NATION

PASSWORD

[Draft] The Cloning Conventions | Second Drafting

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12289
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Thu Jan 31, 2019 12:13 pm

Caspian Settlement wrote:From here on out, I will be authoring this proposal as Cassett (Caspian Settlement), and permanently retiring the Lanav (La Navasse) name. I will also address all criticisms and suggestions shortly.

OOC: Since you can edit the first post only as La Navasse, you might want to ask mods to change post ownership to that account instead.
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Caspian Settlement
Secretary
 
Posts: 32
Founded: Sep 18, 2016
Iron Fist Consumerists

First February Response

Postby Caspian Settlement » Sat Feb 02, 2019 3:11 pm

Kenmoria wrote:“I don’t see the need to include the World Assembly Scientific Programme in clause 11, as the proposal works fine without its inclusion and I am generally opposed to employing committees just for the sake of it.”

“Without a committee holding nations accountable for the resolution, it would have no real effect. Therefore, it is pertinent that a committee be utilized to ensure that most, if not all, nations follow the rules laid out in this resolution regarding cloning.”
Araraukar wrote:
La Navasse wrote:Defines a clone that is genetically altered not to great extent as a clone as defined in this resolution;

Why?

If you alter a clone sufficiently enough, it fails to be near-completely genetically identical, and thus is no longer a clone. However, I still wish to include clones altered to a smaller extent (for instance, clones that may only have minor cosmetic alterations) so that they are still included under this legislation.
Araraukar wrote:
La Navasse wrote:Excludes, for the purposes of this resolution, any artificially produced but genetically identical or genetically altered copy of any originator that can asexually reproduce for the intentions of having offspring, the naturally reproduced descendant of an originator, due to an inability to realistically naturally reproduce asexually or sexually, from being defined as a clone, and defines them as offspring instead;

...what? Does this apply to non-sapient organisms too?

Yes, this is primarily to exclude asexually reproducing organisms who use “cloning” in our sense as assisted reproduction.
Araraukar wrote:
La Navasse wrote:Grants all clones the same rights as their originator’s species, regardless of any disabilities resulting from a failed cloning;

So, in the case of animals, none. And in the case of sapients, none until the time they would be born (the abortion resolutions).

As previous nations have said, some of them may have alternative laws for the organisms residing in their territory, and this clause allows for their laws to still apply to cloned version of those organisms.
Araraukar wrote:
La Navasse wrote:Restricts all cloning to only be done by qualified biomedical personnel, or qualified veterinary personnel in collaboration with qualified biomedical personnel;

Qualified, how? I would say "being able to do it" would count as qualification. Cloning isn't exactly easy, if assuming RL-esque tech level.

Since Ph.Ds are not universal across all nations in NationStates, I used qualified to include other nations who may have different educational systems that still provide similar certificates of knowledge to Ph.Ds.
Araraukar wrote:
La Navasse wrote:Restricts the cloning of sapient organisms only to originators who fully consent to being cloned;

...so one parent who's unable to breed (to satisfy the offspring clause) anymore, wants to have a clone baby of their dead only child, but the other parent (half the child's genome is from them) refuses, then no baby? Are are all instances of "cloning" meant only for "clones" as defined by the proposal? Because you can obviously clone individuals for the offspring reasons. You only define the noun, not the verb.

Yes, both parents must consent for the cloning of their only dead child. In this case, however, it would be much more convenient for the sterile parent to utilize assisted reproduction and another consenting partner to have another child.
Araraukar wrote:
La Navasse wrote:Permits the cloning of unconscious, unfeeling organisms from sapient originators, where the clones themselves do not have any sapience and have been proven to not be in locked-in syndrome, for biomedical experimentation and use;

Fetuses by definition are not sapient (being aware of the separation of "self" from "others" is part of the definition of sapiency; human babies don't reach that until well after birth), nor, up to a certain point of development, individuals, and definitely not individuals in the eyes of the WA until they're born (or are cut off from life-support and are viable to live on without it).

Would an “excluding fetuses of sapient originators” addition work? On the other hand, this might limit some nations’ research into fetal experimentation, so I think this issue should be treated very carefully.
Araraukar wrote:
La Navasse wrote:Bans the cloning of conscious, feeling organisms from sapient originators for biomedical experimentation and use, and of any cloning of any sapient originator if the medical professionals who clone cannot reliably confirm, with a high degree of confidence, that the clone is not suffering from locked-in syndrome or any related disability;

Such disabilities aren't, at least in RL humans, found until after the individual is born. Also, does this ban affect the offspring clause earlier? Because you use the word "clone" here, and that by your definition does not include offspring.

I could say “Bans the intentional cloning” for account for your first objection. Also, I do not believe this ban affects the offspring clause earlier, which itself only discussed assisted reproduction of asexually reproducing beings.
Araraukar wrote:
La Navasse wrote:Reserves for all sapient clones the right to know the origin of their genetic material at their national legal age of consent unless the clonal parent requests otherwise;

...so wait, given that you're excluding offspring clones from being included in the word "clone", are you trying to make it okay to clone people (sapients) to become guinea-pigs? How the fuck do you think that'd pass CoCR?

As I said before, I’m not excluding offspring clones. I’m excluding asexually reproducing beings who utilize cloning as assisted reproduction.
Araraukar wrote:
La Navasse wrote:Allows the cloning of any organism that is not sapient provided that they are not created for the express intent to cause harm to sapient organisms;

And if they cause harm anyway?

Well, they would be accounted for under their national criminal laws.
Araraukar wrote:
La Navasse wrote:Reserves for all WA member-states the right to legislate on the legal methods of cloning as laid out by this resolution and on anything regarding organ cloning;

...if the WA legislates on the cloning, as you do in this resolution, you're taking that right out of the hands of the member states. I think you probably meant to have only the organ cloning here, though I would point out that there are resolutions in existence that concern the matter, so you'd be trying to amend them by giving nations the right to legislate on anything on the matter.

I was pointing out that nations have the right to legislate on anything regarding cloning as limited by this resolution.
Kenmoria wrote:“Your preamble seems at odds with the legislation in your active clauses. The main issues your mandates tackle are: providing a set of ethical principles guiding behaviour towards clones, and addressing what is moral to clone in the first place. Yet, nothing about those two issues is mentioned in the preamble. In fact, you don’t actually mention any problems caused by the current lack of legislation, beyond a general need for ‘precautions’.”

I’ll provide an elaboration to the preamble in the near future.
Araraukar wrote:
Jutsa wrote:WA resolutions? Not really, sorry; not too familiar with the existing laws yet. Still kinda going through resolutions while I update them over on NSI.
I mean, I know at least a few times there were animal rights resolutions passed, but they kept getting repealed for various reasons I didn't look too into.
Pretty sure there isn't one specifically addressing the topic atm, because of that.

Sorta like universal jurisdiction: just doesn't have much luck despite the several attempts. *shrugs*

OOC: No need to spoiler it when it's entirely relevant to the topic at hand. You replied in IC to me OOCly saying that there aren't any WA-mandated protections on animals. No animal rights resolution. Your IC comment to that seemed to imply there was. If we agree there isn't, then La Navasse referring to "the same rights as their originator’s species" in clause 3 is nonsense for non-sapient organisms.

In general I think the author should decide what they're really aiming for here.

1. Sapient clone rights? All sapients are covered by existing resolutions already. People already can't be used as guinea-pigs without their permission.

2. Sapient clone health? Then they need to re-focus it and stop demanding perfection, since nothing is perfect when we're talking about complex organisms.

3. The ethics of cloning? Then they need to refocus it and go for the limits of ethics; like not letting clones of sapients that have been intentionally made ill to reach the developmental point where they would, if they were produced via normal reproduction, come under the WA's child protection resolutions.

4. Using cloned organisms as bioweapons of some kind? Actual bioweapons (viruses and such) have already been banned, using more complex organisms as weapons has already been banned, and there's really no sensible reason I can see to ban the cloning of something like, say, police dogs, nevermind their potential as "weapons". It needs much better arguments for it, if that's the goal.

I think my previous cases of bringing up assisted reproduction of asexual beings clears these concerns.
Kenmoria wrote:“I’m unable to fully understand the idea of clauses 1 and 1a. You appear to have two separate definitions for a ‘clone’, one of which is rather recursive. If 1a is merely meant to elaborate on 1, then I see no reason to have it as a separate subclause, likewise, if it is supposed to clear up an ambiguity, either make the original definition less ambiguos or have it as a separate, clarifying clause.”

See above.
Araraukar wrote:
Caspian Settlement wrote:From here on out, I will be authoring this proposal as Cassett (Caspian Settlement), and permanently retiring the Lanav (La Navasse) name. I will also address all criticisms and suggestions shortly.

OOC: Since you can edit the first post only as La Navasse, you might want to ask mods to change post ownership to that account instead.

Unfortunately, as the Moderators are unable to transfer ownership of threads that are not community resources, La Navasse will continue to be used (sparingly) for this final thread for alterations to the topic post and its title.
A Proud Patriotic Pacifican.
Author of 4 WA Resolutions. | GP Alignment: 2, 19 | Discord: Cassett#0940
Formerly known as La Navasse | IC: Caspian, OOC: Cassett (CAS-set)

User avatar
Vichy Rich
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 58
Founded: Jan 29, 2019
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Vichy Rich » Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:44 pm

"Unneeded, no support from Vichy Rich at this time."
The Federal Republic of Vichy Rich
Government of Vichy Rich Website

"Alone we shall stand, alone we shall prosper."
National Socialist Vichy Party (NSVP)

User avatar
WA Kitty Kops
Envoy
 
Posts: 298
Founded: Oct 08, 2013
Father Knows Best State

Postby WA Kitty Kops » Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:37 pm

Vichy Rich wrote:"Unneeded, no support from Vichy Rich at this time."

OOC: Are you Jarish Inyo's puppet? :P
The Chief Inshpekshuuner looks like a black kitten with green eyes, maybe 6 or 8 months old. He'll never mature physically, but is much smarter than you could guess from the way he talks.
-- my main nation is Araraukar
NERVUN wrote:And my life flashed in front of my eyes while I did and I honestly expected my computer to explode after I entered the warning.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 13742
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:40 pm

WA Kitty Kops wrote:
Vichy Rich wrote:"Unneeded, no support from Vichy Rich at this time."

OOC: Are you Jarish Inyo's puppet? :P

OOC: Probably.

What's the problem with lawyer jokes?
Lawyer's don't think they're funny, and no one else thinks they're jokes.

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 17648
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Sun Feb 03, 2019 5:25 am

Bears Armed wrote:OOC
You know about the well-established [in RL] method of propagating various cultivated plants from 'cuttings''? Technically speaking, those are clones...

Still not answered... and taking cuttings isn't just a common horticultural technique, it's actually essential for some 'seedless' crops such as the most widely grown varieties of banana.
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12289
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sun Feb 03, 2019 7:42 am

OOC post.

Caspian Settlement wrote:If you alter a clone sufficiently enough, it fails to be near-completely genetically identical, and thus is no longer a clone.

I'm not entirely certain if you understand how DNA works even within a single individual? You yourself most likely (genetic chimerism is a real thing!) are the product of a single egg and a single sperm cell, but if you did a complete read-out of the DNA of that original fertilized cell, and, say, a hundred cells from different kinds of tissues from different parts of your body, chances are none of the others were a full match to that original blueprint. That's because DNA replication upon cell division isn't perfect. Only the biggest errors tend to get deleted (either by the replication repair molecules, or because the error is too severe for the faulty cell to live), but not always - that's how cancer happens. (Incidentally, you need 13 separate serious mutations to hit a single cell before it can grow into a cancerous tumour more than a few dozen cells big.) And that is how it happens normally.

Most of the time people go on being people and aside from some cases of cancer and autoimmune disease, their cells don't turn out different enough that it would cause issues. Wanting to accommodate this in the proposal is understandable but unnecessary.

However, I still wish to include clones altered to a smaller extent (for instance, clones that may only have minor cosmetic alterations) so that they are still included under this legislation.

This, however, isn't. Let's say that someone wanted to clone people with darker skins than the originals were. Would darkening skin colour to go from what RL refers to as "white" to "black" in you opinion be just a minor cosmetic alteration? Would you look at a white baby and a black baby and go "yep, they're totally clones"? Even if from the genetic POV it was as simple as a single gene changed, not all cosmetic changes are small. (And in animals, it can easily be life or death question.)

Araraukar wrote:...what? Does this apply to non-sapient organisms too?

Yes, this is primarily to exclude asexually reproducing organisms who use “cloning” in our sense as assisted reproduction.

If you're trying to exclude asexual reproduction, why not just say so? "Excludes, for the purposes of this resolution, asexual reproduction". Then it doesn't matter if it's assisted or not, as it's done only for reproduction purposes. If you only mean to exclude sapient organisms, add "of sapients" at the end.

Araraukar wrote:So, in the case of animals, none. And in the case of sapients, none until the time they would be born (the abortion resolutions).

As previous nations have said, some of them may have alternative laws for the organisms residing in their territory, and this clause allows for their laws to still apply to cloned version of those organisms.

I'm talking OOCly. In IC, in Araraukar, wild animals have more rights than people and anything like this would never pass because it would be far too restrictive for the government's conservation programs for endangered species. But OOCly, if you're referring to nations' own laws, you need to actually say so, though be aware that WA laws go over nations' own.

Araraukar wrote:Qualified, how? I would say "being able to do it" would count as qualification. Cloning isn't exactly easy, if assuming RL-esque tech level.

Since Ph.Ds are not universal across all nations in NationStates, I used qualified to include other nations who may have different educational systems that still provide similar certificates of knowledge to Ph.Ds.

...again, I take it you don't have a clue of how biomedical field works. It's rarely the doctors that do the actual process of cloning (rather it's a lab tech and some very fancy lab gear), that's why it's always "doctor So-And-So and their team". So, I repeat, wouldn't "able to do it" count as qualification?

Yes, both parents must consent for the cloning of their only dead child. In this case, however, it would be much more convenient for the sterile parent to utilize assisted reproduction and another consenting partner to have another child.

Unable to have a child. "Assisted reproduction" either doesn't mean what you think it means, or you're just wilfully ignoring it. Also:
Araraukar wrote:You only define the noun, not the verb.


Would an “excluding fetuses of sapient originators” addition work? On the other hand, this might limit some nations’ research into fetal experimentation, so I think this issue should be treated very carefully.

You could just rewrite the whole thing to only apply to non-sapient things. Just have a general "Nothing in this resolution should be understood as trying to legislate the cloning of sapient organisms" clause at the end, and clean up the text. That way you'll get a better focus (and generally speaking, a better chance of passing) and can leave the sapient cloning (which is the big red flag) for someone else to wrangle later. Doesn't mean that someone else should be you, but sapient and nonsapient cloning should certainly get separate resolutions.

Araraukar wrote:And if they cause harm anyway?

Well, they would be accounted for under their national criminal laws.

Actually they probably won't, given that you don't actually require that to be criminalized.
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Caspian Settlement
Secretary
 
Posts: 32
Founded: Sep 18, 2016
Iron Fist Consumerists

Second February Response

Postby Caspian Settlement » Sun Feb 03, 2019 1:38 pm

Bears Armed wrote:
Bears Armed wrote:OOC
You know about the well-established [in RL] method of propagating various cultivated plants from 'cuttings''? Technically speaking, those are clones...

Still not answered... and taking cuttings isn't just a common horticultural technique, it's actually essential for some 'seedless' crops such as the most widely grown varieties of banana.

“I will provide an addition to the appropriate clause excluding forms of horticultural techniques involving clone-like reproduction, such as in cuttings.”

OOC from now on.
Araraukar wrote:
Caspian Settlement wrote:If you alter a clone sufficiently enough, it fails to be near-completely genetically identical, and thus is no longer a clone.

I'm not entirely certain if you understand how DNA works even within a single individual? You yourself most likely (genetic chimerism is a real thing!) are the product of a single egg and a single sperm cell, but if you did a complete read-out of the DNA of that original fertilized cell, and, say, a hundred cells from different kinds of tissues from different parts of your body, chances are none of the others were a full match to that original blueprint. That's because DNA replication upon cell division isn't perfect. Only the biggest errors tend to get deleted (either by the replication repair molecules, or because the error is too severe for the faulty cell to live), but not always - that's how cancer happens. (Incidentally, you need 13 separate serious mutations to hit a single cell before it can grow into a cancerous tumour more than a few dozen cells big.) And that is how it happens normally.

Most of the time people go on being people and aside from some cases of cancer and autoimmune disease, their cells don't turn out different enough that it would cause issues. Wanting to accommodate this in the proposal is understandable but unnecessary.

Unfortunately, I am not referring to incidental genetic mutations which occur regularly throughout the body, nor am I referring to various minor cases of chimerism that occur with natural sexual reproduction (both of which qualified biomedical personnel would understand). Furthermore, there is not numerical limit on “serious mutations” that, when surpassed, cause cancer. Certain genes that manage cellular reproduction and aging, when mutated, could easily cause cancer if only one mutation happened to one of those genes.
Araraukar wrote:
However, I still wish to include clones altered to a smaller extent (for instance, clones that may only have minor cosmetic alterations) so that they are still included under this legislation.

This, however, isn't. Let's say that someone wanted to clone people with darker skins than the originals were. Would darkening skin colour to go from what RL refers to as "white" to "black" in you opinion be just a minor cosmetic alteration? Would you look at a white baby and a black baby and go "yep, they're totally clones"? Even if from the genetic POV it was as simple as a single gene changed, not all cosmetic changes are small. (And in animals, it can easily be life or death question.)

If someone created a clone of themselves, but with a different skin color, that clone would still receive all protections and rights of the originator as it would be a minor cosmetic alteration. Biology isn’t about the social construct that is race. For animals, in what case would industrial melanism matter? They should still be included under the legislation for full protections. The very least I could do is provide ecological protections. I could also technically provide a laundry list of "minor" and "major" genetic alterations, but that might add a massive list to the draft.
Araraukar wrote:
Yes, this is primarily to exclude asexually reproducing organisms who use “cloning” in our sense as assisted reproduction.

If you're trying to exclude asexual reproduction, why not just say so? "Excludes, for the purposes of this resolution, asexual reproduction". Then it doesn't matter if it's assisted or not, as it's done only for reproduction purposes. If you only mean to exclude sapient organisms, add "of sapients" at the end.

No, that doesn’t make sense. There will still be cases of asexual beings wanting to clone themselves, and those instances must not be intermixed with cases of asexual beings, who are unable to naturally reproduce, utilizing cloning as assisted reproduction. Both cases would be “asexual reproduction” in your case, which is why I so specifically wrote out the clause detailing asexually reproducing organisms.
Araraukar wrote:
As previous nations have said, some of them may have alternative laws for the organisms residing in their territory, and this clause allows for their laws to still apply to cloned version of those organisms.

I'm talking OOCly. In IC, in Araraukar, wild animals have more rights than people and anything like this would never pass because it would be far too restrictive for the government's conservation programs for endangered species. But OOCly, if you're referring to nations' own laws, you need to actually say so, though be aware that WA laws go over nations' own.

How would it be too restrictive? I’m attempting to account for both WA and national law via my careful crafting of said clause.
Araraukar wrote:
Since Ph.Ds are not universal across all nations in NationStates, I used qualified to include other nations who may have different educational systems that still provide similar certificates of knowledge to Ph.Ds.

...again, I take it you don't have a clue of how biomedical field works. It's rarely the doctors that do the actual process of cloning (rather it's a lab tech and some very fancy lab gear), that's why it's always "doctor So-And-So and their team". So, I repeat, wouldn't "able to do it" count as qualification?

No. Cloning is not the typical biomedical research project, and although lab techs are used in various relatively minor projects, they often only have Bachelor’s or Masters in their field, and additionally would likely be unable to comprehend the full basis of cloning that Doctorate-level personnel would understand. I could provide a provision allowing those personnel to employ certain lab techs that they believe are qualified (but whose mistakes would all be listed under that already-named personnel’s name), but not allow anyone “able to do it.” On the other hand, I could provide a list of various topics that a qualified individual must know by heart, but I think that would be over the top.
Araraukar wrote:
Yes, both parents must consent for the cloning of their only dead child. In this case, however, it would be much more convenient for the sterile parent to utilize assisted reproduction and another consenting partner to have another child.

Unable to have a child. "Assisted reproduction" either doesn't mean what you think it means, or you're just wilfully ignoring it. Also:
Araraukar wrote:You only define the noun, not the verb.

The sterile parent may be unable to reproduce by natural means, but should still be able to by artificial means (via artificial sperm/eggs, for instance). There must be consent from both parents.
Araraukar wrote:
Would an “excluding fetuses of sapient originators” addition work? On the other hand, this might limit some nations’ research into fetal experimentation, so I think this issue should be treated very carefully.

You could just rewrite the whole thing to only apply to non-sapient things. Just have a general "Nothing in this resolution should be understood as trying to legislate the cloning of sapient organisms" clause at the end, and clean up the text. That way you'll get a better focus (and generally speaking, a better chance of passing) and can leave the sapient cloning (which is the big red flag) for someone else to wrangle later. Doesn't mean that someone else should be you, but sapient and nonsapient cloning should certainly get separate resolutions.

TCC is supposed to be a comprehensive resolution legislating on all cloning. I find no need for two separate resolutions on cloning when they could be accomplished quite comfortably in one.
Araraukar wrote:
Well, they would be accounted for under their national criminal laws.

Actually they probably won't, given that you don't actually require that to be criminalized.

Either way, I’m not going to directly legislate on what nations want to do - clones receive the rights of their originator within their nation.
Last edited by Caspian Settlement on Sun Feb 03, 2019 1:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.
A Proud Patriotic Pacifican.
Author of 4 WA Resolutions. | GP Alignment: 2, 19 | Discord: Cassett#0940
Formerly known as La Navasse | IC: Caspian, OOC: Cassett (CAS-set)

User avatar
Kenmoria
Senator
 
Posts: 3739
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Sun Feb 03, 2019 1:46 pm

“Your definitions are somewhat confusing. In clause 1, you say it must be genetically identical, but then in clause 1a, you mention that there can be some genetic variation, as long as it isn’t major. Whilst I can understand what you are aiming to put across, I think there are more elegant ways of doing it.”
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
Caspian Settlement
Secretary
 
Posts: 32
Founded: Sep 18, 2016
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Caspian Settlement » Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:43 pm

Kenmoria wrote:“Your definitions are somewhat confusing. In clause 1, you say it must be genetically identical, but then in clause 1a, you mention that there can be some genetic variation, as long as it isn’t major. Whilst I can understand what you are aiming to put across, I think there are more elegant ways of doing it.”


A new draft has been released that addresses many of the concerns that have been brought up. Please comment on any thoughts you have on this new revision!
Last edited by Caspian Settlement on Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
A Proud Patriotic Pacifican.
Author of 4 WA Resolutions. | GP Alignment: 2, 19 | Discord: Cassett#0940
Formerly known as La Navasse | IC: Caspian, OOC: Cassett (CAS-set)

User avatar
Falcania
Diplomat
 
Posts: 947
Founded: Sep 25, 2004
Capitalizt

Postby Falcania » Wed Feb 06, 2019 8:55 am

We're still somewhat confused about the necessity of any of this. A sapient person who was born artificially or cloned enjoys the same protections under international law as a sapient person who was born 'naturally'. And if you're worried about cruelty to non-sapient lifeforms created by cloning, but not worried about cruelty to non-sapient lifeforms created 'naturally' then surely that's absurd?
II & Sports: The Free Kingdom of Falcania, Jayla, New Nestia, and Realms Otherwise Beneath the Skies

World Assembly: Ser Jeine Wilhelmsen on behalf of Queen Falcon IV, representing the Free Kingdom and the ancient and great region of Atlantian Oceania

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12289
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Feb 06, 2019 3:03 pm

Falcania wrote:We're still somewhat confused about the necessity of any of this. A sapient person who was born artificially or cloned enjoys the same protections under international law as a sapient person who was born 'naturally'. And if you're worried about cruelty to non-sapient lifeforms created by cloning, but not worried about cruelty to non-sapient lifeforms created 'naturally' then surely that's absurd?

IC: "This, exactly. The author continues to be unable to explain why they feel that cloned individuals of a sapient species would not already be covered by the resolutions which explicitly spell out that exact protection, and instead keeps going on as if being cloned is some strange giant that they must slay."

OOC:
Caspian Settlement wrote:Unfortunately, I am not referring to incidental genetic mutations which occur regularly throughout the body, nor am I referring to various minor cases of chimerism that occur with natural sexual reproduction (both of which qualified biomedical personnel would understand).

No, you're not, which makes your crusade against clones and cloning even more incomprehensible.

Furthermore, there is not numerical limit on “serious mutations” that, when surpassed, cause cancer. Certain genes that manage cellular reproduction and aging, when mutated, could easily cause cancer if only one mutation happened to one of those genes.

Cancerous cells (ones dividing uncontrollably), tumour (able to push into healthy tissue and grow new bloodvessels into itself) and cancer (able to spread to other locations in the body and cause new tumours) are all different things, though, and some individuals are predisposed by inherited faults, and it additionally depends on what kind of cancer, but you're right in that the number is now considered to be lower (though that doesn't explain what "drive cancer" means) than what I learned at the start of of the decade.

Araraukar wrote:(And in animals, it can easily be life or death question.)

For animals, in what case would industrial melanism matter? They should still be included under the legislation for full protections. The very least I could do is provide ecological protections.

What "ecological protections"? Ecological warfare has already been banned. Bioweapons have already been banned. What more do you have to protect? And drastically increasing or lowering the survivability of a species is not a minor alteration.

I could also technically provide a laundry list of "minor" and "major" genetic alterations, but that might add a massive list to the draft.

If you can explain your obsession with clones and cloning, that won't matter, and instead of a list, "drastically increasing or lowering the survivability of a species" would in any case be closer to the truth.

Araraukar wrote:No, that doesn’t make sense. There will still be cases of asexual beings wanting to clone themselves, and those instances must not be intermixed with cases of asexual beings, who are unable to naturally reproduce, utilizing cloning as assisted reproduction. Both cases would be “asexual reproduction” in your case, which is why I so specifically wrote out the clause detailing asexually reproducing organisms.

...I'm not entirely certain what the difference is? Asexual reproduction is by definition cloning. Assisted asexual reproduction is by definition cloning.

Though that reminds me, clause 7 is a big sidestep from this thing and goes into entirely different kind of field of legislation. Also, are you certain it's not already legislated on, in one of the resolutions to do with children/offspring?

How would it be too restrictive?

That comment was perhaps more relevant on a previous draft, but why does clause 8 now exist, given that there's no blanket ban anymore?

and although lab techs are used in various relatively minor projects, they often only have Bachelor’s or Masters in their field, and additionally would likely be unable to comprehend the full basis of cloning that Doctorate-level personnel would understand.

I'm a lab tech without Bachelor's or Master's (though I did enough study credits for a Bachelor's the student guidance system was back then... lacking, to put it nicely), and I fully understand the "full basis of cloning", and even know how the procedure itself is done. Sure I'd need a lot of practice to learn to use the machinery, but so would anyone else, regardless of their degree. A PhD. doesn't make you automatically good with the actual practical side of machinery use, which is usually done by the people who normally operate said machines, who are called technicians for a good reason, as they tend to handle the technical side of the procedure. Like I said, you probably aren't quite familiar with the practical arrangements of labwork. :P

I could provide a provision allowing those personnel to employ certain lab techs that they believe are qualified (but whose mistakes would all be listed under that already-named personnel’s name), but not allow anyone “able to do it.” On the other hand, I could provide a list of various topics that a qualified individual must know by heart, but I think that would be over the top.

Any restrictions beyond "can you do it? you can? okay, you're qualified" are going to fail. Perhaps rather than restricting the personnel involved, restrict it to "accredited laboratories". (Note: accreditation has stricter requirements than validation (I literally wrote a paper on this), so using that instead of a vague "qualified" gets you closest to what you seem to be after.)

There must be consent from both parents.

The current wording requires consent from the to-be-cloned individual. Since I'd say that harvesting cells for cloning purposes certainly counts as a medical procedure, you need to make sure you're not stepping on the toes of PRA - and please be aware that PRA allows parents/guardians to decide on behalf of their children.

TCC is supposed to be a comprehensive resolution legislating on all cloning. I find no need for two separate resolutions on cloning when if they could be accomplished quite comfortably in one.

Fixed. The question then becomes "can they be?"

Either way, I’m not going to directly legislate on what nations want to do

Except you literally do.

clones receive the rights of their originator within their nation.

So this is about clone rights?
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Elyreia
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 119
Founded: Jun 29, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Elyreia » Thu Feb 07, 2019 10:01 pm

Elyreia fails to see the purpose of this legislation. By its mere passage, it revokes the status of "personhood" on cloned persons by stating, somehow, that they do not already have the rights established to persons.

There's zero reason to provide protections to these people unless you are somehow insinuating they are not people in the first place, and therefore do not already have these guarantees.

Also, if parents who place their child up for adoption are allowed to remain anonymous for their lives, I believe cloned persons maintain the same right to remain anonymous to their spawn.

Elyreia is opposed at this time unless a true reason for this legislation arises, as currently this feels like a false dichotomy, trying to solve a problem that does not exist because the CoCR does not explicitly site clones (while simultaneously explicitly stating it applies to all persons, which implicitly covers clones).
The Principality of Elyreia (Dārilarostegun Elyreia)
The Principality of Elyreia Wiki

World Assembly Ambassador: Āeksio Korus Vaelans

User avatar
Caspian Settlement
Secretary
 
Posts: 32
Founded: Sep 18, 2016
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Caspian Settlement » Fri Feb 08, 2019 12:23 am

Elyreia wrote:Elyreia fails to see the purpose of this legislation. By its mere passage, it revokes the status of "personhood" on cloned persons by stating, somehow, that they do not already have the rights established to persons.

There's zero reason to provide protections to these people unless you are somehow insinuating they are not people in the first place, and therefore do not already have these guarantees.

Also, if parents who place their child up for adoption are allowed to remain anonymous for their lives, I believe cloned persons maintain the same right to remain anonymous to their spawn.

Elyreia is opposed at this time unless a true reason for this legislation arises, as currently this feels like a false dichotomy, trying to solve a problem that does not exist because the CoCR does not explicitly site clones (while simultaneously explicitly stating it applies to all persons, which implicitly covers clones).

With a strict interpretation of the World Assembly, clones are not included anywhere, and thus lack legal basis. If you had a more flexible interpretation, clones would be included, but these Conventions are intended to make it clear the rights of clones and ethics of cloning.

I will respond to all other responses shortly.
A Proud Patriotic Pacifican.
Author of 4 WA Resolutions. | GP Alignment: 2, 19 | Discord: Cassett#0940
Formerly known as La Navasse | IC: Caspian, OOC: Cassett (CAS-set)

User avatar
Kenmoria
Senator
 
Posts: 3739
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Fri Feb 08, 2019 12:37 am

Caspian Settlement wrote:
Elyreia wrote:Elyreia fails to see the purpose of this legislation. By its mere passage, it revokes the status of "personhood" on cloned persons by stating, somehow, that they do not already have the rights established to persons.

There's zero reason to provide protections to these people unless you are somehow insinuating they are not people in the first place, and therefore do not already have these guarantees.

Also, if parents who place their child up for adoption are allowed to remain anonymous for their lives, I believe cloned persons maintain the same right to remain anonymous to their spawn.

Elyreia is opposed at this time unless a true reason for this legislation arises, as currently this feels like a false dichotomy, trying to solve a problem that does not exist because the CoCR does not explicitly site clones (while simultaneously explicitly stating it applies to all persons, which implicitly covers clones).

With a strict interpretation of the World Assembly, clones are not included anywhere, and thus lack legal basis. If you had a more flexible interpretation, clones would be included, but these Conventions are intended to make it clear the rights of clones and ethics of cloning.

“It doesn’t matter how strict an interpretation is; it’s not compliant with GA law to ignore the state of clones. The Charter of Civil Rights makes clear that, unless there is a compelling, practical reason, clones mustn’t be discriminated against.”
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
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12289
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Fri Feb 08, 2019 12:59 am

Caspian Settlement wrote:With a strict interpretation of the World Assembly, clones are not included anywhere

OOC: They are, as has been pointed out to you over and over again (we've asked you time again again to explain how clones would not be included in the existing resolutions). And if you submit this, I'm going to throw a legality challenge on it just over that fact.
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Elyreia
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 119
Founded: Jun 29, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Elyreia » Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:29 pm

Caspian Settlement wrote:With a strict interpretation of the World Assembly, clones are not included anywhere, and thus lack legal basis. If you had a more flexible interpretation, clones would be included, but these Conventions are intended to make it clear the rights of clones and ethics of cloning.

I will respond to all other responses shortly.


I have provided evidence that the CoCR already extends to clones.

You have yet to provide factual proof to state it does not.

I feel like none of us has any further feedback to provide to this debate until you have provided something to respond to that has not already been addressed.
The Principality of Elyreia (Dārilarostegun Elyreia)
The Principality of Elyreia Wiki

World Assembly Ambassador: Āeksio Korus Vaelans

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12289
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sat Feb 09, 2019 6:50 am

Elyreia wrote:I have provided evidence that the CoCR already extends to clones.

OOC: Even if you ignored CoCR, there are two other resolutions that would give sapient clones the same rights as the people cloned.
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Caspian Settlement
Secretary
 
Posts: 32
Founded: Sep 18, 2016
Iron Fist Consumerists

Mid-February Response

Postby Caspian Settlement » Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:34 pm

Araraukar wrote:
Falcania wrote:We're still somewhat confused about the necessity of any of this. A sapient person who was born artificially or cloned enjoys the same protections under international law as a sapient person who was born 'naturally'. And if you're worried about cruelty to non-sapient lifeforms created by cloning, but not worried about cruelty to non-sapient lifeforms created 'naturally' then surely that's absurd?

IC: "This, exactly. The author continues to be unable to explain why they feel that cloned individuals of a sapient species would not already be covered by the resolutions which explicitly spell out that exact protection, and instead keeps going on as if being cloned is some strange giant that they must slay."

I don’t think that clones are explicitly included under existing resolutions. The repealed resolution WAR #142 “In Regards to Cloning” already legislated on clone rights in Clauses 6 & 7, and was not removed on the basis of legality. If it’s possible for a General Assembly Secretariat to confirm or deny that legislating on clones is legal, I would greatly appreciate that.
Araraukar wrote:OOC:
Caspian Settlement wrote:Unfortunately, I am not referring to incidental genetic mutations which occur regularly throughout the body, nor am I referring to various minor cases of chimerism that occur with natural sexual reproduction (both of which qualified biomedical personnel would understand).

No, you're not, which makes your crusade against clones and cloning even more incomprehensible.
Furthermore, there is not numerical limit on “serious mutations” that, when surpassed, cause cancer. Certain genes that manage cellular reproduction and aging, when mutated, could easily cause cancer if only one mutation happened to one of those genes.

Cancerous cells (ones dividing uncontrollably), tumour (able to push into healthy tissue and grow new bloodvessels into itself) and cancer (able to spread to other locations in the body and cause new tumours) are all different things, though, and some individuals are predisposed by inherited faults, and it additionally depends on what kind of cancer, but you're right in that the number is now considered to be lower (though that doesn't explain what "drive cancer" means) than what I learned at the start of of the decade.

How so? Even if clones as individuals were unable to be legislated upon according to your argument, cloning as a technique would still be the legal wild west.
Araraukar wrote:
For animals, in what case would industrial melanism matter? They should still be included under the legislation for full protections. The very least I could do is provide ecological protections.

What "ecological protections"? Ecological warfare has already been banned. Bioweapons have already been banned. What more do you have to protect? And drastically increasing or lowering the survivability of a species is not a minor alteration.

In which case, there should be no problem leaving the current resolution “as is” on the topic of genetic alterations, yes? If minor genetic alterations were prohibited by previous resolutions, they simply would not be allowed.
Araraukar wrote:
I could also technically provide a laundry list of "minor" and "major" genetic alterations, but that might add a massive list to the draft.

If you can explain your obsession with clones and cloning, that won't matter, and instead of a list, "drastically increasing or lowering the survivability of a species" would in any case be closer to the truth.

See above.
Araraukar wrote:
Araraukar wrote:No, that doesn’t make sense. There will still be cases of asexual beings wanting to clone themselves, and those instances must not be intermixed with cases of asexual beings, who are unable to naturally reproduce, utilizing cloning as assisted reproduction. Both cases would be “asexual reproduction” in your case, which is why I so specifically wrote out the clause detailing asexually reproducing organisms.

...I'm not entirely certain what the difference is? Asexual reproduction is by definition cloning. Assisted asexual reproduction is by definition cloning.

Though that reminds me, clause 7 is a big sidestep from this thing and goes into entirely different kind of field of legislation. Also, are you certain it's not already legislated on, in one of the resolutions to do with children/offspring?

I’m trying to exclude artificial cloning from natural cloning.

I don’t believe so, as I haven’t seen cloning being legislated upon before until now.
Araraukar wrote:
How would it be too restrictive?

That comment was perhaps more relevant on a previous draft, but why does clause 8 now exist, given that there's no blanket ban anymore?

I still don’t get the point you’re trying to make. Could you elaborate?
Araraukar wrote:
and although lab techs are used in various relatively minor projects, they often only have Bachelor’s or Masters in their field, and additionally would likely be unable to comprehend the full basis of cloning that Doctorate-level personnel would understand.

I'm a lab tech without Bachelor's or Master's (though I did enough study credits for a Bachelor's the student guidance system was back then... lacking, to put it nicely), and I fully understand the "full basis of cloning", and even know how the procedure itself is done. Sure I'd need a lot of practice to learn to use the machinery, but so would anyone else, regardless of their degree. A PhD. doesn't make you automatically good with the actual practical side of machinery use, which is usually done by the people who normally operate said machines, who are called technicians for a good reason, as they tend to handle the technical side of the procedure. Like I said, you probably aren't quite familiar with the practical arrangements of labwork. :P

I could provide a provision allowing those personnel to employ certain lab techs that they believe are qualified (but whose mistakes would all be listed under that already-named personnel’s name), but not allow anyone “able to do it.” On the other hand, I could provide a list of various topics that a qualified individual must know by heart, but I think that would be over the top.

Any restrictions beyond "can you do it? you can? okay, you're qualified" are going to fail. Perhaps rather than restricting the personnel involved, restrict it to "accredited laboratories". (Note: accreditation has stricter requirements than validation (I literally wrote a paper on this), so using that instead of a vague "qualified" gets you closest to what you seem to be after.)

I have already changed the proposal in the new draft where lab techs that are believed to be qualified are allowed to be employed under qualified personnel, but I will alter the relevant clause to “accredited laboratories.”
Araraukar wrote:
There must be consent from both parents.

The current wording requires consent from the to-be-cloned individual. Since I'd say that harvesting cells for cloning purposes certainly counts as a medical procedure, you need to make sure you're not stepping on the toes of PRA - and please be aware that PRA allows parents/guardians to decide on behalf of their children.

The newly cloned child would be a separate legal entity from the first, and therefore there are no children in this case until after the cloning process has been accomplished. Harvesting of cells would occur from the corpse of the first child and from neither of the parents.
Araraukar wrote:
TCC is supposed to be a comprehensive resolution legislating on all cloning. I find no need for two separate resolutions on cloning when if they could be accomplished quite comfortably in one.

Fixed. The question then becomes "can they be?"

Hopefully, given intensive redrafting and editing. :)
Araraukar wrote:
Either way, I’m not going to directly legislate on what nations want to do

Except you literally do.

I meant on everything outside of the moral requirements needed for clones and cloning, which include rights and ethical considerations.
Araraukar wrote:
clones receive the rights of their originator within their nation.

So this is about clone rights?

The repealed resolution WAR #142 “In Regards to Cloning” already legislated on clone rights in Clauses 6 & 7, and was not removed on the basis of legality.

Kenmoria wrote:
Caspian Settlement wrote:With a strict interpretation of the World Assembly, clones are not included anywhere, and thus lack legal basis. If you had a more flexible interpretation, clones would be included, but these Conventions are intended to make it clear the rights of clones and ethics of cloning.

“It doesn’t matter how strict an interpretation is; it’s not compliant with GA law to ignore the state of clones. The Charter of Civil Rights makes clear that, unless there is a compelling, practical reason, clones mustn’t be discriminated against.”

See above.
Araraukar wrote:
Caspian Settlement wrote:With a strict interpretation of the World Assembly, clones are not included anywhere

OOC: They are, as has been pointed out to you over and over again (we've asked you time again again to explain how clones would not be included in the existing resolutions). And if you submit this, I'm going to throw a legality challenge on it just over that fact.

See above.
Elyreia wrote:
Caspian Settlement wrote:With a strict interpretation of the World Assembly, clones are not included anywhere, and thus lack legal basis. If you had a more flexible interpretation, clones would be included, but these Conventions are intended to make it clear the rights of clones and ethics of cloning.

I will respond to all other responses shortly.


I have provided evidence that the CoCR already extends to clones.

You have yet to provide factual proof to state it does not.

I feel like none of us has any further feedback to provide to this debate until you have provided something to respond to that has not already been addressed.

See above.
A Proud Patriotic Pacifican.
Author of 4 WA Resolutions. | GP Alignment: 2, 19 | Discord: Cassett#0940
Formerly known as La Navasse | IC: Caspian, OOC: Cassett (CAS-set)

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12289
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Tue Feb 12, 2019 5:43 am

Caspian Settlement wrote:I don’t think that clones are explicitly included under existing resolutions. The repealed resolution WAR #142 “In Regards to Cloning” already legislated on clone rights in Clauses 6 & 7, and was not removed on the basis of legality.

OOC: That's because the resolutions I'm referring to are much more modern ones. They have been pointed out to you time and again.

If it’s possible for a General Assembly Secretariat to confirm or deny that legislating on clones is legal, I would greatly appreciate that.

Legislating on people is legal, so that's not going to help you much. As the author, the burden of proof is on you; how are clones not covered by existing resolutions?

How so? Even if clones as individuals were unable to be legislated upon according to your argument, cloning as a technique would still be the legal wild west.

If you want to focus on the technique, focus on the technique, not the clones themselves.
  1. The clones of sapient beings are sapient beings themselves and are thus already covered by existing resolutions.
  2. The clones of non-sapient beings are non-sapient beings and you'll need to explain why cloning non-sapients would be any kind of international issue.
  3. Using non-sapients as weapons is already covered either by bioweapon ban or ecological warfare ban, so you need to come up with a different reason.

In which case, there should be no problem leaving the current resolution “as is” on the topic of genetic alterations, yes? If minor genetic alterations were prohibited by previous resolutions, they simply would not be allowed.

Then call them something else but clones, if they're not clones.

I’m trying to exclude artificial cloning from natural cloning.

Define the difference OOCly, please. And do take into account how many plants are, in the agriculture, propagated from and as clones. Potatos for example...

Araraukar wrote:That comment was perhaps more relevant on a previous draft, but why does clause 8 now exist, given that there's no blanket ban anymore?

I still don’t get the point you’re trying to make. Could you elaborate?

Given there's no blanket ban anymore, why does clause 8 exist anymore? You don't have to specifically allow that which is not banned in the first place.

The newly cloned child would be a separate legal entity from the first, and therefore there are no children in this case until after the cloning process has been accomplished. Harvesting of cells would occur from the corpse of the first child and from neither of the parents.

Then how are you going to ask permission from a dead person?

See above.

See above yourself; as the author it's up to you to prove that previous resolutions don't cover clones. If clones is so difficult a concept, think of identical twins. Are they people despite sharing technically 100% of their genetic makeup with another individual?
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

Previous

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Arasi Luvasa, Australian rePublic, Kenmoria, Lossma

Advertisement

Remove ads