[PASSED] Repeal "Preventing Animal Abuse"

[Umeria]

I just faced an attack from invasive weed species and I have ordered its removal
The original act does not prohibit action against invasive species, that is false reading of the resolution

It doesn't do anything with invasive plant species, just invasive animal species. I thought that was implied. And what do you mean by 'the original act'? It's not changing, it's repealing.

[Sovereign Order of St George]

My Fellow Head of States and Governments,

The Savoreign Order of St. George cannot let the law against animal abuse being repealed. We believe that every living creature have an equal right to live and are not subject of other abusive activities. Using animal as a test tools will put them in danger and threatning their sustainability.

Therefor, Honorable Delegates, our country will vote against this resolutions.

Michael V
Prince and Grand Master

[Excidium Planetis]

I vote against this repeal because it specifically mentions animal testing. Animal testing, both cosmetic and medical, is completely abhorrent and its reintroduction would be a complete crime against nature, as well as morally perverse.

"Animal testing is responsible for virtually every medical breakthrough you've ever seen, likely. If you want to go back to the days of diseases killing you all the time, you can do that. But don't force other states to die with you."

We are animals

"No, you aren't. GA#372 specifically recognizes animals as non-sapient beings. Because you have the capacity to reason and act with appropriate judgement, presumably, you are clearly sapient, and thus cannot be an animal."

Animals deserve the same life we get. Humans practically have these rights, so there's no reason why other living animals don't deserve the same.

"They aren't sapient. That's a reason. Tell me, why should they deserve the same rights we get, when they are not our equals?"

Schultz seems to be somewhat lacking in passion for these arguments. Perhaps she is simply tired, or it is a result of grieving over the loss of the Mouth.

[South Sacred Sauce]

Again we are against repealing GA # 372. We recognise the argument on point 1, even if we don't agree with it, we understand further discussion should be made regarding this point, but as ALWAYS is falsely raised, GA #372 doesn't make illegal controlling pests or send children to jail for killing ants... GA #372 points 1 and 3 also doesn't prevent member nations from taking action to avert ecosystem collapse by intervening against invasive predator species plus it doesn't prevents pharmaceutical research... it was not the purpose and it will never be...
We think nations who are having trouble to deal with laws like concerning criminal age of your citizens and are locking up kids for ant killing, should review your WA application, cause then how can your courts take legal action on other WA resolutions? There isn't perfect laws... everyone can make the worst interpretation of any legal code... that's why the judiciary is in the hands of professionals who attended some kind of law school or similar. Sorry for being harsh or misspelled some words... not our intention, just tired of this child killing ants argument... Focus on point 1, that's a good and well wrote point to argue...

[Imperium Anglorum]

But Clause 1 of the target resolution (https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolutions/start=567) states, "1. Declares that cruelly or maliciously causing physical injury to an animal, cruelly killing an animal, and torturing an animal are outlawed and prohibited within World Assembly member nations;"

This is clear that it means cruelty and malice in killing an animal are prohibited; *not* the act of killing per se. Ecosystem-balancing operations, the culling of invasive species, could perhaps be undertaken cruelly (see the treatment of dogs in "Transmetropolitan"); but in the majority of cases they are not. Therefore this clause is very clear that it doesn't do what the repeal says it does.

OOC: I cannot think of a situation in which a large-scale culling operation (or, also widely used in New Zealand, traps) would not cruelly or maliciously kill anything. Unless you are going to assert that getting shot, having a mousetrap crush you body to death, and other such physical devices meant to kill animals, is not cruel, culling operations require such operations.

In a modern technology standpoint, the country of New Zealand has embarked on a plan to kill all of the nation's wild mammals (every single mammal in New Zealand was introduced, no mammal in New Zealand is not an invasive species). A few years ago, the government dropped a huge amount of sodium fluoroacetate on over 2 million acres. Sodium fluoroacetate causes heart attacks. I very much doubt that heart attacks are also painless. Similarly, the government has attempted to eliminate the Canadian goose, and in 2012, did so primarily through shootings on helicopters. I very much doubt these are painless too.

The only way to achieve these results without any kind of pain would basically be to use magic or technology so advanced it is indistinguishable from magic. Perhaps Excidium Planetis and Tinfect could do it with nanobots or robotic laser cannons, but that is far beyond the ability of most nations and getting into the mystical.

Clause 3 of the target resolution says, "3. Outlaws the use of animals in fighting sports and any other non-military and non-law enforcement exhibition where the animal is intentionally and purposefully exposed to physical injury;"

OOC: This is clear that it means fighting sports and exhibitions - not all activities of any kind whatsoever, but narrowly fighting sports and exhibitions - in which animals are purposefully injured, are outlawed. Ecosystem-balancing operations and the culling of invasive species are not fighting sports or exhibitions; therefore this clause is very clear that it doesn't do what the repeal says it does.

Oxitec recent created a transgenic mosquito which prevents mosquitoes from developing correctly. It mates with female mosquitoes and all offspring do not mature to adulthood. The entire point of this project is to intentionally and purposefully expose animals to physical injury. Similarly, other mosquito control measures involve chemicals which cause huge collateral damage and kill via poison. Also not very painless.

---

Although an argument could be made that 372 GA § 4 may interfere with medical testing on animals, it does not specifically prohibit it. Moreover, in certain (although admittedly unlikely) circumstances, 372 GA may actually permit the use of medical testing on animals. If an animal were to be diagnosed with a rare disease, there is no prohibition against pursuing experimental treatment in hopes of cure or symptom relief for the afflicted animal; in doing so, humans may also benefit as a byproduct.

OOC: So your plan to develop new medications is to hope that animals get infected of their own accord. Not only is this ridiculously inefficient, but it also fails to maintain adequate experimental controls to make sure that what killed the animal was actually the variable being tested.

With regards to clause 4b, I cannot find any reference to animal testing in 82 GA. While advocating for safe practices and informed consent, 82 GA makes no mention of pre-trial risk assessments and the use of animal studies. Furthermore, given sufficiently robust computer modeling, animal testing may not even be required for assessing drug safety.

OOC: The section speaks about how in 82 GA, you need sapient species to test animals. Without knowing the toxicological profile of a medication, the lethality risk goes up dramatically. If you do know it by something like dosing animals with differing amounts (the FDA uses rats and beagles in trials, which are required, by the way), the lethal risk to participants decreases dramatically. Since people don't join clinical trials when they could die, this also has a significant impact on the number of trials conducted.

[Imperium Anglorum]

GA #372 doesn't make illegal controlling pests or send children to jail for killing ants...

Are ants animals? This resolution says Yes in its preamble definitions. If they are, does killing ants via a magnifying glass or stomping hurt the ants? Most certainly. Thus, this resolution requires you to make it illegal for children to do these things.

GA #372 points 1 and 3 also doesn't prevent member nations from taking action to avert ecosystem collapse by intervening against invasive predator species plus it doesn't prevents pharmaceutical research... it was not the purpose and it will never be...

See post above.

There isn't perfect laws... everyone can make the worst interpretation of any legal code... that's why the judiciary is in the hands of professionals who attended some kind of law school or similar.

This is the only reasonable interpretation availed by the resolution when it also states:

Convinced that there is no just cause for intentionally abusing an animal, and that animals should be cared for in ways that support a healthy life free from suffering;

Resolved that animal abuse is utterly unjustifiable and should be universally condemned and prohibited;

Saddened that some individuals continue to permit or perpetrate acts of animal abuse out of antipathy, intransigence, and even malicious character;

[Alasanto]

Although an argument could be made that 372 GA § 4 may interfere with medical testing on animals, it does not specifically prohibit it. Moreover, in certain (although admittedly unlikely) circumstances, 372 GA may actually permit the use of medical testing on animals. If an animal were to be diagnosed with a rare disease, there is no prohibition against pursuing experimental treatment in hopes of cure or symptom relief for the afflicted animal; in doing so, humans may also benefit as a byproduct.

OOC: So your plan to develop new medications is to hope that animals get infected of their own accord. Not only is this ridiculously inefficient, but it also fails to maintain adequate experimental controls to make sure that what killed the animal was actually the variable being tested.

With regards to clause 4b, I cannot find any reference to animal testing in 82 GA. While advocating for safe practices and informed consent, 82 GA makes no mention of pre-trial risk assessments and the use of animal studies. Furthermore, given sufficiently robust computer modeling, animal testing may not even be required for assessing drug safety.

OOC: The section speaks about how in 82 GA, you need sapient species to test animals. Without knowing the toxicological profile of a medication, the lethality risk goes up dramatically. If you do know it by something like dosing animals with differing amounts (the FDA uses rats and beagles in trials, which are required, by the way), the lethal risk to participants decreases dramatically. Since people don't join clinical trials when they could die, this also has a significant impact on the number of trials conducted.

OOC:
Agreed. In my opinion, animal testing is a vital and necessary part of pharmaceutical research. However, if I'm interpreting the proposal correctly, the argument is GA 372 is too broadly defined and animal testing is subsequently barred under its auspices. However, I'd counter that GA 372 raises no such barriers given its specific use of terms like "cruel", "malicious", "sports", and "exhibition".

Clause 4 states that animal testing is "required by 82 GA 'Universal Clinical Trials Act'". Unless I'm reading the wrong resolution, GA 82 makes no such requirements. Presumably such testing would have occurred prior to the start of human trials, but the resolution makes absolutely no reference to animal testing. Technically speaking, GA 82 would even allow a clinician to proceed directly with human trials as long as it was a randomized double-blind placebo control study with appropriately obtained informed consent. Would recruitment be absolutely abysmal? Yes, yes it would. But it is theoretically allowed under GA 82.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Would recruitment be absolutely abysmal? Yes, yes it would. But it is theoretically allowed under GA 82.

I would say that 'theoretically allowed' is not the same as 'practically required'.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

But Clause 1 of the target resolution (https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolutions/start=567) states, "1. Declares that cruelly or maliciously causing physical injury to an animal, cruelly killing an animal, and torturing an animal are outlawed and prohibited within World Assembly member nations;"

This is clear that it means cruelty and malice in killing an animal are prohibited; *not* the act of killing per se. Ecosystem-balancing operations, the culling of invasive species, could perhaps be undertaken cruelly (see the treatment of dogs in "Transmetropolitan"); but in the majority of cases they are not. Therefore this clause is very clear that it doesn't do what the repeal says it does.

OOC: I cannot think of a situation in which a large-scale culling operation (or, also widely used in New Zealand, traps) would not cruelly or maliciously kill anything. Unless you are going to assert that getting shot, having a mousetrap crush you body to death, and other such physical devices meant to kill animals, is not cruel, culling operations require such operations.

In a modern technology standpoint, the country of New Zealand has embarked on a plan to kill all of the nation's wild mammals (every single mammal in New Zealand was introduced, no mammal in New Zealand is not an invasive species). A few years ago, the government dropped a huge amount of sodium fluoroacetate on over 2 million acres. Sodium fluoroacetate causes heart attacks. I very much doubt that heart attacks are also painless. Similarly, the government has attempted to eliminate the Canadian goose, and in 2012, did so primarily through shootings on helicopters. I very much doubt these are painless too.

The only way to achieve these results without any kind of pain would basically be to use magic or technology so advanced it is indistinguishable from magic. Perhaps Excidium Planetis and Tinfect could do it with nanobots or robotic laser cannons, but that is far beyond the ability of most nations and getting into the mystical.

I don't doubt that the NZ government's actions would fall foul of this resolution; but if you're going to claim that shooting an animal is per se a cruel way to kill it, then the target resolution contradicts Clause 1 of Sensible Limits on Hunting ("Recognises member nations’ rights to allow and regulate the hunting of non-endangered animal stocks..."), and also imposes a strict vegetarian diet on all WA nations. Yet the latter claim is nowhere to be found, while if it were a credible interpretation I'd think you would have included it. For the record, meat production often involves the mass use of "physical devices meant to kill animals," so if that is the standard, there's a big inconsistency there.

More importantly, the standard in the target resolution is not to "achieve these results without any kind of pain" - the standard is that animals must not be tortured. The resolution says nothing about a quick and relatively merciful death.

Clause 3 of the target resolution says, "3. Outlaws the use of animals in fighting sports and any other non-military and non-law enforcement exhibition where the animal is intentionally and purposefully exposed to physical injury;"

OOC: This is clear that it means fighting sports and exhibitions - not all activities of any kind whatsoever, but narrowly fighting sports and exhibitions - in which animals are purposefully injured, are outlawed. Ecosystem-balancing operations and the culling of invasive species are not fighting sports or exhibitions; therefore this clause is very clear that it doesn't do what the repeal says it does.

Oxitec recent created a transgenic mosquito which prevents mosquitoes from developing correctly. It mates with female mosquitoes and all offspring do not mature to adulthood. The entire point of this project is to intentionally and purposefully expose animals to physical injury. Similarly, other mosquito control measures involve chemicals which cause huge collateral damage and kill via poison. Also not very painless.

Also not an exhibition or fighting sport. The structure of that sentence is clear that it is banning fights and other entertainments in which animals are "intentionally and purposefully exposed [] to physical injury." And again, "painless" is not the standard required in the target resolution.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I don't doubt that the NZ government's actions would fall foul of this resolution; but if you're going to claim that shooting an animal is per se a cruel way to kill it, then the target resolution contradicts Clause 1 of Sensible Limits on Hunting ("Recognises member nations’ rights to allow and regulate the hunting of non-endangered animal stocks..."), and also imposes a strict vegetarian diet on all WA nations. Yet the latter claim is nowhere to be found, while if it were a credible interpretation I'd think you would have included it. For the record, meat production often involves the mass use of "physical devices meant to kill animals," so if that is the standard, there's a big inconsistency there.

In fact, I can say that I didn't know of it. Had someone informed me of it, I probably would have included it.

More importantly, the standard in the target resolution is not to "achieve these results without any kind of pain" - the standard is that animals must not be tortured. The resolution says nothing about a quick and relatively merciful death.

That isn't the standard. The resolution clearly prohibits the cruel killing of animals. It says so in § 1. I doubt that killing animals with a long and relatively violent death would be something that the original proposal intended to allow.

Oxitec recent created a transgenic mosquito which prevents mosquitoes from developing correctly. It mates with female mosquitoes and all offspring do not mature to adulthood. The entire point of this project is to intentionally and purposefully expose animals to physical injury. Similarly, other mosquito control measures involve chemicals which cause huge collateral damage and kill via poison. Also not very painless.

Also not an exhibition or fighting sport. The structure of that sentence is clear that it is banning fights and other entertainments in which animals are "intentionally and purposefully exposed [] to physical injury." And again, "painless" is not the standard required in the target resolution.

No. It outlaws significantly more than that. "Outlaws the use of animals in fighting sports and any other non-military and non-law enforcement exhibition where the animal is intentionally and purposefully exposed to physical injury"

If that were the interpretation, this clause would have no effect on any animals outside fighting sports, which seems even more contradictory to the target resolution's own preamble.

[Alasanto]

I would say that 'theoretically allowed' is not the same as 'practically required'.

I'd agree - but it still doesn't change the fact that clause 4, as written, is still factually inaccurate. The language of GA 82 does not require animal testing and makes absolutely no reference to animal testing.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I would say that 'theoretically allowed' is not the same as 'practically required'.

I'd agree - but it still doesn't change the fact that clause 4, as written, is still factually inaccurate. The language of GA 82 does not require animal testing and makes absolutely no reference to animal testing.

It clearly is not. Required is also a need for a particular purpose beyond simply specified as compulsory.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

More importantly, the standard in the target resolution is not to "achieve these results without any kind of pain" - the standard is that animals must not be tortured. The resolution says nothing about a quick and relatively merciful death.

That isn't the standard. The resolution clearly prohibits the cruel killing of animals. It says so in § 1. I doubt that killing animals with a long and relatively violent death would be something that the original proposal intended to allow.

What you're assuming, then, is that all killing is necessarily cruel killing. But if that were the case, the resolution would simply say "killing," not "cruel killing."

No. It outlaws significantly more than that. "Outlaws the use of animals in fighting sports and any other non-military and non-law enforcement exhibition where the animal is intentionally and purposefully exposed to physical injury"

If that were the interpretation, this clause would have no effect on any animals outside fighting sports, which seems even more contradictory to the target resolution's own preamble.

This argument requires you to take the word "exhibition" to mean virtually any activity of any kind. That doesn't fly.

[Imperium Anglorum]

That isn't the standard. The resolution clearly prohibits the cruel killing of animals. It says so in § 1. I doubt that killing animals with a long and relatively violent death would be something that the original proposal intended to allow.

What you're assuming, then, is that all killing is necessarily cruel killing. But if that were the case, the resolution would simply say "killing," not "cruel killing."

There exist not-cruel ways to kill something, Lethal injection or shooting in the correct places are examples. I would say, however, the majority of methods used to cull animals certainly would fit under a cruel label. This is also something which the resolution's preamble speaks about and an interpretation with regard to that preamble would be consistent with this interpretation.

No. It outlaws significantly more than that. "Outlaws the use of animals in fighting sports and any other non-military and non-law enforcement exhibition where the animal is intentionally and purposefully exposed to physical injury"

If that were the interpretation, this clause would have no effect on any animals outside fighting sports, which seems even more contradictory to the target resolution's own preamble.

This argument requires you to take the word "exhibition" to mean virtually any activity of any kind. That doesn't fly.

An exhibition is a display. I don't believe that you can have much of an animal cull without a display. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to actually determine its efficacy and therefore, you would be flying blind. To achieve a purpose, it has to be seen. Secondarily, the HM rule's interpretation is quite clear. Both subpoints would have to be false for this clause to be incorrect.

[Alasanto]

It clearly is not. Required is also a need for a particular purpose beyond simply specified as compulsory.

OOC: Again, I absolutely agree that animal testing fulfills a clear need when it comes to the safe development of medical treatments and pharmaceuticals. But when I look at GA 82, animal testing is completely immaterial to its implementation. Clinical trials can proceed whether or not animal testing was performed. Clinical trials can proceed even if toxicity studies were never conducted. It would be completely ridiculous, but still permissible. In many ways, GA 82 spectacularly fails at providing the safe development of medical therapy. As written, GA 82 is only concerned with the conduct of clinical trials at the human participant stage - which is why I find it strange to use it as an argument against GA 372.

[Imperium Anglorum]

It clearly is not. Required is also a need for a particular purpose beyond simply specified as compulsory.

OOC: Again, I absolutely agree that animal testing fulfills a clear need when it comes to the safe development of medical treatments and pharmaceuticals. But when I look at GA 82, animal testing is completely immaterial to its implementation. Clinical trials can proceed whether or not animal testing was performed. Clinical trials can proceed even if toxicity studies were never conducted. It would be completely ridiculous, but still permissible. In many ways, GA 82 spectacularly fails at providing the safe development of medical therapy. As written, GA 82 is only concerned with the conduct of clinical trials at the human participant stage - which is why I find it strange to use it as an argument against GA 372.

OOC: The section speaks about how in 82 GA, you need sapient species to test animals. Without knowing the toxicological profile of a medication, the lethality risk goes up dramatically. If you do know it by something like dosing animals with differing amounts (the FDA uses rats and beagles in trials, which are required, by the way), the lethal risk to participants decreases dramatically. Since people don't join clinical trials when they could die, this also has a significant impact on the number of trials conducted.

[South Sacred Sauce]

Oxitec recent created a transgenic mosquito which prevents mosquitoes from developing correctly. It mates with female mosquitoes and all offspring do not mature to adulthood. The entire point of this project is to intentionally and purposefully expose animals to physical injury. Similarly, other mosquito control measures involve chemicals which cause huge collateral damage and kill via poison. Also not very painless.

I'm sorry, but no, it WASN'T the entire point of the project... I may presume their point was to control some kind of mosquito population that was probably spreading a disease.

One point is clear, our countries just can't understand GA #372 the same way...

[The Eternal Kawaii]

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

As the representatives here know, we have supported GA #372 and opposed the previous attempt at its repeal. In the spirit of fairness though, we passed along the current repeal proposal to our Council of Elders' legal staff for their opinion of its validity. They are unimpressed by the arguments presented in the repeal, to follow:

Clause 1: The argument against "implicit moral supremacy" is self-serving, as one can easily argue that insisting upon treating the abuse of animals as a cultural right is an equal exercise of "moral supremacy".

Clause 2: The argument that the occasional destruction of invasive species is needed for ecosystem preservation does not invalidate GA #372's intent, which is to prevent the abuse of animals, not their destruction when their presence poses a threat to people or the ecosystem. The resolution does not ban animal culls, provided they are done in a reasonably humane fashion.

Clause 3: The argument that the resolution prohibits the destruction of pests is plainly false. The text of the resolution refers to "any person who keeps an animal". Pests, by definition, are not kept.

Clauses 4 & 5: The argument that the resolution forbids the use of animals in medical testing has some merit. However, we believe it does not rise to the level that would require repeal. Ethical medical experimentation can be done upon animals if necessary without inflicting upon them suffering or disease. We believe a moral society should object to such experimentation if it did not.

[South Sacred Sauce]

Clause 2: The argument that the occasional destruction of invasive species is needed for ecosystem preservation does not invalidate GA #372's intent, which is to prevent the abuse of animals, not their destruction when their presence poses a threat to people or the ecosystem. The resolution does not ban animal culls, provided they are done in a reasonably humane fashion.

Clause 3: The argument that the resolution prohibits the destruction of pests is plainly false. The text of the resolution refers to "any person who keeps an animal". Pests, by definition, are not kept.

Clauses 4 & 5: The argument that the resolution forbids the use of animals in medical testing has some merit. However, we believe it does not rise to the level that would require repeal.

We from SSS make your words ours. Well spoken my friend!

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC:
IA, I think your arguments are becoming increasingly indefensible, and that's coming from a supporter. Pesticide use that isn't cruel or malicious would be allowed, I think. (Of course this creates the problem of a line of non-sentient robots designed solely to kill animals in horrible ways not being a violation of the target resolution, since such machines cannot feel and thus cannot be cruelly or maliciously killing the animals, but that's a whole other can of worms.)

I think the best arguments are the ones you have seemingly put less emphasis on:
1) By requiring keepers of animals to protect the health if the animals, the target outlaws animal testing in nearly all cases, as well as outlaws slaughtering animals for food.
2) The overly broad definition of animal (which is also oddly narrower than the RL definition) makes it illegal to kill bees (and possibly ants) for fun.
3) The resolution unnecessarily expands the powers of the WA to begin legislating on individuals within nations, which is simply unacceptable.

The last one isn't even present, I think. It's really mostly a NatSov argument, except that it isn't even about National Sovereignty but Individual Sovereignty.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
IA, I think your arguments are becoming increasingly indefensible, and that's coming from a supporter. Pesticide use that isn't cruel or malicious would be allowed, I think. (Of course this creates the problem of a line of non-sentient robots designed solely to kill animals in horrible ways not being a violation of the target resolution, since such machines cannot feel and thus cannot be cruelly or maliciously killing the animals, but that's a whole other can of worms.)

I think the best arguments are the ones you have seemingly put less emphasis on:
1) By requiring keepers of animals to protect the health if the animals, the target outlaws animal testing in nearly all cases, as well as outlaws slaughtering animals for food.
2) The overly broad definition of animal (which is also oddly narrower than the RL definition) makes it illegal to kill bees (and possibly ants) for fun.
3) The resolution unnecessarily expands the powers of the WA to begin legislating on individuals within nations, which is simply unacceptable.

The last one isn't even present, I think. It's really mostly a NatSov argument, except that it isn't even about National Sovereignty but Individual Sovereignty.

OOC:
I'm going to have to agree with Excidium. I''ve not been a fan of the repeal argumentation here, and I do feel that you could have gone with more substantial ones, rather than it arguing from a stance of 'moral supremacy' or somesuch in the target.

On the other hand, this is passing so... I guess it must have worked out.

[Ghostopolis]

Deputy Ambassador Graves waits for a break in the vigorous debate to file his own statement.

"My fellow delegates and ambassadors, once more we consider the matter of the resolution 'Preventing Animal Abuse.' I suspect we will continue to debate this legislation until its most obvious points of contention are removed or clarified without a doubt. I continue to share the belief that a good faith interpretation of this resolution can allow for most of the things this repeal is concerned with preserving, and in fact disagree with some of the conclusions drawn by this repeal's author as well as some of its supporters. It occurs to me, however, that a resolution relying on good intentions and the benefit of the doubt to get around numerous potential unintended consequences is not one that stands on very firm ground. It is clear to me that this resolution is destined to be challenged repeatedly as a result. If it will put this ceaseless debate to rest, my nation is prepared to join those in our region who have voted so far in voting to repeal this resolution. We have always preferred a clearer and more constrained resolution, and opposed the last repeal in part because a replacement resolution that would improve upon this one was not available. I encourage the original author or the resolution's supporters to present a resolution that will satisfy all parties who have stated their case here, because I still believe in this issue and trust that the main sticking point here was always about the breadth of the legislation, not its content. Thank you."

[The United Universe]

The United Universe's Interpretation

1. Fair enough, it harms some religious beliefs but, the animals must be respected whether you like it or not.
2. I think only Clause 1 could be argued to prevent that as Clause 3 does not mention the prevention of the killing of invasive species.
3. Once again, animals need to be respected, harmful ones can be killed and non-harmful ones can stay.
4. Any drugs that can be confirmed as safe can still be tested and any ones that aren't safe shouldn't be tested on animals. Also, GA#82 never mentions animals as a mandatory subject.
5. Yes, it's important but if it isn't safe it shouldn't be tested on animals.

[Nickerie Empire]

"to ensure that drugs are safe and effective to consume, animal testing is required to reduce lethal risks when conducting clinical trials for new pharmaceutical compounds as required by 82 GA 'Universal Clinical Trials Act';"

As per 82GA: Universal Clinical Trials Act article 3) All participants in Clinical Trials must have given their consent to be included in the trial.
4) All participants in a Clinical Trial must be made fully aware of any and all possible risks associated with the drug being trialed. Participants who wish to leave a trial, having been fully briefed of the side effects will be free to do so, subject to possible forfeiture of any possible monies earned for their participation. 5) Any persons who by way of age, disability, or mental competence are unable to give consent for the trial themselves, may be able to have a parent, guardian or ward of the court enter a consent on their behalf, if it is shown that there is a benefit to them participating in the trial.

Clinical Trials are on voluntary basis only and participants can leave at any time if they find the risk unacceptable. Also at some point all drugs will have to be tested or used by people. We find animal testing to be not required but also a fairly unreliable indicator of what is safe for people and recommend offering better incentives to attract more volunteers. Also,

372 GA "Prevent Animal Abuse" 1. Declares that cruelly or maliciously causing physical injury to an animal, cruelly killing an animal, and torturing an animal are outlawed and prohibited within World Assembly member nations;

2. Further declares that individuals have an absolute right to defend themselves and others against a hostile animal, and nothing in this law shall be read to prevent or prohibit reasonable acts of self-defense, even if they cause injury to the animal;

3. Outlaws the use of animals in fighting sports and any other non-military and non-law enforcement exhibition where the animal is intentionally and purposefully exposed to physical injury;

Nickerie Empire fails to see how clause 1 and 3 "prevent member nations from taking action to avert ecosystem collapse and preserve the natural environment by intervening against invasive predator species". Eliminating an invasive species that threaten the local ecosystem is a reasonable act of self defense.

[Alasanto]

OOC: The section speaks about how in 82 GA, you need sapient species to test animals. Without knowing the toxicological profile of a medication, the lethality risk goes up dramatically. If you do know it by something like dosing animals with differing amounts (the FDA uses rats and beagles in trials, which are required, by the way), the lethal risk to participants decreases dramatically. Since people don't join clinical trials when they could die, this also has a significant impact on the number of trials conducted.

I'm still not clear how that is a rebuttal to my argument. To be clear, I agree with this logical construction:
- Assume non-sapient, non-sentient beings cannot give informed consent
- Animals are non-sapient, non-sentient beings (GA 372)
- Animals cannot give informed consent
- Clinical trials must obtain informed consent on all study subjects (GA 82)
- Animals cannot be study subjects since they cannot give informed consent
- Assume animal studies are a vital and necessary component of safe drug development
- GA 372 and GA 82 block a vital and necessary component of safe drug development by barring animal studies
- GA 372 should be repealed to allow safe drug development

If that was the argument put forth in this proposal, I would have absolutely no problem with it. However, that’s not the logic presented in this proposal. Clause 4 posits that GA 372 blocks GA 82 by preventing animal studies, but GA 372 in no way blocks GA 82. Animal testing is not a component of the 'Universal Clinical Trials Act' - not as an explicit regulation and not as an unwritten, foundational requirement. Do both resolutions adversely affect clinical trial recruitment? Absolutely. But that still doesn't change the fact that the logical construct in clause 4 is faulty.