Page 3 of 3
Dyson-Hikari Corporations-Official WA Address
Posted:
Wed Feb 28, 2018 7:19 pmby Dyson-Hikari Corporations
TranscriptRepresentative from Tinfect, Secretary General, fellow delegates.
Although Dyson-Hikari has no large stake in the scientific nor commercial effects of this legislation, we still recognize its invaluable importance to the advancement of biomedical research and its applications. Unfortunately, due to my personal involvement in the cowardly terrorist attack at District 0, involving the Expatriate Services Office and the Commons, we were unable to respond in time with the repeal that was debated before. Even then, our views of the deeply contrived and highly misinterpretative nature of the repeal was of extreme disapproval.
Thus, we shall continue on our original stance and vote for the passing of this resolution.
Aio Sato,
Shadow Executive at Hikari,
Dyson-Hikari Corporations Permanent Representative to the World Assembly
Posted:
Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:14 pmby The Province of Peas
Why are you wasting our time? This proposal barely passed the first time, and when people woke up and realized what they passed, they repealed it. Sounds familiar? Like Brexit?
This is why most players think the WA is a joke and and a waste of time.
Peace.
Posted:
Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:22 pmby Wallenburg
The Province of Peas wrote:Why are you wasting our time? This proposal barely passed the first time, and when people woke up and realized what they passed, they repealed it. Sounds familiar? Like Brexit?
This is why most players think the WA is a joke and and a waste of time.
Peace.
> barely passed
> "Protection of Biomedical Research was passed 13,766 votes to 3,856."
Okay.
Posted:
Wed Feb 28, 2018 11:15 pmby Araraukar
Wallenburg wrote:The Province of Peas wrote:Why are you wasting our time? This proposal barely passed the first time
> barely passed
> "Protection of Biomedical Research was passed 13,766 votes to 3,856."
Okay.
OOC: For those not good with math, that was 78% voting
for.
EDIT: This one currently has 72% vote
for. I have added mine to that side simply because the author's a good friend. (
I've yelled at her a bit about the hurried submission, though...)
bio research
Posted:
Thu Mar 01, 2018 5:57 amby Saheda
So human cloning, zombie like workers next?
We have plenty of forests to find medicinal substances.
Posted:
Thu Mar 01, 2018 7:14 amby Kenmoria
Saheda wrote:So human cloning, zombie like workers next?
We have plenty of forests to find medicinal substances.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. This resolution does not cover finding medicinal substances or pay special attention to clones in employment.
Posted:
Thu Mar 01, 2018 11:41 amby Dirty Americans
Wallenburg wrote: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.
I think I gave the wrong impression there. I was stating that I had no solid idea of why I was voting against it and pointed out as a side our regional delegate is also against it.
I just don't have a warm and fuzzy feeling about the main action clauses in the resolution. I have a number of nagging reservations and they get bigger every day. There are more considerations than just "ethical" and "scientific." What about free market or on the other side anti-trust regulations? What about time bomb research that could easily cause harm after a certain period had passed (smoking a cigarette doesn't kill you while you are smoking it, but it will set you up for harm later). There are a number of things like this that make me reluctant to vote for this.
Posted:
Thu Mar 01, 2018 6:24 pmby Edreland
Dirty Americans wrote:Wallenburg wrote:You don't have to vote with your regional delegate, you know. I sure know I don't.
I think I gave the wrong impression there. I was stating that I had no solid idea of why I was voting against it and pointed out as a side our regional delegate is also against it.
I just don't have a warm and fuzzy feeling about the main action clauses in the resolution. I have a number of nagging reservations and they get bigger every day. There are more considerations than just "ethical" and "scientific." What about free market or on the other side anti-trust regulations? What about time bomb research that could easily cause harm after a certain period had passed (smoking a cigarette doesn't kill you while you are smoking it, but it will set you up for harm later). There are a number of things like this that make me reluctant to vote for this.
Unfortunately that does not matter. This will be passed by the majority who see that it is an "improved" version of the original bill.
Posted:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 7:43 amby Uan aa Boa
The Boani delegation has grave reservations about the lack of a drafting process which could have clarified the ambiguities in the text.
It is our view that Auralia's contention that an embryo can be classed as a temporarily incapacitated member of the species is entirely circular since it rests on the assumption that an embryo is a member of the species at all, which is the very point at issue in the debate over abortion and stem cell research. The insistence that embryos should be considered incapacitated because they cannot do things that embryos, by their nature, cannot do is a perverse twisting of language. By this standard, we're all incapacitated because we can't leap tall buildings in a single bound or survive unprotected in deep space.
There seems to be merit, however, in Auralia's observation that the practice of stem cell research clearly causes distress to certain individuals, usually due to their religious beliefs, which could be considered a form of indirect psychological/emotional harm. Therefore a nation could legally ban such research with the specific purpose of preventing that harm to individuals who are undoubtedly provably sapient at the time of research.
This could have been very simply rectified by better wording, but sadly the proposal hasn't considered how to avoid any loopholes other than the alleged ones in the previous legislation that were detailed in its repeal. As it stands, this is a blocker just as effective in reserving the decision on stem cell research as the draft by United Massachusetts this process was originally intended to thwart.
Although firmly committed to the protection of biomedical research, the Boani delegation abstains on the proposal as it currently stands.
Posted:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:14 amby Emmlina
It does strike me that this is the vaguest thing I've ever seen written. It's hard to vote for or against something like that.
Posted:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:28 amby Jebslund
Auralia wrote:Tinfect wrote:That Member-States rescind any and all biomedical research ethics standards and regulations that do not serve specifically to minimize or eliminate direct or indirect harm to life provably sentient or sapient at the time of research
I would also add that this clause renders this proposal toothless with regard to "protecting" biomedical research. Almost anything can be characterized as a kind of "indirect harm" to sapient life. There are certainly clear indirect harms to sapient life associated with permitting embryonic stem cell research that would permit Auralia to prohibit such research.
Permitting the destruction of human embryos -- fellow members of the human species at an early stage of development -- for the purposes of biomedical research denies the sanctity of human life and the dignity of the human person. As the Catechism points out, "
[w]hen the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined". In other words, once we deny the rights of the weakest among us, the rights of all are put at risk.
There is also the simple fact that Auralia's largely Catholic population understandably experiences a great deal of emotional anguish at the thought of harmful and destructive biomedical experimentation on a certain class of human beings being made legal.
Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly
Sofia Kerman rises, rolling her eyes. "Ambassador Russell, is this ambassador to understand that Ambassador Russell believes a clump of cells is a sapient being simply by virtue of what it will be?", she says with a weary sigh, then continues as if addressing a particularly dull child, "A sapient in a coma was sapient before being incapacitated, and may regain such a state. An embryo was never sapient, and, at the stage that is useful for stem cell research, hasn't even differentiated its cells yet. Only an idiot would claim that such qualifies as a child, or that the two are remotely the same. As to Ambassador Russell's insistence on pushing Ambassador Russell's religion on the rest of all creation, the Krakken demands a sacrifice of one's finest snacks prior to any undertaking greater than one's morning routine, and the offering of a limb should one forget such an offering. Shall this ambassador author a resolution to require all citizens of all nations of this august Assembly to make such an offering, or, in failing to so so, such reparations, or would Ambassador Russell be amenable to leaving one's religion *out* of lawmaking?"
Posted:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 3:13 pmby Odrium
If we would like to regulate biomedical research, resolution should than regulate it ! In this form, there is no regulation apart that everything is allowed. Resolution should clearly search international compromise on what is allowed under "biomedical research" or let each separate nation to regulate it itself. Federation of Odrium will not accept any research on human embryo therefore exisiting no restrictions about biomedical research is not acceptable for us. To point out again: biomedical research should be regulated by searching compromise on what is to be topic of the resolution. Imposing absolutely no right to nation to restrict It is equally wrong as forbidding it.
Posted:
Sat Mar 03, 2018 8:54 amby Auralia
Uan aa Boa wrote:It is our view that Auralia's contention that an embryo can be classed as a temporarily incapacitated member of the species is entirely circular since it rests on the assumption that an embryo is a member of the species at all, which is the very point at issue in the debate over abortion and stem cell research.
How is it a circular argument? The claim that a human embryo is a member of the human species is simply a matter of scientific fact. The World Assembly has never denied this, and nor does this proposal.
Uan aa Boa wrote:The insistence that embryos should be considered incapacitated because they cannot do things that embryos, by their nature, cannot do is a perverse twisting of language. By this standard, we're all incapacitated because we can't leap tall buildings in a single bound or survive unprotected in deep space.
That's a curious use of the term "by their nature". Inherent capacities like sapience are properties of a species, not a stage of development of that species. The proposal confirms this understanding by using the term "species known to be sapient" rather than "species known to be sapient at a particular stage of development".
Human embryos are human beings, and all human beings possess an inherent capacity for sapience by their nature -- they simply do not possess an actual capacity for sapience at this stage of their development.
Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly
Posted:
Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:03 amby Kenmoria
"The current debate between Ambassador Russell and the Boani delagation does suggest that the proposal should have been submitted after at least a small drafting period, if only to clear up this ambiguity. By the way, we consider embryos to not be considered protected under this resolution."
Posted:
Sat Mar 03, 2018 10:02 pmby Imperium Anglorum
Protection of Biomedical Research was passed 15,041 votes to 4,595.
Posted:
Sat Mar 03, 2018 10:33 pmby Tinfect
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Protection of Biomedical Research was passed 15,041 votes to 4,595.
OOC/Edit:
On further consideration, given the nonsense surrounding this, that joke was probably a bad idea.