[PASSED] Repeal "In Regards to Cloning"

[Edgecoria]

The Federation of Edgecoria believes that the word 'copy' implies a deliberate act of replication, and as a result does not see the problem with the original motion. Things which reproduce asexually are often described as 'cloning themselve's The only issue I can see is with identical twins, but I don't think in common understanding we would describe either as a 'copy' of the other.

[Mahaj WA Seat]

Hello,
I noticed that you voted for the resolution at vote, Repeal In Regards to Cloning, and i'm asking you to change your vote. Allow me to explain why.

The resolution lists a bunch of ways that plants reproduce that produce genetically identical offspring. This is true.

However, the resolution also says
Based on this definition of cloning, General Assembly Resolution #142 “In Regards to Cloning” is rendered in a different sense than that in which it was meant.

THAT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE

In Regards to Cloning says
REQUIRES sapient clones in member nations be extended all the legal rights, privileges, and opportunities granted to their genetically identical counterparts,

Presumably, plants aren't given sapience in nations. This means those plants don't get extra rights or anything. The resolution is NOT rendered in a different form, because
a) Those plants aren't sapient
b) The clones don't get extra rights. THEY GET THE SAME RIGHTS AS THEIR SPECIES IS AFFORDED. No more.

Because of this, I urge you to vote AGAINST the resolution Repeal In Regards to Cloning.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.

Mahaj.

[Parti Ouvrier]

We're not prepared to support this resolution as there has been no replacement resolution drafted.

CJ
Diplomat for Democratic Republic for Parti Ouvrier

[Golden Mushrooms]

Mahaj, would you mind clarifying your above statement?

[Krioval]

We're not prepared to support this resolution as there has been no replacement resolution drafted.

CJ
Diplomat for Democratic Republic for Parti Ouvrier

Has Your Excellency considered writing one?

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Evil German States]

What is wrong with cloning buds, in example plants for food stuffs. Sure the present definition is off on its original intent, but people must realise that it goes along perfectly well with plants. My nation has no problem eating cloned meat, vegetables or fruits. I should not have to give up this right just because there is a miscommunication on the writers fault

[Mahaj WA Seat]

What is wrong with cloning buds, in example plants for food stuffs. Sure the present definition is off on its original intent, but people must realise that it goes along perfectly well with plants. My nation has no problem eating cloned meat, vegetables or fruits. I should not have to give up this right just because there is a miscommunication on the writers fault

You don't have to give up the 'right'.

[Daynor]

I'll never fully understand how it can happen so commonly that the World Assembly can pass a resolution by almost a thousand votes and then immediately turn around and repeal it by what seems likely to be a large majority. Makes me sad inside to see lack of thought...

I voted against the original and so I am for the repeal.

[Monxcleyr]

Again, I must stress, it's unfortunate a botched repeal will pass like this. Even if you want the resolution repealed, at least wait for until a logical repeal comes to vote. Unless of course the WA wants to continue the precedent of voting only on the title of a resolution and not the content.

[Wallace Idaho]

The original was passed by roughly 1,000 votes, and the next issue is to vote it down, because of terminology; this new contention seems like a bunch of... nonsense.

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

The original was passed by roughly 1,000 votes, and the next issue is to vote it down, because of terminology; this new contention seems like a bunch of... nonsense.

As co-author of the resolution in question, Gar #142, I must reiterate that the complaints with the resolution are largely valid. Personally, I support the repeal. I believe it's in the best interest of the World Assembly to remove unclear legislation from the books, and Gar #142 is certainly as loophole-ridden as any resolution.

It was quickly submitted, and the authors [myself included] failed to see the shortcomings of the resolution. There was very little input received, and we assumed that things were satisfactory. As we soon discovered, the resolution featured an 'improper' definition of clone and didn't protect many individuals it sought to protect. Furthermore, the resolution banned gardeners from cloning their flowers, vegetables, and even marijuana. Unless these people were trained professionals, they were technically in violation of international law.

I would love to have a resolution protecting cloned sapient beings; however, Gar #142 is not the resolution that will do it. I don't necessarily think that a replacement draft is required either; as I have mentioned in previous remarks, the Ambassador from 'Bears Armed' is proposing a piece of legislation titled, "Rights for Intelligent Beings" [though it extends 'human rights' to all sapient beings].

Rights for Intelligent Beings

This proposal, which I personally believe will have little trouble passing, will cover all sapients and negate the need to legislate on clones in particular.

I hope this sums up the argument concisely, as I have seen many nations commenting on this repeal without a full understanding of the 'real' arguments against it.


Saludos,

[Monxcleyr]

Can someone actually explain the risks involved with the original resolution? Yes the wording may not be 100% clear, but I fail to see how their is a loophole in it.

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

Can someone actually explain the risks involved with the original resolution? Yes the wording may not be 100% clear, but I fail to see how their is a loophole in it.

1) Any artifically created beings that aren't "exact genetic copies" aren't protected by the resolution.[unintended]
2) Monozygotic twins were included [at least some], as some twins are "genetically identical".[unintended]
3) Since only "trained professionals" can perform cloning, gardeners who clone plants are violating international law [unintended].

Those were the main areas of contention with the resolution.

[Monxcleyr]

1) Any artifically created beings that aren't "exact genetic copies" aren't protected by the resolution.[unintended]
2) Monozygotic twins were included [at least some], as some twins are "genetically identical".[unintended]
3) Since only "trained professionals" can perform cloning, gardeners who clone plants are violating international law [unintended].

Going off the definition given in the resolution

DEFINES clone as 'the organism that is an exact genetic copy of another'

Point 1 is moot because it wouldn't be classified as a clone, and would fall under the same class as other's in it's species. (Using your logic test tube babies would fall into that hole, but obviously they are still human.)

The resolution gives all clones the same rights as their respective species, so again, whether a twin was considered a clone or not would just be semantics.

And, trained professionals isn't classified in the original resolution. This would leave it to each WA member nation to decide what is or isn't a trained professional. This too, depending on how a nation chooses, could render your third point moot.

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

1) Any artifically created beings that aren't "exact genetic copies" aren't protected by the resolution.[unintended]
2) Monozygotic twins were included [at least some], as some twins are "genetically identical".[unintended]
3) Since only "trained professionals" can perform cloning, gardeners who clone plants are violating international law [unintended].

Going off the definition given in the resolution

DEFINES clone as 'the organism that is an exact genetic copy of another'

Point 1 is moot because it wouldn't be classified as a clone, and would fall under the same class as other's in it's species. (Using your logic test tube babies would fall into that hole, but obviously they are still human.)

The resolution gives all clones the same rights as their respective species, so again, whether a twin was considered a clone or not would just be semantics.

And, trained professionals isn't classified in the original resolution. This would leave it to each WA member nation to decide what is or isn't a trained professional. This too, depending on how a nation chooses, could render your third point moot.

Point 1 is not moot, because within the NationStates multiverse nations have the scientific prowess to slightly alter the genetic code of their nation's clones in order to circumvent this resolution.

I co-authored this resolution, and I've seen all the debate for and against it. With all due respect, please don't come in here and say that the arguments aren't valid when you haven't even seen them develop.

[Monxcleyr]

Point 1 is not moot, because within the NationStates multiverse nations have the scientific prowess to slightly alter the genetic code of their nation's clones in order to circumvent this resolution.

I co-authored this resolution, and I've seen all the debate for and against it. With all due respect, please don't come in here and say that the arguments aren't valid when you haven't even seen them develop.

Again, according to the definition given in the original resolution a clone is an EXACT genetic copy. Once you modify the code, it's no longer a clone, and at which point the organism in question is just a run-of-the-mill member of it's species.

I am well aware you co-authored the resolution, but that doesn't actually change anything. And with all due respect to you as well, you shouldn't imply that I don't understand the debate at hand. Unless of course you are saying I'm not allowed to debate because I'm not a co-author, at which point none of us should debate and only vote in the direction of the authors. Also, I didn't come in here just saying points aren't valid. I looked at your view, then replied with evidence supporting my view, please don't imply I'm ignorantly bashing arguments.

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

Again, according to the definition given in the original resolution a clone is an EXACT genetic copy. Once you modify the code, it's no longer a clone, and at which point the organism in question is just a run-of-the-mill member of it's species.

This is not necessarily true; in fact, that is the reason why we wrote the resolution in the first place. To prevent nations from classifying those beings as a separate legal class, and denying their rights, we decided to compose the resolution in question.

Your assumption [not evidence] that those beings, when genetically altered, would automatically become a "run-of-the-mill member of its species" is just that, an assumption. The reason I stated my belief that you didn't understand the arguments at hand was because of your failure to realize the ramifications of this loop-hole. Since you believe the loop-hole doesn't exist, probably because you were not privy to the entire discussion surrounding it, I stand by my belief that you don't fully understand the arguments against the resolution.

I don't see how you took my statements as to exclude anyone but co-authors of the resolution from the debate. I fear you may be attempting to twist my words, Ambassador. I meant to say exactly what I said:

With all due respect, please don't come in here and say that the arguments aren't valid when you haven't even seen them develop

As I mentioned above, you were not privy to the previous debates surrounding this resolution, both during vote and after passage. As such, your views of the arguments aren't as developed as those nations who have been involved with the debate from day one.

Saludos,

[Monxcleyr]

I do understand your argument, and under any other circumstance I would agree completely. But the repeal only points out how the definition of clones does not include natural clones. And since this is the repeal being debated, I need to follow the argument it places. Natural genetic mutations take place. It's a driving force behind evolution. Since natural clones are on the same level as human made clones, then natural mutations are on the same level as human made mutations. The mutations you reference as genetically altered. All life has slightly different genetics that it's preprocessor. So if s slightly changed clone is the loophole into mistreatment, then so is a natural genetic mutation. And unless you agree with that, your argument isn't logical.

And no, I don't think that's a proper counter argument, and I think it's ridiculous. But, it follows the same natural extreme the repeal is taking. The repeal sets up this counter argument. The repeal only covers how natural clones are not covered in the original resolution. But the arguments you have given for it being repealed are different. Specifically, genetically altering clones to get through the loophole. If we repeal resolutions because they don't adequately explain their cause, then we should also not vote for repeals that don't fully explain theirs. I understand the flaw in the original resolution, but this repeal isn't the one to do it. If the genetically altered loophole is your main issue with the resolution, than you should be voting against this repeal and vote for one that does cover it. Unless, of course the content of a repeal is irrelavent and all that matters is that the resolution is repealed.

And for future reference: A different understanding doesn't not mean less understanding.

[Parallaxium]

Hey all,
I'll try and address everybody's points while being as brief as possible.

Side-note: Kudos to Mahaj and CEG for a very good idea, which I fully support. As soon as wording problems are addressed, I will most certainly vote in favour.

In no particular order:

On the subject of the wording problems being 'minor' - this resolution was enacted into INTERNATIONAL LAW. In this field, no problem may be considered minor. The fact that it is at all even remotely possible to interpret the resolution in a different sense to that in which it was intended makes a repeal necessary. I put it to you thus - if you can interpret a law in whichever way best suits you, what's the point of having a law in the first place?

Monxcleyr, your concern with the repeal is that it is unnecessary, due to the 'failsafe clause' regarding sentience. However, this clause on sentience is not the only clause in the resolution. Specifically, I would refer you to the clause which states:
"REQUIRES that cloning only be done by trained professionals"
As an example, this clause would make it illegal for plants to reproduce in any way other than artificial cloning methods at the hands of 'trained professionals'. So while we wouldn't be giving voting rights to bacteria, we would be outlawing the natural reproduction of the vast majority of life on earth.

Edgecoria - the word 'copy' may also refer to anything that is a facsimile of another. I would also like to point out that the resolution uses the phrase 'an exact genetic copy', using the word 'copy' as a noun, rather than a verb.

Mahaj - in response to the telegram you've been sending out, refer to my reply to Monxcleyr. You, of all people, should remember the extra clause. Come on, now.

Parti - Submitting a new draft isn't my concern. My point is that the wording of the original resolution is flawed (Monxcleyr, I'll address your take on this in just a second), and therefore needs to be repealed. That's what I'm trying to do, and I'll leave the business of revising and re-submitting it to Mahaj, CEG, and/or Bears Armed.

Evil German States - I agree, but outlawing naturally reproducing plants is probably not going to help with that


Thanks for bearing with me through all that, and if you have any concerns that I haven't addressed, I'll be happy to debate them with you. I note that I probably should have specified the particular clause that the wording messes up (the 'trained professionals' clause), as my wording wasn't overly clear. Oh, the irony.

Parallaxium.

[Monxcleyr]

As an example, this clause would make it illegal for plants to reproduce in any way other than artificial cloning methods at the hands of 'trained professionals'. So while we wouldn't be giving voting rights to bacteria, we would be outlawing the natural reproduction of the vast majority of life on earth.

My problem here is that we will repeal a resolution over a very stretched angle, which is fine, of course, if you want to go that far. But we'll still vote through a repeal that doesn't even cover most of the arguments. If you must nitpick every last word of the original resolution, the same scrutiny should be applied to the repeal.

[Parallaxium]

I'm inclined to agree with you here, Monxcleyr. I should have gone over my repeal with more scrutiny before submitting it, and for that I apologise.
While the problems with the wording are rather minor in comparison to that of the resolution (ie the problem is a lack of clarification, rather than a potentially different meaning), it is slightly hypocritical.
In future, whether or not my repeal is passed, I shall take greater care to avoid such indiscretions, especially when attempting to repeal resolutions based on wording problems. Blahrem will be able to help me with that, and I will probably put up drafts on the forum for comments.

[Mousebumples]

Again, I must stress, it's unfortunate a botched repeal will pass like this. Even if you want the resolution repealed, at least wait for until a logical repeal comes to vote. Unless of course the WA wants to continue the precedent of voting only on the title of a resolution and not the content.

Repeals don't do anything other than repeal. As such, for repeals, I am in the practice of voting on the title of a resolution. Of course, if I'm planning to vote AGAINST a repeal, I do read the arguments to see if I can be persuaded otherwise.

New legislation actually DOES stuff. All repeals do - now and forever - is strike out the previous law from the books and stop requiring enforcement. As I believe we need a more effective and clear resolution on this subject, I am in favor of a repeal.

[Parti Ouvrier]

We're not prepared to support this resolution as there has been no replacement resolution drafted.

CJ
Diplomat for Democratic Republic for Parti Ouvrier

Has Your Excellency considered writing one?

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

I'll leave that to the reactionaries opposing the original resolution. You could prove to us that you're not reactionary by writing one.

CJ

[Krioval]

I'll leave that to the reactionaries opposing the original resolution. You could prove to us that you're not reactionary by writing one.

CJ

Seeing as how my activity thus far has been to cast my nation's vote for the repeal and ask if Your Excellency wants to write a replacement, I am not of the opinion that I have anything to prove. As other delegations have mentioned, there is a proposal being drafted that would extend equal rights to all intelligent beings within WA states, which I feel is more than enough to cover this issue. Labeling me as "reactionary" is laughable on its face, when one considers the voting profile of the Imperial Chiefdom.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Camylon]

Its about time they repealed this fecal excretion