NationStates Jolt Archive

What are your feelings on the newest(10/7/03) resolution? I voted for it. What about you?

I would vote for it only if we make it illegal for anyone with a criminal record to clone or alter themselves. We cannot have criminal changing their fingerprints or clonning themselves.

I would vote for it only if we make it illegal for anyone with a criminal record to clone or alter themselves. We cannot have criminal changing their fingerprints or clonning themselves.

Even if you alter your DNA I don't think that will change your fingerprint.

Second, what would be wrong with criminals cloning themselves? There isn't a "criminal gene". That theory was debunked decades ago.

Geneticarp is in the wrong category. It is supposed to be about "Free Trade", but it seems to be all about individual rights to clone themselves and "alter their physical architecture", and to avoid states violating human rights.

If it's going to be in the Free Trade category, it should be predominantly about Free Trade.

Geneticarp is in the wrong category. It is supposed to be about "Free Trade", but it seems to be all about individual rights to clone themselves and "alter their physical architecture", and to avoid states violating human rights.

If it's going to be in the Free Trade category, it should be predominantly about Free Trade.

It's a scientific resolution.

So far all the sciene resolutions (except for ISI which passed AFTER I proposed this) have been in FREE TRADE. Therefore, I followed precedent.

That's legalese for when in doubt, do what people before you did.

Geneticarp is in the wrong category. It is supposed to be about "Free Trade", but it seems to be all about individual rights to clone themselves and "alter their physical architecture", and to avoid states violating human rights.

If it's going to be in the Free Trade category, it should be predominantly about Free Trade.

It's a scientific resolution.

So far all the sciene resolutions (except for ISI which passed AFTER I proposed this) have been in FREE TRADE. Therefore, I followed precedent.

That's legalese for when in doubt, do what people before you did.

But it's not about FREE TRADE, is it? So it shouldn't be in FREE TRADE, should it?

I wasn't aware a resolution like that existed. *runs off to check*

It's not strictly about HUMAN RIGHTS either, now is it?

I think there should be a new category called "Advancement of the Sciences".

This resolution DOES have clauese about the free flow of information and material, emigration, and the protection of private property.

All of that makes it about FREE TRADE.

It's partially about free trade AND partially about human rights. But precedent tells me to make it free trade.

I wasn't aware a resolution like that existed. *runs off to check*

Look at the "scientific freedom" resolution.

I voted no because it could get in the way of Police-KGB forensics/identifying offenders, and also allow irresponsible genetic enginnering which would produce psychotic genes for example.

(a Terrorist might want to make themselves/thus their children immune to fear and more psychopathic. A rapist might wish to prevent access to his DNA or even have it altered after a crime).

I voted no because it could get in the way of Police-KGB forensics/identifying offenders, and also allow irresponsible genetic enginnering which would produce psychotic genes for example.

(a Terrorist might want to make themselves/thus their children immune to fear and more psychopathic. A rapist might wish to prevent access to his DNA or even have it altered after a crime).

Do you know how DNA alteration works?

You inject yourself with a retrovirus or a plasmid that has a special gene sequence. That eventually takes over your normal cells.

Imagine injecting yourself with AIDS, only instead of killing your immune system, it makes it stronger. But the actual incubation takes time. Genetic modification isn't some instant thing. It takes up to several years. So your rapist scenario probably wouldn't work.

As for the terrorist thing, half of everything is the environment. THey can be trained to be fearless in the environment regardless of what genes they have. As of now we don't know conclusively about any gene that triggers fear (it's most likely a vast combination).

Some reinvestigated cases occur years after the crime - or it takes years to catch some sex-killers/serial killers.

Psychotic dogs can be and are bred. Therefor a short cut is gene modification to achieve the same effect in humans.

We would need safe guard built in to the proposal.

Some reinvestigated cases occur years after the crime - or it takes years to catch some sex-killers/serial killers.

Psychotic dogs can be and are bred. Therefor a short cut is gene modification to achieve the same effect in humans.

We would need safe guard built in to the proposal.

Okay, here's the safeguard:

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.

You can still prevent your citizens from being engineered/cloned.

Lord Evif rises.

"Mr. Chairman, we cast our 21 votes FOR the Geneticorp Convention."

Thank you.

Resolution is to vague. Leaves door wide open for abuse. A minor clone is controlled by the parent clone and subject to abuse for harvesting organs. The senarios by which this abuse of "parenthood" could be done are numerous, but needless to say it doen't take much of an imagination to come up with ways to take advantage of the situation.

Resolution is to vague. Leaves door wide open for abuse. A minor clone is controlled by the parent clone and subject to abuse for harvesting organs. The senarios by which this abuse of "parenthood" could be done are numerous, but needless to say it doen't take much of an imagination to come up with ways to take advantage of the situation.

Article V: Cloned Humans shall be accorded the same rights as normally born humans.

If it is illegal to harvest your kid for organs it will be illegal to harvest a clone for organs.

Absolutely not. This proposal is another effort of the United Nations to control the scientific development of it's nations. This is a further attempt to destroy the Individual Sovreignty of member nations.

Those who love freedom, vote against this resolution.

Absolutely not. This proposal is another effort of the United Nations to control the scientific development of it's nations. This is a further attempt to destroy the Individual Sovreignty of member nations.

Those who love freedom, vote against this resolution.

Read Article III. You are allowed to restrict research in your own country if you want.

I would vote for it only if we make it illegal for anyone with a criminal record to clone or alter themselves. We cannot have criminal changing their fingerprints or clonning themselves.

"We cannot allow cloning to be allowed unless persons with criminal records are unable to be cloned. I certaintly do not want thieves to rob a bank then use the money to clone them selves so they can do it again! I hardly have jails in my nation what would i do with all these criminals running aroung killing and robbing people. People that said yes change your vote unless you want this to happen."


King Yohoki of Elmithra

I would vote for it only if we make it illegal for anyone with a criminal record to clone or alter themselves. We cannot have criminal changing their fingerprints or clonning themselves.

"We cannot allow cloning to be allowed unless persons with criminal records are unable to be cloned. I certaintly do not want thieves to rob a bank then use the money to clone them selves so they can do it again! I hardly have jails in my nation what would i do with all these criminals running aroung killing and robbing people. People that said yes change your vote unless you want this to happen."

King Yohoki of Elmithra

Do you understand how cloning works?

When you clone yourself you take your genetic material and nuclearly fuse it into an egg when is then inserted into a surrogate mother (or done ex vitro).

After you clone yourself the clone starts out as a single cell. It goes through teh same pattern of growth you and I do.

In other words, it would be decades before the clone would be ABLE to rob a bank. And you'd have to find surrogate mothers. Don't know how many a known bank robber could find.

The important part here is that it says that every person has individual rights to their DNA, much like a copyright on a book. It's quite possible for the police to have rights to the read the book (keep a record of the DNA for ID) but not to reproduce it without prior consent (Clone it). So the issues come up that if somebody can "copyright" their DNA, can that copyright be bought out by large companies, and traded like any other property?

The important part here is that it says that every person has individual rights to their DNA, much like a copyright on a book. It's quite possible for the police to have rights to the read the book (keep a record of the DNA for ID) but not to reproduce it without prior consent (Clone it). So the issues come up that if somebody can "copyright" their DNA, can that copyright be bought out by large companies, and traded like any other property?

No.

This is because you only own the code that is in you, not the actual code itself (do you see what I mean)? If you had an identical twin, you would NOT have the right to alter his genome.

You would BOTH own it.

It isn't a copyright so much as a guarentee of ownership. A company cannot prevent you from cloning yourself.

However, if a company SYNTHETICALLY creates a gene sequence, then they can copyright it.

I would vote for it only if we make it illegal for anyone with a criminal record to clone or alter themselves. We cannot have criminal changing their fingerprints or clonning themselves.

Even if you alter your DNA I don't think that will change your fingerprint.

Second, what would be wrong with criminals cloning themselves? There isn't a "criminal gene". That theory was debunked decades ago.

Identical twins have different sets of fingerprints. Environment seems to be more important in establishing fingerprints than DNA is.

8)

Absolutely not. This proposal is another effort of the United Nations to control the scientific development of it's nations. This is a further attempt to destroy the Individual Sovreignty of member nations.

Those who love freedom, vote against this resolution.

Read Article III. You are allowed to restrict research in your own country if you want.

Then also read Article IV, which, at some level, contradicts Article III:
"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. "

If a nation restricts research, are they not restricting the free flow of scientific information? This resolution is not even self-cocsistent! For this and numerous other reasons, I oppose this ridiculous resolution.

While the people of Watfordshire have no moral objection to genetic cloning, we respect the rights of UN member states to deny such research as a matter of national,rather than of international law. we see no real positive steps in the current proposed resolution.

"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. "

seems the only point that doesn't contradict itself, and it places such emphasis on the 'rights of property' that nations such as our own, for whom 'ownership' of such rights is abhorent can only view such a resolution as a one way flow of scientific information towards the capitalist nations who are looking to make a quick buck.

Until a more intelligent and all encompassing resolution on Genetics - that is actually about genetics - is put forward, we would urge as many delegates as possible to reject the current proposal.

Sincerely Yours

Felix Jethoscopes
Dean of the University of BRightOn
Herald of Watfordshire

I would vote for it only if we make it illegal for anyone with a criminal record to clone or alter themselves. We cannot have criminal changing their fingerprints or clonning themselves.

Even if you alter your DNA I don't think that will change your fingerprint.

Second, what would be wrong with criminals cloning themselves? There isn't a "criminal gene". That theory was debunked decades ago.

No but a criminal could frame his clone and get away scott free, after all double jepordy would mean we could never prosecute the clone.

I would vote for it only if we make it illegal for anyone with a criminal record to clone or alter themselves. We cannot have criminal changing their fingerprints or clonning themselves.

Even if you alter your DNA I don't think that will change your fingerprint.

Second, what would be wrong with criminals cloning themselves? There isn't a "criminal gene". That theory was debunked decades ago.

No but a criminal could frame his clone and get away scott free, after all double jepordy would mean we could never prosecute the clone.

What's double jepordy got to do with it? Just because someone is a clone it doesn't mean they are the same person!

It would be easier to frame a clone if the only evidence was genetic but there are other forms you know. People were prosecuted long before the idea of a gene was even considered.

Absolutely not. This proposal is another effort of the United Nations to control the scientific development of it's nations. This is a further attempt to destroy the Individual Sovreignty of member nations.

Those who love freedom, vote against this resolution.

Read Article III. You are allowed to restrict research in your own country if you want.

Then also read Article IV, which, at some level, contradicts Article III:
"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. "

If a nation restricts research, are they not restricting the free flow of scientific information? This resolution is not even self-cocsistent! For this and numerous other reasons, I oppose this ridiculous resolution.

You can restrict the research but you can't restrict the flow of information i.e. the results of any research. Seems perfectly consistent to me.

I would vote for it only if we make it illegal for anyone with a criminal record to clone or alter themselves. We cannot have criminal changing their fingerprints or clonning themselves.

Even if you alter your DNA I don't think that will change your fingerprint.

Second, what would be wrong with criminals cloning themselves? There isn't a "criminal gene". That theory was debunked decades ago.

No but a criminal could frame his clone and get away scott free, after all double jepordy would mean we could never prosecute the clone.

What's double jepordy got to do with it? Just because someone is a clone it doesn't mean they are the same person!

It would be easier to frame a clone if the only evidence was genetic but there are other forms you know. People were prosecuted long before the idea of a gene was even considered.

I'm not implying that there aren't other forms of identification, but if the clone was arrested and discovered to be a clone by the other forms, reasonable doubt and other factors realating to the legal tanglement generated by two people sharing the same basic markers. Keeping in mind genes have oftne been used as the definition of a person. Hence why in RL Australia many split-personality suffes go to jail for the crimes of their other peronalities.

I think the solution is to just create your own laws to enforce this in your own manner in line with the resolution.

i think its cool because then we will have dinosaurs and jurassic park

:shock: I hope you keep oversized fences around your entire nation.

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


This statement alone causes me to vote no, without all the other arguments.

Wohoo, my voice made the no side the majority for now 8)

And about the resolution, I am against it since while cloning could be a great help, it should be closely supervised and controlled. I also feel that I, II and III raises strong ethical issues about if gens should be owned by persons, how goverment could be able to controll such research and V doesnt spesicfy what a human is. If you take a human clone, mix the genes to a point where you feel he is no longer a true human but rather a kindered species, what rights would he get?

I think there should be a new category called "Advancement of the Sciences".

I agree - how would we go about getting this and other new categories?

I would vote for it only if we make it illegal for anyone with a criminal record to clone or alter themselves. We cannot have criminal changing their fingerprints or clonning themselves.

Even if you alter your DNA I don't think that will change your fingerprint.

Second, what would be wrong with criminals cloning themselves? There isn't a "criminal gene". That theory was debunked decades ago.

No but a criminal could frame his clone and get away scott free, after all double jepordy would mean we could never prosecute the clone.

Now of course, there would be a rather apparent age difference.

WHEN YOU CLONE SOMEONE IT STARTS OUT AS A LITTLE BABY>

My only real problem with it is it's lack of a definition of civilian. If no laws can be made resticting the trade of this type of information than a scientist who was in the army could take some secrets, get out of the army, and "trade" it in slightly differant form to another coutry who would then adapt it into a weapon (or other military technology) again. It is just a loophole that bothers me

My only real problem with it is it's lack of a definition of civilian. If no laws can be made resticting the trade of this type of information than a scientist who was in the army could take some secrets, get out of the army, and "trade" it in slightly differant form to another coutry who would then adapt it into a weapon (or other military technology) again. It is just a loophole that bothers me

That would be imminent danger maybe?

My only real problem with it is it's lack of a definition of civilian. If no laws can be made resticting the trade of this type of information than a scientist who was in the army could take some secrets, get out of the army, and "trade" it in slightly differant form to another coutry who would then adapt it into a weapon (or other military technology) again. It is just a loophole that bothers me

That would be imminent danger maybe?

no because it would not be imminent. The coutry that is doing the stealing would have to do al the transfering and make plans as to HOW to use the stolen technology. No spesific targets would nessisarily be in danger, or even, nessisarily, a spesific country.


OH! and also, the part that contains that is setting the limits for a scientist leaving the country. He does not have to leave the country in order to sell information

Guys, this shouldn't even be about criminal records. This should be about the actual clone.

1. First off, if we clone someone, then what's to say that the expirement will go wrong. We don't have the technology to do it. So we play god with something we know nothing about.

2. The only way we will get that technology is if expirement. If we expirement, then things will go wrong. So then the clones keep liveing longer and longer than the last time. But what about when they die and are old enought to realise that they are going to die. How would that make you feel if the scientest says " You are going to die soon, and it's because I wanted to clone you, you were an expiriment. So already their rights are being violated. But it says that the clones will be equal.

3. What will we use the clones for. There is no point to cloneing that would benafit mankind except the curiousity. The only good would be to harvest organs, But that would violate their rights. you can't clone them for military, that would also violate their rights. So what are we going to use them for.

Think about these things befor you vote!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :(

Guys, this shouldn't even be about criminal records. This should be about the actual clone.

1. First off, if we clone someone, then what's to say that the expirement will go wrong. We don't have the technology to do it. So we play god with something we know nothing about.

2. The only way we will get that technology is if expirement. If we expirement, then things will go wrong. So then the clones keep liveing longer and longer than the last time. But what about when they die and are old enought to realise that they are going to die. How would that make you feel if the scientest says " You are going to die soon, and it's because I wanted to clone you, you were an expiriment. So already their rights are being violated. But it says that the clones will be equal.


We in Gurthark assume this resolution only applies to countries that have perfected cloning technology. Any new medical procedure must pass through a number of hurdles before it can be used on human subjects. There's nothing particularly special about cloning that makes it different from a new vaccine, drug, or surgical procedure in that regard.


3. What will we use the clones for. There is no point to cloneing that would benafit mankind except the curiousity. The only good would be to harvest organs, But that would violate their rights. you can't clone them for military, that would also violate their rights. So what are we going to use them for.


What will we *use* them for? What do we use other children for? They'll be people, not tools.

I imagine the primary use of the *procedure* will be as an alternative reproductive means for people who find it difficult to reproduce in the traditional way: Single individuals, gay couples, infertile couples, couples where one partner has a dangerous hereditary disease, and so on. (Yes, there are options that already exist for these people. Cloning would provide another one, one that some of them might find preferable.)

Reproductive cloning is a new way to have children; nothing more, nothing less. It so happens that the children will be "identical" to their genetic parent, but only in the sense that identical twins are identical to one another (actually, in a weaker sense, since identical twins are the same age and were usually raised in the same circumstances; clones will probably usually turn out to be *quite* different from their parents simply due to differences in their environments).

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

According to the proposed resolution, each individual owns the rights to the genetic code cells that originate from their body. As the proposals stands now, the extracted gene cells would be the property of 'the original'. In order to create a clone, said gene cells would have to be reproduced. Since said reproduced cells were spawned from property of the 'original' they too would become property of the 'original'. As the process progresses a clone is (hopefully) created, however since all cells in said clone's body were reproduced from the 'property' of the 'originator', the 'originators' owner-ship could thus be extended to include the whole being.

We do recognize that the final article stipulates that any clone created would be granted equal human rights, however, the proposal does NOT include in it an universal process with which to determine at which point the 'ownership' of the originator gives way to the individual rights of the clone.

Due to this ambiguity, the Masara Republic must reject this proposal and urge others to do the same.

Margaux Trembould
Masaran Ambassador to the United Nations

We the people of Neo Genesis Greece support this bill fully. This will increase human rights over themself and also helps the furtherment of science. This throws most of the ethics that hold back society now out the window. This is not about cloning but more about a persons right to control what they do with their genome. For example a pregnant woman has a disease that is curable but it would kill the baby. What do you do? Do you abort the baby and give the cure? Do you try and save the baby and let the mother die? Do you let both die because its ethically wrong to have an abortion and/or cause harm to the mother? These are the questions faced daily by today's medical field and more so in America then anywhere else. If i were a doctor i would fight to save as many lives as possible but in many cases the ethics of the hospital or country stop him/her from being able to perform such duties. Vote for this because it isnt about cloning its about giving the right to rule over your own genome.

Ajax Representative of Neo Genesis Greece.

I would vote for it only if we make it illegal for anyone with a criminal record to clone or alter themselves. We cannot have criminal changing their fingerprints or clonning themselves.

Even if you alter your DNA I don't think that will change your fingerprint.

Second, what would be wrong with criminals cloning themselves? There isn't a "criminal gene". That theory was debunked decades ago.

No but a criminal could frame his clone and get away scott free, after all double jepordy would mean we could never prosecute the clone.

Now of course, there would be a rather apparent age difference.

WHEN YOU CLONE SOMEONE IT STARTS OUT AS A LITTLE BABY>

Nice try, but you asume that cloning is merely inserting non-sex cells into a human egg. If cloning occurs in an articfical womb thent he agin proccess could be excelerated.

"V. That cloned humans shall be accorded the same rights and as naturally born humans."
This should say "...all SENTIENT cloned humans".
This way organ sacks without heads could still be cloned, for the purpose of reasearch and replacement organs. I don't see why a headless clone would need any rights.

Nice try, but you asume that cloning is merely inserting non-sex cells into a human egg. If cloning occurs in an articfical womb thent he agin proccess could be excelerated.

What an odd claim. It might, conceiveably, be possible to create an artificial womb that accelerates growth, but doing this has nothing to do with cloning. If such an artificial womb existed, it could presumably be used for any zygote created in vitro, including ones created through already commonplace in vitro fertilization.

Cloning, as it might exist at any time in the forseeable future, involves babies that have to grow up normally. If it ever doesn't, that will not be something specific to cloning but a side-effect of our ability to bypass the "growing-up" process in general.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Absolutely not. This proposal is another effort of the United Nations to control the scientific development of it's nations. This is a further attempt to destroy the Individual Sovreignty of member nations.

Those who love freedom, vote against this resolution.

We agree, although we think TGM did a nice job of limiting the sovreignty implications and give our kudos appropriately. However, we also feel that the language allowing individuals the right to alter their genetic code is too dangerous, since the potential consequences are largely unexplored. For this reason alone we feel it would be irresponsible to support the proposal.

This will increase human rights over themself ... This is not about cloning but more about a persons right to control what they do with their genome ... its about giving the right to rule over your own genome.

Ajax Representative of Neo Genesis Greece.

I must correct you in all three of these statements. This resolution does NOTHING to further Human Rights. This is strictly a Free Trade propsal.

It is because of this lack of clarity that Aegonia chooses to vote AGAINST this proposal.

(sorry, I don't know how to quote)

Gurthark Says

"We in Gurthark assume this resolution only applies to countries that have perfected cloning technology. Any new medical procedure must pass through a number of hurdles before it can be used on human subjects. There's nothing particularly special about cloning that makes it different from a new vaccine, drug, or surgical procedure in that regard."

As said in the resolution

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

Therefore, most nations don't have the technology. Thus There would be laws against banning the development of cloneing. If this happens, it obviously doesn't apply to nations that have perfected it and then peoples rights will be vioulated.

So you can't say that the clone has the same rights since they will be expirementing on them (see if he can do regular things, He'll be in a lab ect.) Plus the expirement might go wrong.

(sorry, I don't know how to quote)


[OOC: just click the "quote" button on the post to which you want to reply.]

Gurthark Says

"We in Gurthark assume this resolution only applies to countries that have perfected cloning technology. Any new medical procedure must pass through a number of hurdles before it can be used on human subjects. There's nothing particularly special about cloning that makes it different from a new vaccine, drug, or surgical procedure in that regard."

As said in the resolution

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

Therefore, most nations don't have the technology. Thus There would be laws against banning the development of cloneing. If this happens, it obviously doesn't apply to nations that have perfected it and then peoples rights will be vioulated.


Unfortunately, in the absence of an international court, it is difficult to interpret this sentence. However, unless we see a convincing argument otherwise, our government is inclined to interpret Article II to mean that "All international laws banning the development of any form of biotechnology of a civilian nature are hereby abolished", not "All international laws placing any restrictions upon methodology used in the development of any form of biotechnology of a civilian nature are hereby abolished."

That is, international laws banning, for example, human experimentation before a procedure is demonstrated to be safe beyond a reasonable doubt would still be acceptable. They would only apply to biotechnology as a side-effect, of course.

Of course, we don't currently have any international laws regarding human experimentation, so this point is moot for now anyway (although I agree we should create such laws in the future).

Within its own borders, Gurthark has very serious restrictions on human experimentation. I have consulted with our Surgeon General, Fiona Bixby, and our Scientist General, Gronk van der Hoek, and they are both of the opinion that it would be very difficult to develop human reproductive cloning in Gurthark without, at some stage, violating our human experimentation laws. But that is a bit of a side-issue.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

I would vote for it only if we make it illegal for anyone with a criminal record to clone or alter themselves. We cannot have criminal changing their fingerprints or clonning themselves.

Even if you alter your DNA I don't think that will change your fingerprint.

Second, what would be wrong with criminals cloning themselves? There isn't a "criminal gene". That theory was debunked decades ago.

No but a criminal could frame his clone and get away scott free, after all double jepordy would mean we could never prosecute the clone.

Now of course, there would be a rather apparent age difference.

WHEN YOU CLONE SOMEONE IT STARTS OUT AS A LITTLE BABY>

Nice try, but you asume that cloning is merely inserting non-sex cells into a human egg. If cloning occurs in an articfical womb thent he agin proccess could be excelerated.

If you clone someone in an artificial womb, the process would be the same as growing a "test-tube baby". It's still a baby.

Of course, we don't currently have any international laws regarding human experimentation, so this point is moot for now anyway (although I agree we should create such laws in the future).

Within its own borders, Gurthark has very serious restrictions on human experimentation. I have consulted with our Surgeon General, Fiona Bixby, and our Scientist General, Gronk van der Hoek, and they are both of the opinion that it would be very difficult to develop human reproductive cloning in Gurthark without, at some stage, violating our human experimentation laws. But that is a bit of a side-issue.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

It may be a side issue, but you're still going to vote for it even though it may violate rights of the clones for now. Do you think that is acceptable? How about we wait and have these laws included. Then and only then may it be passed.

None of our worries are specific to cloning--there is much medical research practiced in the world that does not meet with our standards. In countries that have proper standards, this proposal will do no harm; in countries that do not, the proposal will not make things any worse than they already are.

I'm currently already quite busy developing another United Nations proposal for Gurthark (see the thread on the Antibiotic-Resistant Disease Reduction Act (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=79424)); however, if you submit a proposal placing appropriate limits on human experimentation, we will certainly support it.

Sinc
Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

I voted for it because it would help fight problems with human DNA and at the same time preserving the persons rights, i think it is an overall good idea

Geneticarp is in the wrong category. It is supposed to be about "Free Trade", but it seems to be all about individual rights to clone themselves and "alter their physical architecture", and to avoid states violating human rights.

If it's going to be in the Free Trade category, it should be predominantly about Free Trade.

It's a scientific resolution.

So far all the sciene resolutions (except for ISI which passed AFTER I proposed this) have been in FREE TRADE. Therefore, I followed precedent.

That's legalese for when in doubt, do what people before you did.

But it's not about FREE TRADE, is it? So it shouldn't be in FREE TRADE, should it? :oops:

It is true, and a good point, that Cloning truly has nothing to do with Free Trade, save the fact that there is a provision for unrestricted flow of scientific information between countries.
However, The Global Market has indicated that there have been established pecidents that follow,or rather lead, the FreeTrade section. Desipte the apparent mislabeling, I feel that this resolution is not nlygood, but strong in its words and should be voted for.
If this can influence one person, I feel I have wisely spent time procrastinating in fear of my Economics essay, due to the fast that this vote is very close.

It is true, and a good point, that Cloning truly has nothing to do with Free Trade, save the fact that there is a provision for unrestricted flow of scientific information between countries.
However, The Global Market has indicated that there have been established pecidents that follow,or rather lead, the FreeTrade section. Desipte the apparent mislabeling, I feel that this resolution is not nlygood, but strong in its words and should be voted for.
If this can influence one person, I feel I have wisely spent time procrastinating in fear of my Economics essay, due to the fast that this vote is very close.

Since when is continuing with deceit a good idea? All resolutions should have proper effect regardless of the past. Aegonia won't settle for another wolf in sheep's clothing. We will start a new precedent of nations who won't tolerate these misleading proposals.

The people of Watfordshire heartily agree with the Aegonians

The proposed resolution needs further clarification and some serious research before being resubmitted (as it undoubtedly will be)

Whether our respected fellow UN members agree with the general sentiments of the proposal or not, we feel the current proposal doesn't do such a serious subject justice and we would urge other memberstates to vote 'NO' until a more comprehensive and intelligent proposal on cloning is submitted

Faithfully yours

Felix Jethoscopes
Dean of the University of BRightOn
Herald of Watfordshire

I would vote for it only if we make it illegal for anyone with a criminal record to clone or alter themselves. We cannot have criminal changing their fingerprints or clonning themselves.

Even if you alter your DNA I don't think that will change your fingerprint.

Second, what would be wrong with criminals cloning themselves? There isn't a "criminal gene". That theory was debunked decades ago.

No but a criminal could frame his clone and get away scott free, after all double jepordy would mean we could never prosecute the clone.

Now of course, there would be a rather apparent age difference.

WHEN YOU CLONE SOMEONE IT STARTS OUT AS A LITTLE BABY>

Nice try, but you asume that cloning is merely inserting non-sex cells into a human egg. If cloning occurs in an articfical womb thent he agin proccess could be excelerated.

If you clone someone in an artificial womb, the process would be the same as growing a "test-tube baby". It's still a baby.

Please listen to my arguements so as not to look like a fool, ok? The rate of growth can be altered by increasing the rate of cell division, and this is within our level of science.

[quote=Rotovia]

Now of course, there would be a rather apparent age difference.

WHEN YOU CLONE SOMEONE IT STARTS OUT AS A LITTLE BABY>

Nice try, but you asume that cloning is merely inserting non-sex cells into a human egg. If cloning occurs in an articfical womb thent he agin proccess could be excelerated.

If you clone someone in an artificial womb, the process would be the same as growing a "test-tube baby". It's still a baby.

Please listen to my arguements so as not to look like a fool, ok? The rate of growth can be altered by increasing the rate of cell division, and this is within our level of science.

Let's assume for the moment that it is possible to physically age a clone as we wish. The process of educating and socializing the clone so that he/she can act like an adult will still take at least half as long as maturing naturally, unless such technology exists that one can completely program everything into the clone's brain that he/she will need to know (in which case we have other issues to deal with such as the possibility of rewriting a person's memory against his/her will).

Since we cannot possibly predict what devastating changes to our society will happen if cloning and DNA alteration is possible without restrictions, everybody with common sense should vote against it.

Saying that member states can put restrictions in their own country is irrelevant :

It is like saying : "chemical warfare is allowed , but all member states have the freedom to put restrictions if they choose to do so". Then a nation which is banning chemical warfare is wipe out by their neighbour which did not put any restrictions.

Similar reasoning is valid for cloning/DNA alteration.
A nation chooses to ban it, then it is attacked by their neighbours clone army / attacked by a biochemical to which its enemy is resistent, etc...

The very essense of the UN is to vote laws to prevents this type of "I have to do it, because otherwise my enemy will do it" reasoning.

Saying : "it is a basic right of a person to clone/alter his DNA" is a nice political statement. But : by definition, a basic right is only possible when it does not interfere with the basic rights of others. Clearly cloning or DNA alteration can be used as a dramatic weapon to attack others, therefore it cannot be the basic right of an individual


Therefore : Vote NO

Gobbo Representatitve

I vote yes to geneticorps proposal as I feel that clones of people would be extremely useful. Think of it double the workforce in under half the time. I don't know about yous lot but my country could really use that kind of an economic boost.

So I say we go ahead with the cloning and clear up any criminal or war related mess we get ourselves into later. :twisted:

So I say we go ahead with the cloning and clear up any criminal or war related mess we get ourselves into later. :twisted:

Indeed. :twisted: :twisted:

I vote yes to geneticorps proposal as I feel that clones of people would be extremely useful. Think of it double the workforce in under half the time. I don't know about yous lot but my country could really use that kind of an economic boost.

So I say we go ahead with the cloning and clear up any criminal or war related mess we get ourselves into later. :twisted:

are you Geroge Bush ? :)

:?: Bloody hell, i have never heard so much ****
I mean jeeeeezz if you want the phrase " Everyone is special " Removed then u are a idiot :roll: , why would you want to clone a human being, like cloning a chicken, to get more food, this should only be valid if it was the last chicken on earth! etc :idea:

Voted yes, and I prompt all other members of the UN to do so as well.

Here's my two cents.

1. The GenetiCorp convention supports one of the most basic of human right, "all men are created equal," voting against the GenetiCorp would be a serious violation of this right, by allowing nations to create cloned slaves.

2. The GenetiCorp convention is not regulating cloning and DNA manipulation for all nations, it states that "individual governments have the right to restrict the research of biotechnology within their own nation," which means that the UN cannot regulate whether cloning or DNA manipulation is used or not.

I have more, but no time. These are but a few reasons the GenetiCorp Convention is important. Clones are human, and they deserve to be treated as such, with the same rights.

The Lesser Archon,
x<=0

I would vote for it only if we make it illegal for anyone with a criminal record to clone or alter themselves. We cannot have criminal changing their fingerprints or clonning themselves.

Even if you alter your DNA I don't think that will change your fingerprint.

Second, what would be wrong with criminals cloning themselves? There isn't a "criminal gene". That theory was debunked decades ago.

Yes I agree. Even if you clone someone exactly you wont get the same personality. Unless of course you find some way to transfer the criminals personallity into the clone you will get a genetic look alike but not a personality replica. :D :lol: :wink: :tantrum: :roll: 8)

Saying : "it is a basic right of a person to clone/alter his DNA" is a nice political statement. But : by definition, a basic right is only possible when it does not interfere with the basic rights of others. Clearly cloning or DNA alteration can be used as a dramatic weapon to attack others, therefore it cannot be the basic right of an individual
Gobbo Representatitve

I vote yes to geneticorps proposal as I feel that clones of people would be extremely useful. Think of it double the workforce in under half the time. I don't know about yous lot but my country could really use that kind of an economic boost.


How can cloning in any way be used as a dramatic weapon or increase any workforce? I'll admit to knowing close to nothing about it but I didn't think it worked that way. :?

I think he means double the unemployment in under half the time. :shock:

Mathematically a surge in population of that proportion would be devastating to an economy.

I think he means double the unemployment in under half the time. :shock:

Actually - mathematically - a surge in population of that proportion would be devastating to an economy.Ok, that would be true. :)

But still, who would do that and what would be the point? Who would be the parents for all these clones?