[PASSED] Restrictions on Forced Eugenics

[Maowi]

OOC: I'd just like to clear up, in case people haven't been holding this in mind, that disabilities/diseases/disorders would not under this proposal allow member states to force individuals to have their unborn offspring genetically modified; they would only allow a gap for incentivising it.

[Picairn]

OOC: I'd just like to clear up, in case people haven't been holding this in mind, that disabilities/diseases/disorders would not under this proposal allow member states to force individuals to have their unborn offspring genetically modified; they would only allow a gap for incentivising it.

As in encouraging the legal guardians to do so?

[Heavens Reach]

OOC: I'd just like to clear up, in case people haven't been holding this in mind, that disabilities/diseases/disorders would not under this proposal allow member states to force individuals to have their unborn offspring genetically modified; they would only allow a gap for incentivising it.

OOC: that's what I figured, but thank you for clarifying

[Beyond Earth]

To assert that certain disabilities are universally bad, would require a universal way to measure happiness and fulfillment in life, which isn't possible objectively.

It takes a leap of logic to go from "disabilities provide obstacles" to "disabilities universally prevent happiness and fulfillment in life." One certainly does not follow from the other.

Because disabilities should only be preemptively "cured", if there's no room for doubt as to their negative impact.

If disorders and disabilities aren't defined within WA there's nothing preventing a nation from diagnosing certain ethnicities as disabilities. In fact, it's common among fascists to try and prove the inferiority of other ethnicities, their being wrong isn't because they failed to scientifically prove themselves right, the premise is fundamentally flawed, same as there being disabilities or disorders that're always negative is flawed.

[Heavens Reach]

It takes a leap of logic to go from "disabilities provide obstacles" to "disabilities universally prevent happiness and fulfillment in life." One certainly does not follow from the other.

Because disabilities should only be preemptively "cured", if there's no room for doubt as to their negative impact.

If disorders and disabilities aren't defined within WA there's nothing preventing a nation from diagnosing certain ethnicities as disabilities. In fact, it's common among fascists to try and prove the inferiority of other ethnicities, their being wrong isn't because they failed to scientifically prove themselves right, the premise is fundamentally flawed, same as there being disabilities or disorders that're always negative is flawed.

OOC: as someone living with mutliple disabilities, I feel pretty justified in calling them obstacles.

IC: ambassador, disabilities are defined by their negative impact. And, ambassador, that's not how this body works. A nation is not at liberty to substitute a definition that is not well-established in order to circumvent or abuse the clauses of a resolution.

[Honeydewistania]

It takes a leap of logic to go from "disabilities provide obstacles" to "disabilities universally prevent happiness and fulfillment in life." One certainly does not follow from the other.

Because disabilities should only be preemptively "cured", if there's no room for doubt as to their negative impact.

If disorders and disabilities aren't defined within WA there's nothing preventing a nation from diagnosing certain ethnicities as disabilities. In fact, it's common among fascists to try and prove the inferiority of other ethnicities, their being wrong isn't because they failed to scientifically prove themselves right, the premise is fundamentally flawed, same as there being disabilities or disorders that're always negative is flawed.

Disabilities in this context is dictionary definition, which Maowi had linked earlier, and it’d take bad faith compliance to fit LGBT into it

[Heavens Reach]

It takes a leap of logic to go from "disabilities provide obstacles" to "disabilities universally prevent happiness and fulfillment in life." One certainly does not follow from the other.

Because disabilities should only be preemptively "cured", if there's no room for doubt as to their negative impact.

If disorders and disabilities aren't defined within WA there's nothing preventing a nation from diagnosing certain ethnicities as disabilities. In fact, it's common among fascists to try and prove the inferiority of other ethnicities, their being wrong isn't because they failed to scientifically prove themselves right, the premise is fundamentally flawed, same as there being disabilities or disorders that're always negative is flawed.

Ambassador, disabled people are not their disabilities, and I think you might be conflating valuing the lives of disabled people with valuing their disabilities.

[Beyond Earth]

OOC: I have multiple disabilities too. Also, it's not bad faith compliance to call anything LGBTQ+ a disorder (I'm also LGBTQ+ by the way) it was the norm in the past and still some places today.

We're not saying nations can swap in definitions with their own, but that they can change what is considered a disability or disorder in science, granted their healthcare is nationalized.

[Heavens Reach]

OOC: I have multiple disabilities too. Also, it's not bad faith compliance to call anything LGBTQ+ a disorder (I'm also LGBTQ+ by the way) it was the norm in the past and still some places today.

We're not saying nations can swap in definitions with their own, but that they can change what is considered a disability or disorder in science, granted their healthcare is nationalized.

OOC: It would absolutely be in bad faith to label anything LGBTQ+ a disorder (I am also LGBTQ+).

[Kenmoria]

OOC: I have multiple disabilities too. Also, it's not bad faith compliance to call anything LGBTQ+ a disorder (I'm also LGBTQ+ by the way) it was the norm in the past and still some places today.

We're not saying nations can swap in definitions with their own, but that they can change what is considered a disability or disorder in science, granted their healthcare is nationalized.

(OOC: I would not consider it good-faith compliance to regard anything LGBTQ+ as a disorder, especially since so many passed resolutions state the opposite. Also, the scientific evidence on gender identity and sexuality being solely genetic tends towards negative, so a state couldn’t do much even if they were to adopt this position.)

[American Pere Housh]

"The main aim of this proposal is to block member states from employing large-scale genetic modification of offspring to systematically eliminate particular traits among their population, such as those pertaining to a specific race. I don't believe this has been covered by existing legislation, as far as I am aware. I would be very grateful for any feedback or advice."

OOC: This is short but I don't think it needs to be much longer - if anything I'll just flesh out the preamble, unless further material for active clauses comes to mind.

Restrictions on Forced Eugenics

Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Significant

Condemning the use of forced eugenics,

Applauding the measures contained in GAR #38 "Convention Against Genocide" against the use of eugenics to further an agenda of ethnic cleansing,

Convinced that it should be the guardian's prerogative, and not a state's or a medic's, whether their unborn offspring undergoes genetic modification,

Subject to its previous, extant legislation, the World Assembly hereby:

1. Forbids member states, or the governments of any political subdivision thereof, from incentivising the genetic modification of any sapient offspring prior to their birth, except for incentivising the remedy or elimination of disorders, disabilities, or diseases;
   
   
2. Prohibits any individual or entity from genetically modifying or commanding the genetic modification of sapient offspring prior to their birth without the informed consent of the offspring's legal guardians; and
   
   
3. Forbids any individual or entity from compelling, forcing, or coercing a legal guardian to give consent to the genetic modification of their offspring prior to their birth.

Safeguarding Genetic Diversity

Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Mild

Condemning the use of eugenics by states especially to reduce or eliminate the portion of their populaces belonging to particular ethnicities,

Subject to previous, extant World Assembly resolutions, the World Assembly hereby forbids member states, or the governments of any political subdivision thereof, from:

1. compelling or incentivising the genetic modification of any sapient offspring prior to their birth, except for incentivising the remedy of genetic diseases; or
   
   
2. explicitly discouraging or disincentivising individuals of a particular race, religious identity, ethnicity, gender identity, or sexual identity from reproducing.

Restrictions on Forced Eugenics

Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Mild

Condemning the use of eugenics by states especially to further a national agenda of large-scale ethnic cleansing,

Subject to its previous, extant legislation, the World Assembly hereby forbids member states, or the governments of any political subdivision thereof, from:

1. compelling or incentivising the genetic modification of any sapient offspring prior to their birth, except for incentivising the remedy or elimination of disorders or diseases; or
   
   
2. explicitly discouraging or disincentivising individuals possessing a particular arbitrary, reductive characteristic from reproducing.

Restrictions on Forced Eugenics

Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Significant

Condemning the use of forced eugenics, especially by states aiming to further a national agenda of large-scale ethnic cleansing,

Convinced that it should be the guardian's prerogative, and not a state's or a medic's, whether their offspring undergoes genetic modification,

Subject to its previous, extant legislation, the World Assembly hereby:

1. Forbids member states, or the governments of any political subdivision thereof, from:
   
   
   1. incentivising the genetic modification of any sapient offspring prior to their birth, except for incentivising the remedy or elimination of disorders, disabilities, or diseases; or
      
      
   2. explicitly discouraging or disincentivising individuals possessing a particular arbitrary, reductive characteristic from reproducing;
   
   
2. Prohibits any individual from genetically modifying sapient offspring prior to their birth without the informed consent of the offspring's legal guardians; and
   
   
3. Forbids any individual or entity from compelling, forcing, or coercing a legal guardian to give consent to the genetic modification of their offspring prior to their birth.

"I apologize for the bad language but what the fuck is this shit. Any ambassador that supports this "proposal" has gone of the deep end mentally. APH doesn't practice or support eugenics but we don't a ban on it either."

[Kenmoria]

"I apologize for the bad language but what the fuck is this shit. Any ambassador that supports this "proposal" has gone of the deep end mentally. APH doesn't practice or support eugenics but we don't a ban on it either."

“Perhaps, ambassador, you ought to read the proposal before commenting on it in such a manner. This piece of legislation does not ban eugenics, it bans forced and government-incentivised eugenics, as per the title.”

[American Pere Housh]

"I apologize for the bad language but what the fuck is this shit. Any ambassador that supports this "proposal" has gone of the deep end mentally. APH doesn't practice or support eugenics but we don't a ban on it either."

“Perhaps, ambassador, you ought to read the proposal before commenting on it in such a manner. This piece of legislation does not ban eugenics, it bans forced and government-incentivised eugenics, as per the title.”

"A ban is a ban, my friend. Convince me why I should support this Proposal and I might change my vote.

[Picairn]

"A ban is a ban, my friend. Convince me why I should support this Proposal and I might change my vote.

"So do you condone the act of forced eugenics, Ambassador? A ban on government-incentivised eugenics is entirely different from a blanket ban on eugenics."

[Kenmoria]

“Perhaps, ambassador, you ought to read the proposal before commenting on it in such a manner. This piece of legislation does not ban eugenics, it bans forced and government-incentivised eugenics, as per the title.”

"A ban is a ban, my friend. Convince me why I should support this Proposal and I might change my vote.

“It is a ban on forced eugenics, a practice which violates a parent’s right to raise their children and a child’s right to freedom of bodily sovereignty, if you don’t support that, then there isn’t much that can be done.”

[Great Clotet]

The Kingdom of Great Clotet votes AGAINST this proposal. The terms 'disability' and 'disorder' are poorly defined and can allow for exploitation of these rules. Furthermore, we believe the third rule ('Forbids any individual or entity from compelling, forcing, or coercing a legal guardian to give consent to the genetic modification of their offspring prior to their birth.') could unjustly punish acquaintances of legal guardians for expressing their views to the legal guardian.
We agree with the spirit of the proposal, but it simply can't run as-is.

"No, Ambassador. States can not unilaterally declare something to be a disorder or disability because these terms are fully established terms in medical and psychological science, and such arbitrary declarations without proper evidence would create a backlash. Not to mention it would constitute a violation of GAR#2, the "Good faith" clause.

As for the third rule, that is ridiculous. Compelling, forcing, or coercing do not equal making legitimate arguments in an effort to persuade the legal guardians. No competent government would be that spectacularly bad at interpreting the resolution and prosecute their citizens just because they simply express their views to the parents that they don't want the child to be genetically modified. That would be an egregious violation of the freedom of speech."

"Great Clotet recognises how earlier opinions may not seem to be fully reasonable. However, we stand by our 'against' vote, as the proposal still cold be defined in a much better way that clearly prohibits abuse of the rules.
(OOC: Good points! Really!)

[Maowi]

OOC: I have multiple disabilities too. Also, it's not bad faith compliance to call anything LGBTQ+ a disorder (I'm also LGBTQ+ by the way) it was the norm in the past and still some places today.

We're not saying nations can swap in definitions with their own, but that they can change what is considered a disability or disorder in science, granted their healthcare is nationalized.

OOC: I appreciate that any sort of decent or rigorous understanding of what it means not to be straight and cisgender took an incredibly long time to be developed, but scientists have very clear and unambiguous definitions for disability and disorders, and they do know now that being LGBTQ+ is not that. There is no way to comply with this proposal in good faith while claiming that being LGBTQ+ is a disorder.

[Ardiveds]

OOC: I have multiple disabilities too. Also, it's not bad faith compliance to call anything LGBTQ+ a disorder (I'm also LGBTQ+ by the way) it was the norm in the past and still some places today.

We're not saying nations can swap in definitions with their own, but that they can change what is considered a disability or disorder in science, granted their healthcare is nationalized.

OOC: it is true nations can make up whatever science they want within their borders, however, the WA is under no obligation to accept their made up science.

[Heavens Reach]

“Perhaps, ambassador, you ought to read the proposal before commenting on it in such a manner. This piece of legislation does not ban eugenics, it bans forced and government-incentivised eugenics, as per the title.”

"A ban is a ban, my friend. Convince me why I should support this Proposal and I might change my vote.

When insisting on a debate in bad faith, ambassador, you might want to see to it that you actually have some leverage.

[Confederacion analitica-aceleracional]

What about state-funded epigenetic modification in adults? will not be hampered eventually?

[Tinhampton]

What about state-funded epigenetic modification in adults? will not be hampered eventually?

RoFE is pertinent only to "sapient offspring prior to their birth" (i.e. not adults).

[Newenken]

IC: When i talked about the endangerment of the population i was refering to the word "forced". Again, if we let infected people choose (or choose for their babies in this case) if they want to be cured, that would be dangerous for the rest of the population.

Let me give you a more concrete exemple: there is this pathogen called a "prion" (you might know them for EBM or "Mad Cow disease"). It's a defficient protein wich is mostly caused by genetic diseases. The thing with prions is that they are infectious like viruses. I do agree that the main "reservoir" of prions are animals. But it's not impossible (and actually did happen in some rare occasions with the Creutzfeld-Jacob syndrom) that an uncured genetic malformation might generate a prion wich could then cause an epidemic.
I understand that for some that this might be a insufficent justification, but our state is not ready to take this kind of risk. Just to remind you : we are only on the tip of the iceberg when it comes to genetic research. Prion were a recent discovery and there might be more cases of highly transmitable genetic disease out there.

IC: Although the Federal Republic of Newenken shares the fundamentals and objectives declared by the author of this project and the nations that have voted in favor, we will vote against it as we fully share Fondinter's observations.

Indeed, if this Resolution is approved, the Nations would be prevented from carrying out preventive eugenics in those cases that, although not common, may represent a risk for society as a whole (by application of Clause 2, in case of not obtaining consent of the legal guardian of the unborn person).

This is the case, for example, of the "Creutzfeldt-Jakob" (CJD) disease which affects approximately one person per million globally. This disease has at least 3 known variants, 2 of which are hereditary CJD and acquired CJD, the latter being caused by transmission by direct exposure to the prion, through contact with infected brain or nervous system tissues.

That is why we cannot tie our hands to situations that, although rare, may warrant exceptions to the rule of the prohibition of forced eugenics, which this Resolution unfortunately does not contemplate.

Guybrush Threepwood.
Ambassador to the General Assembly and the Security Council.

OOC: For more information about CJD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creutzfeldt–Jakob_disease.

[Araraukar]

Indeed, if this Resolution is approved, the Nations would be prevented from carrying out preventive eugenics in those cases that, although not common, may represent a risk for society as a whole (by application of Clause 2, in case of not obtaining consent of the legal guardian of the unborn person).

This is the case, for example, of the "Creutzfeldt-Jakob" (CJD) disease which affects approximately one person per million globally. This disease has at least 3 known variants, 2 of which are hereditary CJD and acquired CJD, the latter being caused by transmission by direct exposure to the prion, through contact with infected brain or nervous system tissues.

That is why we cannot tie our hands to situations that, although rare, may warrant exceptions to the rule of the prohibition of forced eugenics, which this Resolution unfortunately does not contemplate.

OOC: Sorry I ask this OOCly, but ICly it'd get muddled by "what the hell is [name-name] disease in the first place", due to different history of medical discoveries.

Exactly how would an inheritable disease cause "a risk to society as a whole"?

Or if you're referring to the prion disease version, short of eating the infected person's brains, again, how are they going to be a risk to the society? Not to mention that since that version has to be aquired by, as you yourself say, "direct exposure to the prion, through contact with infected brain or nervous system tissues", an unborn fetus wouldn't have had the exposure to begin with and couldn't have the disease anyway.

The proposal at hand basically only addresses embryo/fetus genetic editing. NOT already born individuals. See the "prior to their birth" in every clause.

[Slackertown]

I refuse to support something that restricts people's access to medical care, no matter how the resolution tries to demonize it.

[Ardiveds]

I refuse to support something that restricts people's access to medical care, no matter how the resolution tries to demonize it.

OOC: I refuse to believe you actually read this resolution because it doesn't restrict anyone's access to anything.