At Vote:Repeal "Legalise Euthanasia" [Complete]

Former English Colony

Former English Colony

InFECtious
-
-
-
-
Pronouns
she/her
TNP Nation
Former English Colony
Discord
Erastide
New Resolution on the table. Voting ends Wednesday the 14th. Remember to state your UN if you're not a regular voter!


Repeal "Legalise Euthanasia"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution
Category: Repeal
Resolution: #43
Proposed by: Pro-Sovereignty Babes

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

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

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

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

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

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

REPEALS Resolution #43 "Legalize Euthanasia"
Click to expand...
 
This resolution is currently up for vote in the UN.

Please post your views and stance on this resolution below. Note, however, that you must have a UN nation in The North Pacific, or on active NPA duty, in order for the Delegate to count your vote.
 
Please vote for.

My UN nation is actually pending right now because I had to switch it for a current NPA Mission. It will be in the UN by tomorrow probably, and if you need the name, just PM me.
 
This is a very simple matter, one that pro-euthanasists and anti-euthanasists, natsovers and whatever the opposite of that can agree on: we hold proposals to a certain level of quality in order to become a resolution. To become a resolution, a proposal must be somewhat good. That is why UN Security Act 1 failed by the largest margin ever: it was bad. This repeal is equally bad. Not one point in the entire repeal does this even mention the current resolution, it only says that the issue should be left to natsovers and makes a favorable statement to those against euthanasia. We must hold repeals to a higher standard, we must not allow poor proposals to make it all the way. Please, I must urge you all to keep terrible legislation out of the UN. Please, I must urge you to vote against.

I cast my vote against, and I hope we all have the sense to do the same.
 
Please read the original and get back to TNP about poor proposal writing. Seriously, it is the worst written resolution in the UN history. It is not only vague and unclear; it is long and nor properly formatted one bit.

I also don't find this repeal that bad. Maybe just me...
 
We completely agree the current resolution is terrible. We want it out of the UN, but does that justify adding an equally horrendous repeal into the books? No.

EDIT: Here is a post by The Most Glorious Hack, a moderator of the game, who sums up my opinions nicely:

'Babes, allow me to explain.

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

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

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

That being said, your Repeal is nowhere near that bad, but hopefully you understand why the reasoning is just as important, if not more important, than the actual game effect. Sure, neither your Repeal nor my mythical one are actually inacting law, but they are representing the views of the UN as a body. If people disagree with those views, they won't support you. In a way, Repeals require even more effort and vetting. Proposals can be struck out; Repeals can't.
Click to expand...
 
PC Afterlife Forbid, it has multiple views in it. I admit instead of ARGUES that euthanasia... that it should RECOGNIZES that to many nations that euthanasia.... but that is quite minor.

I do think that repeals often (like resolutions) gather groups to win. This was the closest vote (the original) we are discussing. It was disliked both my format purists, those who wanted decide euthanasia themselves, and those that oppose expansive euthanasian laws. This includes those who find euthanasia not a human right (or the fluffy, tear-ridden explanation of the original) to a large extent.

I am not saying it is a perfect repeal, but I think it is either this or nothing. If the opposers of this repeal not a repeal want to convince national sovereignists to oppose this for a better one then write it up.

I know how alternatives are often hyped up when they don't or barely exist :shifty: as a supporter of many repeals.
 
This is the original, so people can read it and all its glory.
A child was sat at his mother's bedside when she was unable to breathe for herself and was under constant care. All the child knew was that the dignity of this once strong woman was slowly being drained away, hour by hour, day by day. The child's mother once told him that if she were ever in this situation, that he should do the right thing and put her out of her misery. He decided that he would obey his mother's wishes, and was jailed for 'killing' his mother.

I ask you where is the justice in this? That someone has no right to end suffering?

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

In the case of a freak situation in which a person has no serious illness or is over a certain age, if the person cannot make the decision themselves it would be made by those closest to them on the basis of professional medical advice.
Also if the patient is in a coma, 5-10 years should be waited until those closest to them make a decision.

The act also must be carried out in the most painless way possible.

Why should carers use up time on those certain to die, when this time could be spent with those with a chance of life?

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

Please think about this proposal carefully, and consider which path you would take if you were ever to be in this situation (God forbid)?
Click to expand...
 
I think we should vote against this. The reason is not because I like the orginal resolution. But because I think that the repeal is made just as worse. You should have posted that too.

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


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

Description: UN Resolution #43: Legalise Euthanasia (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.
Click to expand...
all ok
Argument: RECOGNIZES that the issue of Euthanasia is a difficult issue in which good people may, and often do, disagree.
Click to expand...
yes this is actualy said latter. Also because people disagree does not mean it should be repealed. When was the last time you saw a resolution with 100% this entire part is useless.
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.
Click to expand...
look is screaming your heart out a dignified way of dying?
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.
Click to expand...
another useless line. All repeals do this they cannot ban anything at all they only ever make nations decide something on there own.

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.
Click to expand...
If one thing is repealed dosen't mean another should be. That was an entirly different situation actualy. It was a good majority too. This would be like me quoting some repeal that never made it through the only thing that makes them in common is that they are social issues that where passed.

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.
Click to expand...
Ok so then why did that abortion thing get repealed. Also this repeal does not look like it is going to be desisve so maybe we should not go through with it :lol:

I am not supporting the old bill I am saying that the repeal is terrible. If this is not repealed the nat-sovs will make another proposal like it but better in a few weeks that will pass. BUT if this goes through then we will have this horrible repeal scaring the face of the UN forever because you can't get rid of repeals. So why don't we just wait a while for a semi decent proposal. This proposal does not even mention what it is getting rid of. that is just pathetic

I would like to ask the ammbassador to ACCEL why they are supporting this. THey are normaly a very organised and well thought out people to support something that is so badly made and even has a spelling mistke. Is very out of ordinary I understand you want the repeal but why have so much contrvercy if it had been made properly almost everyone would support it.

You want me to write a better proposal up. It would take me a day to do it and a week to have it edited properly. I Would do it too. You could do it most people could do it even the author of this could have. All you need to do is post a topic on this in the forum and then do edits that make since. Maybe multiple. I am sure many members would help to make this a much better proposal.

This is an easy thing to write a proposal on actualy because people are generaly in agrement as long as you have half sound arguments people will agree. But this makes no since. I would rather if it just said repeal resolution "Legalise Euthanasia" then finish.
 
Welcome to TNP Frolondire! While I disagree with your opinion on the resolution, I hope you stay on the forum and continue to participate in our debates and discussions :hello:
 
I think it is currently 1-1 on this forum. I think it is false advertising when non-TNP people post here and don't make it clear they aren't members. I am not a member as I stated in all my original posts.

To respond to Frolondire:
I would like to ask the ammbassador to ACCEL why they are supporting this. THey are normaly a very organised and well thought out people to support something that is so badly made and even has a spelling mistke. Is very out of ordinary I understand you want the repeal but why have so much contrvercy if it had been made properly almost everyone would support it.
Click to expand...
I will agree that it'd be ideal if repeals just stated they were repealing the previous resolution and seperate debate discussed why. I also think once something is repealed it and the repeal should be moved to a different file then passed UN resolutions. The list is absurdly long anyways, so cleaning it up is in order with or without this repeal passing.
There is though not a perfect setting in the UN (thats why nat sovs exist because it is particularly bad.) The controversial section is possibly too controversial for its own good, yet the old resolution is not only poorly written yet its vagueness causes some pretty funky conclusions to be made. One, a child can decide if their parent dies or leaves...as a CHILD. It also stated the child before the resolution was arrested thus concluding in my judgment that the child did it as opposed to the doctor. That is crazy. There are also other serious and really substantive issues with it as opposed to the repeal which does nothing but repeal a really ugly, divisive, and potentially hazardous original.

As I stated earlier, the UN is about the gathering of groups which for this includes sovereignists and those that oppose too open euthanasia laws. Though we might disagree with this or that level of antipathy towards euthanasia it is a sizeable population (like the Abortion issue that was stated by the repeal), and it being a part of an overall good thing is not so tragic in my book. It is very hard to get repeal to the floor, and this took a lot of work (I know the author from a similar association). To waste this chance really would stain the UN... There is serious and emotional disagreement with euthanasia, and it being left to an issue where all sides can get their ideal legislation would be the best.

Sarcodina
 
I'll take a shot at this one.

Proposed by: Pro-Sovereignty Babes
Click to expand...
Oh boy. This'll be interesting.

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

ARGUES that euthanasia proposes to eliminate suffering by eliminating the one who suffers. Euthanasia violates the principle that each human being has intrinsic dignity and value, regardless of age, physical or mental condition, or state of dependency.
Click to expand...
Did anybody say they didn't have value? Some people put it in their wills that they don't wish to be kept alive artificially, etc. Some people with terminal cancer - something that the doctors have already conclusively proven that there's nothing they can do to save the patient - may request this to just get it all over with. If one reads the resolution, it clearly states that the decision is to be made by the "one who suffers", unless they are unable to make that decision themselves.

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.
Click to expand...
Ok, point taken.

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.
Click to expand...
Ok.

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.
Click to expand...
Oh boo hoo. You already said it was controversial. That's how democracy works.

My main problem with this is that there is nothing forcing people to take euthanasia. The choice is left to them, which is really where it should be. It's that person's life on the line, not that of the nation's legislature. This resolution, while not the best written, allows people to make the choice themselves. If they're really against euthanasia, they won't take it. Let it stay up to them.

I will vote against, but may be hopping around for NPA stuff. Right now I'm in TNP.
 
My main problem with this is that there is nothing forcing people to take euthanasia. The choice is left to them, which is really where it should be. It's that person's life on the line, not that of the nation's legislature. This resolution, while not the best written, allows people to make the choice themselves. If they're really against euthanasia, they won't take it. Let it stay up to them.
Click to expand...

The original gives a lot of room on who can decide including allowing children while not stating that spousal approval is allowed. It also never clearly states when the life can be taken and if the illness being impossible to cure is part of the decision. The original resolution serves no one in the debate, no one.

The original is putting people's live on line and ample ground for crazed dictators (reminds me of that Monty Python scene in the Holy Grail when the guy who supposedly has Black Death is put in with the dead, but I am not dead yet...yet more serious of topic) to do what they please in a sanctioned fashion. This should be a daily issue with many different ways of handling the process. Democracy is about choices and freedom, and having to live with the original resolution is a direct affront to all UN members liberty :2c:
 
Hersfold, I'll vouch for your UN nation. Anyone in NPA can have a UN nation elsewhere and still have a vote counted. They can even keep thier UN nation secret as long as the MoD can confirm it.
 
Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the UN Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top