NationStates Jolt Archive

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...

No, because involuntary euthanasia would be against our liberal ideology.


And democratic nations whose governments are elected by people many of whom have a more religious viewpoint than yours: Can you understand [i]that concept?[/QUOTE]

I was commenting more on the difference between liberal & illiberal societies (e.g. communitarian or theocratic) as opposed to different government structures.

[OOC: DEFCON's motto is a joke.

What, you think Hirota's motto isn't a bit tongue-in-cheek?

I have added my support for this resolution.

I feel that an issue like this directly affects each member nation in different ways, and it therefore should be decided by the individual nation and not the United Nations.

[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's not simply 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.]And one day your population will be amongst those thanking the government of Hirota for trying. ;)

Anyhow, speaking for myself, we don't give a monkeys about the nations. It's the people I care about (or as you put it, my "mission"), which is not exactly the same thing.

And FYI, I think I'm the only one who sits comfortably with the label IndSov, others prefer different labels.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.Good for you, I'm not about to get into the nitty-gritty of saying what St Edmundan policies I approve of and which I don't. Not really bothered about them.Our opposition to UN regulation in the 'Human Rights' field isn't based on some wish to oppress our peoples,Again, good for you, others do have such sinsiter aims.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...)Fair enough.

OOC:Although, just out of interest, why did St Edmund leave the UN? I was going to have a little snipe at that, but I doubt you left for such petty reasons, and I can't rightly recall why.or to the distaste for the kind of secular 'liberalism' that you are apparently trying to promote either:Well, I'd hardly call it liberalism - I'm just focusing on the fundamentals, but I suppose you could a liberal slant to some of my slips.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...I rarely get phased by unacceptable policies. I think I could live with anything that comes my way. If it really ticked me off, I'd campaign against it, repeal it or whatever. But Hirota is never going to resign from the UN because something comes along we don't like.
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...No, there isn't. But National Soverignty would have you think political stability is superior to Human rights. The actual answer is there is a balance, and that is where the debate sits, not about which is more important, but where on a fulcrim between the 3 categories does the UN balance at the moment? Right now, it's leaning precariously away from human rights. I've said for a very long time that Hirota craves balance, and that balance is not present.What, you think Hirota's motto isn't a bit tongue-in-cheek?Just to confirm, it is indeed meant tongue-in-cheek.

"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?"Oh, I never said "hypocritical"; in fact, I don't think the president said "hypocritical," either. I'll even scan his speech just to make sure ... Nope (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11141484&highlight=hypocritical#post11141484); the word doesn't appear anywhere in the transcript. We wonder whether it is guilt that compels the Forgotten delegation to indict itself for hypocrisy?

What we do recall the president faulting among some members of this body was their "holier-than-thou" attitude, and the presumption that just because they disagree with something (in this case moral objections to euthanasia), it must be morally repugnant to the entire UN voting body, and it must be rejected for the sake of upholding their own biases. Disagreeing with such statements and voting against them and convincing others to follow suit is one thing; declaring such statements as beneath the UN just because you personally disagree is quite another.

The only thing left is your delegation's (irrelevant) claims that we deny our own "extremism." Look, when we see to our right some of the largest and most powerful regions in the NS community who deem it the UN's only legitimate function to repeal everything it's passed, and to our left quite a few influential nations who are convinced the UN's mandate includes interfering with member states' medical, reproductive and family-law statutes, we can only conclude we are somewhere in the middle. Please don't kid yourselves into thinking you're moderates, too, or that somehow we both are extremist, just because a few nations here are slightly more extreme than you are.

And if that's oversimplifying matters, fine, we'll take it. You yourselves have been accused (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11132562#post11132562) of the same with your repeated attempts at factionalizing this body.

Alex Tehrani
Secretary of State

Greetings everybody,

The fact of the matter is that people DESERVE human rights. Now one of the fundamental human rights is the right to life, in so giving that shouldn't we give people the right to choose their own death?

I acknowledge that if this appeal succeeds it won't make euthanasia illegal but it WILL give nations the opportunity to make euthanasia illegal. Just ask yourself, would you want to be in a position where you had to accept a slow, painful death meted out to you by fate or would you die on your own terms?

While the margin was close, it was a majority that passed the original legislature. What this repeal represents is a request for a recount by a group of nations that didn't get their own way.

Ultimately, I will point out that no matter what the UN decides and no matter what a nation decides is legal or illegal, there will be people with the strength of will and the bravery to defy both.

So give people their rights, otherwise people will take them.

-Elwood, President of the Blues Brothers Band, UN Delegate of The Pantomime.

And one day your population will be amongst those thanking the government of Hirota for trying. ;)Really? UN mandates apply to the Federal Republic now?

On of the major issues I have with this repeal is that if passed it will formally state that the UN members consider euthanasia is immoral. This is not so. If a repeal was produced that stated only that at this time the UN members feel that it is up to individual nations to decide on the issue of Euthanasia I would be more likely to support. However I would like to remind my fellow members that minority forces its views and opinions on the majority all the time. That is effect of politiacal correctness, and special interest groups.

TRY LATER....I think this should be repealed and a new one put in... for example one that at least spelt it's own name right. But this is a mess It contradicits itself has a spelling mistake too actulay.


controverial


This has the basic idea right. The other proposal also is a mess but if this passes it will scare the face of the united nations forever. I think you should make a new one that makes more since. Anyway I am already making a new one of this that will be better presented. The Nat-Sovs are normaly orgainized and smart I have to say if they had done this well I would not be agaist this so much. But at the current state of things I belive it is better to make a new repeal and have people look over it well.

I think you'll recall that I complained about the Gruenberg delegation's failure to realize my opinions and oversimplify their understanding of how I view the UN. How I can be held accountable for their dilusionary concepts of how I view the UN can hardly be held against me. Do you disagree with my rebuttle, about my claims that my concepts are much more complex than the Gruenberg delegates have given credit for? I'm reminded, somewhat, of ALC where the NSO was credited with its work and all the members of NSO got offended that they would be lumped into a group like that - as if it were a crime to be associated with the resolution. I found it rather humorous, especially when one considers that so many of those same members speak of ALC with such pride.

But alas, you are correct. We've scanned the transcripts and apparently it was the fellow ambassador from Enn that brought the term to bear. Where it originated from him, we are not certain. Certainly, the delegation from Phoot decided to run with it and it was that delegation with which we took considerable issue. While certainly there might be question of whether we hold a holier-than-thou, I find it rather humorous that a sovereigntist such as you would complain about a concept being "beneath the UN" when sovereigntists seem to generally feel that it is "beneath the UN" to "infringe on nation's sovereignty".

Greetings distinguished deligates of the United Nations. I received word of this debate through our representative The Monk and I thought this sounded so interesting that I would take the trip from Tzorsland and see for myself.

Now let me see if I can understand your argument so far, if you will allow me to paraphraise it, "Like we can't approve this appeal because it's got like these moral metaphysical cooties in it and if we approve the repeal the moral metaphysical cooties will remain in the UN like forever."

Well I'll leave it to the more experienced to insert meinacal laughter at this point, but this has got to be the lamest excuse for action I have ever seen in my incredably long life so far. I'm sorry, but I couldn't give a wit for moral metaphysical cooties. If this resolution repealed those moral metaphysical cooties would not in the slightest prevent me from implementing Non Voluntany Euthanasia on the spot and enact laws allowing hospitals short on resources from overrulling living wills and other annoyances in life. That stupid resolution which is titled "patients rights" might cause me problems but the moral fluff in a repeal I could not give a damm about, and frankly neither do those gnomes.

Now, if you will excuse me, I have to check in on my representative. OUr representative, the Meddling Monk, still thinks he runs Tzorsland from his laptop in the UN Starbucks. I really would like him to continue to believe this clearly ridiculous fantasy. So please do not tell him of our little conversation. Otherwise I may have to add you to my collecion of mineature morons. Thank you.

I am the Master and you will obey me!

On of the major issues I have with this repeal is that if passed it will formally state that the UN members consider euthanasia is immoral. This is not so. If a repeal was produced that stated only that at this time the UN members feel that it is up to individual nations to decide on the issue of Euthanasia I would be more likely to support.

But the UN Secretariat (OOC: the Mods) would be more likely to delete it...

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...)

Fair enough.

OOC:Although, just out of interest, why did St Edmund leave the UN? I was going to have a little snipe at that, but I doubt you left for such petty reasons, and I can't rightly recall why.

The government of St Edmund felt that the 'Patients Rights Act' contained a number of significant flaws, as our ambassador pointed out during the relevant debate, and that putting up with the effects those would have on our health services was more than we were willing to do (OOC: and I didn't have the time available for RPing attempts at coping with the effects of those details, but after all that complaining about them I'd have looked a bit silly just sitting back as if they weren't doing anything after all...).

On the general subject of 'Human Rights' levels, going by the UN's latest classifications of some nations:

St Edmundan Antarctic
Civil Rights = Excellent.

St Edmund
Civil Rights = Excellent.

Hirota
Civil Rights = Very Good.

Gwenstefani
Civil Rights = Good.

Now, who does it appear should be listening to whom? ;)

The fact of the matter is that people DESERVE human rights. Now one of the fundamental human rights is the right to life, in so giving that shouldn't we give people the right to choose their own death?

It's not like we're making suicide illegal.

There are fine lines and big shades of gray in this area, it's not as simple as you make it sound. Who decides? "Just the person" you might say, but what if they cannot communicate. The family? Define family. What about the doctor who feels he would be committing homocide if he followed the person's wishes? This resolution simply acknowledges we can't expect every country to treat all these gray areas the same.

It's not like we're making suicide illegal.

i think that this is discrimating. Is someone is disabled, or so ill they cannot kill themself it is discrimitaion not to let them kill themself. So for some people it is making suacide illeagal.

Just for the record lets clarify terms.

eu·tha·na·sia
n.
The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment.
From the Greek euthanasi, a good death

su·i·cide
n.
1. The act or an instance of intentionally killing oneself.
2. The destruction or ruin of one's own interests: It is professional suicide to involve oneself in illegal practices.
3. One who commits suicide.

Repeal "Legalise Euthanasia"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.

Hmm, this repeal quite clearly states that euthanasia violates human rights and you are telling us that it wouldn't make euthanasia illegal?

Resolution 43 has some problems, but when I must choose between it and this repeal, I must choose the old resolution. Euthanasia is nothing more than suicide and if someone is in such condition that she or he cannot jump out of the nearest window something must be done to help this person. Especially if this person is in great pain and nothing can be done to cure it.

Resolution 43 only states that euthanasia is an legal option, it doesn't say in what kind of situations it could be used or who decides what. Each nation can make laws that will specify these things. Like some nation could draft a law that would allow euthanasia only to terminally ill people over 85 years. Some other nation could make a law that everyone could have euthanasia for no reason at all.

So the nations already have the possibility to allow euthanasia or they can make it nearly impossible by setting strict rules.

The Domionion of Liemannen has voted against this repeal.

It's not like we're making suicide illegal.
Don't worry, they will.

On of the major issues I have with this repeal is that if passed it will formally state that the UN members consider euthanasia is immoral. This is not so. If a repeal was produced that stated only that at this time the UN members feel that it is up to individual nations to decide on the issue of Euthanasia I would be more likely to support. However I would like to remind my fellow members that minority forces its views and opinions on the majority all the time. That is effect of politiacal correctness, and special interest groups.

personally, i think it's a minority of people who support euthanasia, and those deluded people who think of it as a human right. If euthanasia is a human right, then so is suicide. In that case, why is suicide illegal and undebated?!

personally, i think it's a minority of people who support euthanasia, and those deluded people who think of it as a human right. If euthanasia is a human right, then so is suicide. In that case, why is suicide illegal and undebated?!
Suicide is not illegal in Golgothastan. And it's "undebated" because this isn't a debate about suicide.

Your assertion that a minority supports euthanasia doesn't seem to have anything to back it up: after all, supporters of this repeal have been quick to stress this "isn't about euthanasia - it's about national sovereignty". Whilst that's total shit, it means the vote for the repeal is not necessarily a vote against euthanasia.

personally, i think it's a minority of people who support euthanasia, and those deluded people who think of it as a human right. If euthanasia is a human right, then so is suicide. In that case, why is suicide illegal and undebated?!

And yet....somehow.....despite being argued in an emotive manner, the original resolution passed.

One must wonder truly how small that "minority" is.

personally, i think it's a minority of people who support euthanasia, and those deluded people who think of it as a human right. If euthanasia is a human right, then so is suicide. In that case, why is suicide illegal and undebated?!


In jovic, suicide is only illegal if you are using it as a means to escape your contract to your employer. At the end of their contract, a citizen of Jovic is free to kill themselves if they wish to. However their surving kin will be charged a cleanup fee if they kill themselves in a public place.

Those that support this motion are not seeing the big picture. The very existance of our world depends on this issue.
Imagine a world where everybody was happy? No suffering, no pain. Everyone just got on with thier daily lives, with a smile on their face. :)
If the supporters of this amendment have their way, it will be pain and anguish for all.
Mark my words: This is only the first step in their fiendish plan! Next, all pain killers will be illegal. Then hospitals, followed by the entire medical profession. When you have to walk through the lines of dying people, their screams for mercy echoing through your brain, you will think of this day, and wish you had voted against this proposal.

You have got to be kidding!! This, although worded badly, is not a first step against the abolishment of all medicines and hospital care. I believe there is still an endorsement of patient rights here.
b5cmdrmo
Prime Minister of Jacobic

What was it that was mentioned at the beginning of this now 19 page debate?

"Such a proposal would bring unity to the UN"? Something to that effect, am I right?

On behalf of anyone who may have been thinking the same thing that I am, "I told you so."

The topic has, as predicted, ballooned to include suicide, murder, abortion, the credibility of most of the members involved in the debate, and the purpose of the argument in a repeal. I bite my thumb at you, ye who follows in the steps of Machiavelli. I may not be a Prince (Just a UNA and an MP), but I certainly don't have to employ methods that I don't agree with to achieve the results I need. If the dam is bursting, we plug it up to save the towns below, NOT because we enjoy the eyesore reminder of the land we f*cked up above it. The argument makes a difference. Shiny? The whole point of doing something is because it is a rational, reasonable thing to do that will improve the circumstances we are living in. Regardless of our stance on the Resolution up for repeal, we do not agree with the argument in the repeal, SO WE'RE NOT GONNA VOTE FOR IT!

-Tommo the Stout returns to watching Lewis Black on his laptop, reclining once again into his hammock-



Tommo the Stout
UN Ambassador of Norderia
North Sea

I believe there is still an endorsement of patient rights here.
b5cmdrmo
Prime Minister of Jacobic

Of course we still have an endorsement of patient rights.. For now.. Once we start chipping away at these rights, they will all be gone before anyone realises the damage that has been done.
This is only the first step to removing the rights of people throughout the world.
We should not legislate what people can or cannot do with their own lives. But this is exaclty what the supporters of this bill want! They want an end to freedom, democracy, and, dare I say it... The United Nations itself...

Vote NO on #43!

this is not about removing rights from the world it's about removing the UN from making decision that it has no right to make. it's you socialistic commies that make me sick. you claim you are doing this for human rights but in doing so you take away the god given right for us to choose. it is our choice. our nations. not the F***'N UN :upyours:

personally, i think it's a minority of people who support euthanasia, and those deluded people who think of it as a human right. If euthanasia is a human right, then so is suicide. In that case, why is suicide illegal and undebated?!

The apparent realisation suicide had been outlawed while she was away was news to her. In one quick glare to her assistant Lydia made quite clear his objective. To say the least the poor boy's exit was rather quick almost knocking the Jovic representative clean off his feet on route.

“While I note the honourable member's comments and may stand corrected on this later, but to my current knowledge the UN has not outlawed suicide.”

I guess we’ll see, where’s that boy gone!

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

this is not about removing rights from the world it's about removing the UN from making decision that it has no right to make. it's you socialistic commies that make me sick. you claim you are doing this for human rights but in doing so you take away the god given right for us to choose. it is our choice. our nations. not the F***'N UN :upyours:

1. Who are you talking to?

2. Socialistic commie is... Well the term escapes me now, but it's akin to "oxymoron." Just, not as strong. Maybe it includes the word ignorance in there.

3. The UN doesn't recognize God as a legal entity.

4. Have some pepto bismol. It'll help you feel better.

What was it that was mentioned at the beginning of this now 19 page debate?

"Such a proposal would bring unity to the UN"? Something to that effect, am I right?

On behalf of anyone who may have been thinking the same thing that I am, "I told you so."

The topic has, as predicted, ballooned to include suicide, murder, abortion, the credibility of most of the members involved in the debate, and the purpose of the argument in a repeal. I bite my thumb at you, ye who follows in the steps of Machiavelli. I may not be a Prince (Just a UNA and an MP), but I certainly don't have to employ methods that I don't agree with to achieve the results I need. If the dam is bursting, we plug it up to save the towns below, NOT because we enjoy the eyesore reminder of the land we f*cked up above it. The argument makes a difference. Shiny? The whole point of doing something is because it is a rational, reasonable thing to do that will improve the circumstances we are living in. Regardless of our stance on the Resolution up for repeal, we do not agree with the argument in the repeal, SO WE'RE NOT GONNA VOTE FOR IT!If you're saying that the arguments made in the actual repeal text are responsible for this ridiculous debate, it's just not so: the repeal (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Repeal_%22Gay_Rights%22) for Gay Rights was just about the most sympathetic and inoffensive argument that could have been devised to repeal that bill; the debate easily deteriorated into a highly emotional bitchfest regardless. However, we must agree that the arguments offered for this repeal are highly inept, and even though we would favor a repeal of UNR #43, we have voted against this one. Oh, and I'm surprised I managed to get through the spate of n00bishness that has clogged this debate over the last few hours without suffering a mild coronary.

Alex Tehrani
Secretary of State

Perhaps, since there are many issues that are best left to individual nations to decide, we should create a list of issues the UN cannot pass binding resolutions on. This list would probably include things like abortion, euthanasia, etc. What do you guys think of the idea?

One other thing, can you guys be a bit less agressive? Not to be rude, but it would be best to discuss these important issues without the violent gestures/ phrases.

this is not about removing rights from the world it's about removing the UN from making decision that it has no right to make. it's you socialistic commies that make me sick. you claim you are doing this for human rights but in doing so you take away the god given right for us to choose. it is our choice. our nations. not the F***'N UN :upyours:

ok I know that this response is not encouraged, nor is the person who uses it looked upon favorably.

Why are you part of the UN if you feel that everything should be a nation's choice?

I am mearly asking so that I might understand your veiwpoint better. In my opinion the UN serves as a way to make global laws. Since UN resolutions carry with them the full force of LAW and affect every member nation when they are passed, I would have to surmise that the framers of the UN had a similar view point. Thus I am curious as to why you deny the nations the choice to live under a global rule the right to choose to do so.

I am not suggesting that you leave the UN, I hope that we can continue to work out our differnces in a civil manor. I truely just wish to know why nations who believe so strongly in a nation's right to gover itself as it sees fit have chosen to become part of an orginization that was designed by its framers to enforce its resolutions on only its own members.

Again I am not saying you should leave, I mearly would like to understand.

BTW, UNR #43 does not limit choices...it expands them.

Those that support this motion are not seeing the big picture. The very existance of our world depends on this issue.
Imagine a world where everybody was happy? No suffering, no pain. Everyone just got on with thier daily lives, with a smile on their face. :)
If the supporters of this amendment have their way, it will be pain and anguish for all.
Mark my words: This is only the first step in their fiendish plan! Next, all pain killers will be illegal. Then hospitals, followed by the entire medical profession. When you have to walk through the lines of dying people, their screams for mercy echoing through your brain, you will think of this day, and wish you had voted against this proposal.[The Dedamned ambassador's cell phone rings:]

"Greetings, dumbass-- er, I mean 'Ambassador.' This is President Fernanda. I been watching this debate from my holding cell in the basement, and dude, I gotta say, it's shit arguments like yours that make me wish I'd committed suicide rather than visit the UN today." <click>

I would like to congratulate the good member Tehrani on avoiding an emotional breakdown from the less experienced in this debate. Even I've had to stop for a drink at one point.

I would also like to point out that it is not the arguments in the repeal that are the reason for the debate. Bringing the debate up was the reason for the debate. The resolution currently does nothing, and instead of wasting time and effort on a debate about something as unimportant as euthanasia instead of debating that, for example sadly has not reached quorum with Cluich's terrorism proposal, carries the slightest bit of weight!

It's euthanasia, for gods' sakes! Does it suck? It involves people dying and family's suffering, of COURSE it sucks! Is it that big of a freakin' deal to start up a long, tedious debate? "Nuts!"

That's part of the point of my little tyrade OMGTKK.

Tommo the Stout
et al

Perhaps, since there are many issues that are best left to individual nations to decide, we should create a list of issues the UN cannot pass binding resolutions on. This list would probably include things like abortion, euthanasia, etc. What do you guys think of the idea?Bad, if not illegal. If you want to declare that nations have the right to legislate on whatever issue, you can. This really has been done only three times: on nuclear weapons, national security and abortion. I'm pretty sure a resolution specifically prohibiting the UN from legislating in a number of areas would violate the rules.

[The Dedamned ambassador's cell phone rings:]

"Greetings, dumbass-- er, I mean 'Ambassador.' This is President Fernanda. I been watching this debate from my holding cell in the basement, and dude, I gotta say, it's shit arguments like yours that make me wish I'd committed suicide rather than visit the UN today." <click>


][Tommo the Stout's earbud picks up the cell phone call, as intercepted by someone's intra-building tapping and interception system (presumably OMGTKK's or Cluich's) and chuckles.][

1. Who are you talking to?

2. Socialistic commie is... Well the term escapes me now, but it's akin to "oxymoron." Just, not as strong. Maybe it includes the word ignorance in there.

3. The UN doesn't recognize God as a legal entity.

4. Have some pepto bismol. It'll help you feel better.


hahaha bad choice of words for you my friend. have a look

oxymoron - A rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are
combined, as in a deafening silence and a mournful optimist.

socialism - 1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in
which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned
collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and
controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between
capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the
economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet
been successfully achieved.

communism - 1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the
collective ownership of property and by the organization of
labor for the common advantage of all members.
2. Communism
A. A system of government in which the state plans and
controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian
party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a
higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by
the people.
B. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that
advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of
the proletariat.


as you can clearly see they are not an oxymoron. socialism is what happened when lenin tried for communism. commuism is a great thing in theory but it doens't work because people are natually corupt. during the cold war we use to call the soviets commies but in fact that is wrong because they were more socialist then communists. so my reference to socialistic commies is a reference to the fact that your F***ed up beliefs are about as F***ed up as that of Soviet Russia. so tell me who's the ignoranant one now.


***edit*** hey i never clamied to know how to spell :p



oh and as for the god thing, were do you think your human rights come form. i'm not advocating god here but if you believe there are certain rights that humans have then you should believe that the right to choose is one of them.

ok I know that this response is not encouraged, nor is the person who uses it looked upon favorably.

Why are you part of the UN if you feel that everything should be a nation's choice?

I am mearly asking so that I might understand your veiwpoint better. In my opinion the UN serves as a way to make global laws. Since UN resolutions carry with them the full force of LAW and affect every member nation when they are passed, I would have to surmise that the framers of the UN had a similar view point. Thus I am curious as to why you deny the nations the choice to live under a global rule the right to choose to do so.

I am not suggesting that you leave the UN, I hope that we can continue to work out our differnces in a civil manor. I truely just wish to know why nations who believe so strongly in a nation's right to gover itself as it sees fit have chosen to become part of an orginization that was designed by its framers to enforce its resolutions on only its own members.

Again I am not saying you should leave, I mearly would like to understand.

BTW, UNR #43 does not limit choices...it expands them.

fair enough jovic. i stated in an earlier post that i joined the UN because i believe it needs change and i want to be apart of the change. the UN in concept is not a bad thing, i just personally think that most of the UN members have losts sight of their role as an international mediator and now believe that they are the ruling government of the world. i am all working things out in a civil manor, but occationally i like to play the bad guy :p

hahaha bad choice of words for you my friend

If a person is socialistic, they are not a commie. There you have it. Socialism does not reach communism. Do I even have to point out that I expressly said oxymoron is not the word I was looking for?

2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between
capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the
economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet
been successfully achieved.

Kinda shoots the feet of your socialistic commie thing, doesn't it?

And furthermore:

during the cold war we use to call the soviots commies but in fact that is wrong because they were more socialist then communists. so my reference to socialistic commies is a reference to the fact that your F***ed up beliefs are about as F***ed up as that of Soviot Russia.

It's Soviet. How well-versed YOU seem.

I'm trying... Here... To find a way to rebuke this statement. Principle of Charity isn't even working for it, I can't find any way that that statement... Uhhhhhh fucking works! Is there a logical fallacy for this, perhaps a non-sequitur, or.... What?

What... Who the hell cares what you called soviEts? How does you using a phrase like "socialistic commies" refer to.... fuckin anything? Where does SoviEt Russia enter into this? You calling me a socialistic commie is like me calling you a centrist(ic) neo-con. Someone wanna shed some light on this for me, because I suddenly regret thinking I could handle a tangent at this point.

ahhh socialistic commie sounds better then just socialist or commie. :p

ahhh socialistic commie sounds better then just socialist or commie. :p

Wouldn't it have simply been easier to concede the point in the first place instead of degrading into name calling and vulgarity?

*catches the eye of the Norderian* Care for a toot from my flask, good sir? 'Tis a nice single-malt.

[in reference to: 2. Socialistic commie is... Well the term escapes me now, but it's akin to "oxymoron."]

hahaha bad choice of words for you my friend. have a look <snip>
oh and as for the god thing, were do you think your human rights come form.As you wish. We'll be glad to use the shortened form of the word in classifying your argument. Now, should that be "oxy" or "moron"?

Rights, human and otherwise, exist only to the extent that the governing society allows. They issue from mankind, not the invisible pastalated one. It is true that there are certain rights that should exist regardless of the form of government one lives under or the role one plays. Defining and upholding those rights is most certainly one of the responsibilities of this body.

Jim Jones
NSUN Mouthpiece
Rubina

*catches the eye of the Norderian* Care for a toot from my flask, good sir? 'Tis a nice single-malt.

As you wish. We'll be glad to use the shortened form of the word in classifying your argument. Now, should that be "oxy" or "moron"?

Rights, human and otherwise, exist only to the extent that the governing society allows. They issue from mankind, not the invisible pastalated one. It is true that there are certain rights that should exist regardless of the form of government one lives under or the role one plays. Defining and upholding those rights is most certainly one of the responsibilities of this body.

Jim Jones
NSUN Mouthpiece
Rubina

Tommo the Stout waves his hand dismissively. "I've had too much tonight already. Rain check!" He reaches into a cooler beside the hammock and withdraws a bottle of Norderian vodka. He hands it to an aide and points to the Rubinan. Box-O-gifts, he calls the cooler. The aide walks it over.

The bottle, not the cooler.

He reaches into a cooler beside the hammock and withdraws a bottle of Norderian vodka. He hands it to an aide and points to the Rubinan. Box-O-gifts, he calls the cooler. The aide walks it over.Jones takes the bottle and salutes Tommo the Stouth.

The Norderian hospitality is as renowned as its vodka. Many thanks, and do take us up on that rain check. If we're lucky, a care package of Rubinan brandy will have arrived. :)

I do agree that a terminally ill person should have the right to decide where, when and how they die. The family's of that person would be prepared for the end, a plan would be set, all vital information shared and everyone would be present (if that was the wish). It is important to the person who is dieing that if they want the dignity of going in peace and without dragging the inevitable out and bring more pain and suffering to their loved ones by them having to watch them deteriorate. When an animal is terminal and gets to a certain stage, are we not compassionate and help them to go as peacefully as possible? Shouldn't we be just as compassionate to other human beings? This should be a family and ill persons right. To die as they have lived, with dignity. It is their right to choose to end their pain or let it control them til the end. I would also like to recommend that they be of a certain age and a mental stability test be done by a person qualified to judge, to ensure that they are in the absolute best frame of thinking so they can make a clear decision. Dignity is what it is all about, Not death and pain and loved ones being left. I feel the dieing person has a right to decide to continue to suffer or end the suffering.

Good. Now do you have an opinion about the repeal?

The States of Stephenson has left the UN before over issues such as this. Issues such as these are not the purview of the UN. Each nation has the sovreign right to decide these things. We applaud the efforts of the UN reformers.

*catches the eye of the Norderian* Care for a toot from my flask, good sir? 'Tis a nice single-malt.

As you wish. We'll be glad to use the shortened form of the word in classifying your argument. Now, should that be "oxy" or "moron"?

Rights, human and otherwise, exist only to the extent that the governing society allows. They issue from mankind, not the invisible pastalated one. It is true that there are certain rights that should exist regardless of the form of government one lives under or the role one plays. Defining and upholding those rights is most certainly one of the responsibilities of this body.

Jim Jones
NSUN Mouthpiece
Rubina


are you kidding me. you are calling me a moron because you only read the first sentence. i never said that it is a fact that god gave rights. have another look. i was not being a smart ass but actually asking were the hell he thought human rights came from. and if you read the rest of my post.....

i'm not advocating god here but if you believe there are certain rights that humans have then you should believe that the right to choose is one of them.

please give me someone that can agrue the right way. even the commie made more sence then you.


Wouldn't it have simply been easier to concede the point in the first place instead of degrading into name calling and vulgarity?

i didn't conceding anything. i just stopped arguing with him because he seems to stubbern to see the forest through the trees. i still think anyone who is for UN global government is a socialist/commie/socialistic commie/ or whatever you may call them. i had my fun. i got him all pissed off and i never blinked. i was just playing poker with him and now i know were he stands and he hasn't the slightest clue were i do. :p

][Tommo the Stout's earbud picks up the cell phone call, as intercepted by someone's intra-building tapping and interception system (presumably OMGTKK's or Cluich's) and chuckles.][

Good to see the COMINT system that CPESL installed in the building is still working well. :cool:

(at last) and agree with those whose position is that it's poorly worded and full of loopholes.

Yet we find ourselves without a strong position on this matter, and our votes (in what is a fairly close call) are up for grabs.

Why should we vote for this/against this repeal, in 20 words or less please.

Archnimbob Gulliwag III
Top Nob

Greetings.

I have been informed by my minister The Master, that there was an interesting debate in this chamber on the matter of the Euthnasia repeal. He seemed to be somewhat concerned about this; being new to the UN he apparently doesn't realize that the horrid and sorrid arguments that are made in this August body don't amount to a hill of beans anyway as most of the deligates and representatives vote by proxy anyway without ever stepping into the chamber. For my part I would rather stay in the Starbucks. Unfortunately, they wanted to clean my table, and I've been told exercise is good for your health.

I keep hoping that one of these days someone would actually make a decent argument. The proper role of using and not using life prolonging devices; the moral and political implications of feeding and whether or not food and water is a basic human right that can never be terminated; the use of poison to end "sufering." The most vile practice of using cruel and unusial punishement to eliminate those who are an expense to the society because one is too squeemish to simply use the one bullet solution. Heck, I was aproached by a wereshark lawyer the other day who started telling me that leathal injection of prisioners actually caused pain and suffering ... and you want to do that to people already in pain and suffering?

I urge you to all repeal this resolution. Can't you see how much suffering this resolution goes through? Can't you see how much pain this resolution endures? So for the sake of this reslution, I ask you to let this resolution receive the euthanasia it deserves. Vote yes! Think of the Irony!

Tharkent -
The UN is corupt. join us in taking back the power that is rightfully ours. vote yes to this repeal.


-i believe that was 20 words :p-

Why should you vote against this repeal? Simple. Those in favor of the repeal are not trying to stop euthanasia. Rather, they are trying to stop the UN from taking any action on it. They feel that the UN should be a universal mediator and that we should avoid taking a stance on any controversial issue. But if that is what the UN is for, why make any resolutions? If every single member of the UN agreed on a resolution there would be no need for us to make one in the first place. For that matter, why have a UN? The purpose of the UN is to be the moral compass of all member nations. It is the governing body of all governing bodies. Does everyone in a country agree with all of its laws? Of course not. If you don't agree with them you're allowed to attempt to have the law changed. But you don't change the laws because you're anti-government and want everybody to be able to decide whether or not to obey the law themselves. You change them because you want the law to make something legal/illegal. The repeal in this case is an example of the anti-government stance.

A little long, sorry. Basically, a vote for the repeal is a vote against UN power. If you feel that the UN should sit around and debate about whether planting trees is good for the environment then I'll have to recommend you vote for it. But if you want the UN to have any real difference in how things are run you should vote against it. That's it for me.

(Way longer than 20 words)

For that matter, why have a UN?Nobody has ever answered this who represents the movement of NatSov. I can imagine they will say there are international issues which the UN can legislate on. I don't think that enough, but I'm not a NatSover anymore :).

We like you, you can have a cookie.

IT IS MURDER!!!! WE CAC KEEP ARGUING OVER WHAT THE MENING IF "IS" IS BUT EATHER WAY UR KILLING SOMEONE AND WHEN DOSE THE STATE DISIDE WHO LIVES AND WHO DOSENT!!!:headbang: :sniper:

pardon spelling

IT IS MURDER!!!! WE CAC KEEP ARGUING OVER WHAT THE MENING IF "IS" IS BUT EATHER WAY UR KILLING SOMEONE AND WHEN DOSE THE STATE DISIDE WHO LIVES AND WHO DOSENT!!!:headbang: :sniper:

pardon spelling

I understand your point of view, and you should definitely seek to repeal this resolution if that is your goal. However, the current repeal does nothing to prevent euthanasia. It merely allows nations to choose whether or not they can euthanize someone. If I were you, I would help us stop this repeal and then attempt to make a repeal which actually bans euthanasia. Voting this through will merely prevent us from doing what we feel is right. This kind of misunderstanding is actually what will probably push the resolution through. It's a pity that member nations are allowed to take a stance on an issue without examining and contributing to the discussion.

are we making passive euthenasia illeagal as well. Passive being when someone, for example, is taken of life support at their will or in death will or though thier famillies

are we making passive euthenasia illeagal as well. Passive being when someone, for example, is taken of life support at their will or in death will or though thier famillies

No, as I said above we're not banning anything. We're just allowing individual nations to choose what they believe. If you read the repeal closely it says nothing about banning anything.

No, as I said above we're not banning anything. We're just allowing individual nations to choose what they believe. If you read the repeal closely it says nothing about banning anything.
That would be because repeals can't introduce new legislation.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Nobody has ever answered this who represents the movement of NatSov.Oh, we haven't? You mustn't have been paying attention, then. Don't know why you ever were a sovereigntist, if you count yourself so ignorant of the movement's purpose.

FYI, sovereigntists are hardly enthusiastic in their support for this repeal, as it was not put forward by real sovereigntists, but rather extremists who don't think this body should do anything. The National Sovereignty Organization has not endorsed this proposal, and in fact is sharply divided on this vote.

Why should you vote against this repeal? Simple. Those in favor of the repeal are not trying to stop euthanasia. Rather, they are trying to stop the UN from taking any action on it. They feel that the UN should be a universal mediator and that we should avoid taking a stance on any controversial issue. But if that is what the UN is for, why make any resolutions? If every single member of the UN agreed on a resolution there would be no need for us to make one in the first place. For that matter, why have a UN? The purpose of the UN is to be the moral compass of all member nations. It is the governing body of all governing bodies. Does everyone in a country agree with all of its laws? Of course not. If you don't agree with them you're allowed to attempt to have the law changed. But you don't change the laws because you're anti-government and want everybody to be able to decide whether or not to obey the law themselves. You change them because you want the law to make something legal/illegal. The repeal in this case is an example of the anti-government stance.

A little long, sorry. Basically, a vote for the repeal is a vote against UN power. If you feel that the UN should sit around and debate about whether planting trees is good for the environment then I'll have to recommend you vote for it. But if you want the UN to have any real difference in how things are run you should vote against it. That's it for me.Did you actually read the repeal, the "arguments" offered by its sponsor or the original resolution before you cast judgment on this matter, or are you just basing your decision on some silly bias about "UN power"?

It's a pity that member nations are allowed to take a stance on an issue without examining and contributing to the discussion.That would include you, I take it.

OOC:I've tried to pay attention to 20+ pages of responces, but my eyes started to glaze over on page 5.

The Palentine is voting against this resolution, for the following reasons...
1)We don't like the proposal. Nothing specific, just a viseral, general dislike. kind of like why we believe Brussle Sprouts are the food of the Devil.
2)More importantly, nobody has forked over a large enough bribe to change our minds.
This is all the more a pity, as we really hate the Legalize Euthenasia Resolution, and would deep in the sub-cockle area of our hearts really want the Resolution repealed.

Excelsior,
Sen.Horatio Sulla

A body such as the UN can serve in one of two ways. It can be either a mediator or a qusi world goverment. I would have to say that the orginal framers of the United Nations charter envisioned something closer to the later. UN resolutions have the full force of law on its member nations. That power would suggest that its role is more then that of a mere mediator. With that in mind I have always viewed the UN as a type of republic with many member nation states. The main differnce between this "UN Republic" and a more traditional republic are that the UN will gladly let a member state secede with out starting a civil war. One of the many similarities though is that the member nations have to abide by the laws/resolutions that the UN passes. Though traditionaly UN resolutions tend to take the form of enforcing human rights, promoting free trade, and making wars more difficult.

That being said, I would like to address points of this repeal.

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.

This is the primary argument of the repeal. That euthanasia is a human rights violation. Or to put it crassly, people are always worth more alive then dead no matter what mental or physcial state they are in.
The right to life is assumed by many to be god given, or for those who choose not to acknowledge religion, to be fundimental.

This is the primary argument of the repeal. However even those members who wish to oppose this repeal counter said argument, the supporters of the repeal claim that this is not what the repeal is about. Instead they say it is about the next part of 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.

I would like to point out that this is not an argument. The creator of the repeal even states that it is an acknowledgement. In essences a by product of the repeal. This is what a majority of the more vocal supporters hold up as reason why this repeal should be passed. It is not the primary argument, niether is it the secondary argument. It is a side effect. They want us to pass a repeal because they want the side effect of the repeal.

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 repeal recalls UNR #147 "Abortion Legality Convention" as precident for which this repeal should be passed. However it is not a very good anology to make. UNR #147 was passed to create a comprimise because nations held to many diffrent views as to the status of a fetus. Also UNR #147 deals with the killing of another living being, where as UNR #43 "Legalise Euthanasia" deals with self termination. Therefor I would suggest that UNR #147 not be considered since it does not deal directly with debated issue. The only direct similarity is that the subject is closely debated. I feel that it would be dangrous to set the precident of repealing resolutions based soley on the fact that it is hotly debated. Which is all that using UNR#147 as precident does.

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.

The secondary argument of this repeal is supported by the recalling of UNR #147. That such closely contested issues are not the domain of the UN. Going back to my orginal thoughts on the purpose of the UN. To those that favor the UN as a mediator role and should not rule over nations, I would say that it is such issues that the mediator role was created.

Again I say we should not repeal resolutions based solely off the fact that it is a heated issue.

The primary argument is the only part of this repeal that has any merit. The primary argument happens to be what the majority of the supporters of this repeal are ignoring. They want us to repeal resolution #43 because it is a hot issue, and also because they feel that the UN is not ment to be a world government.

I say that we can not let this precident stand. If it does then any argument that is closely debated can be rendered inffective by citing this precident. I also would like to again say that the founders of the NSUN intended it to be a form of world government by giving their resolutions the full weight of law on its member nations.

Vote against this repeal not becuase it is right or wrong, but because there is no solid reason to support it. The support for this repeal is based on a side effect which rests on a very slippery slope. Those are poor reasons to support anything.

Thank you,
Chairman Ambrose of the Principality of Jovic
UN Delegate of Umbra

Very well said Chairman Ambrose.

The States of Stephenson has left the UN before over issues such as this. Issues such as these are not the purview of the UN. Each nation has the sovreign right to decide these things. We applaud the efforts of the UN reformers.

Seeing the same things said by people over and over again over how many pages has this gone on now has seemed almost like a, "Maybe you didn't hear what I said the first time, so if I say it a half dozen more times maybe it will sound louder to you." That is one of the reasons I have not cared much to keep doing the same.

However, this post above is one of the things that proves exactly why we should repeal this law. If the U.N. rules on sharply divided issues such as abortion and euthanasia, then they are saying to nations like The States of Stephenson - deal with it or resign if you don't agree with us.

If the U.N. weren't involved in these kinds of things, then we would have a better "United" Nations as anyone can know on hotly debated issues they can still be a part of the U.N. without compromising their morals. I submitted this repeal because I think we can do a better job at being more inclusive rather than dividing this body by deciding on issues like this one way or the other. If you feel strongly one way or another about issues like this, and then believe you should force others to rule their nation that way because of your beliefs - then that is some kind of moral elitism that this body should not collectively engage themselves. Let's try to be a united nations that can agree to disagree over complex issues instead of being a one world government w/o religious overtones of what that phrase might mean to some.

If you want to save yourself some time, the talking points by those who are against this repeal are they feel it is so poorly written and object to the wording it uses. It has been brought up that these repeals stay on the record. That is true. But there is no teeth to them. The only teeth to the repeal is that it REPEALS. No new legislation can be introduced into a repeal. The Spin Zone has done a good job trying to mischaracterize the repeal as an "anti-euthanasia" bill. Well, if it's an anti-euthasia bill, it's illegal because all a repeal can do is repeal the old law, it cannot make euthanasia illegal. If it's an "anti-euthanasia" bill it sucks pretty badly because it argues for nations to rule on this the way they choose instead of having the U.N. involved one way or the other. The obvious answer here is the author (moi) did not write this as an "anti-euthanasia" bill at all. I know some have been swayed by these talking points, but some of the ones propagating them I believe would not vote to repeal the bill even if it were modified to not include the points they mention in this thread. I believe most who arguing vociferously against this repeal would only vote for it with a clause stating that it urges a replacement euthanasia bill that would probably be even worse than the first in matters of national sovereignty. What stays with teeth if this law is NOT repealed is a poorly written euthanasia bill that keeps some nations from wanting to even be a part of the U.N. So even in the light of casting this as an IntFed vs. Sovereignty debate, it's more accurately a pro-United Nations repeal as it is in favor of including more nations who disagree on things like this into the U.N.

Thanks to all who have voted for the repeal and I invite The States of Stephenson to reconsider it's involvement in the U.N. after we hopefully win the repeal.

Sorry, we must have been thrown by the whole "violation of human dignity" or whatever is written in the proposal. I mean.... Who'da thought THAT wasn't ACTUALLY anti-euthanasia!

"I get my way, or I am leaving"

So, are we now pandering to the schoolchildren who won't play unless everything goes their way?

Anyone who doesn't like/does like a resolution just needs to threaten to leave the UN to get it defeated/approved.

This is pathetic. Just because an issue is contentious, doesn't mean we should ignore it. In fact, because an issue is contentious means that it should be in front of the UN.

I realise that the leaders of several nations would rather talk about the weather, bunny rabbits, and other neutral topics instead of important issues, but UN is not the forum for those. If you do not have the spine to discuss what is really important, you should not be in the UN.

Also, lets talk about who is really affected here.. The people. This is not about usurping the rights of nations, it is about asserting the rights of the people. The people have a right to choose. It's about the 90 year old grandmother who has only months to live. Those who wish to repeal this amendment would rather she spent those months in agony, losing all of her faculties, having no control over her body. I say give her a choice. Let her decide how to live out the remainder of her life.

Official Mouthpiece of DeDamned.

Why should you vote against this repeal? Simple. Those in favor of the repeal are not trying to stop euthanasia. Rather, they are trying to stop the UN from taking any action on it.

In the first place the reasons for both sides are legion, there is no single reason shared by either the for side or the against.

In the second place while I've heard the ALC mentioned a gadzillion times so far in this debate, the ALC was a resolution, not a repeal. Resolutions stop the UN from taking any further action. Repeals allow the UN to take action in either direction. You could see a stronger euthanasia resolution on the floor or a vastly anti-euthanasia resolution on the floor. The repeal can only repeal, nothing more and nothing less.

I'm more than willing to discuss my very weak Nat Sov position at any time. Is it an international issue? Is it an issue of fundamental human rights that are inaienable? What about the international tourists? (Yes would be a bummer if I went on vacation in a foreign land to only find out that anyone who breaks their toe is killed on the spot.) If I don't see a good response to these questions, then perhaps the nations should decide this on their own. Eating your own national animal is your damm business. Eating your tourists is not. Invading other UN countries to eat their national animals is likewse not. Invading other UN countries to eat their tourists is ... well you get the picture. (Naming your naitonal animal the "tourist" that is so wrong on so many levels that only a puppet of Tzorsland would consider it.)

Invading other UN countries to eat their tourists is ...

*rushes to chairman of defense* They leaverned our plans....ABORT!!

"I get my way, or I am leaving"

So, are we now pandering to the schoolchildren who won't play unless everything goes their way?

Anyone who doesn't like/does like a resolution just needs to threaten to leave the UN to get it defeated/approved.

This is pathetic. Just because an issue is contentious, doesn't mean we should ignore it. In fact, because an issue is contentious means that it should be in front of the UN.

I realise that the leaders of several nations would rather talk about the weather, bunny rabbits, and other neutral topics instead of important issues, but UN is not the forum for those. If you do not have the spine to discuss what is really important, you should not be in the UN.

Also, lets talk about who is really affected here.. The people. This is not about usurping the rights of nations, it is about asserting the rights of the people. The people have a right to choose. It's about the 90 year old grandmother who has only months to live. Those who wish to repeal this amendment would rather she spent those months in agony, losing all of her faculties, having no control over her body. I say give her a choice. Let her decide how to live out the remainder of her life.

Official Mouthpiece of DeDamned.


Sorry, you got it wrong. This isn't about threats. It's about those who have left because there is a division already because of the types of things the U.N. has chosen to make its business in the past. If anyone said they would leave if a vote didn't go a certain way I would ignore that ultimatum and gladly show them the door. That's whining. But to those who have made a decision (not a threat) to either not become a part of this body or leave because of the decisions made have not threatened but acted. And leadership looks at things like that. And good leadership doesn't leave a trail of casualties in its wake.

Your argument here is noble and for the most part I agree with you. But not about this issue. You have a right to your opinion and I understand it. Others of us don't see the U.N. ideally as this far reaching into national issues. Many of us never saw membership in the U.N. as abdicating national leadership on all of these issues. And instead of saying, well, this game sucks, a good many of us have said we should fix this problem and we are.

Eating your own national animal is your damm business. Eating your tourists is not. Invading other UN countries to eat their national animals is likewse not. Invading other UN countries to eat their tourists is ... well you get the picture. (Naming your naitonal animal the "tourist" that is so wrong on so many levels that only a puppet of Tzorsland would consider it.)

Actually, since some countries allow cannibalism (I've seen an issue for it :eek: ), eating your own tourists might be acceptable. Not that we'd ever do it; it's bad for business! I agree that invading other UN countries to eat their animals/tourists isn't acceptable. It's far better to bribe them to send their animals/tourists over to your country.

"I get my way, or I am leaving"

So, are we now pandering to the schoolchildren who won't play unless everything goes their way?

We would like to point out that the unity argument isn't being extended to every piece of legislation, only those deeply divisive issues that don't have a clear popular will on one side or the other.

There are many issues this body can legislate on, with a broad recognition of what is ethical and moral. If the small percentage of people who want to allow, say, beating of little old ladies, want to resign from the UN in protest of the Granny Protection Act, I'm sure no one would shed a tear at their departure.

When it comes to some issues, like abortion and euthanasia, both sides have deeply held views and believe they are acting in the best interest of their people. Countries on both sides have excellent civil rights records, and wish to do what's right. It's ridiculous to force half of this body to comply with the views of the other half on these issues, simply because one side has a tiny majority.

If it is impossible to see that as the ethical point of view, look at it from practical. Legislating these kinds of issues only sets up the UN to be consumed with endless attempts at repeals and and replacement resolutions, as the population can easily shift from 50.5%FOR/49.5%AGAINST to 49.5%FOR/50.5%AGAINST and back again over the course of time.

Not only does that consume the attention of this body, but it consumes valuable resources as our nations constantly rewrite laws to comply with the most recent UN decision.

There is no clear will of the nations here. It is better left for individual nations to decide.

We have a question for everyone participating in this debate. Can you truly not acknowledge that the other side might have as equally compelling reasons for their view as you do for yours?

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

We would like to point out that the unity argument isn't being extended to every piece of legislation, only those deeply divisive issues that don't have a clear popular will on one side or the other.

That may be, but the amendment is not about that unity argument. It is about repealing people's rights to Euthanasia. People will always be divided, that is why democracy was invented in the first place. It isn't any less democratic because it was a close call. However, when people think they can change the resultsw of a democratic process by threatening to leave, it calls the reasons for the UN's existence into question.


There are many issues this body can legislate on, with a broad recognition of what is ethical and moral. If the small percentage of people who want to allow, say, beating of little old ladies, want to resign from the UN in protest of the Granny Protection Act, I'm sure no one would shed a tear at their departure.

Here, we agree. But to apply it to this current situation, the granny bashers' friends are trying to repeal the law on the basis that the granny bashers would come back.


When it comes to some issues, like abortion and euthanasia, both sides have deeply held views and believe they are acting in the best interest of their people. Countries on both sides have excellent civil rights records, and wish to do what's right. It's ridiculous to force half of this body to comply with the views of the other half on these issues, simply because one side has a tiny majority.

And that tiny majority is democracy in action. It is still democracy even if the majority is one. Would you step down as leader of your country if you were elected by a slim majority? I doubt it.


If it is impossible to see that as the ethical point of view, look at it from practical. Legislating these kinds of issues only sets up the UN to be consumed with endless attempts at repeals and and replacement resolutions, as the population can easily shift from 50.5%FOR/49.5%AGAINST to 49.5%FOR/50.5%AGAINST and back again over the course of time.

Very true. But it is not the duty of the UN to dictate the will of the world. Merely to listen to the nations, and do their will. If an issue comes up again and again, it is only because it obviously has not been discussed in enough detail.

Not only does that consume the attention of this body, but it consumes valuable resources as our nations constantly rewrite laws to comply with the most recent UN decision.

so, what are you getting at here? Get rid of the UN because it is inconvenient?


There is no clear will of the nations here. It is better left for individual nations to decide.

Oh but there was. Euthanasia was approved. Now, the minority is trying to hold up the entire UN with their appeals and repeals.


We have a question for everyone participating in this debate. Can you truly not acknowledge that the other side might have as equally compelling reasons for their view as you do for yours?

Honestly.. No... The other side wants to limit personal choice. There is no good reason for that point of view. The only argument I have seen is that it was a close vote.

Ok, I've got an idea for a resolution to follow this up:

The United Nations,

Believing that Change is a shitty region,

Aware that Dorksonia's 'Repeal "Abortion Rights"' was probably the worst resolution in the history of the UN:

Grants member nations the right to allow or ban euthanasia.

You'd support this PSB...right?

We have a question for everyone participating in this debate. Can you truly not acknowledge that the other side might have as equally compelling reasons for their view as you do for yours?

In the first place the reasons for both sides are legion, there is no single reason shared by either the for side or the against.

In the second place while I've heard the ALC mentioned a gadzillion times so far in this debate, the ALC was a resolution, not a repeal. Resolutions stop the UN from taking any further action. Repeals allow the UN to take action in either direction. You could see a stronger euthanasia resolution on the floor or a vastly anti-euthanasia resolution on the floor. The repeal can only repeal, nothing more and nothing less.

Did you actually read the repeal, the "arguments" offered by its sponsor or the original resolution before you cast judgment on this matter, or are you just basing your decision on some silly bias about "UN power"?

Just to clear things up, here's an excerpt from the bill

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"

All right, that's taken care of. Read closely. In only one part of the bill does it mention the moral aspects of euthanasia. The rest of it refers to whether heated issues should be decided on. It starts right off saying "RECOGNIZES that the issue of Euthanasia is a difficult issue in which good people may, and often do, disagree." This is the main idea of the issue.

It also states that "Such an obviously divisive issue should not be mandated upon nations one way or the other." The repeal's goal is to not bring up this topic again. Even the creator of the repeal has stated this.

I submitted this repeal because I think we can do a better job at being more inclusive rather than dividing this body by deciding on issues like this one way or the other.

This is about the UN's control of heated issues, not euthanasia itself. Just restating that.

We have a question for everyone participating in this debate. Can you truly not acknowledge that the other side might have as equally compelling reasons for their view as you do for yours?

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

Give me a well thought out argument that is not based off the fact that this issue is was closely contested. I will listen to it with an open mind. I have given what I believe to be a well thought out argument on page 21 of this thread, discounting the points of the supporters of this repeal have been using. So far I have seen it ignored as people continue to bicker. I have not seen very many signs of these compelling reasons you refrence, and those few signs I have seen were shouted out by non-related discussion that verges on flaming.

Just reposting my argument to try and clarify the relavent points of this repeal:

***************************************************


A body such as the UN can serve in one of two ways. It can be either a mediator or a qusi world goverment. I would have to say that the orginal framers of the United Nations charter envisioned something closer to the later. UN resolutions have the full force of law on its member nations. That power would suggest that its role is more then that of a mere mediator. With that in mind I have always viewed the UN as a type of republic with many member nation states. The main differnce between this "UN Republic" and a more traditional republic are that the UN will gladly let a member state secede with out starting a civil war. One of the many similarities though is that the member nations have to abide by the laws/resolutions that the UN passes. Though traditionaly UN resolutions tend to take the form of enforcing human rights, promoting free trade, and making wars more difficult.

That being said, I would like to address points of this repeal.

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.

This is the primary argument of the repeal. That euthanasia is a human rights violation. Or to put it crassly, people are always worth more alive then dead no matter what mental or physcial state they are in.
The right to life is assumed by many to be god given, or for those who choose not to acknowledge religion, to be fundimental.

This is the primary argument of the repeal. However even those members who wish to oppose this repeal counter said argument, the supporters of the repeal claim that this is not what the repeal is about. Instead they say it is about the next part of 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.

I would like to point out that this is not an argument. The creator of the repeal even states that it is an acknowledgement. In essences a by product of the repeal. This is what a majority of the more vocal supporters hold up as reason why this repeal should be passed. It is not the primary argument, niether is it the secondary argument. It is a side effect. They want us to pass a repeal because they want the side effect of the repeal.

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 repeal recalls UNR #147 "Abortion Legality Convention" as precident for which this repeal should be passed. However it is not a very good anology to make. UNR #147 was passed to create a comprimise because nations held to many diffrent views as to the status of a fetus. Also UNR #147 deals with the killing of another living being, where as UNR #43 "Legalise Euthanasia" deals with self termination. Therefor I would suggest that UNR #147 not be considered since it does not deal directly with debated issue. The only direct similarity is that the subject is closely debated. I feel that it would be dangrous to set the precident of repealing resolutions based soley on the fact that it is hotly debated. Which is all that using UNR#147 as precident does.

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.

The secondary argument of this repeal is supported by the recalling of UNR #147. That such closely contested issues are not the domain of the UN. Going back to my orginal thoughts on the purpose of the UN. To those that favor the UN as a mediator role and should not rule over nations, I would say that it is such issues that the mediator role was created.

Again I say we should not repeal resolutions based solely off the fact that it is a heated issue.

The primary argument is the only part of this repeal that has any merit. The primary argument happens to be what the majority of the supporters of this repeal are ignoring. They want us to repeal resolution #43 because it is a hot issue, and also because they feel that the UN is not ment to be a world government.

I say that we can not let this precident stand. If it does then any argument that is closely debated can be rendered inffective by citing this precident. I also would like to again say that the founders of the NSUN intended it to be a form of world government by giving their resolutions the full weight of law on its member nations.

Vote against this repeal not becuase it is right or wrong, but because there is no solid reason to support it. The support for this repeal is based on a side effect which rests on a very slippery slope. Those are poor reasons to support anything.

Thank you,
Chairman Ambrose of the Principality of Jovic
UN Delegate of Umbra

We would like to point out that the unity argument isn't being extended to every piece of legislation, only those deeply divisive issues that don't have a clear popular will on one side or the other.

There are many issues this body can legislate on, with a broad recognition of what is ethical and moral. If the small percentage of people who want to allow, say, beating of little old ladies, want to resign from the UN in protest of the Granny Protection Act, I'm sure no one would shed a tear at their departure.

When it comes to some issues, like abortion and euthanasia, both sides have deeply held views and believe they are acting in the best interest of their people. Countries on both sides have excellent civil rights records, and wish to do what's right. It's ridiculous to force half of this body to comply with the views of the other half on these issues, simply because one side has a tiny majority.

If it is impossible to see that as the ethical point of view, look at it from practical. Legislating these kinds of issues only sets up the UN to be consumed with endless attempts at repeals and and replacement resolutions, as the population can easily shift from 50.5%FOR/49.5%AGAINST to 49.5%FOR/50.5%AGAINST and back again over the course of time.

Not only does that consume the attention of this body, but it consumes valuable resources as our nations constantly rewrite laws to comply with the most recent UN decision.

There is no clear will of the nations here. It is better left for individual nations to decide.

We have a question for everyone participating in this debate. Can you truly not acknowledge that the other side might have as equally compelling reasons for their view as you do for yours?

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN


Here! Here! *mutters something about sacking own speech writers and hiring Airatum to speak in the future*

Ok, I've got an idea for a resolution to follow this up:


Quote:
The United Nations,

Believing that Change is a shitty region,

Aware that Dorksonia's 'Repeal "Abortion Rights"' was probably the worst resolution in the history of the UN:

Grants member nations the right to allow or ban euthanasia.


You'd support this PSB...right?

What was that definition of trolling again? :) (token smiley face added)
I don't support illegal resolutions either (at least I try not to)

The United Nations,

Believing that Change is a shitty region,

Aware that Dorksonia's 'Repeal "Abortion Rights"' was probably the worst resolution in the history of the UN:

Grants member nations the right to allow or ban euthanasia.

While kind of rude, your post gave me an idea. Someone needs to write a resolution either stating whether or not the UN may decide however it wants on controversial issues or one that defines the UN as either a mediator or a legislative body. I don't really care if it goes against my views, I just hope that we can clear things up so that arguements like this do not come up again?

All right, that's taken care of. Read closely. In only one part of the bill does it mention the moral aspects of euthanasia. The rest of it refers to whether heated issues should be decided on. It starts right off saying "RECOGNIZES that the issue of Euthanasia is a difficult issue in which good people may, and often do, disagree." This is the main idea of the issue.

It also states that "Such an obviously divisive issue should not be mandated upon nations one way or the other." The repeal's goal is to not bring up this topic again. Even the creator of the repeal has stated this.A repeal doesn't mean the issue can't come up again, even if the repeal argument says it shouldn't. In fact, repeals are virtual guarantees that these issues will resurface.

This is about the UN's control of heated issues, not euthanasia itself. Just restating that.No, the issue here is the original resolution, its merits and demerits, the repeal argument, its merits and demerits, and the relevant arguments offered in this debate. Defeating a single repeal will not save the UN's "control" over anything -- because all a repeal does is strike out existing law. The UN already has jurisdiction on all matters on which it has previously legislated, and matters on which it could potentially legislate in the future, so long as future resolutions comply with the rules.

Someone needs to write a resolution either stating whether or not the UN may decide however it wants on controversial issues or one that defines the UN as either a mediator or a legislative body.The UN may legislate all it pleases (within the rules) on matters not already covered by previous legislation. You cannot pass a resolution dictating which matters it can cover and which ones it can't -- or restrict its role to that of a mere "mediator" on global affairs.

While kind of rude, your post gave me an idea. Someone needs to write a resolution either stating whether or not the UN may decide however it wants on controversial issues or one that defines the UN as either a mediator or a legislative body. I don't really care if it goes against my views, I just hope that we can clear things up so that arguements like this do not come up again?
Game mechanics. Therefore illegal.

So where do you keep your civil manor? Is it similar to a town hall?

So is it the UN's job to come up with laws for every nation, regaurding highly controversial issues? Is it not the UN's responcibility to maintain a degree of world-wide safety, while still giving different countries with different cultures and opinions the right to decide on their own policy? As long as involuntary euthanasia is illegal, to protect the general public, it should be up to individual countries to decide. You can't expect everyone to agree, and the UN should not just be a place for those who agree on issues to get together. It should be a place of growth and learning, and bettering one's country. Hence, I have voted for this repeal, so that countries may try to decide what is best for their citizens. While many rules can be passed through the UN, its issues like these that need to be decided individually.

So is it the UN's job to come up with laws for every nation, regaurding highly controversial issues? Is it not the UN's responcibility to maintain a degree of world-wide safety, while still giving different countries with different cultures and opinions the right to decide on their own policy? As long as involuntary euthanasia is illegal, to protect the general public, it should be up to individual countries to decide. You can't expect everyone to agree, and the UN should not just be a place for those who agree on issues to get together. It should be a place of growth and learning, and bettering one's country. Hence, I have voted for this repeal, so that countries may try to decide what is best for their citizens. While many rules can be passed through the UN, its issues like these that need to be decided individually.

The SOS has considered the arugments of the Pro-Sovreignty Babes and still stands by its origional statement. The UN needs to be reformed and should issue more general resolutions, not outright banning things or unilaterally make them legal. The UN should be focusing on things like trade and other matters of government between nations, not interferring with social policy. The President has considered our membership in the UN and has withdrawn us from the body before (after the gay rights and abortion amendments were passed) because he (and the people) felt that these issues were not the purview of the UN, but of the people of SOS. Once the UN began to repeal things that should have been left to member states, we decided to re-join the organization.

We have left in the past because we did not agree. Once we left, our voice of dissent was gone. The result was an elitist UN that suceeded in shutting out the minority. We are glad to see that things are changing and this mandatory legalization of euthanasia repeal is a good sign. Let the people decide.

[stuff]Proper spelling, correct grammar, appropriate use of quote-boxes, and you didn't come off like a raving madman. Very nice. You get a picture of a cat on some hangers:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/hangingaround.jpg


Please stick around and post more often.

If I were you, I would help us stop this repeal and then attempt to make a repeal which actually bans euthanasia.

pure manipulitive gold. while i don't agree with you that was smooth. hat off to you man.

What was that definition of trolling again? :) (token smiley face added)
I don't support illegal resolutions either (at least I try not to)
No, you just submit (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11022625&postcount=2460) them.

But, in the interests of getting a response, how's this:

The United Nations,

Believing that the quality of human life is a foremost consideration for all governments,

Eager to respect the wishes of those who desire to no longer live in suffering,

Believing that euthanasia is a fundamental human right,

Aware however that opinion on this is sharply divided,

Noticing that more oppressive governments wish to prohibit euthanasia, so as to exercise greater control over the bodies and moralities of their citizens,

Considering such policies to be shameful and unfair,

However accepting that any direct legalisation of euthanasia is likely to produce great rifts in the international community:

1. Declares each nation has the right to set its own euthanasia policies;

2. Expresses its disdain for nations who prohibit euthanasia based entirely on subjective reading of religious texts.

Now, you'll support this, right?

no because it is blasphemous

Now, you'll support this, right?

I doubt it. But admitting to not wanting to support it would ruin his/her cover. I don't expect an honest answer.

The United Nations,
Believing that the quality of human life is a foremost consideration for all governments,
Eager to respect the wishes of those who desire to no longer live in suffering,
Believing that euthanasia is a fundamental human right,
Aware however that opinion on this is sharply divided,
However accepting that any direct legalisation of euthanasia is likely to produce great rifts in the international community:
Declares each nation has the right to set its own euthanasia policies;
If you were to put this up like this then we might support it but with all the extra in it we could not support it.

Noticing that more oppressive governments wish to prohibit euthanasia, so as to exercise greater control over the bodies and moralities of their citizens,Attacking in a proposal certain governments is not the way to keep the peace... and you by this do so...

Considering such policies to be shameful and unfair,More assaults on certain governments that are members of this body..

2. Expresses its disdain for nations who prohibit euthanasia based entirely on subjective reading of religious texts.Now you attack the religious or non religious here.. and to keep this neutral you should not show any favor for either side on this issue here you do...


AS it's the possible new replacement proposal that may come up and actualy get in place for the current resolution that we fear we have not voted for the repeal. As we feel it the current resolution lets individual nations do what is wanted... yet respects all nations on the issue just protects each from the other... and clearly in this debate we are divided and each side has strong feelings on this issue.. just as they have on abortion and capital punishment all issues best left up to individual nations and not the UN as should euthanasia be and is under the current resolution as poorly written as it might be. it doesn't take this out of individual nations hands to set the laws on euthanasia to meet their views on the issue...

Attacking in a proposal certain governments is not the way to keep the peace... and you by this do so...

More assaults on certain governments that are members of this body..

Now you attack the religious or non religious here.. and to keep this neutral you should not show any favor for either side on this issue here you do...Odd, those reasons are exactly why I would support this draft, at least it's saying to these certain governments what I think of them. :p

In our views, the right to decide when life is no longer bearable is a part of the very right to protect and control one's life.

As controversial as the euthanasia issue may be, it is well within the scope of the UN goals. Human rights should be promoted by UN, and euthanasia is one of them. We, as the world assembly, should not avoid decisions over controversial subjects: from power comes responsibility.

Therefore, we will vote to turn down this proposal.

Odd, those reasons are exactly why I would support this draft, at least it's saying to these certain governments what I think of them. :pBut should a UN resolution address individual views in it. That would only separate nations where the UN is suppose to bring them together! To keep this issue neutral; as I beleive is what is wanted in that each individual nation will have it's right to deal with this without the UN or anyone else for that matter saying how they do it; we must drop our personal views on this and respect each other regardless of how we may think on this single issue. You may be surprised to find that nations whos governments you dislike for reason believe the same way you do on this issue.

But should a UN resolution address individual views in it. That would only separate nations where the UN is suppose to bring them together! To keep this issue neutral; as I beleive is what is wanted in that each individual nation will have it's right to deal with this without the UN or anyone else for that matter saying how they do it; we must drop our personal views on this and respect each other regardless of how we may think on this single issue. You may be surprised to find that nations whos governments you dislike for reason believe the same way you do on this issue.I'm not going into detail on this topic as I will be doing so elsewhere (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11157483#post11157483), but your expressed desire for netrality on this particular matter has a decidedly biased undertone to it.

The UN has imposed views on everything, from #1 to #1001 - almost every resolution has been on one side of an issue or another. The only realisitic way of ensuring neutrality on all issues is to have absolutely no legislation whatsoever. Which takes us back to the question posed earlier, why have a UN?

The UN is more than a mere talking shop, it's a big international monster, with teeth, that will stomp on anyone who doesn't comply. This is the reality of the matter.

while i sneer at your closed mindedness, i applaud your views of the most corupt and pathetic organization :D

Now, you'll support this, right?

Oh man.......conflicting emotions here.

The UN is more than a mere talking shop, it's a big international monster, with teeth, that will stomp on anyone who doesn't comply. This is the reality of the matter.Ha. :rolleyes:

As a result of the length of this discussion, several members of our UN delegation have lost the will to live and have slipped into comatose states from which we are medically advised they are unlikely to return.

Two of them had previously signed afferdavits stating explicitly that, should they find themselves in this state, they would prefer to have their lives ended painlessly.

So, just to clarify the situation, can we legally help them to end their suffering so long as we then plant 4.99 acres of trees afterwards?

Archnimbob Gulliwag III
Top Nob

they are just UN delegates. let them suffer. :p

in the interests of getting a response, how's this:

Now, you'll support this, right?

:) Most people would probably not support that. You are correct in making a point that there is a line to which this reasoning will go. You made yours a bashing of religion which I find offensive. So I would not support it. It wouldn't matter anyway because it would maybe be deleted and definitely not reach queue. Why make this about me?

Obviously there are those who didn't support this repeal because they did not like how part of it was worded. The thing is winning by 3,000 votes right now though. Your point, however, has been understood. I'm not sure exactly what you want me to say.

To those who have supported this repeal, thanks for your approvals and votes. Today we celebrate greater national freedom and a more tolerable U.N.


Norderia
I doubt it. But admitting to not wanting to support it would ruin his/her cover. I don't expect an honest answer.

? You don't know me.

they are just UN delegates. let them suffer. :pDear god no. I know delegates who the only thing they are looking forward to is the day of their death. I've been invited to a few parties to celebrate their passing away. If delegates cannot choose their date to die, how can they organise parties? Where else will I eat tapioca pudding?

how about at the UN IS DEAD celebration. it's goig to be a blast

Proper spelling, correct grammar, appropriate use of quote-boxes, and you didn't come off like a raving madman. Very nice. You get a picture of a cat on some hangers:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/hangingaround.jpg


Please stick around and post more often.


Sure I can post more well thought out arguments that can be glossed over by the general assembly :headbang:

how about at the UN IS DEAD celebration. it's goig to be a blastQuit trolling.

you think i'm trolling? my coment was no less a joke then yours. both of our jabs refelct our beliefs. mine is a little more exaggerated ofcorse but it makes it more interesting that way. it pointless to debate in here because no one listens to anyone. everyone is so stuck on there fantasy views that they wont even consider anyone elses points.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=479525

For those of you who are convinced that the repeal will somehow illegalize euthanasia, please familiarize yourself with the above conversation and the game rules.
A repeal of a resolution CANNOT make something illegal. It cannot remove a right. It cannot enshrine a right. It is a repeal. All it is allowed to do is get rid of an old resolution. Where no resolution exists, nations are free to make whatever laws they see fit until such time as a new resoltion is introduced.

Resolution #43 is the worst resolution in the entire UN body of "law," or whatever it is we call it. Where do I begin with its many faults? It:
- is a poorly written rhetorical essay on euthanasia and as such no longer conforms to the guidelines set out for UN Resolutions
- contains no direct definition of euthanasia... a serious problem, since it purports itself to be a "law" on euthanasia. The author was clearly ignorant of the fact that there exists more than one type of euthanasia.
- did not specified an age. The wording used is "over a CERTAIN age." So, how young is too young? What if a parent or guardian wants to kill a disabled two yeart old, believing that they are helping to ease their child's suffering?
- 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
- did not directly defined a "life-threatening illness." Since everyone dies, what illnesses should result in termination, and which should be treated?

The use of anti-religious language is the most reprehensible. Who thought that a phrase such as "And for those using religion as a barrier, don't you think..." would be a good idea in a bill? Hello? Tolerance people!! In any case, such language is in every way opposed to the religious tolerance guaranteed by UN Resolution #19 and Resolution #26. On this basis alone, the bill should have been previously overturned or at the very least reworded.
Similarly, there is an apparent lack of value placed on the life of the dying, terminally ill or wounded. The author felt that such phrases as "Why should carers use up time on those certain to die..." were somehow ok. Again, this is reprehensible. 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 totally inappropriate to compare the worth of the dying to the worth of "those with a chance for life" in a resolution.

I, for one, am thrilled to see this disgusting waste of a resolution FINALLY be repealed. If you want a Euthanasia resolution, do a better job next time.

--Rooty

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=479525- contains no direct definition of euthanasia... a serious problem, since it purports itself to be a "law" on euthanasia. The author was clearly ignorant of the fact that there exists more than one type of euthanasia.So how does one define something that each member nation may define in it's own way and still come up with one definition fits all.

- did not specified an age. The wording used is "over a CERTAIN age."Here again comes in the definition of euthanasia as we don't see age as a factor here but ones mental and physical health as a factor over age as that has no part of it.. If one has say cancer and can't be cured and is in pain then they should be allowed to die with honor.. and respect regardless of their age... (note before you say anything read the next one..)

- 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 heartNor did it prevent individual nations from establishing this under national laws on the issue based on each nations laws on who has legal gaurdianship in such matters. Which is where it should be and thus is under the current resolution.

- did not directly defined a "life-threatening illness." Since everyone dies, what illnesses should result in termination, and which should be treated?It would be impossible to even list all the illnesses that might be considered for every member nation let alone define them.. thus it again leaves this to individual nations to decide what is to them an "L-T I"..

The use of anti-religious language is the most reprehensible.
--RootyThen did you read the repeal and note some of the comments made in it that are just as bad.. or one sided as this is. We don't like the wording of this (R43) but feel it as badly written as it does is better than what some want to see come up and get passed..

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=479525

For those of you who are convinced that the repeal will somehow illegalize euthanasia, please familiarize yourself with the above conversation and the game rules.
A repeal of a resolution CANNOT make something illegal. It cannot remove a right. It cannot enshrine a right. It is a repeal. All it is allowed to do is get rid of an old resolution. Where no resolution exists, nations are free to make whatever laws they see fit until such time as a new resoltion is introduced.

Resolution #43 is the worst resolution in the entire UN body of "law," or whatever it is we call it. Where do I begin with its many faults? It:
- is a poorly written rhetorical essay on euthanasia and as such no longer conforms to the guidelines set out for UN Resolutions
- contains no direct definition of euthanasia... a serious problem, since it purports itself to be a "law" on euthanasia. The author was clearly ignorant of the fact that there exists more than one type of euthanasia.
- did not specified an age. The wording used is "over a CERTAIN age." So, how young is too young? What if a parent or guardian wants to kill a disabled two yeart old, believing that they are helping to ease their child's suffering?
- 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
- did not directly defined a "life-threatening illness." Since everyone dies, what illnesses should result in termination, and which should be treated?

The use of anti-religious language is the most reprehensible. Who thought that a phrase such as "And for those using religion as a barrier, don't you think..." would be a good idea in a bill? Hello? Tolerance people!! In any case, such language is in every way opposed to the religious tolerance guaranteed by UN Resolution #19 and Resolution #26. On this basis alone, the bill should have been previously overturned or at the very least reworded.
Similarly, there is an apparent lack of value placed on the life of the dying, terminally ill or wounded. The author felt that such phrases as "Why should carers use up time on those certain to die..." were somehow ok. Again, this is reprehensible. 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 totally inappropriate to compare the worth of the dying to the worth of "those with a chance for life" in a resolution.

I, for one, am thrilled to see this disgusting waste of a resolution FINALLY be repealed. If you want a Euthanasia resolution, do a better job next time.

--Rooty

We note the honourable member from My Travelling Harem’s comments with interest. For the record the Telidian government share your sentiments with regard to resolution 43, though for many in opposition to this repeal our reasons were not the moral/philosophical discussion regarding euthanasia. It was in fact to do with the wording of the repeal itself providing little argument other than telling us it is a divisive issue (we knew that), should be considered the same as R147 (can be debated) with some rhetoric. On balance we feel the author regrettably did noting to further the debate.

In closing though our congratulations to the Pro-Sovereignty Babes delegation on passing the repeal even if we did not agree. Passing a resolution or repeal is a worthy achievement.

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

And that tiny majority is democracy in action. It is still democracy even if the majority is one. Would you step down as leader of your country if you were elected by a slim majority? I doubt it.

Airatum does not have a democratic government. We do not elect our leaders.

We would point out that democratic systems do often have systems to protect the minority from a slim majority. For example, some systems require a larger majority when core legislation is in question, for example constitutional amendments.

Democracy functions poorly when it is entirely about the will of the majority, without protection from the will of the minority. A democracy that says a small minority should prevail on core issues is simplistic and dangerous.


Very true. But it is not the duty of the UN to dictate the will of the world. Merely to listen to the nations, and do their will. If an issue comes up again and again, it is only because it obviously has not been discussed in enough detail.

We admire your faith in discussion. We do not share such faith. There are some topics that no amount of discussion will bring to conclusion.


so, what are you getting at here? Get rid of the UN because it is inconvenient?

We were merely pointing out that the UN can be better put to use working on things were there is a significant international will, rather than creating and repealing the same law over and over again.


Honestly.. No... The other side wants to limit personal choice. There is no good reason for that point of view. The only argument I have seen is that it was a close vote.

Largely because those who were advocating for the repeal were not attempting to argue against Euthanasia, but against the "Legalize Euthanasia" resolution.

When a new proposal is made for legislation for or against Euthanasia, likely those arguments will be made.

Hopefully, someone has a Euthanasia Legality Convention in the works already, and we can decide not to decide on this issue at the UN level.

Humbly,
Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

Most people would probably not support that. You are correct in making a point that there is a line to which this reasoning will go. You made yours a bashing of religion which I find offensive. So I would not support it. It wouldn't matter anyway because it would maybe be deleted and definitely not reach queue. Why make this about me?

Obviously there are those who didn't support this repeal because they did not like how part of it was worded. The thing is winning by 3,000 votes right now though. Your point, however, has been understood. I'm not sure exactly what you want me to say.
Right, so you admit that it's not just "the teeth" that matter? That the arguments in the proposal actually do matter to you?

If so, then I'd like to you to bear that in mind for your future repeals/proposals, and perhaps also stop sneering at those who were offended by your arguments in this repeal.

If not, and this is somehow different, then I have absolutely no idea where you're coming from.

Congrats on passing the repeal, and good luck with the replacement.

Right, so you admit that it's not just "the teeth" that matter? That the arguments in the proposal actually do matter to you?

If so, then I'd like to you to bear that in mind for your future repeals/proposals, and perhaps also stop sneering at those who were offended by your arguments in this repeal.

If not, and this is somehow different, then I have absolutely no idea where you're coming from.

Congrats on passing the repeal, and good luck with the replacement.

Thank you and the replacement is now underway.

As to what you wrote above:
1) The arguments cannot be ridiculous. I think we established that point. However, many people who disagree about euthanasia voted for this repeal. I think it would have had more support had the "controversial" clause not been inserted. I have taken many of the suggestions in this discussion to craft "Euthanasia Legality Convention" which those of you who were for the repeal but objected to that one clause can now all flock over there and add your approval :)

2) If that was all you wanted out of this, I thought I have stated long ago that it could have been written better. I believe you will even be a part of the process of future efforts on ACCEL will you not?

Here's to many more discussions in the future!

Norderia


? You don't know me.


Or did I just write that line to get you to prove me wrong and thus answer honestly? The argument doesn't matter, as you said, unless you disagree with it. Clearly.


So... What constitutes a controversial enough issue that Grandma UN is going to say "I'm not touching that one with a 10 foot pole"?

If this happens again... I will be VERY upset. I might even pretend to make a threatening gesture.

Or did I just write that line to get you to prove me wrong and thus answer honestly? The argument doesn't matter, as you said, unless you disagree with it. Clearly.


So... What constitutes a controversial enough issue that Grandma UN is going to say "I'm not touching that one with a 10 foot pole"?

If this happens again... I will be VERY upset. I might even pretend to make a threatening gesture.

Sorry, the statement to you was an afterthought - I was responding to Gruen regardless of your statements :)

Your question is a very good one. I know abortion and euthanasia fall into that category. There are probably some other ones as well. I don't have a list in my head though.

Sorry, the statement to you was an afterthought - I was responding to Gruen regardless of your statements :)

Your question is a very good one. I know abortion and euthanasia fall into that category. There are probably some other ones as well. I don't have a list in my head though.

I just didn't want to hear about abortion anymore, and it was more of a "I'm really damn sick of hearing about abortion" that drove me to vote for the ALC. I regret that now. I don't think euthanasia falls into that category any more than abortion does. It's a divisive issue, but it sure as hell isn't that damn important. The Four Horsemen aren't going to come flying down, millions of people aren't going to die, the earth will not slow down and thus ruin its orbit around the sun and cause it to fall into it, and zombies will not rise up and eat our brains if the UN legislates one way or another one them.

And if there WERE such an issue in the world that would result in such events, then the UN damn well SHOULD be doing something about it!

I don't even know what I'm advocating or ranting about here anymore.

May I present our most enthusiastic congratulations to Pro-Sovereignty Babes for the passing of this Resolution, now officially numbered 162. At a 62% margin it was a clear majority, something the passing of R43 didn't have!

May I present our most enthusiastic congratulations to Pro-Sovereignty Babes for the passing of this Resolution, now officially numbered 162. At a 62% margin it was a clear majority, something the passing of R43 didn't have!

I am thoroughly displeased with this proposals' passing. Res43 should have been repealed, yet with a repeal that was actually worthy of being a resolution. This repeal is not worthy of being a resolution, and its poor arguments and apparent anti-euthanasian stance will forever be in the books of these halls. Maybe one day we'll be able to repeal repeals (somehow), and this will be the first one I target.

With regret, I now edit the UN Timeline...

This repeal is not worthy of being a resolution, and its poor arguments and apparent anti-euthanasian stance will forever be in the books of these halls. Maybe one day we'll be able to repeal repeals (somehow), and this will be the first one I target..Let us look forward to the time when a subsequent resolution will at least enshrine language that will be less moralistic and counter that of this repeal.

Jim Jones, Rubina
NSUN Mouthpiece
User Friendlia

I am thoroughly displeased with this proposals' passing. Res43 should have been repealed, yet with a repeal that was actually worthy of being a resolution. This repeal is not worthy of being a resolution, and its poor arguments and apparent anti-euthanasian stance will forever be in the books of these halls. Maybe one day we'll be able to repeal repeals (somehow), and this will be the first one I target.

With regret, I now edit the UN Timeline...

:) It was worthy enough to reach quorum and be soundly adopted. Sorry you were in the minority and feel bad about it. Chin up!

:) It was worthy enough to reach quorum and be soundly adopted. Sorry you were in the minority and feel bad about it. Chin up!

So was Promotion of Solar Panels...it doesn't mean that much.

So was Promotion of Solar Panels
And, more obviously, Legalise Euthanasia itself.

:) It was worthy enough to reach quorum and be soundly adopted. Sorry you were in the minority and feel bad about it. Chin up!

Stop using the smilies to mock. There is no worse a behavior than false amiability in victory.

We are dismayed by the passage of this repeal, dismayed that the Patients Rights loophole may now make ethanasia legal in all member states (nice goin', RA :)), dismayed at the copycat "Legality Convention" offered up minutes after this debate ended, dismayed at the prospect of divisive euthanasia debates to come in this Assembly, dismayed that some idiot deemed it a good idea to let our renegade president out of UN jail. Oh, yes. We are dismayed.

Alex Tehrani
Secretary of State

Ceorana feels that this repeal was misguided and not worthy of passing. Not surprisingly, euthanasia will remain legal in the Congressional Republic. In hindsight, we would support ALC because abortion is an issue where people disagree about an unprovable and undisprovable assertion: the status of a fetus. There is no such unprovable and undisprovable assertion with euthanasia that affects others besides the one who chooses to be euthanized, and we will do what we can to ensure Euthanasia Legality Convention stays where it belongs, in the UN forum.

Robert Bobson
UN Officer

dismayed that some idiot deemed it a good idea to let our renegade president out of UN jail.

While in her office Lydia was happily flicking through the UN rag mag pondering the potential onslaught of another divisive debate.

“There’s going to be blood on the walls again” she thought “last time all the upholstery in the assembly had to be re-done. If people would only think of the cost they‘d reconsider and the colour scheme! Eek! Oh not again, our poor collective eyes."

Her attention was suddenly drawn to a photograph of the Kennynite president. You know I’m sure I’ve seen that face before…

Stop using the smilies to mock. There is no worse a behavior than false amiability in victory.

I have no "false amiability". I'm pretty much always amiable. :)
I would use a smilie in a post had we lost this repeal. I learned earlier if you don't use a smilie you get your head chewed off around here. Now it happens because I use one. Such a harsh place.

I have just seen the replacement and am strongly against it. I like the idea of a Euthansia legality convention, but not the one that has been proposed. The current proposal once again gives nations the right to legalise Involuntary Euthanasia (where the person doesn't request death, but is killed because others see it in their best interest). Also, no definition of Euthanasia is given, deeming the replacement useless.

I am working on a proposal that gives definitions of all six types of Euthanasia, illegalises Involuntary Euthanasia and ensures that all nations legalise or illegalise the other forms, so as to avoid confusion went going abroad.

I will post it in the NS forum, some time soon and some other off-site forums.

I have just seen the replacement and am strongly against it. I like the idea of a Euthansia legality convention, but not the one that has been proposed. The current proposal once again gives nations the right to legalise Involuntary Euthanasia (where the person doesn't request death, but is killed because others see it in their best interest). Also, no definition of Euthanasia is given, deeming the replacement useless.You mean kLemons effort? Yeah, it's awful.

No, it's pro-sovereignty babes proposal 'Euthanasia Legality Convention'.

You mean kLemons effort? Yeah, it's awful.

That's your opinion, you're entitled to it, although I think awful is a rather strong word to use when describing someone else's work. It's not awful just because you disagree with it.

As a UN member with 2 endorsements I have made use of my right to write this proposal as a statement of my beliefs on the issue, and I am not expecting it to reach quorum.

That's your opinion, you're entitled to it, although I think awful is a rather strong word to use when describing someone else's work. It's not awful just because you disagree with it.

As a UN member with 2 endorsements I have made use of my right to write this proposal as a statement of my beliefs on the issue, and I am not expecting it to reach quorum.Sorry, I am being a tad grouchy today. You are absolutely right, of course. Do you want to know why I don't like it, or shall we just leave it there?

I sense an editorial comment...

He's making fun of people who use tags incorrectly? ;)

He's making fun of people who use tags incorrectly? ;)

-rimshot-

WooooooooooHoooooooooooooooooo!
The repeal passed!!

--Rooty