[PASSED] Restrictions on Forced Eugenics

[Maowi]

"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.

[Kenmoria]

"Clause 1 currently makes no exception for the removal of genetically-inherited disorders such as cystic fibrosis. I think this should be changed."

[Maowi]

"Clause 1 currently makes no exception for the removal of genetically-inherited disorders such as cystic fibrosis. I think this should be changed."

"Should member states be permitted to force parents to have their baby's genes edited in this way if they do not wish to? I believe it should be the right of the legal guardian to decide whether they wish the embryo or foetus to undergo the procedure, just as the World Assembly gives legal guardians the right to make decisions on their wards' medical treatment after birth. However, I do see your point when it comes to incentivising genetic editing in the cases you mention (rather than compelling), and I'll modify that in the draft."

[Tinhampton]

If you are willing to go that far on cutting things down... (;p)

Safeguarding Genetic Diversity (alternative title suggestion: "Eugenics Ban"? Or is that not specific enough?)

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 further a national agenda of large-scale ethnic cleansing,

Subject to previous, extant World Assembly resolutions its prior and standing 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 of genetic diseases; or
   
   
2. explicitly discouraging or disincentivising individuals of a particular race, religious identity, ethnicity, gender identity, or sexual identity from reproducing simply because they possess a particular arbitrary, reductive characteristic.

If you want that last one explained, covering all ARCs would forbid governments from discouraging reproduction by (say) the disabled or national minorities that broadly share the same ethnicity. In the main, this legislation is... appropriately Tinhamptonian, full support

[Marxist Germany]

"Would this not be covered by extant legislation, namely, GA#35?"

[Maowi]

-snip-

OOC: Thanks both for the advice and support, I'll integrate those suggestions in there!

"Would this not be covered by extant legislation, namely, GA#35?"

"Clause 1 certainly is not covered. Clause 2 perhaps could be, but I believe the argument could be made that discouraging something as opposed to banning it may not fall under the prohibition on GAR 35, which is the reason for which I included it to cover that possibility."

[Honeydewistania]

"This has our support"

[Grays Harbor]

"Would this not be covered by extant legislation, namely, GA#35?"

How so? I’m not seeing it.

[Isaris]

"I must concur with the ambassador from Maowi that the subject matter discussed here is not covered by GA#35. Isaris offers its support for this proposal. We are particularly pleased with the inclusion of an exception clause for the remedying of genetic diseases, as this practice is already widespread in our nation."

[Araraukar]

OOC: Before calling other ambassadors names in IC, I want the clarification that this is intentionally trying to block the advancement of beneficial genetics as well, not merely blocking the elimination of ethnicities?

Because eugenics is specifically about making people better (like, think if we could eliminate diabetes - both type 1 and type 2 entirely, or make all future children immune to diarrhea viruses or malaria or HIV), NOT what people think it means (Nazi ideology of ethnical cleansing on genetical level). (EDIT: The allowed exception would not apply on genetic-level immunization against communicable diseases. Nor probably diabetes - type 1 is triggered by infection, type 2 is more or less an acquired metabolic disorder rather than "genetic disease".)

Calling all eugenics bad is like lumping all ethnic rights advancement groups into terrorists, simply because some terrorists use the same rights advancement ideology as a justification to their actions.

[Maowi]

"I am very grateful for the support both from the Isari ambassador and the ambassador from Honeydewistania."

OOC: Before calling other ambassadors names in IC, I want the clarification that this is intentionally trying to block the advancement of beneficial genetics as well, not merely blocking the elimination of ethnicities?

Because eugenics is specifically about making people better (like, think if we could eliminate diabetes - both type 1 and type 2 entirely, or make all future children immune to diarrhea viruses or malaria or HIV), NOT what people think it means (Nazi ideology of ethnical cleansing on genetical level). (EDIT: The allowed exception would not apply on genetic-level immunization against communicable diseases. Nor probably diabetes - type 1 is triggered by infection, type 2 is more or less an acquired metabolic disorder rather than "genetic disease".)

Calling all eugenics bad is like lumping all ethnic rights advancement groups into terrorists, simply because some terrorists use the same rights advancement ideology as a justification to their actions.

OOC: Just to be clear (for people in general, not just for you, because I don't think this is what you were saying) - this isn't banning genetic modification of sapient offspring; it's banning member states from forcing it onto people. So in that sense, yes, it is blocking "beneficial eugenics" if eugenics to you means these things are made mandatory. Note that there is now an exception for incentivising what you refer to as beneficial genetics.

[Araraukar]

Note that there is now an exception for incentivising what you refer to as beneficial genetics.

OOC: Where? You only mention remedy of "genetic diseases" (whatever those are, since faulty genes usually cause disorders instead of diseases) in clause 1.

And why is discouragement banned in clause 2? You know that if you inherit sickle cell anemia gene from both parents, you suffer and then die, right? Why shouldn't a state be allowed to urge people with certain fatal-if-gotten-from-both-parents genetic issues to not reproduce naturally? That is, not banning them from reproducing, but encouraging to use embryo screening, for example. You give the exception for "remedy of genetic diseases" in clause 1, but not clause 2.

[Maowi]

Note that there is now an exception for incentivising what you refer to as beneficial genetics.

OOC: Where? You only mention remedy of "genetic diseases" (whatever those are, since faulty genes usually cause disorders instead of diseases) in clause 1.

OOC: Okay, I edited the language in clause 1 so that it hopefully makes more sense now - thanks for the feedback.

And why is discouragement banned in clause 2? You know that if you inherit sickle cell anemia gene from both parents, you suffer and then die, right? Why shouldn't a state be allowed to urge people with certain fatal-if-gotten-from-both-parents genetic issues to not reproduce naturally? That is, not banning them from reproducing, but encouraging to use embryo screening, for example. You give the exception for "remedy of genetic diseases" in clause 1, but not clause 2.

I wouldn't consider carrying genes which could lead to genetic issues in offspring as an arbitrary categorisation. It would be a reasoned and practically sensible approach to take, not just plucked out of thin air, and as such I don't think the language in clause 2 forbids discouragement in those cases.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Thank you for making it clearer.

Also I note that it currently only applies to the state and not, for example, doctors or other healthcare providers, or any other kind of private citizen, regardless of what authority they may have over reproducing individuals. It can become problematic given PRA allows parents to consent on the behalf of their minors.

Oh and could you please change the title to something like "Restrictions on Forced Eugenics" or something to make it more obvious that you're talking about stuff done without people's explicit consent. That is, you're not trying to ban a couple from using artificial fertilization or embryo screening or anything like that out of their own choice, but rather keep a government from banning blue-eyed people from breeding entirely and taking steps to ensure no blue-eyed kids will ever again be born?

Blue eyes used as an inoffensive example of a feature one can be born with.

[Maowi]

OOC: Title change done, good idea.

My original intent with this was particularly to make provisions against states employing eugenics to eliminate entire ethnic groups - like with your blue-eyed people example. I could probably include private citizens in this along with member states, but I'll give it some more thought.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I could probably include private citizens in this along with member states, but I'll give it some more thought.

OOC: Would make more sense that way, and as a Moral Decency proposal.

[Maowi]

OOC: Would make more sense that way, and as a Moral Decency proposal.

OOC: I've updated the draft with some provisions to do with that. Not 100% sure why it would work better as MD rather than civil rights, as it a) protects minorities etc. from despotic regimes and the like, and b) reserves to the individual the right to decide what happens to their body and to their offspring, in perhaps a similar vein to the prevention of forced sterilisation.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I think it would work better if you used current clause 1 as a definition what's included under "forced eugenics" (keeping the exception), and then banned that unilaterally. If you ban it from being done by anyone and anything, then you don't need to specify states and businesses and individuals separately. And then at least it would work as MD. Or if you want to insisit on CR as category, doing the definiton the same way and then writing the mandate so that all individuals are free of it. (Sounds like that'd be a clumsier way of doing it than as a MD one, but I'll leave that decision to you.)

[Maowi]

OOC: I think it would work better if you used current clause 1 as a definition what's included under "forced eugenics" (keeping the exception), and then banned that unilaterally. If you ban it from being done by anyone and anything, then you don't need to specify states and businesses and individuals separately. And then at least it would work as MD. Or if you want to insisit on CR as category, doing the definiton the same way and then writing the mandate so that all individuals are free of it. (Sounds like that'd be a clumsier way of doing it than as a MD one, but I'll leave that decision to you.)

OOC: I've edited the draft slightly to transfer all the "forcing/compelling/coercing" language to one place and have it apply to all entities rather than just individuals or governments, but I don't think it makes sense to lump absolutely all the provisions together - the "incentivising" and "discouraging" language which works on governments doesn't really work for individuals, I think.

[Maowi]

OOC: I'm bumping this and would greatly appreciate more feedback.

[Honeydewistania]

OOC: I'm bumping this and would greatly appreciate more feedback.

Looks pretty good in my opinion.

[Tinhampton]

compelling, forcing, or coercing a legal guardian

What's the distinction, and why does that distinction matter?

[Potted Plants United]

compelling, forcing, or coercing a legal guardian

What's the distinction, and why does that distinction matter?

OOC: Not the author obviously, but to my understanding, "forcing" is basically forcefully sedating/strapping someone into a hospital bed and performing medical operations on them without their consent (or in more tech advanced societies, maybe forcefully injecting them with nanobots that do the job), "coercing" would be something like blackmailing or threatening to withhold state services from them if they refuse to alter the genetics of their embryo/fetus to prevent it having blue eyes when it grows up, and "compelling" would be like having a national law to compel all inhabitants to undergo the genetic alterations of their offspring to ensure certain genetic straits are not inherited/passed on by them.

In my understanding it just tries to block all possible loopholes.

[Maowi]

OOC: Yeah, I was just trying to cover all the ways around it that I could think of. "Forcing" to my mind at least is physically preventing a particular individual from avoiding the procedure, "compelling" is equivalent to mandating, more on a national level, and "coercing" includes threats, etc.

[Maowi]

OOC: Bump, I'd be very grateful for people's thoughts on this current version.