[DEFEATED] Transhuman Freedom and Acceptance Act

[Mousebumples]

Like my colleague from Embolalia, I am also something of a Nat Sov advocate. While I could support a scaled down version of this proposal - for example, one that expands the rights given to humans in CoCR to transhumans may be appropriate.

However, I feel it is important and necessary for individual nations to have the right to decide for themselves whether or not to allow the ... creation of transhumans within their own borders. Such a proposal must, in my mind, also reserve the right of nations to refuse visa/etc. to transhumans. (Or any trans-sapient species, for that matter.)

This proposal is far too wide-reaching for me to support. And, honestly, I have seen no good arguments in favor other than, "Why not? Why are you being mean? Why do people hate transhumans?" etc.

Transhumanism is a way of life and a culture that some nations have elected to embrace. I absolutely respect their rights to make those such decisions for their nation - and I wish for that same right to be extended to all WA nations.

[Glen-Rhodes]

First, there's something I'm curious about. If a nation does have the technology to do these things, why would it not be reasonable to say, place a 'laboratory grown organ' inside somebody without their consent, if it's to save their lives, as if in an emergency situation? Similar to emergency amputations, or something.

Second, I think there's something other delegations have grievously overlooked. This proposal "[acknowledges] an individual’s right to do with his or her own body what they will, as long as it doesn’t violate another’s rights." This is a sweeping clause, while I hope unintended, that would not only cause many problems within domestic governments, but could also prevent many future resolutions from being passed.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Yohannes]

The Imperial Council has passed a resolution allowing his imperial and royal majesty Kaisar Hamengkubuwono I and First Minister Donata Setyoutomo to fully support this Act.

Sincerely yours
-Albertius Theodor-
Ministry of Foreign Relations

[Balasite]

The Transhuman Freedom and Acceptance Act (TFAA) has the full support of The Confederate Union of Balasite. Although this government has a negative view of a supranational bureaucracy in regards to BRETH, the general statues are sound and once again has this Governments full support.

-The Pentagon Council (Confederate Union of Balasite, WA Delegate-Arctic)

[Leu Mas]

• Transhuman individuals will be treated as equals, with the same rights and laws applying to them as to any other human being

This could be sticky in the context of compitions. Not specifying either Transhuman or not as better, but simply different, does this allow a compitition to separate them into different catagories? It seems to depend only on interpertaition. Could be addressed?

[Cardoness]

First off, just because we don't agree with you doesn't mean that we fear you, hate you, or in any way want you dead, we want you to go away maybe, but not any of the other things. Second, Cardoness is all for securing equal rights to all people. HOWEVER, we do not think that all member nations should be forced to allow indiscriminate genetic modification. We have this technology, but it may only be used to cure an otherwise terminal disease. You do not want equality, you want everyone to become transhuman. You have said as much, and it is this that we cannot allow. We don't want the bad stuff to happen to us but, how does the saying go, that's life. As you have also pointed out, you believe that thanshumans are superior to others. Therefore there will be no equality if this passes. A transhuman and a human apply for a job, the transhuman will always get it because he/she is viewed as "superior". What this means is that the only job a natural human can get is a job no transhuman wants. Where is this equality of which you speak? We don't hate you. We don't fear you. Stop trying to come off as the victim here. If you want to legalize it in your own nation, that is your right. We do not want it in ours. Why? Any one of the post by the mean people will explain it to you. We want to live life, with everything it has to offer, the good and the bad. We need the bad, we need the pain, we need the thunderstorm so we can stand in awe of the rainbow.

[Genomita]

Transhumans are not "viewed" as superior, they are, simple as that. Like i have said many times, transhumans are created to exceed the limitations of what is physically and mentally possible for unaltered humans. So yes, they are superior, racism has nothing to do with it.

[Cardoness]

Transhumans are not "viewed" as superior, they are, simple as that. Like i have said many times, transhumans are created to exceed the limitations of what is physically and mentally possible for unaltered humans. So yes, they are superior, racism has nothing to do with it.

So again...where is the equality?

[Genomita]

The equality of transhumans and unaltered humans rests on the condition that transhumans are treated as the equal of unaltered humans, not above or below them on a social level. Also, I am not trying to turn the entirety of mankind into transhumans. I am merely saying that I think it would be a change for the better. Also, if at some point in the future all of mankind would be turned into transhumans, the equality issues you mentioned earlier would become a nonissue, as there would be no unatered humans that could be marginalized.

[Cardoness]

The equality of transhumans and unaltered humans rests on the condition that transhumans are treated as the equal of unaltered humans, not above or below them on a social level. Also, I am not trying to turn the entirety of mankind into transhumans. I am merely saying that I think it would be a change for the better. Also, if at some point in the future all of mankind would be turned into transhumans, the equality issues you mentioned earlier would become a nonissue, as there would be no unatered humans that could be marginalized.

Wow, I think you just made my points for me. The difference is you think that is a good thing, we don't. You don't want equality between human and transhuman, but rather legalize gene manipulation. As you said, we will become equal when we are all transhumans.

[Genomita]

And until we get there, we should encourage the equal treatment of transhumans and unaltered humans. People just need to let go of their prejudices and think of the possiblities instead of concerning themselves with irrational fears of mankinds extinction, if it wouldn't be so much the extinction of mankind but the rebirth of the human race.

[Belschaft]

First, there's something I'm curious about. If a nation does have the technology to do these things, why would it not be reasonable to say, place a 'laboratory grown organ' inside somebody without their consent, if it's to save their lives, as if in an emergency situation? Similar to emergency amputations, or something.

Second, I think there's something other delegations have grievously overlooked. This proposal "[acknowledges] an individual’s right to do with his or her own body what they will, as long as it doesn’t violate another’s rights." This is a sweeping clause, while I hope unintended, that would not only cause many problems within domestic governments, but could also prevent many future resolutions from being passed.

- Dr. B. Castro

The Confederate Republic finds itself in agreement with the Glen-Rhodes delegation. The Act as it stands makes use of far too sweeping language, and has several unintentional (we shall assume) consequences that will have potentially dangerous outcomes. Unless the language of the act can be modified to correct this we must implore all nation to oppose it. It is at best an example of well intentioned but badly written Act, and at worst a deliberate attempt to circumnavigate existing WA conventions.

[Belschaft]

And until we get there, we should encourage the equal treatment of transhumans and unaltered humans. People just need to let go of their prejudices and think of the possiblities instead of concerning themselves with irrational fears of mankinds extinction, if it wouldn't be so much the extinction of mankind but the rebirth of the human race.

We would feel relieved if you chose to address ours and others irrational fears of dangerously poor wording.

[Genomita]

Are you referring to the wording of the legislation or the wording of my last statement ?

[Firstaria]

The only good objection about this resolution i saw in 6 pages of discussion is the "extraction of an individual’s genes/ police had to do that without consent" thing, the others seems to me only irrational fears or stupid comments.

However, Firstaria have to recognize that this only objection is a fair problem, and ask for a correction of the resolution in that sense. So we change our vote to aganist, but we still fully support the resolution.

[Belschaft]

Are you referring to the wording of the legislation or the wording of my last statement ?

The legislation.

[Genomita]

The only good objection about this resolution i saw in 6 pages of discussion is the "extraction of an individual’s genes/ police had to do that without consent" thing, the others seems to me only irrational fears or stupid comments.

However, Firstaria have to recognize that this only objection is a fair problem, and ask for a correction of the resolution in that sense. So we change our vote to aganist, but we still fully support the resolution.

Unfortunately, as far as I know it is not allowed to change the wording of a resolution once it is up for vote. However, what bothers me the most is that you would change your mind based on such a small issue.

[Belschaft]

The only good objection about this resolution i saw in 6 pages of discussion is the "extraction of an individual’s genes/ police had to do that without consent" thing, the others seems to me only irrational fears or stupid comments.

However, Firstaria have to recognize that this only objection is a fair problem, and ask for a correction of the resolution in that sense. So we change our vote to aganist, but we still fully support the resolution.

Unfortunately, as far as I know it is not allowed to change the wording of a resolution once it is up for vote. However, what bothers me the most is that you would change your mind based on such a small issue.

The ability of the police and courts to force an individual to submit their DNA for the purposes of law enforcement is not a small issue. It is simply another example of the Act having poor wording that leads to unintended results that no one wants. It should never have come to vote with such problems still in existence.

[Genomita]

Quite the contrary. The ability of the police and courts to force an individual to submit their DNA is crucial to obtain neccesary evidence in a large number of cases. Taking that ability away from them would severely hamper their ability to ascertain the culprit's identity. Yes, it is a breach of privacy, but one that is neccesary to ensure that crimes are solved quickly and eficiently.

[Belschaft]

We believe there is nothing contrary about your statement. You express alarm at the potential implications of this Act, as do we.

[Genomita]

I do not. In fact, I think there is nothing wrong with the way the resolution is worded, or it#s potential implications, for that matter.

[Vertuna]

The decision of many nations to vote against this resolutions seems to be some kind of irrational form of protection against a possible Eugenics War*. We must understand , that this resolution is just a safety measure for future developments of humanoid-based races. The speed and pace (yes, 2 different things in the context) of how a nation will add augmentations to their population, depends on their capacity and decision.

The nation of Saltha wishes to point out this legistlation still says "human" and "trans-human" and does not refer to in any way non-human races, as you seem to imply. This is a grave oversight that still has not been addressed or really actknowledged by the author of this proposal after being mentioned twice now (this being the third time). We wonder if the person thinks of all races as "human", and though it is not a probelm, or that he thinks only humans really need to be protected?

For this reason will oppose this and vote against this. We recomend wherever the proposal says "human" (and varients such as "transhuman") be changed to "humanoid" (and "transhumanoid etc.).

This reason we feel, is not at all irrational, and would hope others, especially non-humans would agree in opposing this until this change is made. Otherwise, we wish to be clear that we do feel this proposal is a good one, and it is on this one point of lack of scope that we dissagre.

Vertuna considers all humanoid-species to be "humans" of different kins. We do not discriminate against many type of human kins , or "humanoid-like species".

[Cardoness]

Quite the contrary. The ability of the police and courts to force an individual to submit their DNA is crucial to obtain neccesary evidence in a large number of cases. Taking that ability away from them would severely hamper their ability to ascertain the culprit's identity. Yes, it is a breach of privacy, but one that is neccesary to ensure that crimes are solved quickly and eficiently.

Yes, but this resolution would not allow that to happen. And again, stop using terms like irrational fears and applying them to the opposition. If this passes it will create a divide between transhumans and humans, one in which humans are treated as less then equal. The only way to solve this problem will be government mandated gene manipulation on non altered humans. You are, with one resolution, altering the evolution, the very being, of an entire species. As a member of that species, I resent that we should evolve into what you think we should other then what nature thinks we should. I also resent that I and my posterity be forced to undergo this transformation while other species are spared. So for what I hope will be the last time, though I doubt it, we are not afraid. We just see the POSSIBLE dark path that will sap our existence of all meaning and beauty, a path you refuse to acknowledge. To us,the potential risk is not worth the potential reward. We don't have a problem with transhumans, nor with nations which legalize gene manipulation, quit trying to force it on the entire species.

[Racrova]

After careful consideration and long negotiations, the government of Racrova has issued the following statement:

What a person does to their body is their own business. Legislation restricting such individual freedoms are unconstitutional in Racrova.

Nevertheless we acknowledge the right of every nation to pass laws based on its citizens' ethical and religious views. We do not blame a foreign government for outlawing so-called "transhuman modifications" for moral or religious reasons.

We are therefore AGAINST this proposal. It is none of the WA's business to commend such a morally disputed topic. The WA comprises thousands of nations with thousands of different cultures. Given this diversity, we are outraged at the lack of respect the WA seems to have towards its members' cultures.

[The Eternal Kawaii]

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

We rise in opposition to this proposal, for one very simple reason: There is no such thing as a "transhuman".

Humans are humans, created in the image of their Creator, nothing more, nothing less. To say that someone has become "transhuman" is to say that they have changed so much that they are no longer human. And if they are no longer human, then why accord them human rights?

A corpse is the definitive example of a "transhuman", yet we don't see people standing up arguing for zombie rights here, now do we?