Uan aa Boa wrote:The Boani delegation is concerned about the implications of this proposal. If there is to be no contradiction between (a) clones have the same rights as other members of their species and (b) "unconscious, unfeeling" clones may be used for medical experimentation does it not follow that (c) any "unconscious, unfeeling" member of the species may be used for experimentation? Is the Assembly sure that it wishes to see medical experiments performed on the victims of accident and illness prior to their death?
"That... doesn't sound good. Apologies to the the delegation of La Navasse. This is enough for me to decide to cast Baizou's vote Against the proposal."
- Ambassador Toyoharu Mizushima
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2018 10:04 am
by The New California Republic
OOC: The current trend seems to indicate that this isn't going to pass the vote.
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2018 11:04 am
by Ophaesia
Uan aa Boa wrote:The Boani delegation is concerned about the implications of this proposal. If there is to be no contradiction between (a) clones have the same rights as other members of their species and (b) "unconscious, unfeeling" clones may be used for medical experimentation does it not follow that (c) any "unconscious, unfeeling" member of the species may be used for experimentation? Is the Assembly sure that it wishes to see medical experiments performed on the victims of accident and illness prior to their death?
This is a problem for us in Ophaesia as well. We hope to support similar legislation in the future that doesn't endanger the rights of the ill and victims of misfortune, but must vote against this legislation as currently worded.
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2018 11:22 am
by Nullite
The problem with this is Nullite's entire population depends on cloning to reproduce, as sex is outlawed. If this is passed, the fate of our nation is doomed, along with our population.
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2018 11:27 am
by Kenmoria
Nullite wrote:The problem with this is Nullite's entire population depends on cloning to reproduce, as sex is outlawed. If this is passed, the fate of our nation is doomed, along with our population.
"Hardly, as long as the cloning is voluntary and done by qualified personnel, Nullite is perfectly in the clear."
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2018 11:42 am
by All Wales
The Delegate of the United Socialist States of All Wales would like to express his intention to reject this proposal on the grounds that it puts developing nations at a severe disadvantage. As there is no way of implementing this proposal in regards to already created clones, many developed nations are known to already have entire militaries based comprising of clones that would be in violation of this proposal, and will be allowed to continue to utilise this, whilst developing nations will be unable to use the same methods of expansion. The Delegate would also like to clarify that whilst he objects to military in all forms, he is using the facts of the world.
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2018 11:42 am
by Imperial Polk County
Nullite wrote:The problem with this is Nullite's entire population depends on cloning to reproduce, as sex is outlawed. If this is passed, the fate of our nation is doomed, along with our population.
Drane snickers. "Sex is outlawed? Have you outlawed Ferris wheels, chocolate truffles and crossword puzzles too?"
He clears his throat. "Anyway, I've decided to vote against this proposal. It's a bit too difficult to follow in spots; it took me a couple of passes through that "Excludes" clause just to make sure that having a twin wasn't illegal. Also, it doesn't define 'locked-in syndrome', the definition of a clone seems to exclude the clone of a clone, which it should not, and it seems to prevent the disposal of biological tissue resulting from a failed cloning process."
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2018 1:20 pm
by Longweather
"It is the position of the Imperial Dominion of Longweather that we reject this proposed piece of legislation. Sapient clones (in common parlance, not the atrocity of a definition put forward in bill) are outlawed within our borders as they wreck havoc with our inheritance laws and with medical authorization. "
Duchess Lovely Daggerwind Archon of the Imperial Dominion of Longweather Lady and Matriarch of the Most Valiant and Glorious House of Daggerwind Representative of the Imperial Dominion within the "World Assembly"
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2018 5:47 pm
by Neo Byzantium
"Our nation has always been one about the Liberty of the individual. It is out belief that it is their choice to do what they wish for their bodys. This so called convention is a blatant violation of this printable that leaves nobody happy. As such, I must vote against it." -Julius Nepos, representative of Neo Byzantium for the World Assembly.
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2018 6:20 pm
by Immurat Adduth
"It is the desire of the Commonweath of Immurat Adduth to see a globally codified definition of a cloned organism. However, We must reject that provided in this resolution, as it is too ambiguous and broadly scoped. The Commonwealth does not respect the political mangling of previously established scientific and medical terminology, that being, of a clone, for We, the Commonwealth, accept as being a biological entity that is replicated in an aesexual manner from and is identical to a singular ancestor. The implication that a cloned entity may be altered from its ancestor, or the improperly included and original term 'originator', is anathema to Our cherished scientific sentiments.
If it is the desire of La Navasse to forward the definition of 'originator' as refering to the ancestor of a biological entity that has been altered from its ancestor, then We wish this to be attempted without the associated bloat of the current resolution."
- Ambassador Belicosa Mu, Seven-Times Elect of the Commonwealth Electoral Lottery
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2018 7:38 pm
by Montenbourg
"Montenbourg stands that it would be a tragedy if we allowed disagreements on therapeutic cloning to jeopardise a convention that could ensure that human reproductive cloning is outlawed across the globe and protect vulnerable people from unscrupulous individuals, thank you"
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2018 8:09 pm
by Essu Beti
All Wales wrote:The Delegate of the United Socialist States of All Wales would like to express his intention to reject this proposal on the grounds that it puts developing nations at a severe disadvantage. As there is no way of implementing this proposal in regards to already created clones, many developed nations are known to already have entire militaries based comprising of clones that would be in violation of this proposal, and will be allowed to continue to utilise this, whilst developing nations will be unable to use the same methods of expansion. The Delegate would also like to clarify that whilst he objects to military in all forms, he is using the facts of the world.
“Don’t be ridiculous,” says Iksana, rolling his eyes. “Developing nations don’t have cloning technology at all, much less cloning technology that in any way can be used to create a soldier instead of yet another baby to feed.”
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2018 9:24 pm
by Shaktirajya
In concert with our regional delegate Davelands, We, the People's Hindu Matriarchy of Shaktirajya, hereby vote AGAINST this resolution. If a more comprehensive law on the theme of cloning were to be drafted in the future, it is possible that We would support it.
Uan aa Boa wrote:The Boani delegation is concerned about the implications of this proposal. If there is to be no contradiction between (a) clones have the same rights as other members of their species and (b) "unconscious, unfeeling" clones may be used for medical experimentation does it not follow that (c) any "unconscious, unfeeling" member of the species may be used for experimentation? Is the Assembly sure that it wishes to see medical experiments performed on the victims of accident and illness prior to their death?
"That... doesn't sound good. Apologies to the the delegation of La Navasse. This is enough for me to decide to cast Baizou's vote Against the proposal."
- Ambassador Toyoharu Mizushima
Individuals born and anatomically only able to be unconscious and unfeeling.
Baizou wrote:"That... doesn't sound good. Apologies to the the delegation of La Navasse. This is enough for me to decide to cast Baizou's vote Against the proposal."
- Ambassador Toyoharu Mizushima
Individuals born and anatomically only able to be unconscious and unfeeling.
"Erm, Ambassador, are you feeling alright? I understood every word in that sentence, but put together, it was incomprehensible."
Regardless, Baizou maintains its vote Against. If the proposal does in fact have the impacts the Boani delegation has described - that of legalizing nonconsensual experimentation upon non-clone sapients who are not presently sapient due to an accident or illness on the grounds that clones are to have the same rights as non-clones - we can see no reason to vote For the resolution."
"Furthermore, my other concern remains unaddressed. As written, the resolution would legalize non-consensual cloning of sapient beings so long as their clone was tinkered with such to not be sapient. That seems a gross violation of a person's right to their own genetics. I don't even need to get into the question of clones deliberately designed to be non-sapient and to be subject to non-consensual biomedical experimentation - there's plenty of other reasons to vote against. My condolences, Ambassador."
-Ambassador Toyoharu Mizushima and CARRIE
Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:29 am
by The New California Republic
OOC: It is pretty much certain to fail now, regardless of the fact that it has 2 days to go. For all it is worth, the vote may as well end now, because it isn't going to pass (and yes I know that isn't how the WA works, I am just saying that the extra 2 days is not going to help it.)
Baizou wrote:"That... doesn't sound good. Apologies to the the delegation of La Navasse. This is enough for me to decide to cast Baizou's vote Against the proposal."
- Ambassador Toyoharu Mizushima
Individuals born and anatomically only able to be unconscious and unfeeling.
Nobody doubts that that's what you meant Ambassador. Unfortunately it isn't what you said, and in lawmaking it's the latter that counts. You really should have worked on the criticisms you were offered rather than rushing to submission before the proposal was ready.
The Cloning Conventions Category: Health | Area of Effect: Bioethics | Proposed by: La Navasse
The General Assembly,
Defines a clone for any organism as a genetically identical or a genetically altered, artificially produced copy of a single naturally born individual, the originator;
Definesorgan cloning as artificially creating a genetically identical or a genetically altered organ from an originator’s genetic information;
Excludes, for the purposes of this resolution, any artificially produced but genetically identical or genetically altered copy of any originator that can asexually reproduce for the intentions of having offspring, the naturally reproduced descendant of an originator, due to an inability to realistically naturally reproduce asexually or sexually, from being defined as a clone, and defines them as an offspring instead;
Grants all clones the same rights as their originator’s species, regardless of any disabilities resulting from a failed cloning;
Restricts all cloning to only be done by qualified biomedical personnel, or qualified veterinary personnel in collaboration with qualified biomedical personnel;
Restricts the cloning of sapient organisms only to originators who fully consent to being cloned;
Permits the cloning of unconscious, unfeeling organisms from sapient originators, where the clones themselves do not have any sapience and have been proven to not be in locked-in syndrome, for biomedical experimentation and use;
Bans the cloning of conscious, feeling organisms from sapient originators for biomedical experimentation and use, and of any cloning of any sapient originator if the medical professionals who clone cannot reliably confirm, with a high degree of confidence, that the clone is not suffering from locked-in syndrome or any related disability;
Reserves for all sapient clones the right to know the origin of their genetic material at their national legal age of consent;
Allows the cloning of any organism that is not sapient;
Authorizes and actively encourages nations to share cloning technology;
Reserves for all WA member-states the right to legislate on the legal methods of cloning as laid out by this resolution and on anything regarding organ cloning;
Assigns the World Assembly Scientific Programme the duties of overlooking cloning for biomedical research and use to ensure their accordance with this resolution and the promotion of the sharing of cloning technology.
The Cloning Conventions Category: Health | Area of Effect: Bioethics | Proposed by: La Navasse
The General Assembly;
Defines a clone for any organism as a genetically identical or a genetically altered, artificially produced copy of a single naturally born individual, the orginator;
Defines organ cloning as artificially creating a genetically identical or a genetically altered organ from an originator’s genetic information;
Excludes any artificially produced but genetically identical or genetically altered copy of any originator that can asexually reproduce for the intentions of having offspring, the naturally reproduced descendant of an originator, due to an inability to realistically naturally reproduce asexually or sexually, from being defined as a clone, and defines them as an offspring instead;
Grants all clones the same rights as their originator’s species, regardless of any disabilities resulting from a failed cloning;
Restricts all cloning to only be done by medical & biological post-doctorates, or veterinary post-doctorates in collaboration with medical & biological post-doctorates;
Restricts the cloning of sapient organisms only to originators who fully consent to being cloned;
Permits the cloning of unconscious, unfeeling organisms from sapient originators, where the clones themselves do not have any sapience and have been proven to not be in locked-in syndrome, for biomedical experimentation and use;
Bans the cloning of conscious, feeling organisms from sapient originators for biomedical experimentation and use, and of any cloning of any sapient originator if the medical professionals who clone cannot reliably confirm, with a high degree of confidence, that the clone is not in locked-in syndrome;
Allows the cloning of any organism that is not sapient;
Authorizes and actively encourages nations to share cloning technology;
Reserves for all WA member-states the right to legislate on the legal methods of cloning as laid out by this resolution and on anything regarding organ cloning;
Assigns the World Assembly Science Programme the duties of enforcing this resolution.[/box]
The Cloning Conventions Category: Health | Area of Effect: Bioethics | Proposed by: La Navasse
The General Assembly;
Defines a clone for any organism as a genetically identical or a genetically altered, artificially produced copy of a naturally born individual, the orginator;
Defines organ cloning as artificially creating a genetically identical or a genetically altered organ from an originator’s genetic information;
Excludes any artificially produced but genetically identical or genetically altered copy of any originator that can asexually reproduce for the intentions of having offspring, the naturally reproduced descendant of an originator, due to an inability to realistically naturally reproduce asexually or sexually, from being defined as a clone, and defines them as an offspring instead;
Grants all clones the same rights as their originator’s species, regardless of any disabilities resulting from a failed cloning;
Restricts all cloning to only be done by medical & biological experts, or veterinary experts in collaboration with medical & biological experts;
Restricts the cloning of sentient organisms only to originators who fully consent to being cloned;
Permits the cloning of unconscious, unfeeling organisms from sentient originators that do not have any sentience and have been proven to not be conscious, feeling organisms in locked-in syndrome, for medical experimentation or for last-resort head transplants;
Bans the cloning of conscious, feeling organisms from sapient originators for medical experimentation, and of any cloning of any sapient originator if the medical professionals who clone cannot reliably confirm, with 99.99% confidence, that the clone is not in locked-in syndrome;
Allows the cloning of any organism that is not sapient;
Authorizes and actively encourages nations to share cloning technology;
Reserves for all WA member-states the right to legislate on the legal methods of cloning as laid out by this resolution and on anything regarding organ cloning;
Assigns the World Assembly Science Programme the duties of enforcing this resolution.
Should “sentient organisms”, “unconscious, unfeeling”, and “locked-in syndrome” be defined? I don’t want to be too nitpicky, but these are serious terms, and we don’t want a live, internally screaming person having undergone horrific medical experimentation only because he/she was in locked-in syndrome.
I don't see anything wrong with this. why are so many people against it?
Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 10:22 am
by Araraukar
The Empire of fascist Ural wrote:I don't see anything wrong with this. why are so many people against it?
OOC: Because what it wants to do isn't what it says it does. And when it comes to laws (WA resolutions in this case), what it says is more important than what it set out to do.
Like, think of a law that wants to prohibit you from selling alcohol to an underage person. And then what it says is "Requires the seller of alcohol to check the buyer's age, unless they pay with a credit or debit card". It might sound sensible if credit cards are restricted to adults, but it ignores the fact that someone who's underage might have stolen a credit card, from their parents for example, and could thus legally buy alcohol.
So what the law says, is what the law does, and on this occasion what the proposal actually says it does, doesn't match what the author says it's supposed to do.
EDIT: Additionally, the definitions and their exclusions are weird and confusing, and things that should have been defined, weren't.
Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:30 pm
by Dirty Americans
The Empire of fascist Ural wrote:I don't see anything wrong with this. why are so many people against it?
I know I have a ton of objections. In fact I had so many I left most of them on the cutting room floor when I made my comments. 1) Gratuitous definitions: defines "organ cloning" but always uses "organisms" in active clauses. 2) Has a paranoia about "locked-in syndrome" for a creature that was potentially created that way and as a result would never know it was a horrid condition (if it ever knew at all, without interaction of any kind no mind would ever develop in the first place ... remember clones are created not converted). 3) Odd weird thing about how "qualified biomedical personnel" are needed with the exception of when "qualified veterinary personnel" are needed ... in other words you need a vet to clone a goat but you don't need a doctor to clone a person (or do you need a vet to clone a person ... so confusing). 4) Really worried the "offspring" exclusion is a massive loophole in all of this (hey he's my kid, he doesn't need to know I'm his father, leave Luke alone). 5) Completely ignores a plethora of potential problems in regards to cloning.
Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 4:32 pm
by Metisia (Ancient)
The Empire of fascist Ural wrote:I don't see anything wrong with this. why are so many people against it?
While the people of Metisia do not yet possess such technologies we wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment of protecting clones and genetically modified individuals. Yet we simply can not support such a loosely worded resolution. Oddly specific in some places and very broad in others. Metisia supports the idea that artificially created beings are as much our responsibility as naturally occurring ones. But how much and in what ways these beings are protected in the first place is up to nations, not legislation. Because of technicalities it ventures into artificial insemination and altered organisms, and a strange paranoia about "locked-in syndrome" litters most of the text.
In short: The rights of individuals regarding life and liberty, reproduction, and degrees of genetic modification are not up to the international committee, but the nations in which they reside.
Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:35 pm
by New Keam
"In New Keam, we believe that cloned human life is human life, and that cloned humans should have the same rights as other humans. With that said, this legislation was written with good intention, but fails to adequately address the issues. The idea indeed has merit, but execution is flawed. This legislation must go back to the drawing board," the ambassador from New Keam protested loudly before retaking his seat.
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2018 1:32 am
by He Qixin 2
OOC: While cloning may prove better scientific advancement for WA nations, I still voted Against because cloning is a breach of human rights, especially to do with the body.
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2018 2:26 am
by Araraukar
He Qixin 2 wrote:OOC: While cloning may prove better scientific advancement for WA nations, I still voted Against because cloning is a breach of human rights, especially to do with the body.
OOC: Incomprehensible as usual, but there's nothing in the resolutions that would make it a breach of human rights. All the clones themselves, however, would have human rights.
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2018 10:25 am
by Metisia (Ancient)
OOC: Cloning is most definitely not a breach of human rights.
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2018 10:02 am