to yell and scream and shout about these "extremists", Compardia and I are bitching about you and Kenny being the extremists on the other side. Why? Because to us the other side isn't the anti-abortion crowd. The other side is the NatSovs who think that their nation should be put ahead of their citizens.


And your side is the highhanded one that thinks its opinions on issues that pretty much split people 50/50 are the correct opinions. They are just your opinions. Get over yourselves.

OOC: Cluich, all he was pointing out was the double standard. "abortion is a national issue - get over it already" vs. "terrorism is a national issue - but I'm going to keep trying to get this proposal passed". The terrorism proposal split opinions - yet you treat anyone who disagrees with your proposal as absolute dirt.

He's not, I think, saying that it's wrong of you to stick up for what you believe in - just to recognise that other people are doing the same thing.

QUOTE=Gruenberg: Ok, I'll speak slowly, so you can understand.

Your. Repeal. Makes. A. Negative. Statement. About. Euthanasia.

Defend it.

You don't have to get snippety with me. Let me say it for you one more time in a way maybe you will understand better. I. Already. did. Re-read. It's there to reenforce the thought that good people disagree on the issue. Maybe it's not true. Maybe we really all agree after all. I think not.


What the fuck are you talking about? The Gruenberg UN office has repealed 4 anti-sovereigntist resolutions, wrote the fucking Abortion Legality Convention, and wrote two other sovereignty-friendly resolutions (which, of course, you voted against, because they existed, which goes too far for Change). I was, until last week, a member of the National Sovereignty Organization, and I've been active in Gatesville's UN section

I don't think your repeal is a crock of shite because I'm a federalist. I think it's a crock of shite because I'm a sovereigntist - and because it's a crock of shite.

Oh, and the trolling is in the braindead assumption that 'socialism' constitutes federalism.

Now will you please defend your own proposal?

All you seem to be interested in is calling those you disagree with 'brain dead' and trying to make the issue about other things. You mischaracterize the region I'm from which has added their approvals to and voted for proposals that were not repeals in the past, although it's not often we do. Also, don't you all care that younger people might want to get more involved here but their parents wouldn't be that happy about it with your foul mouths around here. I've been trying to put up with it, but it's hard on me also. Do you all have to use all the expletives around here. Don't want to spark anything you all take the wrong way (as you already have and I've tried to cautious before), but please consider that. Thank you.

OOC: Cluich, all he was pointing out was the double standard. "abortion is a national issue - get over it already" vs. "terrorism is a national issue - but I'm going to keep trying to get this proposal passed". The terrorism proposal split opinions - yet you treat anyone who disagrees with your proposal as absolute dirt.

He's not, I think, saying that it's wrong of you to stick up for what you believe in - just to recognise that other people are doing the same thing.

Well....stop badgering us for sticking up for what we believe in. But in effect, yes

You don't have to get snippety with me. Let me say it for you one more time in a way maybe you will understand better. I. Already. did. Re-read. It's there to reenforce the thought that good people disagree on the issue. Maybe it's not true. Maybe we really all agree after all. I think not.
But...it doesn't contain anything praising euthanasia.

Surely that would have really shown the issue, as it would have demonstrated both sides. To look at your proposal, we see two sentiments: "people disagree", and "euthanasia is wrong". There must be a "euthanasia is right" argument, yet you don't present it.

For us, it's threefold:
1. Our office has put time and effort into passing several repeals. The insinuation that "the argument doesn't matter" annoys us, thus, because it implies all of our work in crafting an argument are null, and we should simply submit blank repeals.
2. We hope this will pass...but we don't think it will. And, if it fails, it will put pay to the hopes of repealing this resolution for some time.
3. We dislike endorsing arguments we disagree with, or repeals we find wanting. This repeal is poorly composed, and contains no real arguments. Though we agree with its aim, we are unwilling to ally ourselves to its execution.

~Lori Jiffjeff
Acting Ambassador
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair of "Mothers Against Weird Shit"

We thank the Ambassador from Gruenberg for the clarification.

While we agree with some of the criticisms of the repeal, it ultimately comes down to what is best for our people.

While many have mentioned that Resolution #43 doesn't really do anything, its intent is clearly to endorse euthanasia.

The vast majority of the people of Airatum will never be aware of the wording of either Resolution #43 or its Repeal. They may, however, feel the effects of Resolution #43 being on the record, badly written or not.

Since the people of Airatum believe that it should be up to individual nations to either permit or outlaw euthanasia, and since, as you have said, this Repeal may be the last chance to get rid of Resolution #43 for a long time, we support the current repeal.

Sincerely,
Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

QUOTE=Forgottenlands: You were extremely involved? I don't recall your name, but I do recall Gruen writing the damn thing and then realizing it was a fuckup from hell.

That's because you would better remember me by a different name back then.


Translation: "If I was trolling, I didn't intend it nor did I make those statements with intent to offend"

Considering the wording, and the rest of the post, I'd agree. I think Gruen was being a bit jumpy

I think a lot of the regulars are a bit jumpy right now.

For a lot of reasons

That have been stated many many times

You are right. I'm definitely not trying to offend anyone.

OOC: Alright then, I apologise. You weren't trolling, I take it back.

But...it doesn't contain anything praising euthanasia.

Surely that would have really shown the issue, as it would have demonstrated both sides. To look at your proposal, we see two sentiments: "people disagree", and "euthanasia is wrong". There must be a "euthanasia is right" argument, yet you don't present it.

I believe there are good people who have good arguments for euthanasia being right. However, that sentiment seemed to be clearly established by the fact that it is currently a law on the books. Sorry you don't like my repeal. But the wording of my repeal makes NO NEW LAWS. Repeals are incapable of doing any such thing.

All the repeal can do is strike the original from being law. It does not even matter what one believes about euthanasia. You support this repeal and it's stricken from the law. Nothing new is being decided upon here.

I have been on the record saying I would fight against any attempt to make euthanasia illegal in all nations. I believe there are valid reasons for nations having differing opinions.

Gotta go. Be back sometime later.

All the repeal can do is strike the original from being law. It does not even matter what one believes about euthanasia. You support this repeal and it's stricken from the law. Nothing new is being decided upon here.
I've already pointed out why I find that line of thinking nauseating.

No thanks, we'll let the baby decide if it wants to be killed. Once its, oh say 5 years old, we'll ask "hey little boy, do you want to die?" and will perform the abortion depending upon his answer. ;) [/Opening up a HUGE can of worms that doesn't belong in this discussion]

Even if I will agree with you about a reasonable limit to abortion, after some month of development, as the develpment of human being is a continuum without defined start; the problem is that your are speaking of murder, a murder which would have been done by millions of women (from every nations, every religions, every social categories, every ethnic groups) in our world every years for ages, and that you deal with murder even for a group of thousand of undifferentiated or not fully undifferentiated cells.

Ok, which REGULAR took an IntFed position on ProLife?

I would really have to go back, I know that there were pro-life abortion banning resolutions on the queue, they just never had a chance for quorum. Now that the patients bill of rights got passed, I would use that reasoning to slam te door shut on pre-born killers once and for all. Under the resolution, you don't need consent if the patient is under age (and hey a negative number is always less than a positive number so the pre-born are guarenteed to be less than x number of years since birth) then they can be assiged a legal guardian. By who? Doesn't say, so let's say the courts. Give each pre-born a mandatory legal guardian who will recommend the necessary treatments for the pre-born and you won't find them permitting their clients to be "killed" without a very good reason.

But if you believe abortion is murder, why would you want anyone to be a murderer? The same is true for pro-choice, if you believe that a woman has a right, why would you permit anyone to brutalize her by denying her an abortion? Since both sides are extreeme rights oriented issues they tend to be IntFed more than NatSov. Both sides had to agree that they could not win their argument by going the NatSov route.

I can't think of any. And that's where the problem is, it isn't a compromise. When one side starts at one position, the other side starts at a different position, and the end result is the other side's position - that's not a compromise, that's a defeat. They didn't move from their position and concede a few meters on this part or this part, they just sat there and won their position. Would they have prefered a more extreme pro-life option - I'm sure a few of them would have (not all - Cluich, for one, wouldn't have), but that still doesn't make it a compromise.

OOC: Cluich, all he was pointing out was the double standard. "abortion is a national issue - get over it already" vs. "terrorism is a national issue - but I'm going to keep trying to get this proposal passed". The terrorism proposal split opinions - yet you treat anyone who disagrees with your proposal as absolute dirt.

International terrorism, though, as defined in my proposal is an international issue. It deals with support for criminal acts against civilians in another country. And I only treated people like shit if they were disagreeing with me on completely ludicrous grounds (or, as was the case with quite a few, no grounds whatsoever).

International terrorism, though, as defined in my proposal is an international issue. It deals with support for criminal acts against civilians in another country. And I only treated people like shit if they were disagreeing with me on completely ludicrous grounds (or, as was the case with quite a few, no grounds whatsoever).

1) The question of international issue and what is relevant to the UN and isn't is a matter of personal opinion. Just because you deem it an international issue and abortion as not being one doesn't mean that you have a moral superiority over what is and isn't valid to be upset about. I consider abortion to be an international issue because it is a matter of human rights - an area I consider to be worthy of UN consideration. International Federalists have the term "International" in their name because they are still trying to work with International issues - just they have a different definition of "International issue" and don't feel that an area for which the state would have the full ability to legislate on with equivelent efficiency to the UN makes it any less of an International issue. I do believe there are areas where the best level for dealing with it is the national government - and there are aspects of some things that I feel are better handled at the national government even if other parts are dealt with by the UN.

2) You were bitching in general about how bad a decision it was for the UN to defeat the Counter Terrorism Act (or whatever it was called - I missed the debate). I was bitching in general about how bad a decision it was for the UN to pass ALC. What's the difference? I believe I actually opposed the Counter-terrorism act (I can't remember and I don't think I announced my vote anywhere) and of course I opposed ALC. You, obviously, supported them both. In both cases, its a difference of opinion - and you have no more right to decide what I should and shouldn't be frustrated about as I have deciding what you should and shouldn't be frustrated about.

3) Seeing people pop onto the forums during the ALC debate saying they supported it because it made Abortion legal in all nations is probably equivelent to me as some of the bullshit you had to put up with during your debate was to you. Seeing claims of this being a compromise when I felt that was a false claim (as I explained in an earlier post) was even more frustrating and is actually, more than anything else, why I don't feel ALC settled the issue.

And yet, you have ripped my head off at least 4 times because I muttered about ALC and I haven't blinked at you the many times you've complained about how the defeat of Counter-terrorism act was a low for the UN.

Norderia won't be supporting this. Gruen's grievances regarding the argument hold true for Norderia. Granted, even if the argument in this repeal were to Gruen's liking, Norderia would still not support it. But in such a case where we wanted a repeal to go through, the argument must be of a quality that would allow us to support it.

Repeals may have only one effect, but that effect should not dismiss the suitability or lack thereof of the argument.

PSB: You say, in explicit terms, that euthanasia goes against the dignity of human life.

Your second point may well be enough to lose you the support of the many, many people who regard euthanasia as aiding, rather than degarding, human dignity. Indeed, I find your assertion to be a direct assault on my ethical views.

If you had not included that statement, I would likely be in support, or at least abstaining. Instead, I am opposed.

I sincerely hope that the UN will never support any resolution or repeal that includes such statements of principle.

Some people appear to be saying, "it gets you what you want, why are you opposed?". Means and ends. If we abandon our principles merely to get something we might like, we may as well not have principles in the first place.

That's absolutely ridiculous! What principle are you abandoning?! You would agree that this should be repealed right? The ridiculous part is that you are expecting, repeal writer included, to abide by your "morals" or you won't aid it. Sounds like your abandoning your principles for prides sake.

That's absolutely ridiculous! What principle are you abandoning?! You would agree that this should be repealed right? The ridiculous part is that you are expecting, repeal writer included, to abide by your "morals" or you won't aid it. Sounds like your abandoning your principles for prides sake.

It should be repealed because it's a crappy resolution, not because "Euthanasia is bad/immoral/whatever it is that you use to oppose euthanasia"

By passing a proposal that gives a moral statement against Euthanasia, we are passing into law the sentiment that Euthanasia is bad. Does that mean that anyone will be required to oppose Euthanasia? No. But does it mean that the UN is implicitly stating its position against Euthanasia? Yes. That isn't the same as what you would get if you had a position neutral repeal or a position supportive repeal (based upon either NatSov or poorly constructed arguments either way). While PSB claims that the statement brings the second side to the debate so we can understand that there is something that exists in the debate, he runs with the assumption that Legalize Euthanasia is the first side. However, most people look at proposals singularly and his failure to include any argument for Euthanasia means that this proposal is an anti-euthanasia repeal. To support it, for those of us that believe in Euthanasia, is to go against our ideals.

The most he did to recognize the arguments for euthanasia is he said one argument was made by the resolution author and then discounted it. That isn't saying there are two sides to the debate, that's saying the author is wrong. There is quite a difference.

EDIT: The fact that you made an anti-euthanasia repeal with NatSov intentions is why NatSovs are seeing red about this. They KNOW that the UN is mostly uninterested in an anti-euthanasia repeal.

I deal with those issues on a weekly basis and we can begin the ragtag sesspot tomorrow and Cluich and Kenny descend upon my beliefs regarding how much sovereignty the UN has, ... Compardia and I are bitching about you and Kenny being the extremists on the other side.Have a care with my name, FL; you'll wear it out.

... while Gruenberg bashes his head against the wall at the disaster that's about to come out of it knowing the replacement is going to remove his ability to kill his eldest citizens.Actually, it did happen. Gruenberg made a proposal which he was thoroughly disgusted with at the last minute ...You were extremely involved? I don't recall your name, but I do recall Gruen writing the damn thing and then realizing it was a fuckup from hell.Now, now, Gruen's a big boy; I'm sure he doesn't need you speaking for him.

For the record, I oppose this repeal. The author's purely amateurish attempts to mimick the ALC FAQ in defense if his own terrible proposal particularly sicken me.

Have a care with my name, FL; you'll wear it out.

Now, now, Gruen's a big boy; I'm sure he doesn't need you speaking for him.

You debate your way, I'll debate mine. If you think my statements are inaccurate portrayals of you, fine, complain. But I happen to like my style.

You debate your way, I'll debate mine. If you think my statements are inaccurate portrayals of you, fine, complain. But I happen to like my style.
Alright, I'll complain. You usually speak in an OOC style, even to people making IC comments. That's fine. But Republicans Armed appears to be doing the same, and I don't want him to be confused. My "expression of disgust" was OOC, and irrelevant; IC, I stand by ALC.

Do we get to complain now? Yay!

[The deputy Kennyite representative steps up the microphone at the OMGTKK delegation's lectern:]

We protest the federalists' attempts to characterize our government as "extremist" over of our concern for nations' rights and desire to limit the amount of "sovereignty" over national governments the federalists would prefer it have. The Federal Republic has a proud record of protecting human rights in its own borders, and we take issue with zealots in this body vainly trying to tarnish our image by falsely accusing us of sacrificing human rights upon the altar of national sovereignty.

In fact, we view our support for Abortion Legality Convention as a testament to our moderation as sovereigntists versus the radical views of the federalist movement:

[The deputy continues to speak into microphone, though for some reason the voice of the senior diplomat, Jack Riley, is amplified throughout the General Assembly hall.]

"The Abortion Legality Convention urges nations to keep abortions safe and legal, and at the same time affirms localized self-determination on the issue, in order to ensure that local customs and cultural standards are respected. The original Abortion Rights resolution was agreeable to pro-abortionist, antiabortionist, sovereigntist, federalist and moderate alike, and its unfortunate repeal disrupted the cohesion of the international community, as members of the United Nations battled endlessly over this painful and divisive issue. To that end, the Abortion Legality Convention was the fairest compromise that could have been crafted to close the divide among member states and heal the rifts this business has wrought. The resolution was endorsed by an overwhelming 71% majority in the General Assembly. [scratching sound] ... Assembly. ... Assembly. ... Assembly. ... Assembly. ... Assembly. ... Assembly. ... Assembly. ..."

[The deputy speaker looks up, momentarily startled, and bangs on the broken record player seated next to him. The skipping halts.]

"... The federalists have repeatedly used scare tactics and disingenuous arguments in order to deceive delegates into supporting their view that ALC is somehow an extremist article that only a heartless dictator would love. The ALC neither forces nations to criminalize abortion, nor does it require private citizens to seek government approval before attaining an abortion. It is only an article endorsing individual choice and societal self-determination in the face of fanatical attempts to force the federalists' personal views on all societies herein assembled. Thank you."

George Brown
Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations

[OOC: As for how the ALC supposedly opened "rifts" in the "community," I couldn't care less. If players are immature enough to start personal shitstorms over idiotic political disagreements (especially where hypothetical laws that don't affect any real person are concerned), that's their problem, not mine. As to your pleas not to "open Pandora's box" (to use your cliche), well, heh. FL's spate of irony hasn't ceased yet. It was you who recently argued in "Silly Proposals" that "keeping cans of worms closed is not the best way for the UN to operate," was it not?]

ALC...It is only an article endorsing individual choice

Is it? please forgive me my blindness, but i don't achieve to understand how ALC endorse individual choice. Please if you have some time to explain it to me, thanks.

Or did you call a "nation" as an "individual":confused:

[The Ambassador from Airatum requests a moment to address the gathered representatives.]

As fascinating as the debate is regarding the ALC, we wish to point out that this group has gathered to debate the merrits of the Repeal of Resolution #43, "Legalize Euthanasia". Perhaps a seperate meeting should be scheduled to spend time opening old wounds in regards to the ALC.

We would also like to add our voice to the Representative from Pro-Sovereignty in requesting a return to a more civil tone. We shudder to think of the example this body is setting for young people who may be studying UN logs in order to learn about the workings of this body, when said logs are filled with the use of expletives and name-calling.

Thank you.

[He respectfully returns to his chair.]

Some people appear to be saying, "it gets you what you want, why are you opposed?". Means and ends. If we abandon our principles merely to get something we might like, we may as well not have principles in the first place.

The people of Airatum respectfully disagree. As a nation with very high principles, we still understand that participating in a democratic system often requires going with the lesser of two evils. This is a reason we do not practice a democratic system in our nation, but unfortunately the United Nations is structured along those lines and in order to participate we must play the game the way it was designed.

We call to attention the common practice of opposing repeals of bad legislation, because of fear that new legislation would pass that would a nation would be opposed to. Many nations prefer a 'toothless' resolution that argues against their own views rather than repeal it and suffer an enforcable version of the same resolution passing.

Resolutions giving choice to individual nations is another example of this. While the people of Airatum personally find abortion to be abhorrent except in specific cases, we approve of a stance that all nations should be able to decide for themselves.

Respectfully,
Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

That's absolutely ridiculous! What principle are you abandoning?! You would agree that this should be repealed right? The ridiculous part is that you are expecting, repeal writer included, to abide by your "morals" or you won't aid it. Sounds like your abandoning your principles for prides sake.


As Enn mentioned, the arguments stay on the books. We can't repeal the repeal, so whatever statements are placed in the text of this one are the ones we're stuck with. No they don't mandate anything, but they will live on to bear witness to what sentiments swayed us to repeal the law that was in place.

I once argued as you did, that the repeal was the important thing and the actual text mattered not. Well, more than once, actually. I was representing a young and stupid nation at the time. We did not realize the lasting impact that these arguments can have.

Diplomats years from now will look back on what arguments we allow to change our minds about the laws of these United Nations and judge us by what they find. We no longer wish to be remembered as a nation that chose ends over means. Sometimes, usually in fact, the two must work in conjunction to make an appealing whole.

The Forgotten Territories finds the statements from the ambassador of Omigodtheykilledkenny to be ludicrous. The fact that he continues to feel that by endorsing a fully National Sovereigntist proposal and to show his absolute pride in endorsing it to keep the so-called "sovereignty" of nations makes him not an extremist shows that he has completely failed to read ANY of my arguments. I have said time and again that the biggest battle isn't on Abortion, it's on National Sovereignty vs International Federalism and in that battle, the extremists are those that think the UN should do nothing and those that think the UN should do everything. If I am to be considered the latter, than the ambassador from Omigodtheykilledkenny is most certainly the former. His insinuations that by choosing to not be an International Federalist makes him any less of an extremist, we find, shows his continued arrogance on the question of sovereignty and failure to realize where the debate lies.

I find it interesting that sovereigntists will stand there trying to focus the debate on National Sovereignty, call us extremists on choosing an International Federalist position not because we chose an extreme position on a particular topic but because we would choose a route of making it worthy of UN consideration (and therefore, because we are International Federalists) and then object to being called extreme for choosing the opposite end of the spectrum to the International Federalist position.

Frankly Forgottenlands, I don't see why you are beating the NatSov/IntFed argument of the ALC. Isn't this supposed to be about Euthanasia? In the abortion debate you had one group that thinks a fetus is a person with inalienable rights and the other who thinks that a fetus is a blob of cells that has less rights than the average national animal. Euthanasia is a number of different shades of gray.

If the resolution is repealed there will be no mad rush to get a new resolution before the other side does. Any replacement resolution will be endlessly debated just like any other resolution. I'm sure that some NatSov will complain, but they will have a harder time convincing the non NatSov of their argument. I think if a resolution appears to do the right thing, people between the IntFed/NatSov divide will fall against the NatSov.

Yes I have several concerns that the current resolution doesn't address, or I should say addresses by not addressing them. Involuntary euthanasia and the determination of who has the authority and non-voluntary euthanasia where someone is killed without their consent when such consent could be obtained or outright against their will.

I also have a concern about terminal conditions. I attended a funeral recently of a man who was told that he had six months to live as a result of pancreatic cancer. Two years later he died from ... a stroke.

I believe in certain fundamental ideas as well, such as the notion that while treatment is something that can be refused, and you have have life saving devices turned off by proxy, there is a fundamental right to food and water. Death by starving should never be permitted and the poster girl of Euthanasia, Terry Schiavo, was a case of cruel and unusial punishment and a gross violation of human rights.

But all of these are shades of gray, as I mentioned eariler. I'm really looking for someone with a real good argument to repeal #43, but so far most of the arguments are Meh.

I'm really thinking of writing up a non-voluntary euthanasia thing as a proposed daily issue. I need to explore my fluffy veneered dark side.

The people of Airatum respectfully disagree. As a nation with very high principles, we still understand that participating in a democratic system often requires going with the lesser of two evils.
Well, I feel that keeping Legalise Euthanasia on the books is the lesser of two evils in this case.

Oh, and Enn isn't particularly democratic - two thirds of its governance is either by oligarchic or autocratic means. Our membership of IDU is irrelevent to our political system.

We call to attention the common practice of opposing repeals of bad legislation, because of fear that new legislation would pass that would a nation would be opposed to. Many nations prefer a 'toothless' resolution that argues against their own views rather than repeal it and suffer an enforcable version of the same resolution passing.
Indeed, That's been my position on many things. Probably comes down to being around from before repeals were introduced, I've never really trusted them.

Resolutions giving choice to individual nations is another example of this. While the people of Airatum personally find abortion to be abhorrent except in specific cases, we approve of a stance that all nations should be able to decide for themselves.
I disagree with your stance on that matter, but I thank you for your calmness in saying this. Unlike some other people walking around here.

Stephanie Fulton
Soon-to-be UN Consul for the Triumvirate of Enn

I started harping on ALC because PSB decided to use it as the guiding light of "where we should go"

I continued harping on it because there's been a lot of bad blood that's never exactly been resolved. Interestingly enough, I've been able to vent more of my issues from that in this thread than any thread to-date.

EDIT: The fact that you made an anti-euthanasia repeal with NatSov intentions is why NatSovs are seeing red about this. They KNOW that the UN is mostly uninterested in an anti-euthanasia repeal.

"anti-euthanasia repeal" is your terminology. I suspect that is the argument being used to attempt to play people against the repeal. A repeal is a repeal. I have about a half dozen telegrams in my inbox saying they are for euthanasia but opposed to this being a UN issue and that's why they're supporting it. As the author, read my . . . words, I will never author, lobby for, or be in support of an anti-euthanasia bill. I only repeat myself because I evidently haven't been successful at being understood on that point. It's a repeal. It's not a proposal of anything new. The repeal notes that this repeal, if successful, would not make euthanasia illegal in any nation. To oppose it because you disagree with the support for why people disagree about it is minor. I do understand why you understood it the way you did though. I'll take the blame for that. But either vote for the repeal or not. I've given several good reasons to repeal this. If you agree with ANY of those reasons, then voting for this repeal would seem more logical than not voting for it because you have one reason you won't.

*mutters something about needing to get new speech writers and how they need to stop writing so late at night*

Those that are deluded the entire UN votes on the concept of "a repeal is a repeal" need to start listening into a few more debates. Considering one member decided to start screaming in a side room about how Chopping down trees was evil with no obvious appearance he had actually read the resolution or repeal shows that not everyone votes by the same logic that you would so narrowly wish to limit them to.

I nearly fell off my chair this morning when I saw that the repeal for Resolution #43 on Euthanasia FINALLY made quorum.
Pro-Sovereignty Babes, you are my hero!! I just wish I had been around to help with the tg campaign.
I can't wait for the vote!
At last, that crappy piece of legislation will be no more!
Bye-bye, resolution #43!

--Rooty (dancing)

My Travelling Harem, I suspect you seriously underestimate the numbers of fluffy lefties out there. Yes, I'm talking about the ones who won't read past the title.

Then there's the non-fluffy lefties, who see something saying that euthanasia goes against the dignity of human life, and will vote against as a result.

I'm not saying the repeal won't get passed. All I'm saying is, don't count your chickens.

I'm not saying the repeal won't get passed. All I'm saying is, don't count your chickens.

Hey, I'm still dancing over the fact it made quorum. Do you know how many attempts have been made to repeal this piece of crap?
Many.
I know. I already tried. It was awful.

If anyone wants to run a big propaganda/tg campaign when this resolution comesto a vote, I will definitely be up for helping out

--Rooty

Hey, I'm still dancing over the fact it made quorum. Do you know how many attempts have been made to repeal this piece of crap?
Many.
I know. I already tried. It was awful.
Oh, believe me, I know. I remember the attempts from before repeals were coded into the game. They truly were laughable.

Oh, and Enn isn't particularly democratic - two thirds of its governance is either by oligarchic or autocratic means. Our membership of IDU is irrelevent to our political system.

Our apologies for the miscommunication. We were not at all refering to your national system of government as democratic. Airatum does not have a democratic government either.

We were refering to the United Nation's democratic system.

Thank you for your measured and thoughtful response.

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

The Forgotten Territories finds the statements from the ambassador of Omigodtheykilledkenny to be ludicrous. The fact that he continues to feel that by endorsing a fully National Sovereigntist proposal and to show his absolute pride in endorsing it to keep the so-called "sovereignty" of nations makes him not an extremist shows that he has completely failed to read ANY of my arguments. I have said time and again that the biggest battle isn't on Abortion, it's on National Sovereignty vs International Federalism and in that battle, the extremists are those that think the UN should do nothing and those that think the UN should do everything. If I am to be considered the latter, than the ambassador from Omigodtheykilledkenny is most certainly the former. His insinuations that by choosing to not be an International Federalist makes him any less of an extremist, we find, shows his continued arrogance on the question of sovereignty and failure to realize where the debate lies.Yawn. How many times have we said this before? Moreover, how many times must we have the same discussion? Sovereigntists are the real internationalists here; we do endorse UN legislation that bears a legitimate global purpose, and shun laws that unnecessarily interfere with nations' internal affairs. When compared with the gridlockers in Change and other regions who oppose everything, and the universalists in the IntFed camp who deem it the UN's place to rewrite member states' statutes on matters even as trivial and intrinsically national as medical, reproductive and family law, I'd say we are rather the "moderates" here. Our moderation is further illustrated by our support for repeal of Legalise Euthanasia in theory (although not necessarily this version of it). Same with ALC. I really don't see how the latter can be cited as an example of "extremist" policy, for as we have already said, ALC takes the moderate position: stick to international affairs, UN bureaucrats; stay the hell out of our business.

Alex Tehrani
Secretary of State

I really don't see how the latter can be cited as an example of "extremist" policy, for as we have already said, ALC takes the moderate position: stick to international affairs, UN bureaucrats; stay the hell out of our business.


Trouble is, to certain "IntFeds," everything is their business.

Yawn. How many times have we said this before? Moreover, how many times must we have the same discussion? Sovereigntists are the real internationalists here; we do endorse UN legislation that bears a legitimate global purpose, and shun laws that unnecessarily interfere with nations' internal affairs. When compared with the gridlockers in Change and other regions who oppose everything, and the universalists in the IntFed camp who deem it the UN's place to rewrite member states' statutes on matters even as trivial and intrinsically national as medical, reproductive and family law, I'd say we are rather the "moderates" here. Our moderation is further illustrated by our support for repeal of Legalise Euthanasia in theory (although not necessarily this version of it). Same with ALC. I really don't see how the latter can be cited as an example of "extremist" policy, for as we have already said, ALC takes the moderate position: stick to international affairs, UN bureaucrats; stay the hell out of our business.

Alex Tehrani
Secretary of State

Gridlockers who oppose everything in Change? I believe our region feels the way you do, we may not support as many things, but I currently have my approval on proposals that are not repeals before you even wrote this. Check facts before slandering friends please. Aside from you not liking my repeal (and I would probably write it a bit differently myself if it were possible to redo it - but yes, a repeal is a repeal) and the comments you made about Change, I could have written that exact same post. Congrats IntFed's for getting sovereignists to attack sovereignists (We have always and still do consider secretary Alex and his nation an ally).

ARGUES that euthanasia proposes to eliminate suffering by eliminating the one who suffers. Euthanasia violates the principle that each human being has intrinsic dignity and value, regardless of age, physical or mental condition, or state of dependency.

I know one of the things stalen(russian dictator) he offered people the choice do this and we won't torture you to death we will just kill you. People wanted to be shot the reason for this is that they wanted it just to end. These people are normal everyday people and I am sure you would be one of them in there position. Do you know what they do instead of Euthnasia they actualy starve themselves to death.(some) If you want to die that much why arn't that let die. I think Euthanasia should be allowed but under very strict conditions.
1)These conditions are that the patient has chosen himself.
2)Multiple doctors agree there is no chance of the person surving.
3)The person is shown to be by a physician to have made the desicsion himself.
4)The Doctors agree that he is going to be in sevre pain until his death.


ACKNOWLEDGES this repeal will not prohibit Euthanasia in any nation, but permit it to be a daily issue in which a nation may decide this issue for themselves.

You belive in nations making desisions by themselves yet you don't belive that patients should make these desisions.


RECALLS Resolution #147 "Abortion Legality Convention" in which the controverial issue of abortion was taken out of the jurisdiction of the United Nations and returned to nations to decide. Euthanasia is a similar issue that should not have the world body mandate how every nation should believe.


This is another interesting thing you are just trying to say well it was done then why not now. That's like saying I saw another person do a murder and get away I should be allowed to do this. Also I would like to note that both these issues where put in orginaly.


FURTHER ARGUES The United Nations should be able to welcome nations that have differing opinions on controversial issues such as this one. The original vote on this resolution was 10,810 (for) to 10,031 (against). Such an obviously divisive issue should not be mandated upon nations one way or the other. Resolution #43 does exactly that.

So you belive issues should have to have a large majority to pass okay. Why don't you bring that up in a programing problem.

Also then your great victory of abortion should it stay this is the abortion vote record

Votes For: 8,993
Votes Against: 3,673


look at that that is about a 71% victory for ABORTION so under this rule then Abortion would still be allowed. So clearly this is not the reason that you belive it should be gotten rid of.

Trouble is, to certain "IntFeds," everything is their business.

We believe there are intra-national affairs the U.N. should have no part in. International affairs is the purpose of the U.N.

The disagreement I've heard lies in what is defined as an "intra-national" affair, and even that "international affairs is the purpose of the U.N." Some IntFeds insist there is nothing the U.N. should be limited to. Others just disagree over where the boundary lies.

Our nation and region draws a tighter line than most on what is defined as an international issue. If a proposal dictates how a nation is to spend money or operate within their nation, we are opposed. If it's about networking together for the purpose of better communications, peace, and security - then we are completely for it. We support aiding in tragedy. We support economic sanctions and actions that secure peace and deter gross violations of human rights. I may have missed something, but that is what I see as the purpose of the United Nations.

The disagreement that exists here is because we disagree over our purpose as an international body. I don't see a reason to get irate over those who believe the purpose of the U.N. should be more. I understand alot of the heart and compassion behind those who believe the U.N. should do more. I just believe the best government is local government. And when we extend that to an international body - we are the furthest ones away from representing the actual needs of the people of the world.

That is why we believe an issue like euthanasia should be a local issue. There are lots of details surrounding this issue that nations will disagree on. Our nation will not support discontinuing food or water to a person in a coma. We believe that is starvation and actively causes someone's death. Food is not medicine. I'm actually for euthanasia, depending on what your definition of that means. One of the problems with this resolution I am seeking to repeal is that it provides no definition of euthanasia. So in making it legal, the most extreme cases of euthanasia are to be legal in all nations by this law currently on the books. I believe the details surrounding this issue are ones that should be governed by local government.

In real life, private industry can handle almost everything (except military) better than national government can. At least they can do it without as much beaurocracy and much less expensive. How much more would this be the case if we extended this to an international government?

Quote:
ACKNOWLEDGES this repeal will not prohibit Euthanasia in any nation, but permit it to be a daily issue in which a nation may decide this issue for themselves.


You belive in nations making desisions by themselves yet you don't belive that patients should make these desisions.

You don't know me!!!! Lol. Really, that's not necessarily true. But I also don't believe you believe this entirely based on what you wrote before that about requirements for limited euthanasia law.

The original law, currently on the books, does not define euthanasia. The repeal uses this same broad terminology as it is not making any new law but repealing the old one.

I believe that patients can make those decisions in every nation in this world if those nations allow it. I just don't believe it's an issue for a world government to try to set the boundaries and enforce.


look at that that is about a 71% victory for ABORTION so under this rule then Abortion would still be allowed. So clearly this is not the reason that you belive it should be gotten rid of.

I believe the U.N. should be "united" not divided. The closeness in this original vote shows it's a divided issue and one the U.N. should not rule in. It appears this is even stronger for this issue here in Nationstates than it is with abortion. I would call both of those issues deeply divided issues the U.N. should not get involved with. If the U.N. rules one way or the other, then they are saying that other nations in the world should just deal with it or drop out of the U.N. I believe we are stronger when we allow differing viewpoints. I also don't see ruling on issues like this part of the ideal purpose of what the U.N. should be.

Yawn. How many times have we said this before? Moreover, how many times must we have the same discussion? Sovereigntists are the real internationalists here; we do endorse UN legislation that bears a legitimate global purpose, and shun laws that unnecessarily interfere with nations' internal affairs. When compared with the gridlockers in Change and other regions who oppose everything, and the universalists in the IntFed camp who deem it the UN's place to rewrite member states' statutes on matters even as trivial and intrinsically national as medical, reproductive and family law, I'd say we are rather the "moderates" here. Our moderation is further illustrated by our support for repeal of Legalise Euthanasia in theory (although not necessarily this version of it). Same with ALC. I really don't see how the latter can be cited as an example of "extremist" policy, for as we have already said, ALC takes the moderate position: stick to international affairs, UN bureaucrats; stay the hell out of our business.

Alex Tehrani
Secretary of State

When one considers what was said just a few minutes ago by your ally, Cluichstan:

Trouble is, to certain "IntFeds," everything is their business.

Obviously, my position isn't the "extreme position". Considering there are certainly many of the fluffier members of the UN that make no distinction between a national and international government and see no reason to not legislate on jaywalking from the UN, I would say that it is as fair to say that is the extreme position and that we are much more moderate than that - just as you can say that you are much less extreme than the likes of Texas. This, of course, brings me back to my point that if I am extremist, then you certainly are extremist from the other end of the spectrum

Considering the people that call themselves "moderately NatSov" and "moderately IntFed" sit between us, it is quite clear that the position of the "middle" or "moderate" person has already been decided by the community and it certainly doesn't match your claims. When one considers the members we regularly see, you and I certainly sit on extreme ends since the really extreme members do not seem to have much of a lifespan on this floor. I find your claims quite ludicrous and a form of utter denial of what you really are.

This denial also extends to your thoughts about Internationalism. I find it extraordinary that you feel there is only one route to Internationalism - just as, admittedly, I find my feel International Federalist Compardia's belief that National Sovereigntists cannot be Internationalists extraordinary. We had a debate on UIC where both sovereigntists and IntFeds discussed the matter and it seems the consensus is that there are different ways to being Internationalists and to say one or another isn't an Internationalist is rather foolhardy. We might've gone over this several times, but you seem to be the only one banging the drums in your direction.

The original law, currently on the books, does not define euthanasia. The repeal uses this same broad terminology as it is not making any new law but repealing the old one.

Perhaps you should have mentioned that the old law was vague rather than not mentioning the current law at any point in your repeal?

I would like to note before somebody starts thinking I am an extremist that I belive that the United Nation's should Make a Resolution on alot of things but instead of the resolution being a very strict do this it is a very broad. For example on gun control it should ban some types of guns and limit the movement process but not actualy ban guns in households.

Perhaps you should have mentioned that the old law was vague rather than not mentioning the current law at any point in your repeal?

Valid point - mentioning that within the proposal, instead of just here in this forum (more than once) would have been good.

I would like to point out that there was wording in Abortion Legality Convention (oooh, one of the handful of proposals that was not a repeal, I approved and lobbied for) that I very strongly morally objected to. However, the wording I objected to had nothing to do with the teeth of the proposal. So I not only approved it and voted for it, I got others to support it as well. The only teeth of this bill is to repeal the old law. There are some here who don't want to see that bill repealed. Ok. But anyone that wants to see that done (for any reason), we have almost 200 delegate approvals and this repeal is next in line. All it does is strike out the old law. Let's come together and get it done.

NewfoundCanada, you don't seem to be understanding the point.
Repeals CANNOT make new laws. They can only get rid of old, bad ones. If anyone wants a law on euthanasia after the repeal goes through, they will have to draft a new one.
It's part of the game rules.

--Rooty

I knew that perfectly well by the way. If you are talking about my first post I had not to that point looked at the orginal. I just posted that stuff in. I never said I wanted to change the repeal did I. I just put that in as a side comment.

Gridlockers who oppose everything in Change? I believe our region feels the way you do, we may not support as many things, but I currently have my approval on proposals that are not repeals before you even wrote this.

The then-delegate of 'Change' voted against my sovereignty-friendly [& good-for-everybody's-economy] 'Meteorological Cooperation' resolution; mutter, grumble...

Hey, nobody told me we were having an abortion and NatSov vs IntFed debate here too!? :rolleyes:

Hey, nobody told my we were having an abortion and NatSov vs IntFed debate here too!? :rolleyes:

We're having an everything debate, as far as I can tell.

I did not read any of the previous threads, but I would like to comment on part of the actual issue,
"ARGUES that euthanasia proposes to eliminate suffering by eliminating the one who suffers. Euthanasia violates the principle that each human being has intrinsic dignity and value, regardless of age, physical or mental condition, or state of dependency. "
My understanding of the original resolution 43 is that the UN is giving the patient the right to decide if their own situation is one which warrants euthanasia. Therefore the wording, "that each human being has intrinsic dignity and value, regardless of age, physical or mental condition, or state of dependency" upon which the repeal is based defeats itself.
My understanding is that currently the UN encourages giving individuals the right to enforce a living will, without having the a nation's possible religious values supercede a patients wishes about the patient's own fate. To take away this right seems to remove their choices and dignity, based on their physical condition.

Hey, nobody told my we were having an abortion and NatSov vs IntFed debate here too!? :rolleyes:

I think it is a requirement for every issue these days.

Perhaps I can bring the thread back to track with my totally unofficial slogan:

Support Non Voluntary Euthanasia! Repeal Res #43!

Support Voluntary Euthanasia! VOTE AGAINST the Repeal of Res #43
See earlier post 2 above this one.

Support Voluntary Euthanasia! VOTE AGAINST the Repeal of Res #43See earlier post 2 above this one.Was advertising your previous post even necessary? I mean, it is on the same frickin' page, 1; and 2, you have clearly demonstrated that you haven't even read any part of UNR #43 past the title.

Oh, believe me, I know. I remember the attempts from before repeals were coded into the game. They truly were laughable.

Not many people were laughing when "Legalise Euthanasia" first passed though. I thought it was a crappy emotional rhetoric resolution then and still think that way.

Again, it's not about what your or I believe about euthanasia, it's about who governs these types of decisions - Nations or The United Nations.Who says it should be either? It should be down to the individual.

The only way to protect that is to legalise it via the UN.

This is isue isn't a real world problem and schouldn't be a worry of the US.
Let the country's desides for themself about this matter.
Some Gouverments are just more progressive than others about this kind of things.

Support Voluntary Euthanasia! VOTE AGAINST the Repeal of Res #43
See earlier post 2 above this one.

Official Message:
The Jevian UN Representatives
Office of the Deputy Presiding Jevian UN Representative

Decision: It's a simple matter for us, really. It doesn't matter whether we want this resolution to be repealed or not; it doesn't matter whether we're for or against euthanasia. This is a terrible repeal, one that doesn't even mention the current resolution at any point, and the UN should not be implementing terrible legislation, especially the kind that can't be repealed.

We are AGAINST this repeal.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian United Nations Representative

The only option really is to vote for the repeal, it is a matter for the individual nations or individuals to decide on and is quite clearly something that the UN cannot enforce

While I fully support Euthanasia in some extreme cases, I fail to see how this is a United Nations matter.

Even in nations like mine that support Euthanasia, there is often debate about when exactly is it right, or when it's wrong, while there is still a minority who is greatly opposed.

This is something that is hard enough for independent entities to handle, so how can we think of a world pro euthanasia legislation?

While I cast my vote for the repealment, I strongly urge other nations to legalize Euthanasia in their own countries.

Thank you.

I can't believe that this repeal is currently being defeated. Have any of you actually read the original resolution!?

To sort out this rubbish about voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia etc.:

The original resolution contradicts itself. It says, 'I propose that Euthanasia is legalised.' The next sentence says that every person has the right to decide whether they want to live or die when they have a life threatening illness and are over a certain age.(or something to that effect). Despite the obvious loopholes of no definition of a life threatening illness or of a certain age, is this proposal just legalising voluntary euthanasia or all euthanasia. I think that by saying euthanasia is legalised, it has proposed that all kinds of Euthanasia are legalised.

Therefore, non-voluntary Euthanasia, involuntary euthanasia and voluntary euthanasia have all been legalised. No-one can allow involuntary Euthanasia to be legalised surely!! Therefore, this resolution must be repealed and then I would be happy to create a replacement that illegalises involuntary Euthanasia and ensures that nations clarify whether or not voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia are legal or illegal, so as to avoid confusion.

I can't understand why the repeal is being defeated at the moment because there were so many people against res 43 when it passed and there have been so many attempts to repeal. Surely, it will pass.

Who says it should be either? It should be down to the individual.

The only way to protect that is to legalise it via the UN.


Local government best represents the individuals. For the U.N. to say it knows what is best for all people in all nations and enforce their narrow minded view one way or the other on an issue such as this one is elitist. For one to care most about individuals they should care more about local government than international government. That is why one should vote FOR this repeal.

Official Message:
The Jevian UN Representatives
Office of the Deputy Presiding Jevian UN Representative

Decision: It's a simple matter for us, really. It doesn't matter whether we want this resolution to be repealed or not; it doesn't matter whether we're for or against euthanasia. This is a terrible repeal, one that doesn't even mention the current resolution at any point, and the UN should not be implementing terrible legislation, especially the kind that can't be repealed.

We are AGAINST this repeal.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian United Nations Representative


If repeals could enact any new legislation they would be deleted by the moderators since that is illegal. A repeal only takes the old law off the books. It does not enact anything new.

In this case, the repeal of "Legalise Euthanasia" makes a divisive issue like this one a more localized decision.

I can't believe that this repeal is currently being defeated. Have any of you actually read the original resolution!?

If repeals could enact any new legislation they would be deleted by the moderators since that is illegal. A repeal only takes the old law off the books. It does not enact anything new.

The quality of the original resolution has often been criticized - in this thread and many others. It is a ludicrous piece of legislation that really ends up defeating itself. I find it absolutely amazing, then, that when we start complaining about this repeal being a poorly written repeal, with poor quality, the authors say "don't worry about quality".

The UN is comprised of many different focus groups - IntFeds, NatSovs, the thousand and one different concepts of left and right wing, proposal quality, proposal simplicity, etc, etc, etc. On this one, you play to NatSovs and anti-abortionists. You don't play to pro-abortionists (despite your claims) and CERTAINLY miss the proposal quality group. And of course, IntFeds I'm sure you feel could go to hell for all you care but that's fair considering your beliefs.

However, when you miss so many groups - especially when so many of the major NatSovs align themselves with both NatSov and quality, you are shoot your own proposal in the foot.

Considering that Reveal and Repeal was founded on the concept of poorly build resolutions needing to be repealed - a concept COMPLETELY based upon quality of the resolution - it is foolish to think that its founder would change his mind. It isn't the quality of WHAT is being legislated, but also how - and that includes the wording.

The Euthanasia debate is obviously being heavily argued, and the numbers for/against the original resolution only show this.
Considering this, it seems stupid to have any sort of widespread legislation one way or another from the UN.
Not only that, but the original resolution looks to me to be an emotional, heavily opinion-based argument as opposed to a sound, thought-out and respectable piece of writing.

Therefore, Riamu will be voting FOR the repeal, if only to wipe the slate clean and remove this issue in its current form from the UN and end the horrendous argumentative buildup that has occured.

On this one, you play to NatSovs and anti-abortionists. You don't play to pro-abortionists (despite your claims)
You're getting confused.

In general, your obsession with political alignment is growing rather trying. Is, for example, Ausserland a NatSov? Why, then, do they disagree with Cluichstan on some issues? Is Gruenberg a NatSov, or a free trader? Is it, perhaps, conceivable that some nations judge resolutions on a case-by-case basis, rather than as an ideological knee-jerk (I know some do the latter, Change for example, but you're surely not tarring every nation with that brush)?

Your reductivist approach is more likely to factionalise the UN than any of the pronouncements or policies of the "groups" you identify. Let's concentrate on issues, not on trying to place everyone on some ideological chart.

Communist.

~Lori Jiffjeff
Acting Ambassador
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair of "Mothers Against Weird Shit"
Member, Women's Council On Democracy

Euthanasia is very difficult topic. I personally don't agree with it and in our country euthanasia isn't legal. On the other hand I know many people who agree with this. Because I know big differences in opinions I think UN shouldn't solve this problem. Let states decide on their own. Vote for this resolution.

EGO PRIMUS MAGNUS - The Great Vogon of The Holy Empire of Great Vogons.

Maurice de Tayllerand - Minister of Foreign Affairs

Edvard Beneš - Great Vogon's Ambassador in UN.

You're getting confused.

In general, your obsession with political alignment is growing rather trying. Is, for example, Ausserland a NatSov? Why, then, do they disagree with Cluichstan on some issues? Is Gruenberg a NatSov, or a free trader? Is it, perhaps, conceivable that some nations judge resolutions on a case-by-case basis, rather than as an ideological knee-jerk (I know some do the latter, Change for example, but you're surely not tarring every nation with that brush)?

Your reductivist approach is more likely to factionalise the UN than any of the pronouncements or policies of the "groups" you identify. Let's concentrate on issues, not on trying to place everyone on some ideological chart.

Communist.

~Lori Jiffjeff
Acting Ambassador
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair of "Mothers Against Weird Shit"
Member, Women's Council On Democracy

Actually, I would classify Ausserland as a moderately left-wing, NatSov with a primary focus of quality.

I fail to see why Gruenberg can't both be considered a Free-trader AND a NatSov.

In your attempts to criticize my reductivist actions, you have oversimplified the model upon which I use. Yes there are a handful of categories that are none-too-explanatory on the individual policies that each have (nor does everyone in that category always support in exactly the same was as a mindless clone - but the majority can be mapped as a generalization of how they will vote), however it is a fallacy to think that one fits into this category to the exclusion of all others. Considering that I included quality on that list alongside both NatSov and IntFed - two fields that include many who devote many hours to ensuring the quality of proposals - for or against - are better written shows that it is false to think my model places people in JUST one group.

In a body that contains 30,000 members combining for 15,000 non-abstenation votes per resolution, it would be foolhardy for me to stand there and go on each proposal "Well, Gruenberg will vote against, Ausserland will be for, Cluichstan will abstain, Compardia will vote for, Ness Snorlaxia will vote against, Steenia will vote for, ....." The generalizations are there for the very purpose of being able to say in fewer groups how the UN tends to work, how different focus groups tend to act, and how you can acquire votes by pandering to certain groups over others - or leaving them both neutral.

If that's too much "weird shit" for you, well at least your committee has another thing to campaign against.

With 56% of the poll stating this is a matter for nations to decide, I can't understand why currently the against votes are winning. Those in favour of the appeal should use their regions boards to encourage all others to vote for this resolution

My fellow Delegates.

Please allow me to introduce myself. I am Ambrose, Chairman of The Principality of Jovic. Recently appointed as the Delegate of Umbra.

I understand that this is an issue that causes strong feelings in most of us. However, we as leaders need to look past our own personal feelings and remember that the people we lead are affected by our choices. I for one am voting against repleaing the resolution. People seem to have the impression that by making euthanasia legal we somehow made people kill off the sick and old by the thousands. That is not true. By making it legal all we have done is give the choice back to the people who may desire an option to end their suffering. I am niether for nor against euthanasia at this time. I seek out to protect the choice for people to make.

Many of you say that it is the UN mandate to protect human rights. What about the right to die with dignity. To die without suffering. By upholding this resolution and keeping euthanasia legal we protect the right of the patient to choose. By keeping the resolution, we only make it impossible for any singal nation to deny their citizens their right to a peacful, dignifyed death.

Again I say that this resolution does not make euthanasia mandatory, it protects the choice.

To die without suffering.
Resolution #43 makes it legal to kill people, against their will, using any method, including ones that induce slow agony. Had you bothered to read it, you'd realize your vote is not one "against dying without suffering".

You will also notice this is contained within the repeal

ACKNOWLEDGES this repeal will not prohibit Euthanasia in any nation, but permit it to be a daily issue in which a nation may decide this issue for themselves.

A vote for is the only sensible option

Actually, I would classify Ausserland as a moderately left-wing, NatSov with a primary focus of quality.


We very much appreciate the effort of the representative of Forgottenlands to understand our approach to NSUN legislation. It's a pleasure to see that, rather than the easy-way-out lumping of nations into NatSov and IntFed camps that skews so much of the discussion here.

While we wouldn't quarrel much with the characterization, maybe we should try one of our own.... We see ourselves as very concerned with human rights and the environment, equally concerned with the protection of all peoples from violence, strongly subsidiarist, and with a primary focus on practicality and an only slightly lesser one on quality.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Resolution #43 makes it legal to kill people, against their will, using any method, including ones that induce slow agony. Had you bothered to read it, you'd realize your vote is not one "against dying without suffering".Eh? Only in states that make a point of misinterpreting UN resolutions.

As poorly as #43 is written, it does specifically indicate that the euthanasia legalised is voluntary and "the act [of euthanasia] also must be carried out in the most painless way possible."

As far as other rationales for repeal... the lack of definition for 'life-threatening' or sufficient age to choose, those would vary from region to region. The right to voluntarily choose death with dignity is a fundamental human right and as such is not one that can be left to local government.

Jim Jones
NSUN Mouthpiece
Confederated Hells of Rubina

Resolution #43 makes it legal to kill people, against their will, using any method, including ones that induce slow agony. Had you bothered to read it, you'd realize your vote is not one "against dying without suffering".

Actually I have read it...it clearly states that The act also must be carried out in the most painless way possible.

As for the agaisnt their will part, well all I can say is that family have always made life and death decisions for those who are unable to make them for themselves. The person who is a vegtiable on a resperator and will never wake up again, that person's family makes the decision to "pull the plug" all based off of "professional medical advice", which by the way Resolution #43 does mention as a the basis for which that choice should be made.


You will also notice this is contained within the repeal

ACKNOWLEDGES this repeal will not prohibit Euthanasia in any nation, but permit it to be a daily issue in which a nation may decide this issue for themselves.

A vote for is the only sensible option

I said that this resolution protects the right of choice of an individual who may wish to choose euthanasia when their leaders may think it is better for them not to have the choice.

Is it, perhaps, conceivable that some nations judge resolutions on a case-by-case basis, rather than as an ideological knee-jerk (I know some do the latter, Change for example, but you're surely not tarring every nation with that brush)?

I know for the one who has read through this thread, this has been addressed already. Some here keep thinking if they tell a lie long enough and loud enough it might sound true. This is not the way Change works. I believe I have outlined earlier our beliefs on this.

Anyway, as to arguments about the repeal failing, lol, it's early. It's only a matter of 2 - 300 votes difference at the moment. As soon as representatives from a couple of the larger regions register their vote, which they haven't yet, this one will swing back in favor of For. This should be a fairly close vote as it was a fairly close vote last time this bill was voted this one attempts to repeal. I expect it to be a battle to the finish. This only proves my original point further, that the UN is so split on this issue - it doesn't make sense to mandate pro or con for issues like this from the U.N. level.

If repeals could enact any new legislation they would be deleted by the moderators since that is illegal. A repeal only takes the old law off the books. It does not enact anything new.

In this case, the repeal of "Legalise Euthanasia" makes a divisive issue like this one a more localized decision.

Then why are not blank repeals allowed? Surely this is because the arguments you make matter. I will not support repeals that are unworthy of being a UN resolution simply because the resolution they are repealing is worthy of being repealed. If that were the case, I'd approve of 99% of all repeals ever proposed.

Sheesh.

I'm a states-rights kind of guy, but I can't really see the difference between "legal euthanasia" and "not prohibit[ing] Euthanasia in any nation, but permit[ting] it to be a daily issue in which a nation may decide this issue for themselves."

The whole legislation seems pretty much impotent to me, so I'm forced to vote against it simply because I don't like the U.N. dabbling so much in what I think should be state affairs.

I don't even know if any of that made sense. I mean, heck, I'm just re-reading it now and realizing that my entire argument is bunk because I support euthanasia anyway and it can't possibly apply to anything but my personal point of view.

Screw it.

With 56% of the poll stating this is a matter for nations to decide, I can't understand why currently the against votes are winning. Those in favour of the appeal should use their regions boards to encourage all others to vote for this resolution

It's because the poll doesn't ask "Will you vote for this repeal?". This is more than just a matter of NatSov versus IntFed on this issue. For me, at least, this is a matter of quality. The quality of this repeal is atrocious, and if this poll asked if you will vote for the repeal, the results will be far different. I believe those opposing this repeal on a matter of quality are enough to gain the majority and defeat it.

[definately not an attempt to rack up post count]

Yeah, I re-read what I wrote and i'm definately all for this repeal. The power to decide should be held within the states themselves. It just took me a while to figure that out.

P.S. How can "none of the above" even be a poll option on a black or white issue where the option "not sure" was already given? Add to the fact that it is tied for second place with most votegetting. Strange.

[/definately not an attempt to rack up post count]

I know for the one who has read through this thread, this has been addressed already. Some here keep thinking if they tell a lie long enough and loud enough it might sound true. This is not the way Change works. I believe I have outlined earlier our beliefs on this.
Perhaps we could end this quickly by asking you for one resolution, other than Abortion Legality Convention, United Nations Security Act, Nuclear Armaments or any repeal, that Change has voted for?

P.S. How can "none of the above" even be a poll option on a black or white issue where the option "not sure" was already given? Add to the fact that it is tied for second place with most votegetting. Strange.
I voted "none of the above", because I didn't want my vote misinterpreted. My personal opinion of euthanasia has little to do with the repeal.

As Prime Minister of Jacobic I would like to add my 2 cents to this issue. Euthanasia is not for everyone. It is a sad and terrible decision that should be made by the people involved. If repealing this resolution will allow those families who hope against all odds that a cure may be found and they have the choice to wait then who are we to tell them they can not. There should be a choice available to do either wait or die in peace.
b5cmdrmo
Prime Minister of Jacobic

[definately not an attempt to rack up post count]

Yeah, I re-read what I wrote and i'm definately all for this repeal. The power to decide should be held within the states themselves. It just took me a while to figure that out.

P.S. How can "none of the above" even be a poll option on a black or white issue where the option "not sure" was already given? Add to the fact that it is tied for second place with most votegetting. Strange.

[/definately not an attempt to rack up post count]


because things aren't black and white. The world is not only two colors but a full specturm of colors. People who try to frame aurguments in terms of black or white are often trying to either hide some aspect of said aurgument or trying to get extremist responses. Are what is more likey is that they are not interested in comprimise and want their way to be the only way.

You say this issue is only black and white, I disagree. I believe in both sides of the debate, thus making my own stance a shade of grey. I believe that is the duty of the UN to protect the choice as a whole. While it is up to the individual nations to regulate that choice to best comply with their customs. If a nation is afraid that next of kin may abuse the choice of euthanasia then they could always regulate it such that only the person who is to be euthanized my make the choice. Another possible regulation would be to make a waiting period during which time next of kin have to be notifyed of the patient's decision. This would help prevent the choice being made solely out of depression.

I feel that Nations should regulate this issue to best serve the cultural needs of its people, because it is close to impossible to write one all encompessing law. I also believe though that the nations do not have the right to deny their citizens the option, thus the UN should protect that right to choose with this resolution. That is why I am voting against this repeal.

Great Nations of the UN:

The poll on whether or not euthanasia should be legal currently shows a simple majority in favor of letting individual nations decide whether or not to legalize euthanasia. The current resolution places this decision back in the hands of individual governments, yet the resolution currently has a majority voting against it. It made sense to this body to recently place replanting trees and abortion in the hands of individual governments, but not euthanasia? This makes no sense. I advise my fellow members to critically read the entire resolution and remain consistant with views they previously expressed. Afterall, what is the point of having many nations if all are bound by the exact same laws and values?

As Prime Minister of Jacobic I would like to add my 2 cents to this issue. Euthanasia is not for everyone. It is a sad and terrible decision that should be made by the people involved. If repealing this resolution will allow those families who hope against all odds that a cure may be found and they have the choice to wait then who are we to tell them they can not. There should be a choice available to do either wait or die in peace.
b5cmdrmo
Prime Minister of Jacobic

The resolution does not take away any choices. It gives you choices. You have the choice to wait for a cure/medical breakthough if that is what you wish to do. The resolution makes euthanasia legal, not mandatory.

Repealing this resolution will only open the way for nations to deny the choice to wait or to pass on.

I vote yes.

because things aren't black and white. The world is not only two colors but a full specturm of colors. People who try to frame aurguments in terms of black or white are often trying to either hide some aspect of said aurgument or trying to get extremist responses. Are what is more likey is that they are not interested in comprimise and want their way to be the only way.

You say this issue is only black and white, I disagree. I believe in both sides of the debate, thus making my own stance a shade of grey. I believe that is the duty of the UN to protect the choice as a whole. While it is up to the individual nations to regulate that choice to best comply with their customs. If a nation is afraid that next of kin may abuse the choice of euthanasia then they could always regulate it such that only the person who is to be euthanized my make the choice. Another possible regulation would be to make a waiting period during which time next of kin have to be notifyed of the patient's decision. This would help prevent the choice being made solely out of depression.

I feel that Nations should regulate this issue to best serve the cultural needs of its people, because it is close to impossible to write one all encompessing law. I also believe though that the nations do not have the right to deny their citizens the option, thus the UN should protect that right to choose with this resolution. That is why I am voting against this repeal.

True, but the option isn't "some aspects of both ideas," which would be perfectly acceptable, I suppose. "None of the above," to me, implies that it involves neither a U.N. decision or a state decision, and is somehow left to some overarching entity to decide. That, to me, sound silly, but you obviously interpreted differently.

To re-state... The choice given is either "this," "that," or "neither." To me, "neither" doesn't mean "both," it means "something else." And that was quite a lot of quotation marks.

I voted "none of the above", because I didn't want my vote misinterpreted. My personal opinion of euthanasia has little to do with the repeal.

Also valid, but your personal opinion of euthanasia doesn't (or shouldn't, anyway) really have anything to do with the poll, either. It has been said before truthfully that this is an issue of UN power, poorly disguised as a euthanasia debate. I wasn't sure about the issue either until I really considered all that... but I can say, regardless of my stance on euthanasia, that the first option here is the best.

True, but the option isn't "some aspects of both ideas," which would be perfectly acceptable, I suppose. "None of the above," to me, implies that it involves neither a U.N. decision or a state decision, and is somehow left to some overarching entity to decide. That, to me, sound silly, but you obviously interpreted differently.

To re-state... The choice given is either "this," "that," or "neither." To me, "neither" doesn't mean "both," it means "something else." And that was quite a lot of quotation marks.

yes but since there was no "A little bit of both" option on the poll I selected the one that best fit my view point. Which was "None of the above". I took this to mean literaly that none of the above choices reflected my view point.

yes but since there was no "A little bit of both" option on the poll I selected the one that best fit my view point. Which was "None of the above". I took this to mean literaly that none of the above choices reflected my view point.

Right. Difference of interpretation. I guess that answers my question. On to the next question, which is why, for goodness sake, is there an "against" lead in the actual resolution but a "it should be up to the nations" lead on this poll? (I figure I got answers the last time phrasing a question this way, so maybe someone can explain this...)

Also valid, but your personal opinion of euthanasia doesn't (or shouldn't, anyway) really have anything to do with the poll, either. It has been said before truthfully that this is an issue of UN power, poorly disguised as a euthanasia debate. I wasn't sure about the issue either until I really considered all that... but I can say, regardless of my stance on euthanasia, that the first option here is the best.
What I meant is this: people have been saying "the poll is winning, but the proposal is losing". That means they are automatically associating believing euthanasia is a national issue with voting yes. I reject that. It is possible to believe euthanasia is a national issue, but vote no, because the repeal contains no real arguments; it is possible to believe euthanasia is an international issue, but vote yes, because (although the repeal doesn't say it) there are many problems with resolution #43, including permitting involuntary euthanasia.

What I meant is this: people have been saying "the poll is winning, but the proposal is losing". That means they are automatically associating believing euthanasia is a national issue with voting yes. I reject that. It is possible to believe euthanasia is a national issue, but vote no, because the repeal contains no real arguments; it is possible to believe euthanasia is an international issue, but vote yes, because (although the repeal doesn't say it) there are many problems with resolution #43, including permitting involuntary euthanasia.

Haha! That would be it.... (funny how these things are intertwined [see last post, you've inadvertently answered my question]).

If it weren't for the statement "Euthanasia violates the principle that each human being has intrinsic dignity and value, regardless of age, physical or mental condition, or state of dependency.", I would sign the repeal since I really think this should be an issue to be decided by the sovereign nations themselves.

But the way this proposal is phrased signing it would mean to agree to the above statement, which I can't. Someon is trying to sneak in metaphysic beliefs into a UN resolution.
So I have to abstain for the moment.

If it weren't for the statement "Euthanasia violates the principle that each human being has intrinsic dignity and value, regardless of age, physical or mental condition, or state of dependency.", I would sign the repeal since I really think this should be an issue to be decided by the sovereign nations themselves.

But the way this proposal is phrased signing it would mean to agree to the above statement, which I can't. Someon is trying to sneak in metaphysic beliefs into a UN resolution.
So I have to abstain for the moment.

Very well put.

Great Nations of the UN:

The poll on whether or not euthanasia should be legal currently shows a simple majority in favor of letting individual nations decide whether or not to legalize euthanasia. The current resolution places this decision back in the hands of individual governments, yet the resolution currently has a majority voting against it. It made sense to this body to recently place replanting trees and abortion in the hands of individual governments, but not euthanasia? This makes no sense. I advise my fellow members to critically read the entire resolution and remain consistant with views they previously expressed. Afterall, what is the point of having many nations if all are bound by the exact same laws and values?

I will be upfront with you, you have exemplified my original thinking. But there was one rub: while my country believes in giving individuals the choice in the matter, there are other governments that do not. and so the UN's support of the worldwide condonation of euthenasia makes it possible for every person in the world to have access to the process of euthenasia. If individual countries could decide that they did not want to condone euthenasia, they could deny euthenasia to all of those individuals that desparately want to have some dignity in their last days and be able to go on their own terms. I don't think the governing body of the world should be able to act to deny rights that are of such a personal nature and scope. This is why I voted against the proposed appeal of this bill.

Humbly given,
the People of the Republic of Nuevo Gringolandia

part of the reason that against is winning is because not every one who voted against the resolution has participated on the poll in this thread. Also because of the delgate system whic allows people to amass more votes then a majority of the UN members.

As for the involuntery euthanasia, well as I stated that is already common practice in many places. Spadesburg for example has complusory organ donating. A basic interpertation of this law could suggest that the Nation has a right to bump off a person if their organs were needed in someone else. I'm sure the nation of Spadesburg has stipulations against such abuse in its law.

I am for nations regulating euthanasia, I however am against nations having the power to deny outright to its citizens who may have legitimate need for the option.

As for the involuntery euthanasia, well as I stated that is already common practice in many places. Spadesburg for example has complusory organ donating. A basic interpertation of this law could suggest that the Nation has a right to bump off a person if their organs were needed in someone else. I'm sure the nation of Spadesburg has stipulations against such abuse in its law.


Exactly... I believe when I voted it told me that the donors would have to be dead first, but the offhand description just doesn't do it justice.

As leader of a small nation and UN delelgate and founder of a small region, my veiw is not important however i am a strong catholic and believe euthanasia should be illegal. You cannot play God. It will be a close vote but support sways slightly for legal euthanasia. People who think euthanasia should be legal are un-devout morons:mad: and should be shot.:mp5:

UN Delegate Tom Lamb, President of Lesser Yorkshire and founder of Hessey

Don't shoot! You cannot play God.:D :headbang:

Euthanasia is very difficult topic. I personally don't agree with it and in our country euthanasia isn't legal. On the other hand I know many people who agree with this. Because I know big differences in opinions I think UN shouldn't solve this problem. Let states decide on their own. Vote for this resolution.

EGO PRIMUS MAGNUS - The Great Vogon of The Holy Empire of Great Vogons.

Maurice de Tayllerand - Minister of Foreign Affairs

Edvard Beneš - Great Vogon's Ambassador in UN.

Sorry to break it to you, but Euthanasia is legal in your country. You are a member of the UN and as such comply with res 43.

Here are my main reasons as to why it should be repealed:

It is just an emotional story, giving one circumstance. It hasn't thought of wider circumstances such as doctors abusing their power.

It accidentally legalises all forms of Euthanasia (including involuntary - where the patient requests not to die, but is killed anyway, thus doctors abuse their power with elderly people, or to save money rather than pay for expensive treatment)

It is vague, with terms such as 'certain age' and there is no definition of 'life-threatening'. I crave to get rid of poorly written resolutions (I think that is the effect of being a member of Reveal & Repeal:p )

There are many more arguments as have been seen in countless attemots at a repeal, but they are my main ones for the time being.

As leader of a small nation and UN delelgate and founder of a small region, my veiw is not important however i am a strong catholic and believe euthanasia should be illegal. You cannot play God. It will be a close vote but support sways slightly for legal euthanasia. People who think euthanasia should be legal are un-devout morons:mad: and should be shot.:mp5:

UN Delegate Tom Lamb, President of Lesser Yorkshire and founder of Hessey

Well here is a good example of how to get people to take you seriously.......not

There are many religions that consider the practice of ending one's life on one's own terms to be a moral right. In some cultures people are chosen to die because the food and resources are to scarce. Plus if you really want to play the religious card.....Yes as a catholic myself I know that euthanasia is agaisnt what "WE BELIEVE" god's will to be. Also as a catholic I am still ticked off that I can't stone a random person to death in my fields every spring to insure a good crop (check your bible if you don't believe me). How ever I don't believe I have the right to force my religious beliefes on anyone. Just as I believe no one has the right to force their religious beliefes on me. I know I would hate to have someone tell me that I hade to be euthanized if I developed cancer or a bad case of the flu because their religion states "you shalt not suffer the sick to live".

Sorry to break it to you, but Euthanasia is legal in your country. You are a member of the UN and as such comply with res 43.

Here are my main reasons as to why it should be repealed:

It is just an emotional story, giving one circumstance. It hasn't thought of wider circumstances such as doctors abusing their power.

It accidentally legalises all forms of Euthanasia (including involuntary - where the patient requests not to die, but is killed anyway, thus doctors abuse their power with elderly people, or to save money rather than pay for expensive treatment)

It is vague, with terms such as 'certain age' and there is no definition of 'life-threatening'. I crave to get rid of poorly written resolutions (I think that is the effect of being a member of Reveal & Repeal:p )

There are many more arguments as have been seen in countless attemots at a repeal, but they are my main ones for the time being.


Resolution #43 states:
This would mean a legal document would be filled out by those concerned. This would ensure that it is not a medical decision, but the patient's choice. After this document is signed, it must only be used in the situations stated.


thus if you take 10 minutes out of your day to sign the piece of paper that states you want to live as long as possible you can't just be euthanized because your HMO is tired of covering your bills.

The bill allowing universal euthanasia was, contrary to the unabashedly religious moral grandstanding of its oppoonents, a recognition of the supreme morality of human choice and dignity. If you deny euthanasia to a terminally ill person in extreme pain, you must be willing to meet them in the hereafter, look them in the eye, and tell them: "Because I kept you on expensive life support at cost to your family so as to prolong your pain for as long as possible, I was doing the right thing. When I had my trained medical staff working furiously to delay the imminently inevitable at the potential expense of other patients, so that I could watch you suffer and here your screams more vividly and for a longer time, I was doing the right thing."

Who among the UN member states can say that they could do that?

What sense is there in leaving this as a member-state decision? No moral, rational, thoughtful, intelligent, reasoning human being would ever be so morally depraved as to deny euthanasia for, make no mistake, the denial of euthanasia is a depravity, an animalistic and disgusting legal term designed to appease a religious constinuency that has no knowledge or understanding of rationality. Only statewide sadism would consent to denying its citizens the right to die.

It looks as if this repeal may well pass. Fellow representatives, consider well what this means. Should this repeal be adopted, the United Nations, and the entirety of its members, will solemnly have affirmed their belief that "euthanasia proposes to eliminate suffering by eliminating the one who suffers" and that "euthanasia violates the principle that each human being has intrinsic dignity and value, regardless of age, physical or mental condition, or state of dependency".

The wording of this repeal constitutes an affirmation by this august body that euthanasia is immoral under whatever circumstance.

You may well argue that euthanasia is a matter of national sovereignty. I would even be inclined to agree. But this particular repeal is not the right one to support. Vote for this repeal, and you will be condoning the moralistic belief that euthanasia should be made illegal throughout the United Nations.

The wording of this repeal calls for us to vote AGAINST the repeal.


Christelle ZYRYANOV,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

It looks as if this repeal may well pass. Fellow representatives, consider well what this means. Should this repeal be adopted, the United Nations, and the entirety of its members, will solemnly have affirmed their belief that "euthanasia proposes to eliminate suffering by eliminating the one who suffers" and that "euthanasia violates the principle that each human being has intrinsic dignity and value, regardless of age, physical or mental condition, or state of dependency".

The wording of this repeal constitutes an affirmation by this august body that euthanasia is immoral under whatever circumstance.

You may well argue that euthanasia is a matter of national sovereignty. I would even be inclined to agree. But this particular repeal is not the right one to support. Vote for this repeal, and you will be condoning the moralistic belief that euthanasia should be made illegal throughout the United Nations.

The wording of this repeal calls for us to vote AGAINST the repeal.


Christelle ZYRYANOV,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

The Federated States of Atraxes cannot but echo the sentiments of the honourable Ambassador Zyryanov. Resolution #162 is rank with moral posturing from the pro-life brigade. Had this resolution been worded from an unbiased perspective we may have been inclined to vote in favour of this repeal.

As it stands we must cast our vote AGAINST this abhorrent resolution, and would urge all level-headed delegates and esteemed members of the United Nations to do likewise.

Anastasius Terrell,
Supreme Envoy to the United Nations.

Thank you for pointing out to me my misunderstanding. You are correct the original proposal already gives a choice.


I propose that euthanasia should be legalised. Everyone over a certain age or with a life-threatening illness should be given the right to decide whether, in such a situation, they want to live on for as long as possible, or die with a little dignity left intact. This would mean a legal document would be filled out by those concerned. This would ensure that it is not a medical decision, but the patient's choice. After this document is signed, it must only be used in the situations stated."

The phrase "right to decide" already gives us this choice individually, but still is this something we have a right to give. Some nations' governments or religions do not allow for this, so why are the UN forcing it upon them.
b5cmdrmo

Thank you for pointing out to me my misunderstanding. You are correct the original proposal already gives a choice.




The phrase "right to decide" already gives us this choice individually, but still is this something we have a right to give. Some nations' governments or religions do not allow for this, so why are the UN forcing it upon them.
b5cmdrmo

Part of the UN's responsiblity is to protect the rights and freedoms of the people that comprise its member nations.

Everyone makes a big issue about a person's right to life. What so called prolifers seem to forget about is that people also have a right to death. That is what resolution #43 does. It protects a person's right to death on their own terms.

My fellow delegates I ask you to consider this repeal closely. The resolution does not say you must euthanasize a person. It mearly says that person has a choice if they are ill or at an age where their body is starting to fail.

I ask the nationalist why they are for repealing a law that does nothing more then give people an additional choice when they are near the end of their lives? You wish to leave it up to the nations to decide what is best for their people. You would let the nations make it illeagal for a person to end their own suffering despite the fact that they know they would die in two weeks of horrible aganoy? Why not let the resolution stand, let it up ahold that choice the person should have to die peaceful, and be spared that pain.

One of the common aurguements I have heard in favor of this repeal is that the current resolution allows for someone to be euthanized against their will. A bit of an extreem I believe, but a valid point none the less. It does allow for this. It allows for a person who is unable to make decisions for themselves to be delt with in one of two fashions. The first is that the person can create in essence a living will. This is already standard practice in many industrial nations I believe. The other option is to allow those closest to them to make the decision if no "living will" is avalible. In most cases this would mean the person in question is in a coma. The resolution states that 5 years is the minimum time to wait before the choice can be made by those closest to them. Even then it is only on the basis of professional medical advice that it can be done.

If you were to come up with an resolution that protected the right of death for terminal patients but left the specifics of how that choice could be exercised up to individual nations then you would get my full support, and I'm sure you could easily get the support of many other nations and delegates opposed to this repeal. Until I would ask that you leave Resolution #43 in place to protect the right of death.

Thank you,

Chairman Ambrose, of the Principality of Jovic

Part of the UN's responsiblity is to protect the rights and freedoms of the people that comprise its member nations.
No it is not. The UN has no formal responsibilities.

No it is not. The UN has no formal responsibilities.

I disagree. The UN is the closest thing to a world wide governing body that humanity has yet to achieve. Thus as a governing body the UN has the same responsiblities that any government has. I conceed that they may not be formal as you put it, but I say they are there. Since compared to all of human history, the UN is still a realitive infant not all of its responsiblities have been realized or agreed upon yet. Because of this some people may choose not to recognize them, even if others don't agree with me I find these responsiblities to be self evident.

Perhaps we could end this quickly by asking you for one resolution, other than Abortion Legality Convention, United Nations Security Act, Nuclear Armaments or any repeal, that Change has voted for?

For one, my approval is on THREE resolutions right now that are NOT repeals. For two, my approval is on at least four repeals in the proposals list right now. For three, the change delegate has a proud history of not missing ONE vote in the UN for two years now. Where do people get such strange ideas about our region?

Does that end it quickly then?

If it weren't for the statement "Euthanasia violates the principle that each human being has intrinsic dignity and value, regardless of age, physical or mental condition, or state of dependency.", I would sign the repeal since I really think this should be an issue to be decided by the sovereign nations themselves.

But the way this proposal is phrased signing it would mean to agree to the above statement, which I can't. Someon is trying to sneak in metaphysic beliefs into a UN resolution.
So I have to abstain for the moment.

meta-what? Read the original bill this one is repealing and tell me what you think of that one! This does not have any metaphysics in it.

Also, to restate, I voted FOR Abortion Legality Convention, even though I was strongly morally opposed to the wording in it. I voted FOR it because the part that I disagreed with was not binding as any part of the law, but was part of it's argument. If you don't like any part of this argument, your vote FOR is enacting no new law; only getting rid of the old one.

I voted FOR it because the part that I disagreed with was not binding as any part of the law, but was part of it's argument. If you don't like any part of this argument, your vote FOR is enacting no new law; only getting rid of the old one.We've seen this argument on any number of repeals and are nonplussed that so many people try to pull it off.

The argument portion of a resolution (whether original or repeal) contains, or at least should contain, the reasons for voting for that resolution. A relevant court of jurisdiction could and would use the legislative arguments (both the formal clauses and the debate) to determine the intent of the legislative body. The argument counts. Voting for a resolution for which one cannot support the argument is quite illogical.

Jim Jones
NSUN Mouthpiece
Confederated Hells of Rubina

It looks as if this repeal may well pass. Fellow representatives, consider well what this means. Should this repeal be adopted, the United Nations, and the entirety of its members, will solemnly have affirmed their belief that "euthanasia proposes to eliminate suffering by eliminating the one who suffers" and that "euthanasia violates the principle that each human being has intrinsic dignity and value, regardless of age, physical or mental condition, or state of dependency".

The wording of this repeal constitutes an affirmation by this august body that euthanasia is immoral under whatever circumstance.

You may well argue that euthanasia is a matter of national sovereignty. I would even be inclined to agree. But this particular repeal is not the right one to support. Vote for this repeal, and you will be condoning the moralistic belief that euthanasia should be made illegal throughout the United Nations.

The wording of this repeal calls for us to vote AGAINST the repeal.


Christelle ZYRYANOV,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

That's silly. A repeal makes no new laws and no statement of beliefs. It only repeals an old law. Now if someone came along and put all of what you said above in a law proposal (as opposed to a repeal) and the UN nations voted for it (highly unlikely by the way) then that would be a different story.

The real story here is the UN has framed membership into the U.N. to include the adoption of all Euthanasia as legal in their nation. The U.N. would be more "United" if it was inclusive to people of all beliefs towards the wide definition of Euthanasia. If we do not repeal this law, we are saying if you are opposed to Euthanasia in any form, don't bother joinining the U.N. or join and modify your core beliefs. Nationstates deserves a "United" nations that is more inclusive than this. People are obviously sharply divided over this. If we don't repeal this, then we are continuing to rule on a sharply divided issue making the U.N. = sharply divided. To vote FOR this repeal is saying this issue is left better for local government to establish the detailed boundaries. It is saying that nations of varying degrees of difference are included here.

Won't euthanasia still be legal under Patient Rights Act?

I disagree. The UN is the closest thing to a world wide governing body that humanity has yet to achieve. Thus as a governing body the UN has the same responsiblities that any government has. I conceed that they may not be formal as you put it, but I say they are there. Since compared to all of human history, the UN is still a realitive infant not all of its responsiblities have been realized or agreed upon yet. Because of this some people may choose not to recognize them, even if others don't agree with me I find these responsiblities to be self evident.

My point is that a world wide governing body should have limitations to what it rules on. It makes little sense for the U.N. to rule on points that divide the body sharply like this one and others. It also makes little sense to for the U.N. to impose itself on national affairs. For many, national government is too large and beauracratic. Most people realize that when national government becomes too large it become either ineffective or too costly or both. The U.N. only makes this condition that much larger. The U.N. should stick to issues that keep nations "united" and of world wide importance (Imagining the response to that - of course that's my opinion).

meta-what? Read the original bill this one is repealing and tell me what you think of that one! This does not have any metaphysics in it.

How many times do we have to tell you that you snuck an anti-euthanasia statement into what was supposed to be a neutral proposal. The original proposal intended and went through with pushing its own belief. You did not intend to push your own belief yet you snuck it in. That line which we've been bashing over your head for 12 pages is still there. This is an anti-euthanasia proposal and there isn't nothing you're going to say that disproves this fact. What you wanted it to be and what it is are completely different.

The argument for the repeal of this resolution is a strong one, I'll admit that. However, while the UN is becoming less welcoming by "uninviting" those countries that are against euthanasia, it is also protecting a base human right. The UN has a duty as the world's governing body to protect human rights in all of its affiliated nations, and the right to choose when to die is as an important of a right as the right to remain free, as opposed to enslaved. As the UN has already shown its position on this issue by supporting an anti-slavery bill, the UN has shown that it is willing to alienate some nations in order to protect human rights in as many nations as possible, and the anti-euthanasia resolution passed earlier is simply and extension of this duty.

-James Schmitt
FRP Foreign Minister

That's silly. A repeal makes no new laws and no statement of beliefs. But you can't honestly say that a repeal doesn't change the law.

It only repeals an old law. "Old" law that is currently in effect.

The real story here is the UN has framed membership into the U.N. to include the adoption of all Euthanasia as legal in their nation. The U.N. would be more "United" if it was inclusive to people of all beliefs <snipped> if you are opposed to Euthanasia in any form, don't bother joinining the U.N. or join and modify your core beliefs. Nationstates deserves a "United" nations that is more inclusive than this. <snip> It is saying that nations of varying degrees of difference are included here.And where, pray tell, do we draw the line? Do we as a body jetison everything that some nation somewhere disagrees with in order for them to be 'comfortable' as members? Do we repeal equal rights or even go so far as adopting a resolution that allows (encourages?) nations to return their women to chattel status? There are certainly plenty of nations which would do so were there not an international statement of disfavor.

Unity is a beautiful thing. Unless it requires us all to become lesser in order to unite. You complain of nations having to change their core believes in order to belong to the U.N. Why should others change their core beliefs in order to make them welcome?

Ah, I see by the clock on the wall, it is late. I'm walking toward the bar for a night cap or three...

Jim Jones
NSUN Mouthpiece
Rubina

The real story here is the UN has framed membership into the U.N. to include the adoption of all Euthanasia as legal in their nation. The U.N. would be more "United" if it was inclusive to people of all beliefs towards the wide definition of Euthanasia. If we do not repeal this law, we are saying if you are opposed to Euthanasia in any form, don't bother joinining the U.N. or join and modify your core beliefs. Nationstates deserves a "United" nations that is more inclusive than this. People are obviously sharply divided over this. If we don't repeal this, then we are continuing to rule on a sharply divided issue making the U.N. = sharply divided. To vote FOR this repeal is saying this issue is left better for local government to establish the detailed boundaries. It is saying that nations of varying degrees of difference are included here.

The UN will always be sharply divided. If it weren't then there wouldn't be much of a need for it now would there? If everybody could get along on their own and play nice then the UN wouldn't need to exist to make everyone play by the same rules. A large chunk of your aurgument is that the United Nations should not be involved in any issue that divides the member nations sharply. I contend that it is those very issues that the UN needs to involve itself. By voting for this repeal on the grounds that the member nations should decided for themselves is akin to saying this decision is to tough for the UN so we'll let you do what you want.

The UN has the role of a guiding parent. It's job is to help maintain the peace between the member nations, siblings if you will, and help them co exist while in the same room so to speak. Usually you try to get them to work out a comprimise, but if it doesn't work out and they continue to bicker then as a good parent you need to step in and force the issue to resolve.

Could resolution #43 stand to be rewriten? Probably.

However that is not what this repeal is purposing. Voting for this specific repeal is like a parent telling their kids that the job is just to tough and to do what ever they want before said parent walks out. A bit dramatised I'll grant you, but its still a sound anology.

How many times do we have to tell you that you snuck an anti-euthanasia statement into what was supposed to be a neutral proposal. The original proposal intended and went through with pushing its own belief. You did not intend to push your own belief yet you snuck it in. That line which we've been bashing over your head for 12 pages is still there. This is an anti-euthanasia proposal and there isn't nothing you're going to say that disproves this fact. What you wanted it to be and what it is are completely different.

How many times do I have to say, regardless of what you've said about it, that a repeal cannot be characterized as being anything further than a repeal. Our points have been made and it's nothing more than contradiction any longer it seems.

The UN will always be sharply divided. If it weren't then there wouldn't be much of a need for it now would there? If everybody could get along on their own and play nice then the UN wouldn't need to exist to make everyone play by the same rules. A large chunk of your aurgument is that the United Nations should not be involved in any issue that divides the member nations sharply. I contend that it is those very issues that the UN needs to involve itself. By voting for this repeal on the grounds that the member nations should decided for themselves is akin to saying this decision is to tough for the UN so we'll let you do what you want.

The UN has the role of a guiding parent. It's job is to help maintain the peace between the member nations, siblings if you will, and help them co exist while in the same room so to speak. Usually you try to get them to work out a comprimise, but if it doesn't work out and they continue to bicker then as a good parent you need to step in and force the issue to resolve.

Could resolution #43 stand to be rewriten? Probably.

However that is not what this repeal is purposing. Voting for this specific repeal is like a parent telling their kids that the job is just to tough and to do what ever they want before said parent walks out. A bit dramatised I'll grant you, but its still a sound anology.

We are perfectly aware there are nations here that see the U.N. in this matter. I personally reject the comparison of the U.N. to being a parent. It's an organization to which all nations belong and should vote on issues of international status. I know I'm not the only one here who doesn't want the U.N. to act as a parent towards me. As a member nation of this body, I feel we all have equal status and should respect the variety in our differences. That, as has been said, does only go so far. But I think an issue like this one that is obviously closely divided falls clearly into the category of outside the uniting factor of a United Nations. If we vote down this repeal, it's going to re-emphasize this parent attitude you described above and there are going to be those who will not like what they see of this organization. As for me, I'll just resubmit a modified version of it again if it fails until we make the U.N. a more tolerant place.

How many times do I have to say, regardless of what you've said about it, that a repeal cannot be characterized as being anything further than a repeal. Our points have been made and it's nothing more than contradiction any longer it seems.

The reason why a law was repealed is just as important as the fact that the law was repealed.

We are perfectly aware there are nations here that see the U.N. in this matter. I personally reject the comparison of the U.N. to being a parent. It's an organization to which all nations belong and should vote on issues of international status. I know I'm not the only one here who doesn't want the U.N. to act as a parent towards me. As a member nation of this body, I feel we all have equal status and should respect the variety in our differences. That, as has been said, does only go so far. But I think an issue like this one that is obviously closely divided falls clearly into the category of outside the uniting factor of a United Nations. If we vote down this repeal, it's going to re-emphasize this parent attitude you described above and there are going to be those who will not like what they see of this organization. As for me, I'll just resubmit a modified version of it again if it fails until we make the U.N. a more tolerant place.


If we vote for this repeal though I feel as though we are saying we should limit ourselves to the lowest comon dominator of our member nations.....which I think would be me :D

'Babes, allow me to explain.

This is a matter of form vs. function. You are correct in stating that Repeals introduce no new law; those that do are deleted. However, Repeals do sit on the UN law books. And they sit there forever. Look back through the Resolution list, and you'll see each and every Repeal that's passed sitting there. Since Repeals can't be Repealed, they will always be there to be viewed by future generations (as it were).

Allow me to use an extreme example here, involving Res #6 (End Slavery).

Imagine that somebody, somehow, managed a Repeal that stated: "We need to Repeal this because $minorities aren't really humans and I need someone to pick my fucking cotton." Now, of course, this would result in an instant ejection, but imagine that it somehow passed. New nations looking through the Resolutions would first see that "End Slavery" had been repealed and get a little curious. They skip down and see that the reason the UN had for repealing it wasn't because of loopholes or poor quality, but because the 19th Century Plantation Owner's Caucus had taken over the UN. What kind of message would that send?

That being said, your Repeal is nowhere near that bad, but hopefully you understand why the reasoning is just as important, if not more important, than the actual game effect. Sure, neither your Repeal nor my mythical one are actually inacting law, but they are representing the views of the UN as a body. If people disagree with those views, they won't support you. In a way, Repeals require even more effort and vetting. Proposals can be struck out; Repeals can't.

I've been watching this unfold, and it seems to me that the best reason for this UN decision is that, if we decide to go against this, it'll let all nations of the world decide what they want, and therefore, we don't have to have another "should homosexuals be allowed to marry?" or "should abortion be illlegal?" where everything becomes so polarized and emotionally charged that people stop looking at it from the view of "I think that's absolutely horrible and wrong, and that because I feel this way that everyone should feel this way, and therefore, euthanasia should be entirely illegal." and start looking at it more like "well, if we don't decide to outlaw it, and just leave it up to the individual nations, then everyone (hopefully) can be happy because they get to make their own decision and do what they themselves think is right."

I hope that makes sense to you all.

(for clarification, no one is forcing their people to kill themselves
except for mine.....heehee......when necessary....)

Rene D'Anclaude, Warleader of Wentius

Why is this even a discussion, according to the poll, over half of those who responded felt it was an issue that each nation should decide for itself. why shuldn't it be as such, you shouldn't be able to force an idea upon a nation, especially when its not black and white. Killing people, usually helpless people, legally or allowing a person to suffer, the arguement isn't cut and dry either way.:confused:why is it so hard to allow nations freedom to make decissions for themselves?:headbang:

why is it so hard to allow nations freedom to make decissions for themselves?Maybe because some think it should be up to the individuals of the nation to decide on matters that are personal, such as when it is time to die.

Why is this even a discussion, according to the poll, over half of those who responded felt it was an issue that each nation should decide for itself. why shuldn't it be as such, you shouldn't be able to force an idea upon a nation, especially when its not black and white. Killing people, usually helpless people, legally or allowing a person to suffer, the arguement isn't cut and dry either way.:confused:why is it so hard to allow nations freedom to make decissions for themselves?:headbang:

Read the topic.

It's because the poll doesn't ask "Will you vote for this repeal?". This is more than just a matter of NatSov versus IntFed on this issue. For me, at least, this is a matter of quality. The quality of this repeal is atrocious, and if this poll asked if you will vote for the repeal, the results will be far different. I believe those opposing this repeal on a matter of quality are enough to gain the majority and defeat it.

That's silly. A repeal makes no new laws and no statement of beliefs.

This one does. If we vote in favour of this repeal, we are permanently approving a statement which condemns euthanasia. You've shot yourself in the foot on this one; the wording of the repeal contradicts (in spirit at least) its actual effect.


The U.N. would be more "United" if it was inclusive to people of all beliefs towards the wide definition of Euthanasia.

And that is precisely what this repeal would not accomplish. If this repeal passes, the United Nations will - as per its wording - have endorsed the view that euthanasia is "wrong".


To vote FOR this repeal is saying this issue is left better for local government to establish the detailed boundaries. It is saying that nations of varying degrees of difference are included here.

Incorrect, for the reasons I've just explained.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

I've been ignoring this debate for the most part, as I said all I needed to say before it went to vote.

I, however, want to restate my point at this juncture.

We, the representatives of Norderia, are in total agreement with the Representative from Ariddia. Repeals of legislation are designed with an argument. The argument put forth by this repeal is that of condemnation of euthanasia, and one of a call for unity in the UN. The latter is a misguided and naive view of the matter. The former is not something that Norderia can abide by.

If a repeal is proposed, and it calls for the removal of a piece of legislation for a reason that is absolutely not endorsed by the countries voting on the matter, then the repeal should not be voted for. Only the most Machiavellian among us would allow the End to justify the Means. The Means here are awful, and we would not support it even if we did support the Ends.

Norderia supports neither, and we've cast our vote against this repeal.

Tommo the Stout
UN Ambassador from Norderia
Delegate, North Sea

Won't euthanasia still be legal under Patient Rights Act?

Not in any nations whose governments pass laws defining it as not being a "medical treatment", no: A simple law saying that "Any procedure whose purpose is to end the life of a member of any sapient species constitutes an act of homicide, and may not be classified as a 'medical treatment' instead for legal purposes." would over-ride the PRA for both euthansia and abortion...

For one, my approval is on THREE resolutions right now that are NOT repeals. For two, my approval is on at least four repeals in the proposals list right now. For three, the change delegate has a proud history of not missing ONE vote in the UN for two years now. Where do people get such strange ideas about our region?

Does that end it quickly then?
No. I was asking for one resolution you'd voted for. Your unwillingness to proffer such suggests there isn't one.

But, no matter.

Gruenberger Office of UN Affairs

We are compelled to vote FOR the repeal, although we voice our disappointment that those sponsoring the bill are not more willing to defend their arguments.

Gruenberger Office of UN AffairsI sense an editorial comment...

Ausserland has voted NO.

The statement in the repeal that "Euthanasia violates the principle that each human being has intrinsic dignity and value, regardless of age, physical or mental condition, or state of dependency" is completely absurd. To allow a person to be in control of the ending of his life permits the person to preserve dignity and judge for himself the value of his life to himself and others.

We disagree strongly with those who say that what a repeal says doesn't matter; it's just the effect that counts. To vote for this resolution would be to place our nation on record as agreeing with this baseless statement about "dignity and value." We will not do it.

By order of His Royal Highness, the Prince of Ausserland:

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

((I tried to post this yesterday, but my computer wouldnt work. So i try it again today. Sorry if it doesnt follow the lines of the discussion right now, but it was meant to go after a post by Jovic, which part of it is quoted below. ))

I cannot stand for or against euthanasia. It is a complicated subject, and should be considered not only by its blacks and whites, but by all its greys.

I agree that people in extreme agony have the right to decide whether they'd like to keep fighting, or just give up. But who puts the limit between agony and just suffering? If a person decides to be euthanized, it is, in some aspect, as commiting suicide. Just that it's legal, and someone does it for you. What if the person is just tired? Isnt it extremely selfish to kill yourself, and have all those who love you just torn because you decided you were too tired to keep fighting? Isnt it also selfish to force someone to stay alive, just because YOU do not want that person to die, and force them to suffer longer? It is, as i have said, a complicated subject...

It is also not a matter of "playing God", as someone put it. Because i am sure that, given the option, God (be it your god, or mine) would not want a person to suffer the most horrible agony before what would be an inevitable ending. And if he would, that's some god we have....then we are all damned, and might as well jump off the window right now.


It allows for a person who is unable to make decisions for themselves to be delt with in one of two fashions. The first is that the person can create in essence a living will. This is already standard practice in many industrial nations I believe. The other option is to allow those closest to them to make the decision if no "living will" is avalible. In most cases this would mean the person in question is in a coma. The resolution states that 5 years is the minimum time to wait before the choice can be made by those closest to them. Even then it is only on the basis of professional medical advice that it can be done.


The living will is a risky option. The person who chooses, while conscious, that they would rather die than stay in coma, or in a vegetative state, are not yet in that state, so they do not really know what to expect. How can you make a decision about something that you know nothing of? Today i sign a paper saying that i want to be killed if i ever find myself in a coma or other. Tomorrow, i have an accident, i end up in a coma, but unconsiously i decide that i want to keep fighting, and i do not want to give up! Who's gonna change that little paper for me? No one. And i am going to be killed.
It is known that people wake up from comas, even after 5 years of being in one. Not probable, but possible. Those people are FIGHTING to live, and eventually they can win. The living will completely destroys any hope i might have of beating the coma. And so does the second option. Your relatives may think they are doing the right thing by ending your suffering, but they do not know if you are going to wake up or not. I am talking of one case in a million maybe, because it is true that not many do come out of the coma after so long, but that ONE life is already worth saving. So the possibility MUST be considered.
And we do not know if people in vegetative states (im not sure if you say that in english, but im hoping you will understand allthesame) are actually aware of what is going on around them. Some people lose their ability to move, but not their ability to think. The relatives might choose euthanasia, because they believe it is whats best for the patient (and for their wallets...), but the person might be actually conscious, just unable to express themselves. And that person will just have to watch the doctors kill her/him without being able to do a thing to prevent it?? I couldnt think of a worst way of dying...

I am not saying that euthanasia should be prohibited, because i am certain that in some cases, probably most of them, it is "the right thing to do", even if there is no such thing. But all case scenarios have to be considered. Legalizing euthanasia is a huge gamble. And many lives that perhaps MAYBE could've been saved, might be lost.

But a "perhaps MAYBE" is enough when it comes to a human life.

It is complicated, and subjective in every angle you might look at it. That is why i think it is a matter that cannot be imposed on a Nation. And that is why my vote goes for the repeal.

Ausserland has voted NO.

The statement in the repeal that "Euthanasia violates the principle that each human being has intrinsic dignity and value, regardless of age, physical or mental condition, or state of dependency" is completely absurd. To allow a person to be in control of the ending of his life permits the person to preserve dignity and judge for himself the value of his life to himself and others.

We disagree strongly with those who say that what a repeal says doesn't matter; it's just the effect that counts. To vote for this resolution would be to place our nation on record as agreeing with this baseless statement about "dignity and value." We will not do it.

By order of His Royal Highness, the Prince of Ausserland:

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

On behalf of Wyldtree, I wholeheartedly agree with Ausserland (and other's) stance against the wording of this resolution and have voted against.

While we are a member of the NSO (as Ausserland) we take offense to the blatantly one sided nature of this repeal while claiming to be neutral/natsov. The effect would be that nations would decide yes, but I will not have my nation approve putting such a statement against the practice of Euthanasia on record. The arguement regarding human dignity is poorly argued and wholey out of place in this resolution, making it's NatSov approach look more like a smokescreen for a stance against Euthanasia.

We in Al Thera have recently passed even more legislature protecting an individual's right to Euthanasia, but that was because we as a nation saw the benefits of increasing those rights. We are voting for the appeal because we do not believe that every nation should be forced into our beliefs on the matter and hope that others see that this repeal does not preven their nations from continuing to allow this in their own nations. It simply puts the choice back into the hands of the individual nations and their citizens.

Wow, 13 pages. Serves me right for taking a day off. Oh well, as much as I believe that Euthanasia is a matter for individual nations to deal with, I'm not sure that repealing this is the best idea. Considering how many loopholes are in Res 43, it allows individual nations to make euthanasia essentially legal. (I know some of you don't believe me so I'll elaborate)

Res 43 mandated that we legalize euthanasia for those over a "certain age or with life-threatening illness". Ok, we set that age in our nation to be 10,000 years. Excessive perhaps, but effectively rendering the option of claiming euthanasia based on age obsolete. Then we defined a "life-threatening illness" as a disease, that ultimately causes death, for which there is no cure. Note how we didn't state a time-line for that cure, meaning that unless the candidate can prove that there is no way there will ever be a cure discovered for the disease that it isn't considered life-threatening under the terms of our laws.

Ok now that everyone can see the huge loopholes in Legalize Euthanasia, hopefully you can all see how it does nothing. Now I know, that is generally a good reason to repeal crap resolutions, but is it really worth it to repeal this resolution that doesn't affect anyone's right to choose the laws of their nation when you consider the blood bath that will be the debate for the inevitable attempt to replace it?

Lydia was still feeling jet lagged as she walked into the assembly room, but her tiredness soon let to delight as she heard the dulcet tones of Patrick Olembe. He was in the process of wrapping up his speech and though she tried to catch his eye, her view was quickly obscured by the Wyldtree representative eager to make a statement. “Not to worry” thought Lydia “there will be plenty of time to catch up later” for now though she had work to do.

“The government of Telidia also concurs with our esteemed colleague Minister Olembe from Ausserland and welcome the support of Ambassador Kylemore of Wyldtree. Whilst we echo the comments already made we would like to add we find it difficult to agree with the following argument of justification.

RECALLS Resolution #147 "Abortion Legality Convention" in which the controverial issue of abortion was taken out of the jurisdiction of the United Nations and returned to nations to decide. Euthanasia is a similar issue that should not have the world body mandate how every nation should believe.

While the UN assembly did indeed pass resolution 147, it does not follow this stance should be appropriate in this repeal. In our humble opinion every resolution or repeal must stand under its own merit and as such it should make its argument and aims clear. It should not in its wording attempt to intentionally or unintentionally garner popular support from previous repeals or resolutions.

The government of Telidia must therefore regrettably vote against the repeal, though we do thank the honourable member from Pro-Sovereignty Babes in bringing the debate to the fore.”

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

[OOC: Whoa! Long time, no see, Telidia!!]

I regret not having the time to read all 13 pages of this discussion, but I'm going to voice my opinion and hope it's not too redundant.
The whole point of the U.N. is for nations not deciding on heavy ethical issues for themselves and making laws that interfere with social and political rights of it's citizens.
The U.N. has a history of diciding on the side of reason, liberalism and social rights. Repealing a decision because "we should each decide that for ourselves" is completely defying the need for U.N.
Now, about euthansia: legalizing this issue DOES NOT mean mandating it to every patient whom doctors can't save, it's opening an options for people to kill themselves painlessly and quickly instead of suffering for months or weeks, disabled in your bed while your body eats itself. I think it is humane and the choise to do it should be legal for a person to make.

What killing people to end suffering is nothing more than murder on the behalf of the government. If people wish to die, they can kill themselves, if they cannot kill themselves they must suffer, it is God's plan. How do we know that killing them eases the pain, do we know what lies beyond the grave?

For one, my approval is on THREE resolutions right now that are NOT repeals. For two, my approval is on at least four repeals in the proposals list right now. For three, the change delegate has a proud history of not missing ONE vote in the UN for two years now. Where do people get such strange ideas about our region?

Does that end it quickly then?

Is it on the UN Counterterrorism Initiative yet?

What killing people to end suffering is nothing more than murder on the behalf of the government. If people wish to die, they can kill themselves, if they cannot kill themselves they must suffer, it is God's plan. How do we know that killing them eases the pain, do we know what lies beyond the grave?


We would like to thank the representative of Hamboneia for expressing the religious viewpoint on the issue. We would like to remind them, however, that Legalize Euthanasia only allows those who wish to commit that mortal sin an easier way of doing so. If they wish to condemn their own souls to eternal burnination, that is their business. There are also a great many nations and individuals for whom such religious dogma is but words on a paper and they feel it has no place in governmental affairs.

I judge not which side is correct about the religious aspect, simply wish to keep the playing field level(ish) for those of us who are not theocratic in nature.

Is it on the UN Counterterrorism Initiative yet?

That was one I was about to approve. I really like ALL of it and was getting ready to approve it until I read the very last sentence:

8. SUPPORTS the commitment to address significant causes of terrorism, such as poverty, inadequate education, etc.

That line was part of the teeth of the bill and I'm just not sure what I think of that line yet. Everything else about that bill I whole heartedly support. I don't believe poverty or inadequate education leads to making one a terrorist. But it should answer your question that if that last sentence were not there, I would have added my approval to that bill.

And to the good delegate from Gruenburg, there are not many proposals that meet our strict ideal for what the United Nations should rule on. If the UN Counterterrorism Initiative did not have clause 8 above and reached queue, we would vote for that. I know I've voted for other proposals in the past. It's just not many that refrain from stepping on areas of national sovereignty in my opinion.

Change is a member of ACCEL. We support most of the work that body produces, but not all of it. But this resolution is not about me or my region and what we vote about - it varies. It's about repealing legalise euthanasia because it's a sharply divisive issue the U.N. has no business ruling on. The last time I checked the vote difference was only 8 votes with over 2800 votes on each side. That continues to prove my point.

That line was part of the teeth of the bill and I'm just not sure what I think of that line yet. Everything else about that bill I whole heartedly support. I don't believe poverty or inadequate education leads to making one a terrorist.
Nor does Cluichstan; that line was just included to appeal to the fluffies.

What killing people to end suffering is nothing more than murder on the behalf of the government. If people wish to die, they can kill themselves, if they cannot kill themselves they must suffer, it is God's plan. How do we know that killing them eases the pain, do we know what lies beyond the grave?

may I please ask, who are you to decide gods plan? do not put words into his mouth.
Now, for people who inhabit this world and wish to die even though they are not sure that the next world of some crazed bible basher is better - we have liberal laws such as this which shouldn't be repealed

ooc: Good grief. This is one of the most tedious debates around. I think I'll bookmark it and next time I can't sleep I'll read every argument instead of skimming it.

ic: I'll be short and sweet. On one hand terrible resolution. On the otherhand the repeal's not much better. Does the end justify the means? We'll sit on the fence for a while.

I'd be all for this repeal if it weren't for the addon proposition: RECALLS Resolution #147 "Abortion Legality Convention"

Huh?

Nor does Cluichstan; that line was just included to appeal to the fluffies.

Norderia, on the other hand...

ooc: Good grief. This is one of the most tedious debates around. I think I'll bookmark it and next time I can't sleep I'll read every argument instead of skimming it.

I avoided the debate for as long as possible simply because it would just be one misguided argument after another. I'm thankful for the few people with reasons that are (and isn't this a novel idea?) reasonable.

It looks as if this repeal may well pass. Fellow representatives, consider well what this means. Should this repeal be adopted, the United Nations, and the entirety of its members, will solemnly have affirmed their belief that "euthanasia proposes to eliminate suffering by eliminating the one who suffers" and that "euthanasia violates the principle that each human being has intrinsic dignity and value, regardless of age, physical or mental condition, or state of dependency". ... Vote for this repeal, and you will be condoning the moralistic belief that euthanasia should be made illegal throughout the United Nations.[A drunken cry of "UN fucktards!" rings out from the back of the assembly chamber as the doors fly open and an obviously intoxicated young man, athlete by his build, shuffles down the hall with his boxers hanging out and a bottle of Arrogant Bastard Ale in his right hand.]

Ambassadors to this terribly corrupt bureaucratic hellhole, hear me out, hear me out: Because you retards really get to yankin' my chain when y'all start flipping out and saying that the UN can't take a moral stance against euthanasia, and those that do are extremists, just because you disagree. The UN took a stand for euthanasia when it passed this ... this ... revelation? ... reservation? ... (whatever the fuck you gnome-lovers call your laws), didn't it? Look, my State Department guys already voted no on this repeal -- for their own reasons -- but all this holier-than-thou bullshit really makes me wanna fuckin' reverse their vote (and I can do that, y'know, 'cause I'm the president!), even if the corporate guys in my government tell me that Kennyite personal opinions shouldn't be part of UN law, 'cause of "sovereignty." Hell, some say Kennyite personal opinions shouldn't be part of intelligent conversation -- but dude, whatever. Not agreeing with people doesn't mean they ought to be beneath the entire UN's contempt. If you disagree with anti-euthanasia, just say so, vote no, and get off your fucking high horses.

Now if y'all will excuse me, I didn't come here to listen to self-important retards spew hot air; I came here to hit on the Telidian ambassador; I hear she's back in town? [Scans crowd.] Ahhh, there she is. [He is about to approach her, when security shows up behind him.] Aww, man! You guys can't do this to me! Not when I'm about to score!! [They grab him and spirit him toward the door; he desperately he turns back to Ms. Cornwall, shouting at her from across the chamber:] Yo, Lydia! Wanna hook up later?! ... Man, I gotta go -- you'll be my first call from UN jail, baby!

"The Destructor from Del Fuego, Mexico,"
Manuelo Fernanda
President of the Federal Republic

Manuelo's here? I hope he isn't around when Lady Faren arrives, they didn't get on too well...

Anyway, back on topic, and in reply to the Kennyite representative:

Enn disagrees with the statement in the repeal about the morality of euthanasia, and that is why Enn is voting against. Yes, I don't want the UN to make such a statement. Yes, I want the UN to support euthanasia.

Holier-than-though? Perhaps. High-horse? Perhaps. Hypocritical? Never - this has been Enn's position throughout our entire time at the UN, despite near-revolution and Destabilisation, and the rise of the Triumvirate. It is my view, acting as representative of the People's Assembly, the Council of Enn, Lady Faren - this view has stayed the same.

Stephanie Fulton,
UN Consul for the Triumvirate of Enn

Lydia! You're back! I'll get you a drink in the Strangers' Bar!

Manuelo's here? I hope he isn't around when Lady Faren arrives, they didn't get on too well...[OOC: Hehehehe (http://s6.invisionfree.com/UN_Old_Guard/index.php?showtopic=667&view=findpost&p=7601063) ...]

Why is this even a discussion, according to the poll, over half of those who responded felt it was an issue that each nation should decide for itself

What I said in my original post seems to sound alot like the poll topic.

Read the topic.

I didn't take the poll as you seem to think I did, but to save confussion I meant that if people feel that way, why souldn't they vote that way.

Enn disagrees with the statement in the repeal about the morality of euthanasia, and that is why Enn is voting against. Yes, I don't want the UN to make such a statement.
But its ok for them to make a statement thats for euthanasia.
Hypocritical? Never - this has been Enn's position throughout our entire time at the UN, despite near-revolution and Destabilisation
To me this does sound hypocriticle. you have merit with your complaint in that the repeal seems to favor one side. But your problem is that you're pushing your agenda upon all nations and that isn't fair.

But its ok for them to make a statement thats for euthanasia.

To me this does sound hypocriticle. you have merit with your complaint in that the repeal seems to favor one side. But your problem is that you're pushing your agenda upon all nations and that isn't fair.
How is it hypocritical to say that I don't like it because I don't agree with what it says?

Also, I never claimed to be 'fair'.
However, I believe that it is more important to be fair to the people of nations in providing euthanasia, than to be fair to those nations.

To me this does sound hypocriticle. you have merit with your complaint in that the repeal seems to favor one side. But your problem is that you're pushing your agenda upon all nations and that isn't fair.

That's incorrect. Enn has stated being against the denouncement of euthanasia throughout the entire debate.

That's incorrect. Enn has stated being against the denouncement of euthanasia throughout the entire debate.

Either a really good memory, a really good researcher, or very pro-Enn. Which is it?

Either a really good memory, a really good researcher, or very pro-Enn. Which is it?
...? What are you getting at?

...? What are you getting at?

Would it help if I used a smiley? :p

Would it help if I used a smiley? :p

Trust me, it does. When blood's boiling around you, no matter how calm you might be or how calm your opponents might be, they're still guarded against the attack.

-----------------------

MacDougall smiled upon the delusional drunkard that looked like he would fall flat on his face at any moment.

"One wonders how such people can call us hypocrites. The funny thing is, while anti-euthanasia might be called extremists, and we've been called extremists and merely shrugged at the label, it is members such as the recently removed President of Omigodtheykilledkenny that continually show their extremism in the UN while his ambassador continues to stand firm to the concept that they are not extremists - as if all concepts are one dimensional, all graphs have only two endpoints, and the world is only shades of gray when so many other colors fill it in and add another range of scopes for us to consider."

"One wonders why he would call us hypocrites when he himself has spent so long labelling IntFeds as extremists yet remaining in full denial when they respond that he is an extremist at the other end.

Hypocritical we are not. Our statements are indicators that we do not wish to see a statement we disagree with. That's not hypocracy. We aren't saying we would rather the UN take no position than take a position we disagree with, we're saying that we disagree with a statement and don't want that to be the UN's statement. I am sure that if we had a proposal saying that no nation has any sovereignty, the representatives from the sovereigntist camp would be up in arms opposing such a claim. Is it hypocritical for them to say they don't believe the UN should make such a claim? I think not. It is their opinion, and they don't want to have the UN state such an opinion that they would disagree with. Certainly, if the opinion gets passed, they move on and lick their wounds, ready for the next fight, but if they can prevent such an opinion being rubber stamped by the UN, then they will fight for it.

So you tell me, what is so hypocritical about wishing to have an influence on the UN's agenda?"

Enn disagrees with the statement in the repeal about the morality of euthanasia, and that is why Enn is voting against. Yes, I don't want the UN to make such a statement.

The morality of euthanasia is irrelevant. The issue is with the bounds of the UN's authority. Morality is subjective, and should thus be ruled on by individual nations, not by the UN as a whole to bind all nations to its subjective decision. Repealing the "legalize euthanasia" resolution allows each nation to decide for itself. The arguments within the resolution for repeal are bias, not wonderfully written, and not very important. What matters is the intra-national nature of the "legalize euthanasia" resolution, a nature which intrudes on the sovereignty of member nations. Thus, repeal is necessary and right.

(As a sidenote, all arguments are bias, including this one. However, noting this, it follows that bias decisions should be made as locally as possible, to most please the people who feel the bias in question. And it then follows that the UN, being the most distant governing body, should NOT be making a law one way or the other regarding euthanasia. Hence, the repeal "legalize euthanasia" resolution. I guess it wasn't really a SIDEnote, but w/e)

Hypocritical we are not. Our statements are indicators that we do not wish to see a statement we disagree with. That's not hypocracy. We aren't saying we would rather the UN take no position than take a position we disagree with, we're saying that we disagree with a statement and don't want that to be the UN's statement. I am sure that if we had a proposal saying that no nation has any sovereignty, the representatives from the sovereigntist camp would be up in arms opposing such a claim. Is it hypocritical for them to say they don't believe the UN should make such a claim? I think not. It is their opinion, and they don't want to have the UN state such an opinion that they would disagree with. Certainly, if the opinion gets passed, they move on and lick their wounds, ready for the next fight, but if they can prevent such an opinion being rubber stamped by the UN, then they will fight for it.

Once again, this is irrelevant. The "statements" within an argument within a resolution for repeal, whether you agree with them or not, really don't matter diddley squat. What matters is the original resolution, and whether or not it should continue to exist. In this case, I believe it should not, because it infringes on nations' sovereignty, imposing a morally bias opinion on all (I happen to agree with the opinion - I believe euthanasia should be legal - but the resolution should still be repealed, because, I repeat, morality is subjective and should be left up to each individual member nation.

The morality of euthanasia is irrelevant. The issue is with the bounds of the UN's authority.
That is a matter for consideration, yes. It is the opinion of Enn that it is completely within the UN authority to pass resolution pertaining to issues such as this. Indeed, I believe it is the duty of the UN to uphold human rights, and to protect individual people from the excesses of nations.

Once again, this is irrelevant. The "statements" within an argument within a resolution for repeal, whether you agree with them or not, really don't matter diddley squat. What matters is the original resolution, and whether or not it should continue to exist. In this case, I believe it should not, because it infringes on nations' sovereignty, imposing a morally bias opinion on all (I happen to agree with the opinion - I believe euthanasia should be legal - but the resolution should still be repealed, because, I repeat, morality is subjective and should be left up to each individual member nation.
This is a matter of continuing debate as to whether the arguments for a repeal really matter. I believe they do, as do many others. Indeed, I regard them as the most imnportant part of whether Enn should support any repeal.

Again, I accept that morality is subjective. That's why I believe the UN should pass resolutions on matters like this, as they truly allow individual people - not nations - to decide whether they are morally going to do something. Guess I'm an Individual Sovereigntist after all.

I do belive this should be legalized.NO person should be meant to suffer.It is the individuals wish to stop the pain,I see this not as a form of suicide but a form of realease.I may rule a small dictatorship but one thing is for sure,I do not want my people to suffer in their last hour.Despite my harsh laws this matter is on a completely different scale.Neo Industria will fold and will further push their support for Euthanasias legality.

I am strongly for this bill, however, in saying that, I don't really think it is an issue for the UN. I think this is more of an issue every nation should decide for themselves. Ever heard of state sovereignty? ;)

Definately for this bill, though, no one should have to suffer, and the positives of the bill outweight any negatives.

But its ok for them to make a statement thats for euthanasia.

To me this does sound hypocriticle. you have merit with your complaint in that the repeal seems to favor one side. But your problem is that you're pushing your agenda upon all nations and that isn't fair.

It is my understand that they want to repeal this because it is one-sided in that it legalizes euthanasia.. and make one that allows nations to take and individaul stand on the issue without having it legalized. Any statement in this repeal is off center and not in proper respect to the reason or one of them that they want to repeal it. As they are saying in effect that euthanasia is a bad thing.. thus moving to that side in the repeal.. they need to remain neutral and just since one of their reason for the repeal was that the resolution is to one side because it legalizes euthanasia and doesn't let individaul nations decide on that...

Thus for me showing they want this one out of way to bring in one to ban euthanasia complety or limit it so much that nations who do legalize them no longer can do them according to their laws in place now. As most nations comply with the current resolution and still have limits/restirctions on euthanasia to prevent abuse of the procedure by anyone. Thus it's not something without laws to regulate it and the current resolution has nothing in it to stop the regulation of euthanasia... thus certain groups want the current resolution out of the way so they can put their own regulations on the issue. Thus in fact removing all rights of the individual nations to do it their own way.

You can't walk on the top of the fence and eat from both sides as you have to maintain balace to stay on top.. they went to one side in their comments..

Thus I have voted agains this and hope others will see what is going on here and also vote against this repeal and leave this issue on euthanasia where it belongs and is under the current resolution in the individual nations to deal with.

Ever heard of state sovereignty? ;.:As this says the current resolution does nothing.. this means it mandates that states or nations do nothing... thus in action it leaves the laws for euthanasia up to each individual nation to make according to their desires. Statements in the repeal indicate to me and others that this group wants this out of the way so they can move this issue to one side thus taking it out of the nations and moving it to the wishes of a small group to decided what happens with euthanasia. Depending on who gets to floor first and convences enough to vote you may find you have to perform eurhanasia in a manner you don't like that is against your current laws you set on it... or you will voilate the terms of some new resolution that is to one side. and mandates you to their side.

ARGUES that euthanasia proposes to eliminate suffering by eliminating the one who suffers. Euthanasia violates the principle that each human being has intrinsic dignity and value, regardless of age, physical or mental condition, or state of dependency.

I just took another look at this line in the repeal and wonder why they in a to be resolution would want to be ARGUING on something... As UN resolutions should be bringing individual nations together not having them ARGUING over something... Then again the statement itself ventures to me to one side on this issue which would take it out of some individual nations hands to decide what they want to do on this matter and put it in the hands of other nations to decide. Correct me if I'm wrong but in order to be neutral on an issue you take neither side just in turn say go do it your way... Not mandate they do it this way... which is what most want on euthanasia...

As to legalize it don't mandate you go out and perform it.. without some restrictions and limits to prevent abuse of the procedure and making to person worse off than they might be before it is applied or taking away other medical procedures because this is cheaper.. as you can make laws on this based on individual nations belief on the issue... thus it's now in the hands of each nation not in the hands of the UN as to what you do legaly as euthanasia.

Hirota opposes any interference by the state in this matter. This is fundamentally a personal matter, and that personal freedom has been protected until now by the UN resolution.

Yet again we have cries of national soverignty infringing on human rights.

This resolution at vote has the full support of New kLemon for two reasons

1. This is not an issue the UN should be making a decision on because euthanasia is not a "human right", or at least that is what we believe.

2. We are against euthanasia for religious reasons. Other nations may scoff and not take this as a valid argument but IT IS! The references to religion in resolution 43 are intolerable and even them alone make a good enough reason for a repeal. My response to that part of r43 is this: A person in a painful terminal condition has been given that condition by God, and euthanasia is a cop-out.
We also oppose euthanasia for non-religious reasons and more about this side of the argument has been put forward already by Adolf Barham: sometimes the patient does not want to die, but the hospital staff see him/her as an inconvenience and do away with the patient. This is common practice in The Netherlands, where euthanasia is legal.

That was one I was about to approve. I really like ALL of it and was getting ready to approve it until I read the very last sentence:



That line was part of the teeth of the bill and I'm just not sure what I think of that line yet. Everything else about that bill I whole heartedly support. I don't believe poverty or inadequate education leads to making one a terrorist. But it should answer your question that if that last sentence were not there, I would have added my approval to that bill.

As Gruen's already pointed out, I inserted that clause simply to appeal to the fluffies, and I don't believe poverty, etc. cause terrorism. The clause does absolutely jack shit. It's all about playing politics. ;) You should reconsider approving the proposal.

The morality of euthanasia is irrelevant. The issue is with the bounds of the UN's authority. Morality is subjective, and should thus be ruled on by individual nations, not by the UN as a whole to bind all nations to its subjective decision. Repealing the "legalize euthanasia" resolution allows each nation to decide for itself. The arguments within the resolution for repeal are bias, not wonderfully written, and not very important. What matters is the intra-national nature of the "legalize euthanasia" resolution, a nature which intrudes on the sovereignty of member nations. Thus, repeal is necessary and right.

(As a sidenote, all arguments are bias, including this one. However, noting this, it follows that bias decisions should be made as locally as possible, to most please the people who feel the bias in question. And it then follows that the UN, being the most distant governing body, should NOT be making a law one way or the other regarding euthanasia. Hence, the repeal "legalize euthanasia" resolution. I guess it wasn't really a SIDEnote, but w/e)



Once again, this is irrelevant. The "statements" within an argument within a resolution for repeal, whether you agree with them or not, really don't matter diddley squat. What matters is the original resolution, and whether or not it should continue to exist. In this case, I believe it should not, because it infringes on nations' sovereignty, imposing a morally bias opinion on all (I happen to agree with the opinion - I believe euthanasia should be legal - but the resolution should still be repealed, because, I repeat, morality is subjective and should be left up to each individual member nation.

It took us 13 pages to explain it to PSB and now you're going after it? Does absolutely NO ONE learn?

Not everyone votes based on the same beliefs you do. For many of us, the arguments mean one HELL of a lot. If you want to support proposals that you agree with, that's your perogative. However, there is a spirit to these proposals that exists in the wording and I refuse to support a proposal with a spirit I disagree with.

1. This is not an issue the UN should be making a decision on because euthanasia is not a "human right", or at least that is what we believe.I think this is the point where I need to explain my reasoning further. I feel that euthanasia is an extension of the most fundamental right of all - the right to life. The right to life is not a right simply to exist, but is a right to life with a minimum quality and value. Whilst death can be considered the antithesis of life, it is also part of life itself. People have the right to try and make the events in their lives as good as possible, so they have the right to try to make their dying as good as possible. If the dying process is unpleasant, people should have the right to shorten it, and thus reduce the unpleasantness.

I accept that people also have obligations - to their friends and family, to their doctors and nurses, to society in general and that these obligations can limit their right to die. However, these obligations do not outweigh a person's right to refuse medical treatment that they do not want. Whilst this can be more unpleasant, doctors should be able to make treatment available that can improve the "pleasantness" of dying, even if that may speed the process along, rather than letting the patient die in discomfort. This is Passive Euthanasia, Perhaps the most common form of passive euthanasia is to give a patient large doses of morphine to control pain, in spite of the likelihood that the pain-killer will suppress respiration and cause death earlier than it would otherwise have happened. Such doses of pain killers have a dual effect of relieving pain and hastening death.

this resolution is crap and in such should be repealed. the UN should only be involved in matters that concern all nations not whether or not this nation is humane enough to put old dead people in their grave a few days sooner. i joined the UN in hopes to set it back on the right track and i will fight tooth and nail all of you socialistic commies that want to tell the rest of us how to run our nations. :upyours:


i love playing devils advocate

i joined the UN in hopes to set it back on the right track and i will fight tooth and nail all of you socialistic commies that want to tell the rest of us how to run our nations.

Well, that certaibly is a different argument. Though at times like this I almost wish Letila was still around to give a good lecture. Then I remember what they were like.

I vote AGAINST the repeal.

I believe in the liberal principal that the individual has power over their own body insofar as it does not affect anyone else's rights. This issue is very different from abortion in that their is only one life at stake: that of the individual, and so I can see no legitimate reason for outlawing it, other than religious reasons. But religious principles should only be applied (voluntarily) to/by followers of that religion. If someone is morally opposed to euthanasia then they do not need to do it. If they are not opposed to euthanasia then they should be allowed to have it, and certainly should not be denied it because of someone else's religious persuasions.

I didn't realise that the pro-abortion legislation had been repealed. I would argue that we need to bring that law back. I believe that abortion should be available for those who want/need it, and if people are morally opposed to it then they do not need to have one.

Both euthansia and abortion are basically freedom of choice issues.

I vote AGAINST the repeal.

I believe in the liberal principal that the individual has power over their own body insofar as it does not affect anyone else's rights. This issue is very different from abortion in that their is only one life at stake: that of the individual, and so I can see no legitimate reason for outlawing it, other than religious reasons. But religious principles should only be applied (voluntarily) to/by followers of that religion. If someone is morally opposed to euthanasia then they do not need to do it. If they are not opposed to euthanasia then they should be allowed to have it, and certainly should not be denied it because of someone else's religious persuasions.

I didn't realise that the pro-abortion legislation had been repealed. I would argue that we need to bring that law back. I believe that abortion should be available for those who want/need it, and if people are morally opposed to it then they do not need to have one.

Both euthansia and abortion are basically freedom of choice issues.We like you. Have a cookie.
http://www.bakeco.com/choc%20chip%20cookie.jpg

But religious principles should only be applied (voluntarily) to/by followers of that religion.

Alfred Sweynsson mutters something about the UN having a rule against proposals banning ideologies, and the fact that the existence of theocratic governments (with some particular religion's rules applied to everybody in each of the countries concerned) should presumably be protected by this...

but what does this have to do with the UN. absolutly nothing.

Well, that certaibly is a different argument. Though at times like this I almost wish Letila was still around to give a good lecture. Then I remember what they were like.Oh God... please no...

Alfred Sweynsson mutters something about the UN having a rule against proposals banning ideologies, and the fact that the existence of theocratic governments (with some particular religion's rules applied to everybody in each of the countries concerned) should presumably be protected by this...One would argue that protecting resolutions protecting religous choice already undermines such an arguement, and that religous minorities should not be oppressed by the will of the masses.

Yet again we have cries of national soverignty infringing on human rights.

Yet again we have cries of human rights infringing on national sovereignty: I feel it necessary to remind the representative of Hirota, again, that the UN is an organisation of nations -- represented here by agents of their governments -- and not a layer of "superior" government elected by & for the peoples of the various countries concerned...

Yet again we have cries of human rights infringing on national sovereignty: I feel it necessary to remind the representative of Hirota, again, that the UN is an organisation of nations -- represented here by agents of their governments -- and not a layer of "superior" government elected by & for the peoples of the various countries concerned...

*raises a glass of Cluichstani whiskey in salute of the St Edmundan representative*

hear hear. i could have said it better. i just would have sais it alot more heated. :p

Yet again we have cries of human rights infringing on national sovereignty: I feel it necessary to remind the representative of Hirota, again, that the UN is an organisation of nations -- represented here by agents of their governments -- and not a layer of "superior" government elected by & for the peoples of the various countries concerned...It's exactly because there is no representation that my government continues to campaign to further recognition of peoples and their fundamental human rights. Just because they have no voice in this organisation does not mean we should be deaf to their needs. People are the most fundamental and common denominator present in all nations regardless of creed, faith, ideology, economy, technology or government, and member states would do well to remember that.

Like the sig says - we care for your populace more than you do.

Here we go again ... the repeated pronouncements of superiority by a delegation having taken upon itself the herculean feat of shouldering all the world's humanity and morality. You know, you can stop with the hero act already; most of us were sick of it about twenty floor debates ago ... :rolleyes:

Alex Tehrani
Secretary of State

Like the sig says - we care for your populace more than you do.

The people of Cluichstan neither need nor want you caring for them.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

The people of Airatum support this repeal, and urge our fellow citizens of the world to do likewise. "Legalise Euthanasia" needs to be struck down, regardless of individual belief for or against euthanasia.

Respectfully,
Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

Here we go again ... the repeated pronouncements of superiority by a delegation having taken upon itself the herculean feat of shouldering all the world's humanity and morality. You know, you can stop with the hero act already; most of us were sick of it about twenty floor debates ago ...

Alex Tehrani
Secretary of State

"We care more about your nation's security than you do."

I find it interesting that hypocracy has been brought up so recently in this debate. The lines from Hirota and UN DEFCON are excellent simply because they show the entire issue so simply and clearly. To summarize "I think that X is more important for the UN to address than you do". Interestingly, IndSovs aren't badgering DEFCONers about telling us how to run our nations. You have the right to decide what you feel is a priority. Obviously, we're more concerned about the use of landmines harming civilians than we are about whether terrorists are going to bomb our cities, but that's a matter of opinion and we can have the debate at a later point.

Yet here is a member who keeps complaining about the idea that IndSovs feel themselves to be "morally superior" for tackling human rights, for feeling that this should be on the agenda of the UN and that it is something important, while he, himself, has shown the exact same arrogance, the same "moral superiority" of "this issue should have been legislated on" mere months ago over the Counterterrorism debate. Admittedly, his response has not been as pronounced and continuous as his fellow ambassador from Cluichstan, but his message is the same and he has said it at least once on the floor outside the debate. How hypocritical of him to complain about our "moral superiority".

Here we go again ... the repeated pronouncements of superiority by a delegation having taken upon itself the herculean feat of shouldering all the world's humanity and morality. You know, you can stop with the hero act already; most of us were sick of it about twenty floor debates ago ... :rolleyes:OOC: It does sound a tad arrogant doesn't it? That's not the intention OOCly of course. I make no judgements about superiority, and neither should you.

IC: Someone has to try and make up for the failures of other governments. And if you don't like what someone says about something, rather than bitching about it, don't listen.

Moreover, we are superior to you. It's not a pronouncement, it's a fact. ;)The people of Cluichstan neither need nor want you caring for them.Bah, I know you Cluichistani's just need a bit of love. :p

Yet again we have cries of human rights infringing on national sovereignty: I feel it necessary to remind the representative of Hirota, again, that the UN is an organisation of nations -- represented here by agents of their governments -- and not a layer of "superior" government elected by & for the peoples of the various countries concerned...

We believe that human rights require, and deserve, more protection than national sovereignty. Firstly, because national sovereignty is merely a legal and politcal concept. Secondly, the purpose of a nation state is to act in the interests of the nation it serves. NB: the state should serve the nation, and not vice versa.

Obviously much of my arguments are based on a liberal ideology, but that's my prerogative, and it is our goal to universalise it.

But even if we were to look at communitarian values instead, euthanasia poses no threat to the community or the state either. If anything, it would benefit the community by reducing the resources and funding required by the health service, by allowing the terminally ill to end their suffering rather than spend potentially months in hospital.

So then, only theocracies remain. But if the individual chooses to sin and have euthanasia enacted, let God judge them when they go to Hell or whatever else you believe.

It's exactly because there is no representation that my government continues to campaign to further recognition of peoples and their fundamental human rights. Just because they have no voice in this organisation does not mean we should be deaf to their needs. People are the most fundamental and common denominator present in all nations regardless of creed, faith, ideology, economy, technology or government, and member states would do well to remember that.

Like the sig says - we care for your populace more than you do.

The government of the St Edmundan Antarctic is quite capable of looking after the rights of this nation's people, just as the government of St Edmund itself is capable of looking after the rights of its people... and we see those rights as including the right to a society based on the moral standards which those people themselves, acting through their democratically elected representatives, consider suitable even if those are based on a somewhat more 'conservative' viewpoint than you are happy with.
Our opposition to UN regulation in the 'Human Rights' field isn't based on some wish to oppress our peoples, and it isn't just due to a nationalistic dislike of foreign meddling (by a body in whose policies, after all, many undemocratic regimes also have a say too...) or to the distaste for the kind of secular 'liberalism' that you are apparently trying to promote either: We also wish to keep the scope of UN resolutions limited in order to avoid setting a precedent for intrusive resolutions of various other kinds -- which you might well find as unacceptable as we would -- too...
Or, to put it another way, there's nothing in the UN's actual rules that gives the 'Human Rights 'catgeory any innate superiority over the 'Moral Decency' and 'Political Stability' ones...

I find it interesting that hypocracy has been brought up so recently in this debate. The lines from Hirota and UN DEFCON are excellent simply because they show the entire issue so simply and clearly. To summarize "I think that X is more important for the UN to address than you do". Interestingly, IndSovs aren't badgering DEFCONers about telling us how to run our nations. You have the right to decide what you feel is a priority. Obviously, we're more concerned about the use of landmines harming civilians than we are about whether terrorists are going to bomb our cities, but that's a matter of opinion and we can have the debate at a later point.

Yet here is a member who keeps complaining about the idea that IndSovs feel themselves to be "morally superior" for tackling human rights, for feeling that this should be on the agenda of the UN and that it is something important, while he, himself, has shown the exact same arrogance, the same "moral superiority" of "this issue should have been legislated on" mere months ago over the Counterterrorism debate. Admittedly, his response has not been as pronounced and continuous as his fellow ambassador from Cluichstan, but his message is the same and he has said it at least once on the floor outside the debate. How hypocritical of him to complain about our "moral superiority".[OOC: DEFCON's motto is a joke. Don't really get how simply thinking a piece of legislation is important is being "morally superior"; it isn't thinking that human rights are important that offends me. It's the supremely arrogant tone of such "IndSovs" who deem it their mission in this body to save "backward" nations from themselves.]

We believe that human rights require, and deserve, more protection than national sovereignty. Firstly, because national sovereignty is merely a legal and politcal concept. Secondly, the purpose of a nation state is to act in the interests of the nation it serves. NB: the state should serve the nation, and not vice versa.

And an overwhelming majority of the people in our nation oppose legalised euthanasia, and have said so through their democratically-elected representatives...

Obviously much of my arguments are based on a liberal ideology, but that's my prerogative, and it is our goal to universalise it.

And holding a more conservative ideology than you do is amongst my prerogatives, and seeking to keep you from universalising your creed -- without trying to force my own views on your nation's people -- is one of my goals, and I'm just as entitled as you to have goals...

But even if we were to look at communitarian values instead, euthanasia poses no threat to the community or the state either. If anything, it would benefit the community by reducing the resources and funding required by the health service, by allowing the terminally ill to end their suffering rather than spend potentially months in hospital.

So, do you also "reduce the resources and funding required by the health service" by carrying out the involuntary euthanasia of those whom your society considers to have become useless? That would seem to be a logical extension of this argument, but doesn't go very well with your remarks about human rights...

So then, only theocracies remain.

And democratic nations whose governments are elected by people many of whom have a more religious viewpoint than yours: Can you understand that concept?