[DRAFT] Repeal Stem Cells for Greater Health

[Quadrimmina]

THIS WORLD ASSEMBLY,

UNDERSTANDING that stem cell research is a promising science that can lead to medical breakthroughs.

HOWEVER, NOTING that mandation of funding of research will lead to other, equally promising sciences to be ignored.

RESPECTING the freedom of nations to appopriate money as they see fit.

HOPING to see a much more comprehensive, acceptable attempt to ensure that the right to practice research is upheld, without the focus on a specific science and without funding mandates.

HEREBY repeals "Stem Cells for Greater Health" and renders its provisions null and void.

Thoughts? (We accepted the challenge )

[Manticore Reborn]

HOWEVER, NOTING that mandation of funding of research will lead to other, equally promising sciences to be ignored.

Perhaps this representative is missing something, but were in the Stem Cells resolution does it mandate that nations provide funding for this sort of research?

[Quadrimmina]

HOWEVER, NOTING that mandation of funding of research will lead to other, equally promising sciences to be ignored.

Perhaps this representative is missing something, but were in the Stem Cells resolution does it mandate that nations provide funding for this sort of research?

It would seem that this is not the case after all. This was sent to us by a rather conservative politician, apparently working to ban Stem Cell research in our nation. We are sorry to have wasted the Assembly's time.

[Urgench]

Considering that the WA has voted against two repeals of the statute in question, as far as we can remember, why would it seem a good idea to attempt to write another repeal of it?


Yours,

[Quadrimmina]

Considering that the WA has voted against two repeals of the statute in question, as far as we can remember, why would it seem a good idea to attempt to write another repeal of it?


Yours,

Because we were challenged to.

[Urgench]

Considering that the WA has voted against two repeals of the statute in question, as far as we can remember, why would it seem a good idea to attempt to write another repeal of it?


Yours,

Because we were challenged to.

We suspect that whomever it was that challenged your Excellency must have been doing so in jest.


Yours,

[Glen-Rhodes]

Considering that the WA has voted against two repeals of the statute in question, as far as we can remember, why would it seem a good idea to attempt to write another repeal of it?

I would suspect it's because the Ambassador dislikes the resolution.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Urgench]

Considering that the WA has voted against two repeals of the statute in question, as far as we can remember, why would it seem a good idea to attempt to write another repeal of it?

I would suspect it's because the Ambassador dislikes the resolution.

- Dr. B. Castro

Whether an Ambassador's personal opinion is really relevant, as opposed to the determination of that Ambassador's government we will leave to others to decide. His Excellency the Khan of Kashgar well known to dislike the resolution in question but despite the Noble Khan's personal opinion of it, the government of the CSKU would not have him or our delegation waste our time on what is clearly, at least for the moment, a fruitless and time wasting task.


Yours,

[Grays Harbor]

We shall be in support of this repeal, as we have been for the others. Previously, we may have been on the losing side, still not convinced it was the wrong one.

[Urgench]

We shall be in support of this repeal, as we have been for the others. Previously, we may have been on the losing side, still not convinced it was the wrong one.

It hardly matters all that much that your Excellency is so confident of being correct in your opinion of the statute in question, the democratic processes of this organisation have repeatedly shown that thousands of other states believe the contrary. This being an organisation based on simple democracy we would normally be of the opinion that any resolution having been confirmed by usual voting patterns is fair game for repeal attempt after repeal attempt, however this statute has been confirmed by voting patterns which would give it true democratic validity, even were super majorities required. Only the most utterly persuasive of arguments would convince us that a repeal attempt is of use or value. We suspect that such arguments will not be developed by the honoured delegation of Quadriminna.


Yours,

[Philimbesi]

I must admit that I'm missing the part in GA49 that mandates the funding of stem cell research to the exclusion of all other types of research.

[Glen-Rhodes]

... the government of the CSKU would not have him or our delegation waste our time on what is clearly, at least for the moment, a fruitless and time wasting task.

My fear is that when this thinking comes about, repeals that have failed previously tend to not be revisited.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Urgench]

... the government of the CSKU would not have him or our delegation waste our time on what is clearly, at least for the moment, a fruitless and time wasting task.

My fear is that when this thinking comes about, repeals that have failed previously tend to not be revisited.

- Dr. B. Castro

That is hardly a very serious prospect Dr Castro.


Yours,

[Manticore Reborn]

... the government of the CSKU would not have him or our delegation waste our time on what is clearly, at least for the moment, a fruitless and time wasting task.

I believe I am in agreement with the esteemed Dr. Castro. Bad laws are bad laws no matter how much support they receive and the difficulty in getting them repealed.

[Quadrimmina]

... the government of the CSKU would not have him or our delegation waste our time on what is clearly, at least for the moment, a fruitless and time wasting task.

I believe I am in agreement with the esteemed Dr. Castro. Bad laws are bad laws no matter how much support they receive and the difficulty in getting them repealed.

See: Jim Crow Laws.

[Throwtopia]

Once more the representative for the mighty nation of Throwtopia must dispute this draft.

More time must be given to allow results to show, a snap repeal would cost more money that it would save.

[Unibotian WA Mission]

We shall be in support of this repeal, as we have been for the others. Previously, we may have been on the losing side, still not convinced it was the wrong one.

It hardly matters all that much that your Excellency is so confident of being correct in your opinion of the statute in question, the democratic processes of this organisation have repeatedly shown that thousands of other states believe the contrary. This being an organisation based on simple democracy we would normally be of the opinion that any resolution having been confirmed by usual voting patterns is fair game for repeal attempt after repeal attempt, however this statute has been confirmed by voting patterns which would give it true democratic validity, even were super majorities required. Only the most utterly persuasive of arguments would convince us that a repeal attempt is of use or value. We suspect that such arguments will not be developed by the honoured delegation of Quadriminna.


Yours,

This 'democratic process' is mostly influenced by the big players in the room, speaking from a pragmatical point of view, the last two resolutions have failed because the two most influential regions in the game stacked against them. If you can convince those stackers otherwise, we have a good chance to 'democratically' sway the vote in our favor.

Yours,

OOC: I'm currently conceiving my own version of a repeal, Quad, but don't let that discourage you.

[Urgench]

We shall be in support of this repeal, as we have been for the others. Previously, we may have been on the losing side, still not convinced it was the wrong one.

It hardly matters all that much that your Excellency is so confident of being correct in your opinion of the statute in question, the democratic processes of this organisation have repeatedly shown that thousands of other states believe the contrary. This being an organisation based on simple democracy we would normally be of the opinion that any resolution having been confirmed by usual voting patterns is fair game for repeal attempt after repeal attempt, however this statute has been confirmed by voting patterns which would give it true democratic validity, even were super majorities required. Only the most utterly persuasive of arguments would convince us that a repeal attempt is of use or value. We suspect that such arguments will not be developed by the honoured delegation of Quadriminna.


Yours,

This 'democratic process' is mostly influenced by the big players in the room, speaking from a pragmatical point of view, the last two resolutions have failed because the two most influential regions in the game stacked against them. If you can convince those stackers otherwise, we have a good chance to 'democratically' sway the vote in our favor.

Yours,

OOC: I'm currently conceiving my own version of a repeal, Quad, but don't let that discourage you.

Your Excellency knows that we have grave concerns about the kind of democracy this organisation uses to express its will, there is no need to tell us of its failings. However the system is what the system is. The stackers your Excellency speaks of would not have changed the outcome of the last vote on a repeal of the statute in question in our opinion, but your Excellency is entitled to disagree with us.

Yours,

[Urgench]

... the government of the CSKU would not have him or our delegation waste our time on what is clearly, at least for the moment, a fruitless and time wasting task.

I believe I am in agreement with the esteemed Dr. Castro. Bad laws are bad laws no matter how much support they receive and the difficulty in getting them repealed.

Nor did we say that popular support no matter how oft or how overwhelmingly expressed could make a bad law good. That was most assuredly not our point, especially since we opposed the statute in question and have always thought it a useless anachronism.


Yours,

[Mousebumples]

A few editing notes ...

UNDERSTANDING that stem cell research is a promising science that can lead to medical breakthroughs.

I would change to "may lead" or "has potential as a source of future medical breakthroughs" as there are no documented cases of "cures" thanks to stem cell research of which I am aware. (Speculation exists, yes; but speculation does not result in successful treatments.)

HOWEVER, NOTING that mandation of funding of research will lead to other, equally promising sciences to be ignored.

A few things - "mandation" is not a word. Perhaps "NOTING that a mandate of research funding may cause equally promising research endeavors to be overlooked" ... or something of that nature?

(Also, mandatory funding will not NECESSARILY lead to the ignorance of other sciences ... but it MAY, possibly, end with that result. Use caution with causative verbage.)

RESPECTING the freedom of nations to appopriate money as they see fit.

NatSov argument. Illegal within a repeal.

HOPING to see a much more comprehensive, acceptable attempt to ensure that the right to practice research is upheld, without the focus on a specific science and without funding mandates.

I would probably word this more as an encourage clause - versus a "hope" clause. For example: ENCOURAGING ambassadors to author new legislation so as to allow for the greatest research advances. (Terrible wording, but that's more the gist of what I'm going for. I am concerned that endorsing a specific line for future legislation could possibly lose you some votes if individuals don't agree with the "hoped for" legislation. More general wording would still include what you're aiming for while also allowing for individual ambassadors to make what they would of it.)

HEREBY repeals "Stem Cells for Greater Health" and renders its provisions null and void.

Finally, a proposal of yours that I can support fully. Huzzah!

Your milage may vary, of course, on some of the proposed edits, but feel free to take/amend my suggestions at will.

Best of luck,
Ambassador Lizzy Hall
Leader of the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Aranoff]

Stem cells are the future of our medical breakthroughs. Because we are required to fund stem cells, we are seeing great multi-national cooperation and breakthroughs, and the health of our people has drastically increased. Furthermore, we are seeing a decline in the cost of organ transplants, as organs are now easily harvested from stem cells as perfect matches in order to provide lower healthcare costs, no necessary meds after transplants due to the ability of 100% perfect matches, and greater breakthroughs are still being made.

The Allied Nation of Aranoff firmly believes that, while the intentions stated within this repeal proposal cite economic and national sovereignty issues, the repeal is firmly based on religious zeal and ideology that goes masked under a "reasonable" aim. We believe that any party wishing to repeal Stem Cells for Greater Health are a threat to progressive science and would respectfully ask to know how they can simply ignore the vast scientific implications and the already proven benefits of Stem Cell research.

[Glen-Rhodes]

That is hardly a very serious prospect Dr Castro.

Why not? It took six months for a second repeal of the resolution in question to show up. As far as I'm aware, if records are to be trusted, it's been the only second-attempt repeal of any resolution to date. But I digress. Delegates will choose if this subject ought to be brought up again.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Neutonica]

Stem cells are the future of our medical breakthroughs. Because we are required to fund stem cells, we are seeing great multi-national cooperation and breakthroughs, and the health of our people has drastically increased. Furthermore, we are seeing a decline in the cost of organ transplants, as organs are now easily harvested from stem cells as perfect matches in order to provide lower healthcare costs, no necessary meds after transplants due to the ability of 100% perfect matches, and greater breakthroughs are still being made.

The Allied Nation of Aranoff firmly believes that, while the intentions stated within this repeal proposal cite economic and national sovereignty issues, the repeal is firmly based on religious zeal and ideology that goes masked under a "reasonable" aim. We believe that any party wishing to repeal Stem Cells for Greater Health are a threat to progressive science and would respectfully ask to know how they can simply ignore the vast scientific implications and the already proven benefits of Stem Cell research.

Oh, for goodness sakes, stop second-guessing motives. Take the argument as it is, and debate it. Don't come up with some straw man argument which never existed in the first place, just so you can torch it and prove yourself right.

Dr. Isaac Corrigan
Delegate of Neutonica

[Hirota]

The Allied Nation of Aranoff firmly believes that, while the intentions stated within this repeal proposal cite economic and national sovereignty issues, the repeal is firmly based on religious zeal and ideology that goes masked under a "reasonable" aim.

Your belief is wrong Ambassador. This proposal is based on national sovereignty arguments (which Hirota doesn't care for at all), and the promotion of scientific freedom (which Hirota strongly endorses)

Someone could submit a repeal on religious ideology grounds and I'd probably vote against it because my nation is avowedly atheist.

[Flibbleites]

Once more the representative for the mighty nation of Throwtopia must dispute this draft.

More time must be given to allow results to show, a snap repeal would cost more money that it would save.

Apparently someone is still under the impression that repealing this resolution will automatically ban stem cell research.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative