NationStates Jolt Archive

The GenetiCorp Convention
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.


Category: Free Trade Strength: Strong Proposed by: The Global Market
Description: WHEREAS:

Cloning, a process that exists in nature in the form of identical twins is suddenly linked with reactionary fears of degrading respect for human individuality and violations of human rights, when humans discover that technology.

Yet how would one’s rights to her/his individuality best be served? By allowing the individual to decide whether or not she or he would like to be cloned? Or by passing on the responsibility for that decision to a state?

The right to decide whether or not you would be cloned is linked to that of the ownership of the individual over his or her own genetic code. Many Western societies are rushing towards a situation where those rights are massively being given up by the ‘moral majorities’ in those societies, to the state.

Note that the right not to be cloned is also among those rights.

Since future visions of a society with abominable human rights, are being also (over)used against cloning, let us present an alternative scenario.

When a theoretical human right for individuality, becomes a human duty for individuality, you can ask yourself this question: ‘What sort of a state would possibly seek benefit from the absolute need to identify individuals by their genetic codes?’

This is the kind of state that will violate your human rights.

This Convention defends the rights of the individual to ownership of, and therefore the (still theoretical) right to alter her or his genome, and more general his or her physical architecture.

People who push for laws against genetic modification technology do not realize they are interfering with those rights.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THIS HONORABLE UNITED NATIONS THAT:

I. The United Nations shall issue a statement defending the ownership of the individual over his or her genome, and therefore the theoretical right to duplicate and/or alter it. If two people both possess the same genome, they will both have the right to duplicate and/or alter theirs.

II. All international laws specifically directed against the development of any form of biotechnology of a civilian nature are hereby abolished.

III. Individual governments shall reserve the right to restrict the research of biotechnology within their own nation, though scientists shall have the right to leave at any time they wish, except in cases of criminal activity, war, or imminent danger.

IV. No nation nor the United Nations shall restrict the free flow of scientific information of a civilian nature, so long as such flow does not violate standing property rights.

V. That cloned humans shall be accorded the same rights and as naturally born humans.

Approvals: 150 (23donia, Murcats, Katzistanza, Tomlandia, Kryozerkia, Incertonia, Munatan, Shadow2003, Borgarfjord, Eigo, Goobergunchia, Baudrillard, Demagogues, UmbrellaCorp, Imnsvale, Greater Canadiana, RedCommunist, Tylerville, Cherrybrook, Reubenlucy, Ircutsk, Wienberg, Neo-Engon, Polka Fans World Wide, XXxManetherenxXx, Confederated Texas, Shinoria, Brewdonia, Carribbealease, Librarian Island, Stephistan, Tarrican, Limbourgouis, Chosen of Bayushi, Mathe, Cotswold Morris, Oliland, Scyphia, Troon, Barvana, 3L337 H4x0rz, Blue Squirrels, Gurguvungunit, The Lowcountry, Bananadine, Free Market Land, Flaming Moderates, Shizad, _Myopia_, Wufei, Sulon, Squigy II, WarriorGoddess, Yardang, Kundu, Squornshelous, Utopian Provinces, Steinem, Butthole, Suckblood, The Free Citizens, Lamoni, Tamesis, Angry Stick Men, Efate, Tyrantar, Dog Breath, Jettaman, Quackenstein, Boudica, Royal House of Windsor, Rehella, Snakestongue, Nuu, Pirratia, Dytana, Lisalia, Pancake_pl, Amaradon, Nar Sharra, Tatina, Weltschmernzia, Joysania, Chief93_ca, The World Government, Peter Rico, Westrogoticae, Dormiria, Splynn, Ivytopia, FoxTopia, Kowdom, Thunderground, ChadMania, Bathonia, Moleland, Liberal Identities, Nazi Deutschland Axis, Foose, Timostan, Good Harvest, O Re Sa Ma, Clamidia Prime, Steve Owen, Emperor Kevin, Frestonia, Dragonmaster Anroca, La Habana, Warring Falcons, Tokoshino, Qaaolchoura, Nitwitium, Joven, Weatherguy, Catholic Rangers, Alinna, Roman Nations, Lukeonia, Tempus Incognitum, Hawking, Qurufin, Proton Alpha 1, Forentia, Boischatel, Zalastan, The Global Market, Aaronisia, Anomolies, I Principi, New Cyprus, Cyranelle, Mystical Duct Tape, Meallan, Alearon, Naffiss, SnugglesAnFelix, Trekys, Sovereign States, Debaermania, Jennifer Ann, Granpais, Wstfglia, Threeve, Bulgarian Legion, Phuckestan, Hewligan, Uggzh, Vancouver, Thallos, Tekcutnan)

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!


This proposal is an attempt to further biotechnology while defending human rights and encouraging greater international cooperation.

This bill also respects national sovereignty, a clause in it allowing a nation to override parts of the bill.

The primary point of the resolution is an acknowledgement of the individual's OWNERSHIP over his or her genome. Note that this only means the genetic material within his or her body... it does not extend to your ability to enslave a clone, or your identical twin for that matter.

I am aware that there are many problems with cloning and biotechnology at the moment. This is why we must allow the technology to advance further. Saying that this is a reason not to go forward is like if the Wright Brothers were to say that because something like September 11th might have happened, they shouldn't have invented the airplane. There is simply too much potential in this field to ignore it.

What does everyone think?

Oh and just in case you don't know GenetiCorp is my puppet. I created it to see the ultimate Technocratic nation. Check out its motto. :lol:

You have skilfully anticipated most objections. The proposal is very well thought out.
You realize there will be problems with mutation, deformity, viability, and reduced lifespan.
Notwithstanding, and for what it's worth, I support the proposal.

Thank you.

I have no objection to the resolution as written. I intend to vote YES.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate
NPA Member

We're genuinely undecided about this proposal. We do note that it respects national sovereignty, but we have two questions which we would be most grateful to have answered:

1) The resolution states: "All international laws specifically directed against the development of any form of biotechnology of a civilian nature are hereby abolished. " What specific international laws are we talking about here?

2) Why does the preamble to the resolution defend human cloning, while the "meat" of the resolution refer to "any form of biotechnology of a civilian nature"--surely a much broader topic?

We're genuinely undecided about this proposal. We do note that it respects national sovereignty, but we have two questions which we would be most grateful to have answered:

1) The resolution states: "All international laws specifically directed against the development of any form of biotechnology of a civilian nature are hereby abolished. " What specific international laws are we talking about here?

2) Why does the preamble to the resolution defend human cloning, while the "meat" of the resolution refer to "any form of biotechnology of a civilian nature"--surely a much broader topic?

The preamble uses human cloning as an anecdote, but the general statement is that an individual owns his own DNA.

The preamble was modified from the manifesto of the Belgian transhumanist group. You know how they are.

To your first question, these would be international laws against cloning (i.e. the UN Can't abolish cloning).

We're genuinely undecided about this proposal. We do note that it respects national sovereignty, but we have two questions which we would be most grateful to have answered:

1) The resolution states: "All international laws specifically directed against the development of any form of biotechnology of a civilian nature are hereby abolished. " What specific international laws are we talking about here?

2) Why does the preamble to the resolution defend human cloning, while the "meat" of the resolution refer to "any form of biotechnology of a civilian nature"--surely a much broader topic?

The preamble uses human cloning as an anecdote, but the general statement is that an individual owns his own DNA.

The preamble was modified from the manifesto of the Belgian transhumanist group. You know how they are.

To your first question, these would be international laws against cloning (i.e. the UN Can't abolish cloning).

Thank you for your response. If we interpret it correctly, the intent of your proposal is to prevent the U.N. from adopting any international restrictions on civilian biotechnology, rather than simply to give human beings the right to their own genomes.

I must confess that Ursorians are rather attached to the old-fashioned technique for making babies. In fact, they spend a great deal of time making babies, practising how to make babies, or even developing new ways to enhance the process.

Nonetheless, we're not going to put our finger in the dike to stop the sea of progress from rushing in. We're inclined to agree with Stephen Hawking that, since the technology for human cloning already exists, it is merely a matter of time before someone uses it. We're also well aware of the actual and potential benefits of genetic technology in other areas, as well as some of the potential hazards.

In our view, there is a very real danger of artificial organisms getting loose and either imperilling the food supply or creating man-made epidemics. We feel that, since the potential danger is world-wide, there is a need for international cooperation to bring about responsible scientific oversight of biotechnology, to ensure that it is not applied in such a way as to subvert basic values of respect for human life, human dignity and human freedom. International law might be one form of such cooperation, but there could be many others such as treaties and measures by voluntary agencies such as the World Health Organisation and the Food and Agriculture Organisation.

Quite frankly, we don't have many answers in this area, and we are exploring several options. Ursoria's situation is made more complex by the fact that approximately 85% of our people are Catholic, and the Catholic Church has its own perspective on the matter.

We congratulate The Global Market for bringing this matter forward in a way that respects national sovereignty, while stimulating thought and discussion. However, we feel that it is too early in the game to foreclose possible international law in the field of biotechnology, and we will therefore be voting against the Geneticorp proposal.

Aegonia's first concern is ALWAYS if the proposal does what it says it will do. I will always vote against any proposal which is not true to its title description. That said, this is "A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce." This is the true form of the resolution and CANNOT be changed.

Now - although the proposal is good and even well thought out, I am having a hard time seeing how it fits its title description. Especially since its author describes it as follows:

The primary point of the resolution is an acknowledgement of the individual's OWNERSHIP over his or her genome. Note that this only means the genetic material within his or her body... it does not extend to your ability to enslave a clone, or your identical twin for that matter.
Ownership over the self is a human rights issue - not free trade. Unless this is clarified, Aegonia will be forced to vote AGAINST this resolution and rally support for its position. However, should this resolution be re-circulated as a benefit to human rights - Aegonia will gladly vote for it.

II. All international laws specifically directed against the development of any form of biotechnology of a civilian nature are hereby abolished.

III. Individual governments shall reserve the right to restrict the research of biotechnology within their own nation, though scientists shall have the right to leave at any time they wish, except in cases of criminal activity, war, or imminent danger.

IV. No nation nor the United Nations shall restrict the free flow of scientific information of a civilian nature, so long as such flow does not violate standing property rights.


We the People's Republic Of Amyth have concerns with this legislation. It would appear to be focused on cloning and the personal property rights of one's genetic makeup, however the actual legislation states biotechnology. Biotechnology, which is defined as "the use of data and techniques for the study and solution of problems concerning living organisms" (Webster's New World College Dictionary 2000). This would mean this legislation applies to a wide variety of science endevours beyond that of cloning. This would also apply to genetic manipulation, stem cell research, the use of aborted fetuses for research, biological warfare and many other applications. While it does allow for national exemptions in research, it does not allow, for instance, our nation to forbid the sale of biological weapon research to other nations should a private industry wish to do so.

If we are misinterpretating this legislation please explain how this is wrong, and we thank you all...

I also am worried that clause II would be used to allow rogue nations to restart bio-weapons reasearch. As written it would supecede the Un ban on bio-weapons.

As a scientist, I would tend to approve MOST biotechnology. I would also be in favor of cloning organs for transplant. However, I feel I cannot approve of cloning of human individuals, nor the use of the technology for bio-weaponry research.

I agreed with the proposal except for clause V. It wouldnt be bad to have a few of me running around, but when my liver kicks out, I'm whipping out the scalpel.

I must agree with Aegonia. I greatly dislike UN resolutions that are unclear as to their intent. The citizens of the Confederacy are free to tinker with their DNA or clone themselves, but this resolution proposes much more than that.

Cloning is perhaps one of the greatest potential booms for humanity.

The cloning of dolly the sheep had an interesting side effect. She aged normally until the end of puberty. At which point her aging increased quickly and slowed as she reached the age of her clone mom.

What this means is that the potential fountain of youth is at hand. How so you might ask. The fact that she aged normally through puberty with all the benefits of youth (fast healing, limited muscle cramps, no bad back...) but suddenly poofed to old age implies that there is some chemical/biological switch which was turned on or off.

As such the potential for greatly extended human life may well hinge on the switch in question. Basically when we age we stop producing new cells (somewhere around 18 to 25 years old), this leaves the last generation of cells to carry us through till old age effectively. Starting the renewal process would keep us in a state of semi perpetual early adulthood.

Dolly and others with this abnormality must be studied. Imagine knowing your great great great great great grandma. It is in our grasp.

On the other hand if this happens we definitely must adopt the epidemia proposal of strict birth limits.

Cloning is perhaps one of the greatest potential booms for humanity.

The cloning of dolly the sheep had an interesting side effect. She aged normally until the end of puberty. At which point her aging increased quickly and slowed as she reached the age of her clone mom.

What this means is that the potential fountain of youth is at hand. How so you might ask. The fact that she aged normally through puberty with all the benefits of youth (fast healing, limited muscle cramps, no bad back...) but suddenly poofed to old age implies that there is some chemical/biological switch which was turned on or off.

As such the potential for greatly extended human life may well hinge on the switch in question. Basically when we age we stop producing new cells (somewhere around 18 to 25 years old), this leaves the last generation of cells to carry us through till old age effectively. Starting the renewal process would keep us in a state of semi perpetual early adulthood.

Dolly and others with this abnormality must be studied. Imagine knowing your great great great great great grandma. It is in our grasp.

On the other hand if this happens we definitely must adopt the epidemia proposal of strict birth limits.

True enough. But do we want to inflict that kind of an ordeal on cloned human beings before we get everything figured out???

How are clones given the same rights as naturally born human beings when the resolution claims that they are in fact property of the individual being cloned.

Contrary to The High V's aversion to doling out rights and responsibilities to people too stupid to use them, the government has decided to support this issue because of article II. Because The High V encourages its citizens to arm themselves with whatever weaponry they can get their hands on article II will make the private creation of biological weapons not only leagal but internationally supported. There is also no language to prevent the government from purchasing said weaponry. Thank you for voting YES and securing global domination for The Empire of The High V.

The resolution has laudable goals, but is founded on the utterly erroneous assumption that the individual *owns* his or her genetic code. Ownership implies a property right. Property rights are the least protected of all individual liberties.

Property interests are created by the government. They may be sold, and they may be seized, even by civilized governments that need only pay just compensation.

A person no more owns their genetic code than they own their right to their religious beliefs.

Madharia will also vote YES, because our nation is already in the frontline of the new, biotechnological age (FungusMen© are a good example).
Also, this new resolution can cause the birth of the Biotechnocratic Imperium of Madharia, causing massive scientific profit to our nation.

The Commerce Heights government, while doing their regular scan through all of the mounds of ridiculous paperwork, was surprised to find a resolution that it could support. Most good resolutions have failed, and far too many unsuitable resolutions have passed. The Prime Minister was happy to find something to vote Aye on.

How are clones given the same rights as naturally born human beings when the resolution claims that they are in fact property of the individual being cloned.

Tera Firma,

Where does the resolution claim this? It claims that the *genome* is the property of the person being cloned, *until such time as the clone is born*, when it becomes their joint property. At that point, either has the right to duplicate hte genome, and either has the right to alter the *instance* of the genome in themselves (though presumably not in the other--I can't force my clone to undergo gene therapy).

If there's any objection to this arrangement, it's in the "duplicate" portion--what happens if my clone wants to sell the right to duplicate some important portion of our genome (the part that determines our almost unique eye color, for example) to the Genes4U company, but I don't want it sold? The way the resolution is worded, my clone's wish trumps mine. This is perhaps a slightly unpleasant situation, but probably not one so bad as to be worth chucking this generally excellent resolution.

We in Gurthark are supporting the resolution. (By the way, this is the first of the Global Market's resolutions--among both those that have passed and those that have failed--that we have found ourselves able to support. Thank you, Global Market, for a resolution that does not simply strip protections and means of redress away from the most disadvantaged members of society.)

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

The Democratic Nation of Fette worries that the language may be vague, and allow modifications of genetic materials which would be against basic human standards. This could include creating deformed beings for the purpose of slave labor, creating deformed beings for the purpose of organ harvesting, etc. While Fette has no problems with genetic research in general, and even the productions of organs (but not organisms from which to harvest organs), Fette feels that the proposal goes too far in its language. Were this separated out into a cloning issue, and a free flow of information / science issue, Fette would feel more comfortable.

Fette is also worried that the article abolishing all bans on such research may pave the way for continued development of WMD, especially biological. This would not be in the interest of Fette, nor its region.

As it stands, the Democratic Nation of Fette will be voting NO on the proposal, and urges our delegate and all others to vote likewise.

Miweenia shall vote no.

Because the CEO says so.

Miweenia shall vote no.

Because the CEO says so.

The Democratic Nation of Fette appreciates Miweenia's support in the matter of stopping this proposal dead in its tracks.

:( While we are in full support of finding new ways to save lives, be it harvesting organs (compulsory organ donation) or growing them from stem cells, we are not sure that cloning would serve any good cause. The initiative claims that the clones would have the same rights as regular humans, I find this laughable considering the human rights ratings of the average UN nation. We are already in a struggle to increase the quality of life and prevent the poor treatment of those naturally born. Why add one more sad lot to the equation. I also have to wonder if this would not provide some less than kind nation with a new work force that they could purchase and therefore treat as slaves. I mean come on you know what some say, if you buy it it's yours to do with what you wish right? Is the UN going to police how and when this technology is used? And if they attempted to crack down on a violator can they not just resign their position and merrily go their way using technology sanctioned and supported by this body. And we say that the genomes are owned by the individuals, but how long before people are stealing samples the way they do in organ market's now? (this would stop if we better had organ laws) Genome theft will assuredly begin once the black market gets going. (for every postive break through there is a seedy underground group that sells the thing to the highest bidder) The man that drives his wife away and can't live without her and has another made, or the parents that have lost an adult child and gets another, or worse a parent that kills a child through abuse and gets away with it and getting another just like it to assuage their guilt. The abuses are inumerable and there is no way the UN can gaurantee they can stop them. The natural cycle of life is interrupted as we play God. Before you add that a child can be cloned and it's bone marrow or kidneys can be used to save the original child with out harm to the clone I ask you this, what then happens to the clone? Are the parents of the original child going to give it the same love and life as their own child. If not that leaves with a potential psychological time bomb as we make more throw away people. It would be less than insightful to not recognize the possibilty of a revolt from these people who were not wanted for themsleves but merely for what they can give. Philosopher Emmanuel Kant said that people should never be used as means to an end, but an end in themselves. They are not things to be subjected to whim or profit. I am sorry to say that after much thought I see more bad than good coming from this. I think we need to spend our resources trying to better the lives of the people we already have.

:x How easily we put oursleves on the same plane as the creator. Only God has the power to create. Any attempts made by man to usurp this role has and will again bring evil into the world. We cannot completely control all the variables in this equation and I fear the retribution from the decision to make this choice. Our constant tampering with nature has already caused problems to the following generations. Our health is being affected by the growth hormones given to the animals we eat. Our immunity attacked by the pollutants that are left by factories, forced by rain into the soil and then imbedded in the foods we grow and eat. If we are so technologicallyadvanced why can we not reduce the simple side effects of common medications. Or find treatments to terminal diseases that are not potentially as leathal as the disease? I'll tell you why, we are not God and we need to stop pretending we are. Even if you are an athiest you can see the potential for mistakes as we bumble through creating namless amounts of mutated beings until we get it right. Who will take a stand for these people? And more frightening and idea, what if we create superior race that eventually tries to over rule that one that created it? Would we not then scream for the civil and human rights we so carelessly tossed aside during thier creation? Those not bent on becoming a small god in the scientific world are trying to profit monetarily. This should a make us all question the good being proclaimed here. Search your hearts and you will see that this is wrong.

We have voted "yes", and encourage our region to do so. We are excited about the possibilities.

Since all human beings share the same genetic code no one person can have the right to decide upon its future.
Considering that the modification process would most likely take place in the area of reproduction it needs to be pointed out that if one has children they do not gain ownership of those human beings, but merely have the function to facilitate their physical, mental and spiritual integration into society.
Furthermore it has to be pointed out that the primary use of this technology would most likely be by those individuals who wish to create super humans or even entirely new species which will inevitable lead to the extinction of the human species as we know it today. And the possibility of unintended consequences from these modifications many generations down the road which could cause the ultimate extinction of all humanoid life (both natural and artificially created) is too grave to ignore.

Therefore I propose the rejection of this resolution.
We shall not gamble the future of our children, and indeed the whole human species to satisfy our greed and selfishness.


P.S.: Anyone who wishes to criticize errors in spelling and grammar of this or any other post in the nation states forums, I would suggest you get a life or at least take into consideration that not everyone is a native English speaker.

"ALL HUMAN BEINGS SHARE THE SAME GENETIC CODE!!?"

You, sir, are a moron.

My nation has been very supportive of biotechnology in the past and i do support this bill. However, an amendment must be added detailing crimes and activities that can result in an individual losing the right to his/her genome. Also a limit should somehow be implemented on how much a person may be cloned. Massive cloning may result in massive inbreeding among the entire human race. If and when this bill is passed, the United Nations will have to deal with these problems so we should be prepared to amend this bill when needed.

My nation has been very supportive of biotechnology in the past and i do support this bill. However, an amendment must be added detailing crimes and activities that can result in an individual losing the right to his/her genome. Also a limit should somehow be implemented on how much a person may be cloned. Massive cloning may result in massive inbreeding among the entire human race. If and when this bill is passed, the United Nations will have to deal with these problems so we should be prepared to amend this bill when needed.

All right, but the bill itself is a good bill. VOTE FOR!

Vote AGAINST - until it is explained why this proposal has a strong effect on Free Trade, when this is clearly a human rights issue.

Vote AGAINST - until it is explained why this proposal has a strong effect on Free Trade, when this is clearly a human rights issue.

It has a clause defending physical and intellectual property rights.
It has a clause allowing free migration of scientists.
It has a clause regarding flow of information and scientific equipment.

Therefore it IS a Free Trade resolution.

IN ADDITION, previous science resolutions such as "scientific freedom" have BEEN FREE TRADE RESOLUTIONS. When I submitted this bill I was merely following precedent.

Plus we all know everything I submit is strong.

We concur with our distinguished colleagues from The Global Market. Make it so and stuff.

No, Biotechology is stricted regulated in Teritora and such things as cloning and messing with genetics is strictly banned. It would be effront to Morals, ethics and reglious belief of our subjects to allow such research and techology be so unrelated and some of it be allowed at all.

Vote AGAINST - until it is explained why this proposal has a strong effect on Free Trade, when this is clearly a human rights issue.

Aegonia states the obvious and the truth: The proposal did not thouroghly explain it's effect on Free Trade. Also, cloning is the higher being's job, Jesus or whoever that may be. The peoples of Smittoria feel cloning is a threat to our natural human god-given rights. Smittoria will vote AGAINST.

Argelius finds the proposed GenetiCorp Convention objectionable, as to its 5 resolutions, as follows:

I. The United Nations shall issue a statement defending the ownership of the individual over his or her genome, and therefore the theoretical right to duplicate and/or alter it. If two people both possess the same genome, they will both have the right to duplicate and/or alter theirs.

This is unobjectionable.

II. All international laws specifically directed against the development of any form of biotechnology of a civilian nature are hereby abolished.

This has potential loopholes, as others have previously stated, in terms of biological warfare, which is not materially related to the question of cloning and genetic technology. After all, a civilian company could conceivably develop bio-warfare. Were the clause to refer specifically to cloning, the clause would be unobjectionable.

III. Individual governments shall reserve the right to restrict the research of biotechnology within their own nation, though scientists shall have the right to leave at any time they wish, except in cases of criminal activity, war, or imminent danger.

This clause has the effect - if unintentionally - of nullifying the first clause.

IV. No nation nor the United Nations shall restrict the free flow of scientific information of a civilian nature, so long as such flow does not violate standing property rights.

Were technology developed by a civilian company, there would be no free flow of information due to that company's rights to its own intellectual property. As such, the clause itself does not really provide much in the way of freedom of information as regards this subject.

V. That cloned humans shall be accorded the same rights and as naturally born humans.

This, as others have previously indicated, precludes the use of cloning for replacement organs, one of the primary purposes (at this point in time) of cloning, except to the degree that organs may themselves be cloned without cloning the entire individual.

Based on the foregoing, then, Argelius is voting against the resolution, barring additional information contradicting the arguments made above.

"ALL HUMAN BEINGS SHARE THE SAME GENETIC CODE!!?"

You, sir, are a moron.

Perhaps it could have been worded slightly better but 99.9% to 99.95% still qualifies as 'same' to me (I did not say identical).

"Although the genes in each person’s genome are made up of unique DNA sequences, the average variation in the genomes of two different people is estimated to be 0.05 to 0.1 percent."
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2002. © 1993-2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

"ALL HUMAN BEINGS SHARE THE SAME GENETIC CODE!!?"

You, sir, are a moron.

Perhaps it could have been worded slightly better but 99.9% to 99.95% still qualifies as 'same' to me (I did not say identical).

"Although the genes in each person’s genome are made up of unique DNA sequences, the average variation in the genomes of two different people is estimated to be 0.05 to 0.1 percent."
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2002. © 1993-2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Variation between humans of the same sex is about 0.1-0.2%, but you still have the right to duplicate or alter YOUR SPECIFIC GENOME.

It's like if I had a $10 bill and you did too, we BOTH have the right to spend it even though it is theoretically the same thing.

"ALL HUMAN BEINGS SHARE THE SAME GENETIC CODE!!?"

You, sir, are a moron.

Perhaps it could have been worded slightly better but 99.9% to 99.95% still qualifies as 'same' to me (I did not say identical).

"Although the genes in each person’s genome are made up of unique DNA sequences, the average variation in the genomes of two different people is estimated to be 0.05 to 0.1 percent."
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2002. © 1993-2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Variation between humans of the same sex is about 0.1-0.2%, but you still have the right to duplicate or alter YOUR SPECIFIC GENOME.

It's like if I had a $10 bill and you did too, we BOTH have the right to spend it even though it is theoretically the same thing.

"ALL HUMAN BEINGS SHARE THE SAME GENETIC CODE!!?"

You, sir, are a moron.

Perhaps it could have been worded slightly better but 99.9% to 99.95% still qualifies as 'same' to me (I did not say identical).

"Although the genes in each person’s genome are made up of unique DNA sequences, the average variation in the genomes of two different people is estimated to be 0.05 to 0.1 percent."
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2002. © 1993-2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Variation between humans of the same sex is about 0.1-0.2%, but you still have the right to duplicate or alter YOUR SPECIFIC GENOME.

It's like if I had a $10 bill and you did too, we BOTH have the right to spend it even though it is theoretically the same thing.

Ah, but even you cannot do with your $10 as you please. If you make your $10 bill unsuitable for circulation, you have defaced it, and that is a crime. The $10 bill is the property of the Treasury. Likewise, the Human Genome is the property of humanity - what gives one person the right to tinker with it?

I consider myself to be a liberal most of the times. Our nation is supportive of science, of discovery, of exploration, of medical advances, but we must realize that all things are to be done within reason. The bill is too vague. What exactly is a civilian application? Is creating a person with a beautiful body a civilian application? And if so, how can we say that the created person will have the same rights, when in fact we know that they will likely be looked upon as a sex object, and will never feel "normal"? Is creating a bioweapon for self defense a civilian application?

Beyond the mere inconsistencies, there is the matter of national sovereignty. Who is the U.N. to dictate to member nations moral and ethical values? The U.N. is supposed to be democratic, not dictatorial. What of the rights of the minority? If there is a state that is founded upon a certain belief set, who is the U.N. to impose a contrary belief upon such nation if their contrary stance does not pose an imminent threat to others? (And how does banning cloning within a country have any effect upon other countries?)

This bill goes too far, is too vague, and should not be supported.

"ALL HUMAN BEINGS SHARE THE SAME GENETIC CODE!!?"

You, sir, are a moron.

Perhaps it could have been worded slightly better but 99.9% to 99.95% still qualifies as 'same' to me (I did not say identical).

"Although the genes in each person’s genome are made up of unique DNA sequences, the average variation in the genomes of two different people is estimated to be 0.05 to 0.1 percent."
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2002. © 1993-2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Variation between humans of the same sex is about 0.1-0.2%, but you still have the right to duplicate or alter YOUR SPECIFIC GENOME.

It's like if I had a $10 bill and you did too, we BOTH have the right to spend it even though it is theoretically the same thing.

Ah, but even you cannot do with your $10 as you please. If you make your $10 bill unsuitable for circulation, you have defaced it, and that is a crime. The $10 bill is the property of the Treasury. Likewise, the Human Genome is the property of humanity - what gives one person the right to tinker with it?

I consider myself to be a liberal most of the times. Our nation is supportive of science, of discovery, of exploration, of medical advances, but we must realize that all things are to be done within reason. The bill is too vague. What exactly is a civilian application? Is creating a person with a beautiful body a civilian application? And if so, how can we say that the created person will have the same rights, when in fact we know that they will likely be looked upon as a sex object, and will never feel "normal"? Is creating a bioweapon for self defense a civilian application?

Beyond the mere inconsistencies, there is the matter of national sovereignty. Who is the U.N. to dictate to member nations moral and ethical values? The U.N. is supposed to be democratic, not dictatorial. What of the rights of the minority? If there is a state that is founded upon a certain belief set, who is the U.N. to impose a contrary belief upon such nation if their contrary stance does not pose an imminent threat to others? (And how does banning cloning within a country have any effect upon other countries?)

This bill goes too far, is too vague, and should not be supported.

You're allowed to tinker with YOUR genome, not someone else's genome.

IN ADDITION, this resolution ALLOWS nations to ban cloning on their own land if they want. It does NOT impose views in any way.

I dunno..........id have to vote no :?

This resolution is the most perfect acting upon cloning that I have seen. It perfectly sums up my own opinions and beliefs regarding this issue and leaves almost no loophole for rights to be harmed in this for either people or the state.

The one loophole I do foresee is that people may wish to be cloned in order to perhaps blame a crime on their duplicate or gain more votes for a particular cause or other various reasons. However, gov legislature can easily sidestep various portions of this resolution in order to prevent these possibilities from becoming endemic problems. For instance a massive tex can be levied on cloning, making it so that only financially secure people are able to do so, and it has been presumed over the centuries that people high in wealth or power are the cream of the crop (even if they are not it has been presumed so in almost every culture). Or you can regulate when, where, how, and constituencies regarding the practice.

But of course, the first step in figuring out the legality and such over human cloning issues is to ask yourself the base question- why would a person, what motives are there in cloning yourself. Aside from therefore having a better chance at your genes being passed on in reproduction, and some other things.

but I just realized the most important thing of all--- the balancing of rights.


of coruse, people should have the right to clone themselves right? but what about the need for the state to protect its citizens? Is the right of the individual to clone themselves more important than public safety and order? I personally don't think so, but like I said, state legislation can thereby make laws to make human cloning illegal by saying that it will pose a considerable threat to public order. why would it be a threat? easy. you know how hard it would be proving which person really did a crime? or if a person made a dozen or 5 dozen copies of himself, and they all voted the same way or wished to harm certain indivudals or grups? see? this is the MAJOR problem with cloning. the effect.

this ends my shpeal.

Knights, when a person first clones himself the clone is a little baby.

If you're 30 and you commit a murder, and you clone yourself, it takes a whole 30 years for the clone to be like you at that point.

If you're a politician and you clone yourself it will be 18 years before they can vote for you and even then they won't have the same ideas as you.

Just because you are genetically identical doesn't mean you are truly identical. Half of everything is the environment.

It would also be VERY hard to make 5 dozen clones of yourself... you would have to find 60 women willing to become surrogate mothers.

Your challenges to this bill are based on faulty assumptions about the nature of cloning itself. I hope that helped clear it up.

I say to dabble in cloning of humans can be bad.
Where do you draw the line, I say ban human cloning till we can be certain it won't be abused. So I must vote agains t this document.

I say to dabble in cloning of humans can be bad.
Where do you draw the line, I say ban human cloning till we can be certain it won't be abused. So I must vote agains t this document.

ANYTHING can be abused. That doesn't make it wrong.

Look at the airplane. Should we have waited until we knew the airplane wouldn't be abused to give people the go-ahead to use it?

If we did that we wouldn't have planes right now.

What if we waitied until guns wouldn't be abused in order to produce them? They're still being abused.

PROGRESS involves potential abuses some times. When man first discovered how to harness fire, you bet that was abused.

I agree with your Wright Bros. comparison. At first, I voted FOR. I have since changed my vote for 3 reasons:

First, as stated before in this thread, I feel this should be under "civil rights", not "free trade" (Global Market, your argument is strong, but I'd just feel better if this was expressly put under human rights).

Secondly, I would like an addition affirming that the use of cloning and genome research such as the kind that could be used to clone humans may not be used for any military purposes. I fear that private individuals could use this type of research to start a bioweapons business.

Thirdly, I'd also like an addition that would not allow cloning businesses to sell any information about their clients to third parties (extending beyond the genome itself to any and all info about their clients).

If those pieces were added, I would happily vote YES.
As of right now, while I really like the idea, the above points are enough for me to vote NO.

For the record, TYB expressly bans any kind of cloning research of any kind. Any person who wishes to be cloned can go overseas; however, they will not be let back into the country; no exceptions. Quite simply, we feel that, although bioresearch and genetic research is very important to society, the actual act of cloning a human being, unlike the development of the airplane, has no practical value to society. (Yeah, I said it. And what?) It is nothing more than an exercise in vanity. At the same time, we understand that the rest of the NS World doesn't think like TYB does, thus our support of this bill, provided the changes we proposed are made.

P.S.: I would tell all nations who back this resolution to pass laws making it a grave federal crime for someone to steal the identity of someone who possesses his genome.

- TYB Prime Minister I.P.Freeley
- TYB Health Minister Geoff Rickly
- TYB/UN Ambassador Patrick Ewing

How are clones given the same rights as naturally born human beings when the resolution claims that they are in fact property of the individual being cloned.

You don't own the person, you have joint ownership of the actual CODE. See the difference?

BTW this is teh Global Market. Just posting as a puppet right now.

First, as stated before in this thread, I feel this should be under "civil rights", not "free trade" (Global Market, your argument is strong, but I'd just feel better if this was expressly put under human rights).

Well the precedent favored free trade, so sorry.

Secondly, I would like an addition affirming that the use of cloning and genome research such as the kind that could be used to clone humans may not be used for any military purposes. I fear that private individuals could use this type of research to start a bioweapons business.

Hence most of this resolution only applies to "of a civilian nature". You can regulate weapons by yourself.

Thirdly, I'd also like an addition that would not allow cloning businesses to sell any information about their clients to third parties (extending beyond the genome itself to any and all info about their clients).

Well we could propose this later, yes?

Cloning and Genetic Engeering is strictly banned in Teritora on the pain of death, we feel that these unethical, immoral and a affront to our reglion. Which is why we oppose this and will vote agaist this resolution.

I don't know, this is good for the most part. Going through some of the threads I will respond to a couple as such:

Two, Three, Four....people can own a red ford focus...exactly the same in every way....they don't share, one person deosn't own all. They all have the same car. Thats it, nothing more.

As far as medical reprcussions I fear the duplication system is way too subjectiive. Has anybody heard how Eve, CLOANAIDS poster girl doing. Nevermind being confirmed a scientific identity. BUT, who remembers the cloaned human ear on the mouses' back. I see huge potential here. If you choose to cloan your organ and have it grow in an incubator...this is such a powerful breakthough.

I am still undecided. :?:

Scientifically cloned humans by their very nature lack one of the most basic human rights granted to us by nature: the right to be an individual uniquely shaped by random rearrangement of its parents combined genetical makeups.

I see a real humanitarian disaster brewing where greedy owners of a particularly desired genome sell this en masse to aspiring parents. No person should have to live with the knowledge that they're a copy of someone.

Scientifically cloned humans by their very nature lack one of the most basic human rights granted to us by nature: the right to be an individual uniquely shaped by random rearrangement of its parents combined genetical makeups.

I see a real humanitarian disaster brewing where greedy owners of a particularly desired genome sell this en masse to aspiring parents. No person should have to live with the knowledge that they're a copy of someone.

What about identical twins?

The one major issue I have with this resolution is that it includes both the right for individuals to clone themselves and the right of freeflow of information.

In my opinion, information flow should not be hampered in any way. What SHOULD be hampered ( and strictly controlled ) is the means of utilizing the information. Everyone person in the world should have the right to acquire the information to clone themselves, but the ability to do so should be very closely monitored.

Because of this, The Floating Isles shall obstain from voting.

Scientifically cloned humans by their very nature lack one of the most basic human rights granted to us by nature: the right to be an individual uniquely shaped by random rearrangement of its parents combined genetical makeups.

I see a real humanitarian disaster brewing where greedy owners of a particularly desired genome sell this en masse to aspiring parents. No person should have to live with the knowledge that they're a copy of someone.

What about identical twins?

Identical twins don't go through life burdened with the knowledge that they're the deliberate product of someone's desire to copy another person. Being part of a set of identical twins is far less likely to cause psychological problems than being one of the many copies of a regularly cloned individual.

Identical twins can grow up without expectations bordering upon certainty that they'll develop certain traits. Clones will grow up being monitored for these traits; they're what they've been cloned for. There isn't a single good reason to clone people except to reproduce traits. Knowingly setting a person upon an established path as early as conception is essentially taking away his or her freedom. Slavery to an ideal, if you will.

As an underacheiving dictatorship i say we do it any way and fix the mess we get ourselves into afterwards.

Now, we would most certainly vote in favor of this, if indeed we believed in the inefficient mob-rule of the UN. Applying the concept of property rights to the genetic information of a Unit, indeed to all information pertaining to technology of genetics - what a capital idea!

We urge all right-thinking corporate entities to vote for this resolution, or otherwise pressure their respective national governments to vote for it. The pursuit of profit cannot be diverted. Think not of such pathetic anachronisms as human rights in this great and noble endeavor.

-The EuroCorp Directorate

Barbaric, there are things that are more imporant than profits and if the UN starts promoting immorality and unethical activities such some of what would be allowed we will leave as the UN will lose what moral authority it had or we will repass laws banning it again.

Chibya must vote no, on your resolution. My nation has very few civil rights but many plitical freedoms. I had a poll for my nation and my people say no. We have worse thing to worry about, like how our national animal the cow, is dying off because of deforrestation, and how the dang refugees are getting into my nation...
:!: :?: :!: :?: :!: :?: :?: :!: :!: :?: :!: :?: :!: :?: :!: :?: :!: :?: :?: :!: :!: :!: :?: :!: :?: :?: :?: :!: :!: :?: :?: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :?: :!: :?: :!: