NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Protection of Biomedical Research, Take Two

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Darcness
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 6
Founded: Aug 01, 2013
Democratic Socialists

Postby Darcness » Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:16 pm

Auralia wrote:
Imperial Polk County wrote:"I vehemently disagree. To incapacitate someone or something is to render them unfit or incapable or to prevent something or someone from functioning properly. Just because an embryo isn't fit yet or able to function yet doesn't mean it's been incapacitated. I mean, is an infant considered incapacitated because it can't yet lift a five-pound bag of flour?"

Technically, yes. The word "incapacitated" does not necessarily imply that one has been disabled by some external force, merely that one is disabled. One dictionary simply defines the term as "unable to act, respond, or the like (often used euphemistically when one is busy or otherwise occupied)".

The authoring delegation should have used clearer language if they wanted to exclude members of a sapient species at early levels of development.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly


If one were to look just a bit further in that very same dictionary, the verb of 'incapacitate' (of which the adjective gets its root) is defined as: "to deprive of ability, qualification, or strength; make incapable or unfit; disable". Therefor, one must have an ability, qualification or such taken away or made incapable.

However, if we're going to go that deeply, perhaps it would make sense to also counter by saying that embryos are not 'members' of a species? Or should we, perhaps, not open that particular Pandora's Box?
From the desk of: Ambassador Janus Valeria
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of The Federal Republic of Darcness
Member nation of Europeia

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4914
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Tue Feb 27, 2018 5:41 pm

Darcness wrote:If one were to look just a bit further in that very same dictionary, the verb of 'incapacitate' (of which the adjective gets its root) is defined as: "to deprive of ability, qualification, or strength; make incapable or unfit; disable". Therefor, one must have an ability, qualification or such taken away or made incapable.

I grant that using the verb "incapacitate" with a subject and a direct object would have that meaning, yes, but I'd argue that it doesn't necessarily have that meaning when used in the passive voice. In other words, "X incapacitated Y" means that Y lost some capacity, but "Y is incapacitated" simply means that Y lacks some capacity without any explanation as to why.

This is not a particularly extravagant claim. The verb "disable", for instance, has the same meaning. "X disabled Y" means that Y was enabled and is now disabled, whereas "Y is disabled" simply means that Y is disabled without necessarily being enabled to begin with.

I'm not saying my interpretation is the only one, but I think we can all agree that it's at least ambiguous.

Darcness wrote:However, if we're going to go that deeply, perhaps it would make sense to also counter by saying that embryos are not 'members' of a species? Or should we, perhaps, not open that particular Pandora's Box?

I think it's difficult to argue that any biological organism is not a member of a particular species. It's true that the World Assembly has not definitively made a finding of fact one way or the other.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly
Last edited by Auralia on Tue Feb 27, 2018 5:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Catholic Commonwealth of Auralia
Also known as Railana

"Amor sequitur cognitionem."

User avatar
The Eternal Kawaii
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1738
Founded: Apr 21, 2005
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Eternal Kawaii » Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:48 pm

Auralia wrote:
Moronist Decisions wrote:In my personal view, that is a positive. This mandate should be as broad as possible and not made specific to stem cell research.

As I explained earlier, the mandate is written so broadly that it protects nothing.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly


Then the resolution serves as a blocker. We would think the Auralian ambassador's government would approve of such, no?
Learn More about The Eternal Kawaii from our Factbook!

"Aside from being illegal, it's not like Max Barry Day was that bad of a resolution." -- Glen Rhodes
"as a member of the GA elite, I don't have to take this" -- Vancouvia

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4914
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Tue Feb 27, 2018 9:02 pm

The Eternal Kawaii wrote:Then the resolution serves as a blocker. We would think the Auralian ambassador's government would approve of such, no?

It's not a blocker -- a later resolution could require member states to explicitly permit embryonic stem cell research, such as IA's. (This is true unless you interpret clause 2 in the way I've proposed, but that's ambiguous.)

In any event, we oppose any legislation that is primarily motivated by animus towards states who seek to provide adequate legal protection for human beings at an early stage of development.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly
Catholic Commonwealth of Auralia
Also known as Railana

"Amor sequitur cognitionem."

User avatar
Christian Democrats
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 9977
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Tue Feb 27, 2018 9:55 pm

Bananaistan wrote:OOC: Like srsly, you couldn't wait even one day to get a few opinions?

^ This.

Auralia wrote:
Tinfect wrote:That Member-States consider any temporarily or permanently incapacitated member of a species known to be sapient, to be themselves Sapient, regardless of disability or condition,

I realize this was probably not the authoring delegation's intent, but this provision would permit member states to prohibit embryonic stem cell research. A human embryo is a "temporarily...incapacitated member of a species known to be sapient".

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

I agree with this interpretation. Incapacitated is the adjective form of incapacity. According to the OED:

Incapacity: n. physical or mental inability to do something or to manage one's affairs.

An unborn child is a member of the human species, and he is physically and mentally unable to manage his own affairs.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Tinfect
Senator
 
Posts: 4586
Founded: Jul 04, 2014
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Tinfect » Tue Feb 27, 2018 9:57 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:I agree with this interpretation.


OOC:
Yeah, you would. Unfortunately, endorsement by certain members of GenSec, doesn't make an absurdity any more legitimate.
Even if it does make it technically legal...
Raslin Seretis, Imperial Diplomatic Envoy, Male
Tolarn Feren, Civil Oversight Representative, Male
Jasot Rehlan, Military Oversight Representative, Female


Bisexual, Transgender (She/Her), Native-American, and Actual CommunistTM. This nation does not represent my actual political beliefs.

Imperium Central News Network: Fourth Fleet reports successful engagements against Aeravahn forces in the Exterior Territories | Contact lost with 3rd Legion, presumed destroyed | TCO - Desolate Star destroyed in raid by Aeravahn forces | Military Overseer addresses concerns of Aeravahn Incursion: "No immediate concerns" | Indomitable Bastard #283

My battery is low, and it is getting dark.

User avatar
Christian Democrats
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 9977
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Tue Feb 27, 2018 10:01 pm

Tinfect wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:I agree with this interpretation.

OOC:
Yeah, you would. Unfortunately, endorsement by certain members of GenSec, doesn't make an absurdity any more legitimate.
Even if it does make it technically legal...

When five people unanimously read something a certain way, that's usually a pretty good indicator that the interpretation is correct.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Triangle And Square
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 103
Founded: Feb 06, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Triangle And Square » Tue Feb 27, 2018 10:09 pm

OOC: Let me make a timeline of this resolution here: A previous version of this (GAR #420) has been passed, and that has been repealed, and the repeal of that is going to be repealed soon.

So in short, it's something like: pass, pass repealed and repeal repealed. :rofl:

And next: Repealed repeal repealed. :rofl: :rofl:

Anyway, time to get serious. TNP's viewpoint on this resolution:
The relatively mild proposal seeks to ensure a standard of ethics and scientific rigor in biomedical experiments within the World Assembly. It ensures that member states engage only in research where the well-being and ethical treatment of the subjects are prioritized, but in a manner which makes additional testing on both human and lab animal tests possible. More importantly, the proposal preempts future attempts to block biomedical research in the name of religious or moral objections, ensuring that WA members can engage in research in the best interests of their populations.

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends voting for the resolution.
Last edited by Triangle And Square on Tue Feb 27, 2018 10:26 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Tinfect wrote:OOC:
Absolutely not, this is a patently absurd and frankly disgusting change that I am absolutely appalled you would even suggest. Absolutely unacceptable.



He Qixinian WA Mission.

User avatar
Bourne Free
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 3
Founded: Feb 17, 2018
Ex-Nation

Help me understand

Postby Bourne Free » Tue Feb 27, 2018 11:09 pm

So, if someone could help me out... The way I interpret this resolution is that clauses 1 and 2 basically determine that a human embryo is sapient/sentient. Then, it vaguely references "harm" in experimentation. Direct or indirect, would this not prohibit stem cell research for all member states? But it also mandates restrictions be rescinded that are not necessary for ethical or scientific standards. Are the ethics defined by the state, thus allowing for both the prohibition or permission of stem cell research? Or are the ethics forced upon by the world assembly? I'm searching for answers, but as of now I don't think this legislation is broad and ambiguous. It seems vague and I'll defined. Halp the nooob, please.

User avatar
Tinfect
Senator
 
Posts: 4586
Founded: Jul 04, 2014
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Tinfect » Tue Feb 27, 2018 11:11 pm

Bourne Free wrote:So, if someone could help me out... The way I interpret this resolution is that clauses 1 and 2 basically determine that a human embryo is sapient/sentient.


OOC:
It does nothing of the sort. Auralia's misinterpretations are deliberate attempts at misdirection.
Raslin Seretis, Imperial Diplomatic Envoy, Male
Tolarn Feren, Civil Oversight Representative, Male
Jasot Rehlan, Military Oversight Representative, Female


Bisexual, Transgender (She/Her), Native-American, and Actual CommunistTM. This nation does not represent my actual political beliefs.

Imperium Central News Network: Fourth Fleet reports successful engagements against Aeravahn forces in the Exterior Territories | Contact lost with 3rd Legion, presumed destroyed | TCO - Desolate Star destroyed in raid by Aeravahn forces | Military Overseer addresses concerns of Aeravahn Incursion: "No immediate concerns" | Indomitable Bastard #283

My battery is low, and it is getting dark.

User avatar
Bourne Free
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 3
Founded: Feb 17, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Bourne Free » Tue Feb 27, 2018 11:18 pm

Tinfect wrote:
Bourne Free wrote:So, if someone could help me out... The way I interpret this resolution is that clauses 1 and 2 basically determine that a human embryo is sapient/sentient.


OOC:
It does nothing of the sort. Auralia's misinterpretations are deliberate attempts at misdirection.


Would you mind elaborating, and leaving what the others are saying out of it?. I was talking about as I was reading it. And I grant the possibility that I am wrong, but I'm gonna need a reason. You did not, in fact, answer my question.

User avatar
Firemount Atoll Archipelago
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: Dec 18, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Firemount Atoll Archipelago » Wed Feb 28, 2018 1:43 am

I - as well as others in my region when polled - also reached the "protects embryos" conclusion, and several of us further wondered aloud at the meddling-disguised-as-prohibition-on-meddling approach

If you want to say something, which it seems you very badly do, say it plainly.

User avatar
Desmosthenes and Burke
Envoy
 
Posts: 217
Founded: Oct 07, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Desmosthenes and Burke » Wed Feb 28, 2018 1:50 am

IC: "We suspect the proposal will be subject to abuse and unintended consequences the same as the proposal that was repealed, due to the author's refusal to allow for a constructive legislative drafting period so that the author can pursue a petty, vindictive vendetta below the dignity of this body. We see little reason to waste our time and breath on this at this time."

OOC: I do not have the time to look at this in depth as my mother is currently being hospitalized, but you may fairly call my IC statement a more polite form of what I would like to say.

User avatar
Arkeyana
Minister
 
Posts: 2235
Founded: Mar 21, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby Arkeyana » Wed Feb 28, 2018 1:54 am

IC: The federation Council and Senate both support this.
A 4 civilization, according to this index.
Post-Scarcity Utopia with a sphere of influence spanning multiple clusters whilst having thirty galaxies for territory, capable of instantaneous FTL, and in general capable of messing up whatever picks a fight with it.
Generation 47, the first time you see this copy and paste it into your signature and add 1 to the generation

User avatar
Koupetornia
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: Feb 27, 2018
Ex-Nation

We Must Pass This

Postby Koupetornia » Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:50 am

This Resolution Must Pass And We Should Focus On Making This Pass

User avatar
Luizebaland
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 6
Founded: Feb 22, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Luizebaland » Wed Feb 28, 2018 6:25 am

Oh my! We fully support this resolution!
Again, nonetheless.
Scientia vinces

User avatar
NotAtlantis
Attaché
 
Posts: 87
Founded: May 09, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby NotAtlantis » Wed Feb 28, 2018 6:52 am

Well that was a short drafting period...

User avatar
Edreland
Attaché
 
Posts: 73
Founded: Jan 22, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Edreland » Wed Feb 28, 2018 7:36 am

Far too short a drafting period. People do not know what they are voting for because of the obscure language.
Edreland
Founded originally February 2014
Sir Alexander Forbes
Ambassador to the WA

User avatar
United Cities of Happy City
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 4
Founded: Dec 02, 2017
Ex-Nation

This needs more work

Postby United Cities of Happy City » Wed Feb 28, 2018 11:59 am

We do not like this at all need to be rewriten parts are not very clear and why so soon after the repeal

User avatar
Dirty Americans
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 147
Founded: Jun 23, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Dirty Americans » Wed Feb 28, 2018 12:31 pm

Auralia wrote:I realize this was probably not the authoring delegation's intent, but this provision would permit member states to prohibit embryonic stem cell research. A human embryo is a "temporarily...incapacitated member of a species known to be sapient".

Christian Democrats wrote:An unborn child is a member of the human species, and he is physically and mentally unable to manage his own affairs.


First of all, let's not muddle the waters here; for most purposes we associate the term "unborn child" with a developed fetus, not with a undifferentiated embryo.

Second of all, it's hard not to see that the text strongly implies sapience was at one point a preexisting condition rendered null by said temporary or permanent incapacity. It's somewhat stretching to suggest that potential is included in that statement.

Never the less, we are voting against this because ... I have no idea but our regional delegate is against it.
Dirty Americans of The East Pacific
Member of the Tzorsland Puppet Federation
Mike Rowe, Leader / John Henry, Ambassador
Bill Nye Science Guy / Rosie O'Donnel Social Warrior/ Michelle Obama Food Expert

User avatar
Wallenburg
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19632
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Wed Feb 28, 2018 1:47 pm

Dirty Americans wrote:Never the less, we are voting against this because ... I have no idea but our regional delegate is against it.

You don't have to vote with your regional delegate, you know. I sure know I don't.
PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OF ALL THINGS GENSEC
There never has been, nor will there ever be, such thing as a wallenburger.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
PRO: GOOD || ANTI: BAD

User avatar
No Name Available
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 18
Founded: Feb 07, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby No Name Available » Wed Feb 28, 2018 2:39 pm

Dirty Americans wrote:
Auralia wrote:I realize this was probably not the authoring delegation's intent, but this provision would permit member states to prohibit embryonic stem cell research. A human embryo is a "temporarily...incapacitated member of a species known to be sapient".



First of all, let's not muddle the waters here; for most purposes we associate the term "unborn child" with a developed fetus, not with a undifferentiated embryo.

Second of all, it's hard not to see that the text strongly implies sapience was at one point a preexisting condition rendered null by said temporary or permanent incapacity. It's somewhat stretching to suggest that potential is included in that statement.

Never the less, we are voting against this because ... I have no idea but our regional delegate is against it.


"It's quite possible to vote your own mind on an issue. I have only been around for a few votes, but so far seem to have opposite viewpoints on legislation from my delegate and have voted accordingly. Democracy is a wonderful thing.

"Regarding the Resolution itself, I was initially in favor of it (as I was against the repeal) on behalf of all No Names. However, upon looking closer at the proposed Resolution in comparison with GAR #217, #218, and #219, it seems that there is only one major step take: specifically barring nations from making it illegal to use biomedical tissues which were not donated for research. eg, there may be times when biomedical tissues are not specifically donated and under current law nations could ban them from being used for research; this Resolution would not allow such a ban.

"My vote is still currently 'For', but I will be revisiting this decision in a few days' time after there has been more debate."

OOC: Still new and learning the various legislation. Please do correct me if I am wrong in my interpretation, and kindly provide the reasoning used to determine such. There have been a few times already where the decided interpretation was quite different from what I came up with on my own, and providing reasoning helps to learn the generally accepted logic.

User avatar
Novo Razcon
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 55
Founded: Nov 10, 2017
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby Novo Razcon » Wed Feb 28, 2018 2:53 pm

Are there any distinctions between this resolution and the repealed resolution?

User avatar
Kenmoria
Senator
 
Posts: 4024
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:02 pm

Novo Razcon wrote:Are there any distinctions between this resolution and the repealed resolution?

Yes, there are changes that aim to address the flaws that caused the first resolution to be repealed.
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Bourne Free
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 3
Founded: Feb 17, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Bourne Free » Wed Feb 28, 2018 5:28 pm

Edreland wrote:Far too short a drafting period. People do not know what they are voting for because of the obscure language.


Exactly what my initial reading of the resolution led me to. Thank you!

It does not seem like there is an answer, or anyone willing to answer my previous post, which leaves me in a state of obscurity and makes me unwilling to support this, especially with it being so rushed.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads