[DEFEATED] Repeal: "Stem Cells for Greater Health"

[Wiztopia]

Even if you claim that you didn't make this proposal because of religious ideals you can't deny that most people who would be approving this are only doing it because of their religious ideals.

[The Asylum Manager]

If this repeal were to pass it would have no influence on our investments in this field. However, it is most certain a number of WA-nations would ban research. We see some vague promises of the FOR-camp concerning a possible replacement draft but I believe the chance of passing a broader proposal is slim at best. The research in stem cells does not ban research in other domains. We explore every avenue possible but it is entirely possible to overlook something and a researcher in another nation might not. Suppose that research would be banned in said nation, that would mean it to be impossible for said researcher to find said information. In short, the more research, the sooner we'll find out whether the emphasis is warranted or not. If not, we'll gladly support a repeal at that time, but until then: all steam ahead. AGAINST.

[Lowell Leber]

Even if you claim that you didn't make this proposal because of religious ideals you can't deny that most people who would be approving this are only doing it because of their religious ideals.

That does happen, and if a nation votes in that manner that is their right....

[Kulaloe]

Kulaloe is opposed only because the resolution in question gives nations the option to choose how they extract stem cells. Kulaloe only uses adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are rarely used as abortions can only be given to rape victims (We define the termination of a fetus of any kind an abortion)

[Greater Amerigo]

This is the country's right. While we do allow such research in our country forcing a controversial topic like this inside member nations is unacceptable.

[Serrland]

Kulaloe is opposed only because the resolution in question gives nations the option to choose how they extract stem cells. Kulaloe only uses adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are rarely used as abortions can only be given to rape victims (We define the termination of a fetus of any kind an abortion)

Would a nation be unable to "choose how they extract stem cells" without this resolution, esteemed Ambassador?

[Terishany]

Repeal it!

[Orthaethaczil]

Even if you claim that you didn't make this proposal because of religious ideals you can't deny that most people who would be approving this are only doing it because of their religious ideals.

Yeah, sure. So what ?

[Grays Harbor]

Even if you claim that you didn't make this proposal because of religious ideals you can't deny that most people who would be approving this are only doing it because of their religious ideals.

Actually, you would be wrong on that count. many who are opposed to this resolution, and in favour of the repeal, are doing so based on research ideals, and not religious ones, although we are curious as to your objection to basing decisions on religion as opposed to anything else? This sounds more like a personal prejudice on your part.

Our own stance on this is thus; Why do we require the WA to dictate what our medical research will be, limiting that research to one mandated type? Yes, nations can carry out other research even should the resolution not be repealed, however, the primary research will always be the stem cells, as that has mandated priority and funding. This has more of a stifling effect on research than it does any sort of benefit.

This is why we believe the standard argument against repeal of "If you are for the repeal, then you are a religious nutbar who hates science!" to be little more than an attempt at bullying and scare tactics. To be for this repeal =/= an anti-research stance. To the contrary, it signifies a desire to conduct more, and diversified, research.

[Urgench]

Actually, you would be wrong on that count. many who are opposed to this resolution, and in favour of the repeal, are doing so based on research ideals, and not religious ones, although we are curious as to your objection to basing decisions on religion as opposed to anything else? This sounds more like a personal prejudice on your part.

The honoured Ambassador for Wiztopia's prognostications and mind reading have exactly the same value as yours your Excellency. You might even both be right.

Our own stance on this is thus; Why do we require the WA to dictate what our medical research will be, limiting that research to one mandated type? Yes, nations can carry out other research even should the resolution not be repealed, however, the primary research will always be the stem cells, as that has mandated priority and funding. This has more of a stifling effect on research than it does any sort of benefit.

This is patent nonsense. The CSKU remains perfectly compliant with the letter and the spirit of this law and yet stem cell therapy research isn't even conducted by Urgenchi scientists because such research has been superseded by medical scientific advances in our country in any case. It should also be pointed out that even in less advanced nations research in stem cell therapies is not mandated by the resolution in question. All that is required is doctors (clinicians by our determination, and not medical research scientists) be allowed to choose to conduct such research, as per -

1) GUARANTEES the right of Doctors to engage in Stem Cell research should they so choose.

Nowhere within the resolution are member states instructed to provide funds for this research (other than that which is provided to the WA committee it creates) and nowhere within the resolution are member states told to prioritise stem cell research, at the expense of other research or not. In fact the resolution in question does not even require that member states should make choosing research in to stem cells a more inviting or worthwhile enterprise for their medical practitioners and considering medical scientists aren't even mentioned by it we must presume they were not intended to be effected by it.

Let us be clear, all this resolution does in guarantee a right that Doctors (practitioners of clinical medicine for these purposes, not medical scientists) be able to choose to do a certain kind of research, in fact it does not guarantee that such research will be funded, or even a viable choice to make.

This is why we believe the standard argument against repeal of "If you are for the repeal, then you are a religious nutbar who hates science!" to be little more than an attempt at bullying and scare tactics. To be for this repeal =/= an anti-research stance. To the contrary, it signifies a desire to conduct more, and diversified, research.

This is even more absurd, forgive us for pointing it out to your Excellency, but if your Excellency's government has not already been conducting more and more diversified research in medical science under the mistaken impression that to do so would be contrary to their obligations in international law then either it is grossly negligent and stupid or is being given grossly negligent and stupid legal advice.

Or perhaps this fantastical interpretation of the resolution in question is a pretense, perhaps your Excellency is indulging in what was it you called it? "scare tactics"?

Certainly the resolution in question needs to be repealed, it is a frivolous piece of drivel, but it has no actual effect other than siphoning off funds from the WAGF for what must by now be a rather etiolated and shrunken committee which having found no especial growth in funding for stem cell research within member states (since they have not been asked to increase funding or research within their jurisdictions) and having found that many member states have medical science far in advance of that which stem cell therapy represents will have abandoned much of their research realising the futility of the SCATRO's existence and will now be doing little more than marking time and drawing pay cheques.


If we should be repealing the statute in question, and it is our belief we should, it should be for what it actually does (or fails to do) and not on the basis of some perfectly imaginary and spurious argument about things it does not do (and does not fail to do).

When presented with false arguments regarding the statute in question it then becomes necessary to examine the motives of those proposing the repeal containing such falsehoods. As we have done. And we will not collude with falsehoods in the service of an agenda we are disgusted by merely to remove a toothless and poorly written resolution from the books.

Yours,

[Jazan]

Jazan is highly opposed to this resolution. There is no conclusive proof that stem cells do not heal certain diseases. In fact, there is much evidence to the contrary. You may speak of ``fetal rights´´ as much as you want. The Jazani government does not recognize fetuses as sapients or even living creatures. Therefore, they have no rights whatsoever.

[Urgench]

Jazan is highly opposed to this resolution. There is no conclusive proof that stem cells do not heal certain diseases. In fact, there is much evidence to the contrary. You may speak of ``fetal rights´´ as much as you want. The Jazani government does not recognize fetuses as sapients or even living creatures. Therefore, they have no rights whatsoever.

Did anyone mention "fetal rights" your Excellency? Apart from your Excellency that is.

[Quadrimmina]

Jazan is highly opposed to this resolution. There is no conclusive proof that stem cells do not heal certain diseases. In fact, there is much evidence to the contrary. You may speak of ``fetal rights´´ as much as you want. The Jazani government does not recognize fetuses as sapients or even living creatures. Therefore, they have no rights whatsoever.

Did anyone mention "fetal rights" your Excellency? Apart from your Excellency that is.

I feel as though Jazan, upon further understanding of this proposal's intent, would fall in line with our standpoint on it. Honored ambassador, the problem is not the allowance of stem cell research, but rather the mandatory funding of such research. We will of course doggedly pursue legislation to ensure that the research will still be allowed if this repeal holds, but we do support its intent and have voted in favor of it.

[Neutonica]

Jazan is highly opposed to this resolution. There is no conclusive proof that stem cells do not heal certain diseases. In fact, there is much evidence to the contrary. You may speak of ``fetal rights´´ as much as you want. The Jazani government does not recognize fetuses as sapients or even living creatures. Therefore, they have no rights whatsoever.

Oh, will people read the thread?

People FOR the repeal are arguing based on 1) Resolution being a waste of money (or possible waste of money in the future), 2) Focus on only one research area, causing neglect to others, 3) Resolution was poorly written and deserves re-writing.

So, will the people AGAINST the repeal please, please if you wish to rebut, argue based on the above arguments FOR...

[Urgench]

Jazan is highly opposed to this resolution. There is no conclusive proof that stem cells do not heal certain diseases. In fact, there is much evidence to the contrary. You may speak of ``fetal rights´´ as much as you want. The Jazani government does not recognize fetuses as sapients or even living creatures. Therefore, they have no rights whatsoever.

Did anyone mention "fetal rights" your Excellency? Apart from your Excellency that is.

I feel as though Jazan, upon further understanding of this proposal's intent, would fall in line with our standpoint on it. Honored ambassador, the problem is not the allowance of stem cell research, but rather the mandatory funding of such research. We will of course doggedly pursue legislation to ensure that the research will still be allowed if this repeal holds, but we do support its intent and have voted in favor of it.

Which mandatory funding? We presume your Excellency means the funds currently being used for research which come from the WAGF yes?


Yours,

[Jazan]

Thank you for that clarification. Nevertheless, though we feel less strongly about it than before, we are still opposed to this resolution. Mandatory funding of stem cell research not only creates greater levels of health in nations 'round the world, it also creates many fourth-sector jobs, a critical factor in scientific advancement.

[Quadrimmina]

Thank you for that clarification. Nevertheless, though we feel less strongly about it than before, we are still opposed to this resolution. Mandatory funding of stem cell research not only creates greater levels of health in nations 'round the world, it also creates many fourth-sector jobs, a critical factor in scientific advancement.

Of course, but fourth-sector jobs ONLY in stem cell research would create severe problems, especially when that money could be used for other types of scientific advancement (space technology, etc).

[Aranoff]

As stated previously, we believe that the underlying notion here is nothing but religious zealots trying to put a stop to progressive science that has yielded valuable breakthroughs in modern disease. We don't care what anyone may attempt to say about those proposing to repeal this resolution, we know it's nothing but conservative hype to try to rally the base. We Aranovians will not cow-tow to these demands and are glad to vote against this repeal, and are glad to see that the rest of the assembly has the good sense to vote against it as well!

[Guillmon]

Guillmon is heavily opposed.

Stem cells may be needed to keep our citizens healthy. Our great leader has donated many lams to preserving this research for future generations. Repealing simply would hinder science and would place morals above rights. All citizens have the right to health and to live and placing morals about the "killing of 'babies'" would deprive them of their rights.

We remain opposed to this as much as we supported the original "Stem Cells for Greater Health".

[Curtrokistan]

The Kingdom of Curtrokistan is strongly opposed to this resolution for two reasons.

1. The WA should not interfere in any Nations scientific and medical research. Sovereign Nation States should be allowed to research medicine within their borders without fear of having the moral prerogatives of other Nation States thrust upon them.

2. While Stem Cell Research has not yet proven to cure the in-curable diseases of our time, stopping research will not yield any positive medicinal results and halt any progress made so far.

A vote to repeal this resolution is a vote against modernity, science, and the Sovereignty of all nations.

[The Asylum Manager]

The Kingdom of Curtrokistan is strongly opposed to this resolution for two reasons.

1. The WA should not interfere in any Nations scientific and medical research. Sovereign Nation States should be allowed to research medicine within their borders without fear of having the moral prerogatives of other Nation States thrust upon them.

2. While Stem Cell Research has not yet proven to cure the in-curable diseases of our time, stopping research will not yield any positive medicinal results and halt any progress made so far.

A vote to repeal this resolution is a vote against modernity, science, and the Sovereignty of all nations.

The ambassador to TAM is not sure if the ambassador to Curtrokistan understands with this proposal is intending. The resolution allows the WA to 'interfere' in any Nation's scientific and medical research. This proposal wants to repeal the resolution. If you don't want to WA to interfere, you should vote FOR the repeal.
We would also want to make it clear repealing the Resolution may not lead to a ban of such research in your Nation (or even mine, for that matter) it might very well in some other very unsuspecting WA member. So your second argument is invalid, the repeal of the Resolution will not halt research (everywhere).

We yield the floor.

[Romullus]

I for one instance need to pass this into law, why do i say that is because it is wise to consider this option for world health and several countries that does not have the resourses to sustain itself.

Emperor Felix

[Curtrokistan]

To clarify my remarks for the assembly and for the Ambassador to TAM section 4 of resolution 49 affirms the following:

4) AFFIRMS the right of Nations to decide the source of the Stem Cells they use for research and development. Also mandates that the Stem Cells must be harvested in the most humane and least destructive way possible.

Curtrokistan feels that repeal of this resolution will allow later WA restrictions on the methods on the source of stem cells used for research and development.

Furthermore the repeal measure asserts that inhumane harvesting techniques are a risk of WA resolution # 49, this is addressed by section 4 as well.

The stem Cell matter has been settled by the WA in a way that is fair, just and prudent for all members. We agree with our esteemed college from Aranoff, this call for repeal is motivated by zealotry, not the desire to increase the health welfare and stability of WA Nations. Curtrokistan voices its strong opposition of repeal.

With that we yield the floor.

[Krioval]

I feel the need to say again:

Repealing this resolution would not ban stem cell research.

Krioval supports this repeal because the WA should either promote any ethical biotechnology or it should stay out of biotechnology altogether. "Stem Cells for Greater Health" inefficiently promotes a single technology when investigating other technologies might prove to be more useful. Further, it contains enough loopholes to effectively render itself counterproductive.

Aleksei-kan Volkov
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Masucciania]

Fellow Delegates of the General Assembly:

Since the Masuccianian foreign delegation, including myself, is unfamiliar with the original Stem Cells for Greater Health Resolution, it would be impossible to vote for or against a repeal. Therefore, the Confederacy shall respectfully abstain from voting on this proposed resolution.

The Confederacy of Masucciania respectfully yields the floor,