Jump to content

[DRAFT] Euthanasia Ban


Calladan

Recommended Posts

Well....... my recent appointment puts me in somewhat of a quandary here. Because while I will, of course, do my best to be an ever helpful assistant and support the author and original poster in their duties as Minister, I can not conceivably find any way to support this proposal, and if this is to be the replacement for the repeal that is currently being debated, I would have to vehemently oppose the repeal as well, so that this proposal could never make it past the drafting stage.

While I accept the argument that nations should not be forced to legalise something that goes against their moral beliefs and/or any religious beliefs that they might follow, I do not believe that The WA should enforce those moral beliefs right across every nation. It should be down to the individual nation to choose. 

A tiny part of me is hoping that this is some sort of ploy - to write a proposal that forces the repeal to fail because the replacement is clearly so at odds with the original resolution that it makes the original resolution look measured and sensible by comparison (no offence), which is why I am bringing my initial objections here instead of in the more public forum :)

But if that isn't the case, and this is a serious proposal - I have to ask : why? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(The proposal - for reference)

Euthanasia Ban
Category: Moral Decency | Strength: Significant[/align] | Author : States of Glory WA Office

The World Assembly,

NOTING that some member states have legalised assisted suicide and euthanasia,

CONCERNED about the moral implications of a right to die,

BELIEVING assisted suicide to be an act of murder,

HEREBY:

  1. PROHIBITS euthanasia and assisted suicide operations in all member states,
  2. REQUIRES member states to treat the performance of euthanasia and assisted suicide operations as an unlawful killing,

  3. MANDATES that member states forbid participation in euthanasia and assisted suicide operations,

  4. ALLOWS member states to restrict their residents from foreign travel if there is reasonable suspicion that the individual is intending to evade euthanasia and assisted suicide laws,

  5. RESOLVES that World Assembly funds will not be used to facilitate euthanasia and assisted suicide operations,

  6. CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution affects member states' laws regarding non-assisted suicide.

 

Edited by Calladan
the formatting on this forum is REALLY not the same as on the main forum :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(smile) There is a general feeling (yet to be confirmed one way or the other) that this proposal is not a serious attempt to ban euthanasia within The WA, but to prevent a proposed repeal (that is also being debated) from coming to a vote and passing, because if the repeal leads to this - a complete and total ban - then a fair number of people would probably not want the repeal to pass in the first place (better the devil you know and all that). 

Like I said - this has yet to be confirmed one way or the other.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Davelands said:

This looks like another attempt at the Right To Lifers to impose their beliefs on NS as a whole. There was recently a proposal banning abortion (without explicitly saying that of course) that made it to a vote.

If you're referring to Protection of the Partially Born, that didn't criminalise abortion. It couldn't have even if it wanted to as it would have been ruled illegal for contradiction. The only reason people assumed that it banned abortion was that it was written by a member of Right to Life.

Anyway, I am indeed using this proposal as a weapon. You see, Imperium Anglorum intends to repeal the current NatSov resolution in favour of a replacement which forces nations to legalise euthanasia. The tactic I'm utilising is cynical, but if it protects national sovereignty then so be it.

 

2 hours ago, Big Bad Badger said:

Typically I believe that every repeal should be voted for and every bill be voted down.

I understand your position, but surely you'd oppose the repeal of a bill which explicitly protects national sovereignty?

 

22 hours ago, Calladan said:

if this is to be the replacement for the repeal that is currently being debated, I would have to vehemently oppose the repeal as well, so that this proposal could never make it past the drafting stage.

That is indeed the intended reaction. Out of all the GA regulars, Separatist Peoples is the only one so far who has picked up on what it is I'm trying to do.

Edited by States of Glory
Additional response
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...