[AT VOTE - CHALLENGE] "Cloning Conventions"

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Proposal Thread
Challenge Thread

Now At Vote.

The Cloning Conventions

A resolution to modify universal standards of healthcare.

Category: Health
Area of Effect: Bioethics
Proposed by: Caspian Settlement

Disturbed by the lack of legislation concerning biological clones;

Aware that many nations with biological engineering have the ability to clone organisms and the increasing importance and potential biological cloning has to the future of biology, ecology, and society;

Seeking to prevent potential detriment and harm to future clones so that they are not mistreated nor misused, and in the case of sapient clones, ensure they have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;

Striving to clarify the ethical boundaries on cloning to prevent unethical experimentation and account for all possible mishaps that could occur within the cloning process, especially for sapient beings;

Resolute in the belief that comprehensive conventions must be created in regards to biological cloning to establish a reasonable set of moral principles on behavior towards both clones and cloning;

The World Assembly hereby:

1. Defines a clone for any organism as either a genetically identical, or not significantly genetically altered, artificially produced copy of a single individual, the originator;

2. 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, and/or a genetically identical or genetically altered copy of any plant originator created via traditional techniques (such as cuttings) derived from agriculture and/or horticulture, from being defined as a clone, and defines them as offspring instead;

3. Grants all clones the same rights as their originator’s species, regardless of any disabilities resulting from a failed cloning;

4. Restricts all cloning to only be done by qualified biomedical personnel, or qualified veterinary personnel in collaboration with qualified biomedical personnel, and qualified laboratory technicians who are appointed and under the responsibility of qualified biomedical/veterinary personnel;

a. Restricts the cloning of sapient organisms only to originators who fully consent to being cloned;

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;

6. Bans the intentional 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;

7. 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;

8. Authorizes and actively encourages nations to share cloning technology, provided that sharing does not violate extant resolutions;

9. 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;

10. Assigns the World Assembly Scientific Programme the duties of overlooking cloning for biomedical research and use to ensure their accordance with this resolution and the promotion of the sharing of cloning technology.

This is currently failing at vote [For 2,933 / Against 4,542 (60.8% Against), Voting ends in 3 days 13 hours], but we should be prepared to either strike it or say "nah, go ahead" should the voters switch (as is not unheard of).

I don't believe any of Ara's arguments actually holds water, but IA brought up GAR #425, which reads in part:

Mandates:
...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,

That says to me that even if you tweak the clone a bit to exclude (say) a central nervous system, it's still a human (ursine, equine, etc. accounting for GA RP) being. At first glance, therefore, this looks illegal for contradicting #425. Willing to be convinced otherwise, but it seems fairly clear in a way none of the other arguments have.

[Bears Armed]

Yes, that clause does seem to be contradicted by this proposal.

Mind you, that clause arguably also contradicts the penultimate clause in GAR #355, which -- as I posted in the current proposal's Challenge thread in the main GA forum -- I read as giving member nations the right to set tests for sapience that could exclude individually non-sapient organisms from generally-sapient species.

Clarifies that it is the responsibility of individual member nations to determine whether a given physical entity is a sapient being, but that such methods of determination must apply equally to humans and any other entities examined, and must also be passable by all healthy, normal, adult humans. Tests must not be based on the anatomy or genetics of a species, but shall be based solely on the mental capabilities of species tested.

As I posted there, I regard 'Cloning Conventions' as illegal for contradiction of this clause from #355, too.

For potential future reference, did we slip up in letting #425 past?

[Separatist Peoples]

Proposal Thread
Challenge Thread

Now At Vote.

The Cloning Conventions

A resolution to modify universal standards of healthcare.

Category: Health
Area of Effect: Bioethics
Proposed by: Caspian Settlement

Disturbed by the lack of legislation concerning biological clones;

Aware that many nations with biological engineering have the ability to clone organisms and the increasing importance and potential biological cloning has to the future of biology, ecology, and society;

Seeking to prevent potential detriment and harm to future clones so that they are not mistreated nor misused, and in the case of sapient clones, ensure they have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;

Striving to clarify the ethical boundaries on cloning to prevent unethical experimentation and account for all possible mishaps that could occur within the cloning process, especially for sapient beings;

Resolute in the belief that comprehensive conventions must be created in regards to biological cloning to establish a reasonable set of moral principles on behavior towards both clones and cloning;

The World Assembly hereby:

1. Defines a clone for any organism as either a genetically identical, or not significantly genetically altered, artificially produced copy of a single individual, the originator;

2. 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, and/or a genetically identical or genetically altered copy of any plant originator created via traditional techniques (such as cuttings) derived from agriculture and/or horticulture, from being defined as a clone, and defines them as offspring instead;

3. Grants all clones the same rights as their originator’s species, regardless of any disabilities resulting from a failed cloning;

4. Restricts all cloning to only be done by qualified biomedical personnel, or qualified veterinary personnel in collaboration with qualified biomedical personnel, and qualified laboratory technicians who are appointed and under the responsibility of qualified biomedical/veterinary personnel;

a. Restricts the cloning of sapient organisms only to originators who fully consent to being cloned;

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;

6. Bans the intentional 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;

7. 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;

8. Authorizes and actively encourages nations to share cloning technology, provided that sharing does not violate extant resolutions;

9. 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;

10. Assigns the World Assembly Scientific Programme the duties of overlooking cloning for biomedical research and use to ensure their accordance with this resolution and the promotion of the sharing of cloning technology.

This is currently failing at vote [For 2,933 / Against 4,542 (60.8% Against), Voting ends in 3 days 13 hours], but we should be prepared to either strike it or say "nah, go ahead" should the voters switch (as is not unheard of).

I don't believe any of Ara's arguments actually holds water, but IA brought up GAR #425, which reads in part:

Mandates:
...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,

That says to me that even if you tweak the clone a bit to exclude (say) a central nervous system, it's still a human (ursine, equine, etc. accounting for GA RP) being. At first glance, therefore, this looks illegal for contradicting #425. Willing to be convinced otherwise, but it seems fairly clear in a way none of the other arguments have.

This is my reading.

[Bananaistan]

GAR#425 has the line "That the above provisions are subject to extant legislation,". This would seem to make the quoted clause 2 meaningless when GAR#355 already granted member states the right to determine sapience in its "clarifies" clause.

Regarding contradiction of the challenged proposal vs GAR#425. The challenge hinges on: "And section 5 doesn't make such harvesting contingent on securing consent from the donor, instead, it simply permits it."

I don't see that there's also a magic invisible (part of a) clause which also states "without any restrictions whatsoever."

I vote legal.

Edit: IA brought up GAR#217 "Biomedical Donor Rights". I think my point about permission still stands though. GAR#217 requires a donor consent. The challenged proposal says cloning is permitted. If a proposal said "Sale of alcohol is permitted" would we take this to mean that no future WA resolution or domestic laws could restrict it in some fashion?

[Bears Armed]

Oops! I missed that clause in #425 when I looked (partly because of not having much more internet access left on the day by then). That being the case, I obviously drop my suggestion that #425 itself might have bene illegal for contradiction of #355.
However, I still think that the "Clarifies" clause in #355 gives member nations enough authority to declare engineered-as-non-sapient clones legally sapient, and thus protected by rights, for 'The Cloning Conventions' giving as much freedom to experiment on them as it does to be illegal as [effectively] Contradiction of that clause.

[Separatist Peoples]

So, 3-1 illegal?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Looks so to me.

[Wrapper]

Should I track down a GM to discard?

[Separatist Peoples]

Should I track down a GM to discard?

Yes, please.

[Ransium]

Discarded

[Separatist Peoples]

Who's writing this up?

[Bananaistan]

Who's writing this up?

Well I voted legal so this is between BA, SL and yourself.

[Separatist Peoples]

Who's writing this up?

Well I voted legal so this is between BA, SL and yourself.

I rubber stamped it based on SL's reading, so I don't believe I'm best qualified. SL? BA?

[Bears Armed]

Well I voted legal so this is between BA, SL and yourself.

I rubber stamped it based on SL's reading, so I don't believe I'm best qualified. SL? BA?

Rather busy with RL matters, at the moment and unfortunately likely to become more rather than less so in the near future, so I can't make any promises.

[Separatist Peoples]

Draft opinion. Long overdue, so I just did it.

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.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I will sign the above opinion.

[Separatist Peoples]

Folks, this is a year late. At least. Can I get more sign ons, cuz this is embarrassing.

[Bears Armed]

Signs.

[Separatist Peoples]

Posted.