NationStates

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?

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

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?

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

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:


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

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...

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.

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.

And next: Repealed repeal repealed.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

IC: The federation Council and Senate both support this.

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

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

Well that was a short drafting period...

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

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

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 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.

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.

Are there any distinctions between this resolution and the repealed resolution?

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.

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.