[PASSED] Repeal "In Regards to Cloning"

[Sedgistan]

CAG!

GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION AT VOTE
Repeal "In Regards to Cloning"

A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation


Category: Repeal


Resolution: GA#142


Proposed by: Parallaxium

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #142: In Regards to Cloning (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: While the General Assembly recognises the intent behind Resolution #142, “In Regards to Cloning”, it notes the following flaw:

The Resolution specifically:
“DEFINES clone as 'the organism that is an exact genetic copy of another'”

The wording used includes organisms that reproduce naturally in a number of ways in the definition of 'clone'.

Examples of organisms included in the definition are:
Any organism which reproduces by binary fission, in which the parent organsim divides into two genetically identical offspring.
Any organism which reproduces through budding, in which a genetically identical offspring grows off a ‘mother’ organism.
Any plant which reproduces by vegetative reproduction, in which a genetically identical plant grows from the leaf, runner, or rhizome of another plant, or from the stem of a damaged plant, or from new shoots on an existing root system, or arise from tubers or bulbs.
Any organism which reproduces through asexual sporogenesis, in which a genetically identical offspring develops from a mitospore after dispersal.
Any organism which reproduces through fragmentation, in which genetically identical offspring from fragments of the parent organism.
Any organism which reproduce through parthenogenesis, in which the female of a species produces genetically identical offspring from an unfertilised egg.
Any organism undergoing asexual reproduction, not mentioned in the list above.

Based on this definition of cloning, General Assembly Resolution #142 “In Regards to Cloning” is rendered in a different sense than that in which it was meant.

For the above reason, the World Assembly hereby repeals “In Regards to Cloning”.

I couldn't find a drafting thread for this. If there is one, or the author would like to make his own "At Vote" thread, then I guess this can be locked. If I'm feeling industrious later I might make a poll.

[Jankenjin]

Putting the "Insta" in "Insta-Repeal". We're for this--the proposal as written was terribly flawed and should be re-thought.

Yasushipa Toruhayashipa
Ambassador Plenepotentiary
Triune Republic of Jankenjin

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

Putting the "Insta" in "Insta-Repeal". We're for this--the proposal as written was terribly flawed and should be re-thought.

Yasushipa Toruhayashipa
Ambassador Plenepotentiary
Triune Republic of Jankenjin

I'm willing to admit when I put forth a poor resolution, and in this case, "In Regards to Cloning" was rather poor. I am in full support of this repeal in order to properly legislate clones' rights/sapient rights.

Rgds.,

[Blahem]

Obviously voted for repeal.

[Trolleborg]

It is very interesting, that many resolutions regularly voted with solid "for" and shortly thereafter were repealed with no less solid majority.

[Blahem]

It is very interesting, that many resolutions regularly voted with solid "for" and shortly thereafter were repealed with no less solid majority.

I noticed that too. Delegates who approved my repeal were sometimes those who voted for "In Regards to Cloning". I wonder if people vote "Yes" just for the sake of voting "Yes".

[The FTR]

I don't think it should be repealed. You know why? Cloning is a good idea. Cloning increases output, and output increases the economy.

[Blahem]

I don't think it should be repealed. You know why? Cloning is a good idea. Cloning increases output, and output increases the economy.

I don't think these repeals are as against cloning in general as they're against the wording of the legislation.

[Destructor Bunnies]

Cloning is a good idea.

Nobody is saying it's a bad idea, they're just opposed to the wording of "In Regards to Cloning". I imagine there will be a replacement submitted at some point in the future.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

What's a CAG?

Anyway, Ms. Harper is in favour.

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

Cloning is a good idea.

Nobody is saying it's a bad idea, they're just opposed to the wording of "In Regards to Cloning". I imagine there will be a replacement submitted at some point in the future.

Well, depending on what happens in the near future with Bears Armed's "Rights for Intelligent Beings", there may be no need for a replacement draft for clones, in particular.

I sincerely hope for this body to legislate to protect basic human rights for all sapient beings, clones included. I'm just not sure we really need another resolution on clones, since it appears that all 'intelligent' [sapient] beings will have basic human rights in the near future.

Of course, this all depends on the Ambassador from Bears Armed.

Rgds.,

[The Travuersan Union]

DEFINES cloning as 'the creation of an organism that is an exact genetic copy of another'
DEFINES clone as 'the organism that is an exact genetic copy of another'

RECOGNIZES the risk of cloning mistakes,
URGES nations to take steps to prevent cloning mishaps,
REQUIRES that cloning only be done by trained professionals,
DECLARES that nations cannot classify sentient sapient clones as their own legal class,
REQUIRES sapient clones in member nations be extended all the legal rights, privileges, and opportunities granted to their genetically identical counterparts,
DECLARES that clones cannot be used for the purpose of or as part of a violation of other GA resolutions,
AFFIRMS the right of nations to pursue cloning of sapient beings,
PRESERVES the right of nations to illegalize such cloning in that nation,
REMINDS that nations are allowed to enact further legislation in regards to clones, so long as it does not violate this act,
Co-authored by Cool Egg Sandwich

I thought I'd put the original resolution here. The underlined portions are the only parts of this resolution that force action by a member nation.

[Blahem]

Nobody is saying it's a bad idea, they're just opposed to the wording of "In Regards to Cloning". I imagine there will be a replacement submitted at some point in the future.

Well, depending on what happens in the near future with Bears Armed's "Rights for Intelligent Beings", there may be no need for a replacement draft for clones, in particular.

I sincerely hope for this body to legislate to protect basic human rights for all sapient beings, clones included. I'm just not sure we really need another resolution on clones, since it appears that all 'intelligent' [sapient] beings will have basic human rights in the near future.

Of course, this all depends on the Ambassador from Bears Armed.

Rgds.,

What about unintelligent beings?

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

Well, depending on what happens in the near future with Bears Armed's "Rights for Intelligent Beings", there may be no need for a replacement draft for clones, in particular.

I sincerely hope for this body to legislate to protect basic human rights for all sapient beings, clones included. I'm just not sure we really need another resolution on clones, since it appears that all 'intelligent' [sapient] beings will have basic human rights in the near future.

Of course, this all depends on the Ambassador from Bears Armed.

Rgds.,

What about unintelligent beings?

Please keep the discussion on-topic with this repeal, my good man.

To answer your question, "Rights for Intelligent Beings" is merely the title. The legislation itself provides for rights for all 'sapient' beings. It has nothing to do with their IQ, really. That is merely a title that more people are familiar with; it seems to me that most people don't really know the difference between sentience and sapience.

All in all, the title just helps 'focus' most people's attention on a familiar idea.

Rgds.,

[Darenjo]

If this fails, I'll vote for Bharam's repeal.

I want IRtC repealed, but I don't want a bad repeal for a bad resolution.

[Mahaj WA Seat]

Of course, its custom to vote against a repeal, just because. Or at least, of your own resolution. That's what i've done. But of Course i'll work with CES to make it better.

However, the current resolution is shoddy, to me. I like Blahem's repeal much better.

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

Of course, its custom to vote against a repeal, just because. Or at least, of your own resolution. That's what i've done. But of Course i'll work with CES to make it better.

However, the current resolution is shoddy, to me. I like Blahem's repeal much better.

I agree that Blahem's draft is probably better. I don't necessarily think it's imperative to produce a replacement for this resolution, though. As I mentioned previously, Bears Armed's draft, "Rights for Intelligent Beings" would cover all sapient beings, and therefore legislation on clones, in particular, would not be necessary.

Plus, it would give nations some more time with their 'genetically altered clone armies'. Those are going to be tough to give up after all this time.

Saludos,

[Mousebumples]

Since this repeal is aimed at striking a resolution I don't care for from the books, I have voted IN FAVOR.

[Monxcleyr]

The repeal is based on the original resolution not clearly defining a clone. Obviously everyone knew that was referring to humans. But, of course, you can't leave assumptions in resolutions, because you get trolls who will go on about rights for their flowers. I get that. At the same token, the original resolution, this repeal, define what an organism is. No other resolution does either. So surely, if a word not being defined is grounds for a repeal, then this repeal isn't valid itself. I know someone will say, "We all know what an organism is, don't nitpick.", or something along those lines. But a member nation could have some ridiculous definition for an organism, or even just a slightly different one. So if this repeal is based on how other organisms reproduce, shouldn't we also define what an organism is exactly?

Also, this repeal is not needed. Let's look back at the original resolution, shall we?

REQUIRES sapient clones in member nations be extended all the legal rights, privileges, and opportunities granted to their genetically identical counterparts,

So, for example, bacteria reproduce by splitting, and their offspring are clones, which this repeal clearly states. Bacteria don't have legal rights. (Unless a member nation has such laws in place, which again, the original resolution didn't interfere with) So, the bacteria still wouldn't have rights.
That was actually a rather neat and simple failsafe in the original resolution. Unless of course this is being repealed only because it's missing a definition, at which point you should see my first part.

Also, on a sidenote, it's too bad people vote 'for' resolutions for the sake of voting for them. Otherwise we wouldn't waste time passing repeal after repeal, trying to repeal things that shouldn't have passed. Same goes for repeals, too. Too much coincidence watching bills pass then get repealed with about the same majority. Unfortunately only a small part of WA seems to actually read through things before voting.

[Pehzinho]

We cannot just ement the resolution at all? Or we need to repeal an then do another with the right text?

[Jankenjin]

Whe cannot just ement the resolution at all? Or we need to repeal an then do another with the right text?

Unfortunately, amendments aren't allowed, as the game mechanics would quickly get snarled if only part of a resolution were operable. A pity, though, it would make for some more creative legislation.

[Ineave]

This repeal is ridiculous. There is no need for further clarification. It feels similar to something being repealed because it is missing a period. Come on now.

[Bears Armed]

Well, depending on what happens in the near future with Bears Armed's "Rights for Intelligent Beings", there may be no need for a replacement draft for clones, in particular.

I sincerely hope for this body to legislate to protect basic human rights for all sapient beings, clones included. I'm just not sure we really need another resolution on clones, since it appears that all 'intelligent' [sapient] beings will have basic human rights in the near future.

Of course, this all depends on the Ambassador from Bears Armed.

OOC: I'll probably have enough time available to finish work on it, and maybe to submit it (if its legality can be checked, against the claims of superfluousness that a certain person has already raised...) too, week-after-next.

Of course, though, my last two proposals that reached quorum were voted down...

This repeal is ridiculous. There is no need for further clarification. It feels similar to something being repealed because it is missing a period. Come on now.

If that punctuation error made a signifiant (and unwanted) change to the proposal's meaning then why not repeal it? There was actually one "historical" resolution, on Education, in which a misplaced apostrophe accidentally channeled all of the financial aid involved to the author's own nation...

[Mahaj WA Seat]

The problem here is that the resolution doesn't even address all of the points in the resolution, it addresses one bit, and its claim that it changes the meaning of the resolution is untrue. Those things aren't sapient.

[Costa Celestia]

The Principality of Costa Celestia hereby votes to repeal this legislation. The ambassador of CC; Miss Andreaa Lupei believes this legislation needs rethinking.