[DEFEATED] In Regards to Cloning II

[Sedgistan]

Submitted and needing approvals!

DEFINES cloning as artificial reproduction of a being by techniques not occurring naturally for the original organism,
DEFINES clone as the being that underwent such artificial reproduction as defined above

RECOGNIZES the risk of cloning mistakes,
URGES nations to take steps to prevent cloning mishaps,
REQUIRES that cloning only be done by trained professionals,
DECLARES that nations cannot classify sentient and sapient clones as their own legal class,
REQUIRES sapient clones in member nations be extended all the legal rights, privileges, and opportunities granted to their genetically identical counterparts,
DECLARES that clones cannot be used for the purpose of or as part of a violation of other GA resolutions,
AFFIRMS the right of nations to pursue cloning of sapient beings,
PRESERVES the right of nations to illegalize such cloning in that nation,
REMINDS that nations are allowed to enact further legislation in regard to clones, so long as it does not violate this act.

Alright, so i've said previously in this thread (which, by the way, is worth a read) that i'd wanted to do a replacement if it got repealed (I said that in this thread too, probably) and even though I previously said otherwise, I figured I can try now. I won't be able to submit for a while, but I don't think it'll be ready to for that sum of time.

As I'm sure you all know, Bear Armed has a proposal, 'Rights of Intelligent Beings'. The main claim being human rights doesn't include all sapient, non human beings. The Secretariats have ruled that it does, taking away a main point of his proposal. Something that isn't addressed, though, is the status of clones, and whether they get defined as sapient beings, or whether they simply get defined as artificial creatures deserving of no rights. Thats where this proposal steps in, to say that 'yes, clones do get rights'. I've changed the definitions of cloning and clone, the sticking points of the last repeal, which means this should be accepted by most, I think. I've also kept Cool Egg Sandwich as co-author, as he deserves it, the proposal not being changed much, and he'll be kept as co-author, unless he doesn't want to be, in which case he won't be. Its simple that way.

The relevant ruling by Nervun, by the way, is here.

So what are the thoughts of people on this?

[New Aventine]

Cloning is not asexual reproduction. Asexual reproduction occurs naturally in all prokaryotes, and in some eukaryotes (e.g., certain plants and fungi).

[Mahaj WA Seat]

Cloning is not asexual reproduction. Asexual reproduction occurs naturally in all prokaryotes, and in some eukaryotes (e.g., certain plants and fungi).

I've changed it to 'artificial reproduction'. Does that soothe that?

[New Aventine]

Cloning is not asexual reproduction. Asexual reproduction occurs naturally in all prokaryotes, and in some eukaryotes (e.g., certain plants and fungi).

I've changed it to 'artificial reproduction'. Does that soothe that?

Yes, yes it does. Except you forgot to change it in your definition of clone.

[Mahaj WA Seat]

I've changed it to 'artificial reproduction'. Does that soothe that?

Yes, yes it does. Except you forgot to change it in your definition of clone.

done.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

DECLARES that nations cannot classify sentient sapient clones as their own legal class,

May I just point out that I understand that member countries claim to do such a thing to protect their rights: however Ms. Harper wishes to point out that such action denies clones the right to integration with the community.

AFFIRMS the right of nations to pursue cloning of sapient beings,
PRESERVES the right of nations to illegalize such cloning in that nation,

This could be merged into:

LEAVES member countries to decide whether to legalise or outlaw cloning of sapient beings within their jurisdiction;

[Mahaj WA Seat]

DECLARES that nations cannot classify sentient sapient clones as their own legal class,

May I just point out that I understand that member countries claim to do such a thing to protect their rights: however Ms. Harper wishes to point out that such action denies clones the right to integration with the community.

I'm afraid that one of us in misunderstanding the other, i'll assume i'm misunderstanding what you are saying. What that clause says is that you can't create a legal class called 'clones' and then do things to them. If you are cloning a human, you consider that clone a human and in the legal class of a human, not a separate legal class called 'clones'. I don't see how that would deny clones the right of integration, indeed I would think it'd foster integration.

AFFIRMS the right of nations to pursue cloning of sapient beings,
PRESERVES the right of nations to illegalize such cloning in that nation,

This could be merged into:

LEAVES member countries to decide whether to legalise or outlaw cloning of sapient beings within their jurisdiction;[/quote]
That was how I had it in the first IRtC, but Cool Egg Sandwich wanted me to split the clause into two, I did so, and I think i'll keep it as that.


Other than that, are there any other problems you can find?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

What that clause says is that you can't create a legal class called 'clones' and then do things to them.

My thoughts exactly, just to confirm, honoured ambassador.

[Mahaj WA Seat]

What that clause says is that you can't create a legal class called 'clones' and then do things to them.

My thoughts exactly, just to confirm, honoured ambassador.

Ah. very well, then.

[Kosei]

As one of the people who complained against the first version, let me start by saying this is a huge improvement. I agree that this kind of Resolution is needed.

The number one suggestion I have now is that cloning is too tightly defined now and would not cover somatic cell clones. I recognize that creating a definition that is both sufficient but not overly broad is hard. Might I suggest adding/changing the definition to:
"DEFINES cloning as artificial reproduction of a being by techniques not occurring naturally for the original organism. This can include but is not limited to
1) Any form of genome extraction and insertion into a different cell (somatic or germ cells) for development of a complete being.
2) The development of a being from a single source (one genetic parent) of stem cells or de-differentiation somatic cells that does not occur as part of the sources natural life cycle.

[Mahaj WA Seat]

And i've edited.

does this satisfy?

[Mahaj WA Seat]

.

[Kosei]

Yes it does.

[Mahaj WA Seat]

Yes it does.

Wonderful.

[Mahaj WA Seat]

bump

[Mahaj]

Okay, i'm going to submit this today, right as the update starts.

[Princess Luna]

This resolution is approved in the name of Princess Luna, if you deny rights to clones, why not twins too? Such absurdity.

[Mahaj]

This resolution is approved in the name of Princess Luna, if you deny rights to clones, why not twins too? Such absurdity.

Thanks!

[Arivali]

While I am against cloning; period, I suppose this resolution isn't too bad. I can support this.

[Krioval]

It could have been interesting to have explored legal status of clones in some depth - who would be listed as their parent(s), how they relate to their biologically identical progenitor, how their chronological age and apparent age should be reconciled (if different), and so on. I am also concerned that by disallowing the creation of special legal classes for clones, it will become impossible to craft legislation that specifically would assist clones As it stands, this is pretty much a rehash of the first one, and I believe that it will likely meet the same fate.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Mahaj]

This proposal has made quorum, by the way. If you care. Which you don't. Probably.

[Sionis Prioratus]

DEFINES cloning as artificial reproduction of a being by techniques not occurring naturally for the original organism,

This central definition is almost comically broad. It can be read as encompassing agriculture. After all, no man-made large-scale operation can be classified as "naturally occurring".

DEFINES clone as the being that underwent such artificial reproduction as defined above

Only reinforcing my point of view.

REQUIRES that cloning only be done by trained professionals,

And the death blow: the poor peasant is prohibited from sowing and reaping; now that's the exclusive domain of a small elite of corporate bioengineers.

Yours weeping for the poor,

[Mahaj]

DEFINES cloning as artificial reproduction of a being by techniques not occurring naturally for the original organism,

This central definition is almost comically broad. It can be read as encompassing agriculture. After all, no man-made large-scale operation can be classified as "naturally occurring".

But the plants would still be reproducing among themselves, right?

REQUIRES that cloning only be done by trained professionals,

And the death blow: the poor peasant is prohibited from sowing and reaping; now that's the exclusive domain of a small elite of corporate bioengineers.[/quote]
There are farmers who are trained professionals. They received training and are, well, professionals.

[Sionis Prioratus]

This central definition is almost comically broad. It can be read as encompassing agriculture. After all, no man-made large-scale operation can be classified as "naturally occurring".

But the plants would still be reproducing among themselves, right?

If that happens or not, it is of no consequence; either way it is undisputable it is not a "natural occurrence". No farm has ever "naturally occurred". The same applies to IVF babies; by the definiton they are "clones" even if they have a genetic mother and father.

And the death blow: the poor peasant is prohibited from sowing and reaping; now that's the exclusive domain of a small elite of corporate bioengineers.

There are farmers who are trained professionals. They received training and are, well, professionals.

There are, but far from all, or even a majority, for that matter. A most unfortunate side effect of this resolution is the elitization of one of mankind's oldest activities.

Yours in deep sorrow,

[Bears Armed]

DEFINES cloning as artificial reproduction of a being by techniques not occurring naturally for the original organism,

This central definition is almost comically broad. It can be read as encompassing agriculture. After all, no man-made large-scale operation can be classified as "naturally occurring".

"can" =/= "must"

'Reasonable Nation' theory?