[Legality Challenge] The Cloning Conventions

[Wallenburg]

Ara, dead people aren't sapient.

And if the proposal was talking about dead people, I'd agree. It's clearly not. It's talking about cloning living things, not dissecting dead things. A body without a brain can live (though likely not without intensive support machinery, and not for long). The "who" is not there, but the "what" is. The "what" can be allowed to die, it's called euthanasia when it's hastened with medications, otherwise you'd just unhook it from the support machinery and it'd die quick (in RL humans' case at least, when they stop breathing the body extinguishes itself quickly). To keep the "what" alive for conducting experiments on it and "use" (which is of such lovely vagueness that it sounds creepy) it, you would need the permission of the next of kin or, lacking such, the legally appointed guardian (which Legal Competence requires).

EDIT: If that - the requirement of getting said permission, which I can't imagine anyone involved in that situation would deny from the research team - was included, then I wouldn't have a beef with it. But the omission of even the "as allowed by previous legislation" thingy (which they do have for the cloning technology sharing) makes it clash.

A brainless body sustained on life support is not a person, sapient or otherwise, no more than a cancer growth is or a fetus is. No self-interested member state will interpret "members of a sapient species" to include objects that cannot be "members" of anything, in the commonly accepted definition of the word.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I think the challenge, originally written, wrongly interprets section 5,

Permits the cloning of unconscious, unfeeling organisms from sapient originators, where the clones themselves do not and will not possess any sapience and have been proven to not be in locked-in syndrome, for biomedical experimentation and use;

which (1) permits (2) the cloning of (3) a certain class of organisms that one could call meat puppets (4) from people (5) for certain experiments. It does mention about whether the class of organisms are people, but I am unclear what resolution is violated by the creation of "meat puppets" (to borrow a phrase) themselves. Which might or might not be what Ara is trying to argue for. Colour me surprised that I don't understand what this argument is at all and how it actually connects to illegality rather than some "meat"-aphysical debate about the measure of a man (TNG).

But there's a more clear way to find illegality, insofar as section 5 does the things above, it permits the cloning of certain organisms from people. The action of doing so ipso facto requires biomedical harvesting, which falls under Biomedical Donor Rights. And section 5 doesn't make such harvesting contingent on securing consent from the donor, instead, it simply permits it. That violates Biomedical Donor Rights' implicit (no idea why it isn't explicit, perhaps it should have been pointed out in drafting in the olden times) requirement for consent to biomedical procedures.

---

Re-reading what Ara posted above, I think his claim shifted to something, or perhaps originally was, along the lines of "Meat puppets cannot consent to procedures, and thus violates Biomedical Donor Rights". If something is brain dead, it's not alive, and can't be a member of a sapient species by virtue of being dead. There isn't any resolution saying that brain dead meat puppets have to be treated as if they are sapients. But this, at a fundamental level, turns into clash about what defines life. That's not entirely resolvable within the scope of resolutions or within the scope of real life.

But more fundamentally, the claim misses the point. Since, even if, we buy all the claims coming from Ara's challenge, the proposal doesn't permit the use of those clones for biomedical procedures, it only permits their creation for biomedical procedures. Even in the best world for Ara's challenge, one can create them for that purpose, one just can't actually use them, which a contradiction does not make.

[Caspian Settlement]

But there's a more clear way to find illegality, insofar as section 5 does the things above, it permits the cloning of certain organisms from people. The action of doing so ipso facto requires biomedical harvesting, which falls under Biomedical Donor Rights. And section 5 doesn't make such harvesting contingent on securing consent from the donor, instead, it simply permits it. That violates Biomedical Donor Rights' implicit (no idea why it isn't explicit, perhaps it should have been pointed out in drafting in the olden times) requirement for consent to biomedical procedures.

Cloning certain organisms from people does not require biomedical harvesting, it simply requires DNA, which can be found in saliva, stool, urine, and other like products, which do not fall under Biomedical Donor Rights. False premise.

[Caspian Settlement]

So anyway, the combination of CoCR, Legal Competence and the Rights of Sapient Species make no exception for "has no brain functions". Someone on another thread raised the question about the rights of people in a coma (that they're permanently in, due to brain damage or similar) - braindeath, whether engineered or accidental, does not make a human not human, to use our RL species as an example. Children without brain tissue are born occasionally naturally, they're still given the same rights as non-defective children. They tend to not live very long.

Anencephalic babies, which you are referencing, are unconscious, but:

• They still can feel certain forces which cause reflexes due to the neurons throughout their body.
• The condition is not genetic and results from a lack of folic acid (or other nutrients) in a pregnant woman's diet.
• The baby has a possibility of gaining consciousness & more feeling in the future if a brain was made from its genetic material, especially as the baby still has neurons in the rest of its body designed to sense.

Although commonly confused with genetic ciliopathies, anencephaly is essentially a result of the fetus not receiving certain nutrients. An actual "meat puppet" is designed without consciousness nor feeling in mind, and will never be able to gain them - the only way to have such a "meat puppet" is the genetically engineered absence of the entire nervous system, which not even anencephaly approaches.

[Caspian Settlement]

This may influence the course of this Legality Challenge. If GAR #355 Rights of Sapient Species (viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=27310640#p27310640) includes embryos, which are sapient species under Araraukar's current interpretation of meat puppets, it contradicts with GAR #128 On Abortion (viewtopic.php?p=4524923#p4524923), as it gives rights to embryos.

Apologizes for triple-posting!

EDIT: What this means is that The Cloning Conventions is legal with or without Bear Armed's reasoning: If GAR #355 doesn't include meat puppets, then The Cloning Conventions is legal; if The Cloning Conventions is thought to be illegal as GAR #355's use of "sapient species" includes meat puppets, then it must include embryos as well, which would have On Abortion directly contradict every resolution giving rights to those who are underage, and cannot be reconciled by any other method other then ruling GAR #355 illegal, which would rule The Cloning Conventions legal anyways. If "sapient species" includes meat puppets, Rights of Sapient Species GAR #355 and On Abortion #128 simply cannot coexist without maintaining a massive logical contradiction within the WA which would not be solved by the "everything that passed is legal" rule, requiring the removal of GAR #355.*

GAR #355 would be best removed since it's the more recent addition; removing GAR #128 would not remove the contradiction GAR #355 would continue to have with any other resolution having to do with embryos, especially the embryonic stem cells repeatedly mentioned in prior biomedical resolutions GAR #217, #218, & #219.

[Bears Armed]

But there's a more clear way to find illegality, insofar as section 5 does the things above, it permits the cloning of certain organisms from people. The action of doing so ipso facto requires biomedical harvesting, which falls under Biomedical Donor Rights. And section 5 doesn't make such harvesting contingent on securing consent from the donor, instead, it simply permits it. That violates Biomedical Donor Rights' implicit (no idea why it isn't explicit, perhaps it should have been pointed out in drafting in the olden times) requirement for consent to biomedical procedures.

Cloning certain organisms from people does not require biomedical harvesting, it simply requires DNA, which can be found in saliva, stool, urine, and other like products, which do not fall under Biomedical Donor Rights. False premise.

GA Resolution #217 'Biomedical Donor Rights' specifies that

SPECIFIES that “biomedical tissues” shall include, at minimum, the following:
1. Blood and blood products, such as platelets and plasma.
2. Organs, such as the kidneys, liver, and heart.
3. Stem cells, such as embryonic stem cells, those found in the bone marrow and the umbilical cord, and other adult stem cells.

and that minimum does exclude various other potential sources of genetic material which could be used for cloning.
We could read this current proposed resolution in conjunction as authorizing the use of cloning but with that earlier resolution limiting the allowed sources of genetic material, even though this proposed resolution does not state explicitly that is applies only subject to any limits set by earlier resolutions that are still in force.

Or we could say that because that "at minimum" in GAR #217 effectively recognizes member nations as having the right to extend that limit as far as they want, they could include all possible sources of genetic material, and so by authorizing the cloning anyway this proposed resolution is illegal for Contradiction because it would take away their previously-recognized limit to extend the definition of "biomedical tissues" that far. Interpreting that clause in #217 as a blocker in this way follows, in my opinion, the same basic logic as my already-given opinion about illegality for contradiction (by overriding an implicit blocking function) of the penultimate clause in GAR #355.

[Araraukar]

*snip*

Then why are you calling them clones when they aren't?

More generally, creating meat-puppets for research purposes in general should perhaps get its own resolution, as if they're meant to lack any and all neurons, they're not actually clones, as there will have to have been significant alterations to ensure lack of neuron growth and yet enable them to grow into bodies with presumably full set of other organs.

Worth noting is that neurons, actually actual brain cells, growing in and around the internal organs are what manage the process of digestion and things like enzyme/hormone secretion, so your meat puppets won't be actually functional and will likely make a poor research subject if they're meant to replace experiments on thinking people - for humans at least. Out of known RL animals only sponges and Trichoplax don't have neurons, for comparison. Something interesting on the topic.

[Wallenburg]

*snip*

Then why are you calling them clones when they aren't?

More generally, creating meat-puppets for research purposes in general should perhaps get its own resolution, as if they're meant to lack any and all neurons, they're not actually clones, as there will have to have been significant alterations to ensure lack of neuron growth and yet enable them to grow into bodies with presumably full set of other organs.

Worth noting is that neurons, actually actual brain cells, growing in and around the internal organs are what manage the process of digestion and things like enzyme/hormone secretion, so your meat puppets won't be actually functional and will likely make a poor research subject if they're meant to replace experiments on thinking people - for humans at least. Out of known RL animals only sponges and Trichoplax don't have neurons, for comparison. Something interesting on the topic.

They are clones. Clones are not carbon copies of their originators, they are organisms whose genetic material is identical to that of their originators.

[Araraukar]

They are clones. Clones are not carbon copies of their originators, they are organisms whose genetic material is identical to that of their originators.

Reducing a human (to stay with RL examples) to the functional level of a sponge requires such great changes that you wouldn't be able to call it a clone by any realistic measure. But that's all besides the point and should likely be debated on the proposal's thread.

[Flying Eagles]

It does appear that this proposal will fail, which will make a ruling on illegality likely unnecessary, although a nice precedent to establish come a future challenge.

[Dirty Americans]

I am sort of confused by this whole discussion of meat puppets. It sounds like a very bad horror movie (and I mean "bad" in "my god is this science wrong").

First of all, if you want to "clone" organs you are going to need pluripotent stem cells (because the creation of Induced pluripotent stem cells requires the infusion four specific genes which might stretch the notion that the organ is technically a clone even though it is perfectly compatible for transplant purposes).

Second of all, if you want to clone organ you just clone the organ. Anything else is a waste of effort. You don't have to make an entire body sans brain to grow a liver. You don't even need to grow the entire liver. Some organs need to be completely grown but you can start off with a matrix and work your way from there.

So question to the basic problem of "meat clones."

Does the method of creating induced pluripotent stem cells violate the "significantly genetically altered" because 23 and me isn't 23+4 and me.

[Imperium Anglorum]

They are clones. Clones are not carbon copies of their originators, they are organisms whose genetic material is identical to that of their originators.

Reducing a human (to stay with RL examples) to the functional level of a sponge requires such great changes that you wouldn't be able to call it a clone by any realistic measure. But that's all besides the point and should likely be debated on the proposal's thread.

I would imagine that the clone would just have its development messed with, rather than its genome.

[Separatist Peoples]

*** General Assembly Secretariat Decision ***
Challenged Proposal: The Cloning Conventions
Date of Decision: 15 March 2019
Decision: Proposal is illegal, 3-1
Rules Applied: Contradiction

We find the challenged proposal illegal. Sierra Lyricalia, Separatist Peoples, and Bears Armed find the proposal contradicts GAR#425. Bananaistan voted legal. The proposal will be discarded at the conclusion of the voting period.

Opinion is pending.

[Caspian Settlement]

*** General Assembly Secretariat Decision ***
Challenged Proposal: The Cloning Conventions
Date of Decision: 15 March 2019
Decision: Proposal is illegal, 3-1
Rules Applied: Contradiction

We find the challenged proposal illegal. Sierra Lyricallia, Separatist Peoples, and Bears Armed find the proposal contradicts GAR#425. Bananaistan voted legal.

Opinion is pending.

I appreciate the clarity of the decision. I'll be awaiting your opinion.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'm updating the GAS rulings list. Was this opinion ever released?

[Separatist Peoples]

I'm updating the GAS rulings list. Was this opinion ever released?

I think we hit a number of roadbumps, professionally and personally, that delayed this ever getting released.

[Separatist Peoples]

*** GenSec Opinion ***

Bears Armed, Sierra Lyricalia, and Separatist Peoples held this as illegal. Bananaistan dissents. Grays Harbor and Sciongrad did not take part in deliberations.

Rule Challenged: Contradiction

The challenge argued that clause 5 permitted “the cloning of unconscious, unfeeling organisms from sapient originators, where the clones themselves do not and will not possess any sapience and have been proven to not be in locked-in syndrome, for biomedical experimentation and use” in contradiction of GAR#217, 299, and 425.

Initially, we can dispense with GARs #217 and 299. There is a reasonable interpretation that, because the clones in question are specifically engineered to have none of the traits that define a person or an individual as a person, they therefore do not fall under resolutions protecting individuals or persons.

However, the argument involving GAR#425 s more convincing. GAR#425 provides, in relevant part, that “. . . Member-States consider any temporarily or permanently incapacitated member of a species known to be sapient, to be themselves Sapient, regardless of disability or condition[.]” Thus, to the extent that Clause 5 of the challenged proposal requires member states determine the sapience of the test subject, GAR#425 has already addressed it.

This fell through the cracks for way too long. I apologize sincerely for my part in that.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: At last! Thanks Sep!