NationStates Jolt Archive

WHAT SHOULD OUR ATTITUDE TOWARDS CLONING BE? Christians and NON-Chistians read alike.

First off, humans did not did not discover cloning. Cloning is not a human invention. The Creator Himself planned this way of reproduction. When we plant potato tubers of the previous year, the potatoes we later harvest are just as nutritious and tasty. This is because there was no new combination of hereditary information, with one plant being pollinated with the DNA of another. They are in fact clones of the previous year's plant.

SO IS HUMANITY ALLOWED TO USE THE CLONING TECHNIQUE?

Humans are appointed rulers over 'the fish of the sea and over the fowl [birds] of the air and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth' (Genesis 1:28). So I see no reason why it should not be used in plants and animals. Especially where there is a benefit to mankind, such as less hunger or disease. Christ's example indicates that things (such as healing, binding wounds, peace-making, and feeding the hungry) which oppose the effects of the Curse are 'blessed'.

When humans breed wheat that can be cultivated in cold areas, or use artificial selection to get cows yielding more milk, we are also 'manipulating nature'. But of course, few would (or should) oppose such intervention. I think that God's instruction to humans to subdue the earth (Genesis 1:28) also allows for cloning.

WHAT ABOUT USING THE CLONING TECHNIQUE ON HUMANS?

In today's 'evolutionized' world, there is no dividing line between the animal kingdom and humans, so the same ethical standards apply to dealings with both. THE BIBLE, HOWEVER, draws a clear line between animals and humans, and gives us ethical guidelines:


Humans were created separately, in God's image, unlike the animal kingdom (Genesis 1:27). Our existence extends beyond physical death (Luke 16:19-31, Philippians 1:23). This is nowhere indicated for animals.


God allowed humans to kill animals (Genesis 9:2-3). Concerning other humans, He gave the commandment: 'Thou shalt not kill' (Exodus 20:13).


God entrusted humans with dominion over the animal kingdom (Genesis 1:26). But humans were never told to have dominion over other humans, nor manipulate them, as would be the case if cloning humans.


Furthermore, humans are meant to have fathers and mothers, to be where possible the offspring of a sacred marriage relationship, the family ordained by God. While unfortunate circumstances in a fallen world mean that sometimes children have to be raised by only one parent, a clone could never have two parents. THUS THE ARTIFICIAL CLONING OF A COMPLETE HUMAN BEING, BECAUSE IT DELIBERATELY SETS OUT TO CAUSE SUCH A SITUATION, IS OPPOSED TO BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES.

There are further reasons for rejecting the artificial cloning of humans. Each fertilized egg, including those from cloning, is a new human individual. Yet perfecting the cloning technique requires many experiments. Many individuals would be enabled to commence life, only to be deliberately destroyed.

CONCLUSION

Thus, while it may be right under certain circumstances to clone animals to benefit people, I think it is absolutely wrong to try to clone humans, and because of this, I urge all nations of the UN to vote NO for the 'The GenetiCorp Convention'.

COMMENTS?
If you have any comments of what i just posted, you can telegram me a message, and i'll get back to you. Savage Fobs is my nation. No hate mail. If you like what I wrote feel free to endorse me. It'd be most nice of you. Thanks for reading this.

-The Armed Republic of Savage Fobs

In conclusion you quoted the Bible in your statement so much that I've decided to ignore your arguments. :roll:

Biblical balderdash does not apply. :roll:

What does is who would want themselves cloned. You can't cone a mind so any clone might look the same, it will not be the same.

There is also a terrible risk in human cloning. If the weathly are the only ones to afford it maybe they will clone themselves so many times they squeeze out all others. What a world that would be. :roll:

I think I'll just ignore this. ::coughOVERBEARINGRELIGIONcough:: Geez, you're just like those guys on the 700 Club.

I'm actually torn on this resolution. I have no Biblical qualms about cloning, since I think God is a big load of hokey, anyway. But it is not my purpose here to get into a Biblical harangue, or an argument over the existence/non-existence of "God" or what "God" might want us to do or not to do.

I have a couple of practical problems on both sides.

First..if someone WANTS to be cloned...should the government be able to tell him/her that they canot clone themselves? Or be cloned?

Seems to me that is giving government title deed over my body...something I find highly objectionable. I thik what a person does with their own body...so long as it harms no one else...is their own business, and not the business of the government.

Having said THAT...here's my problems on the other side of the Resolution....
First...if one is to allow cloning, then how does one use DNA evidence to solve crimes? Would it not be beneficial to a criminal to in some way alter his genome so as to not be hung on DNA evidence for a crime he is in fact, guilty of committing?

Second...this Resolution specifies HUMANS. There are nations in this NS world where humans are NOT the dominant species...I know of several Elven nations, and even a few nations that are populated by machines.

I'd feel better about the Resolution if it were so worded that HUMANS was replaced with CITIZENS. Just semantics...but as any good politico knows, semantics are very important in how the law is made, arrived at, voted on, interpreted, and applied in our world.

So I really am torn on which way to vote here.

I've currently abstained.

I'm inclined to vote against, only because,by voting against, I am not saying...nor is the Resolution saying..that an individual nation cannot adopt the very policy this Resolution outlines.

But this is a real good issue for debate on a serious (not Biblical) level. There's a number of implications on our modern world which should be considered...I have only brought up those which jump right to the top of my mind.

Would like to see some more discussion on this issue. Rational, reasoned discussion. Personally, I'm ignoring any Biblical crap.

Gibereleth is not familiar with this thing known as the Bible. Is it a scientific text in your nation? If so, could we see the scientific support for the claims you have posted here?

-Quintus Giber
Gibereleth

I'm also unsure, I first voted in favor then against. Again, any references to the bible be completely ignored, since it's all a load of dung.

While it requires the permission of the individual whose DNA is being replicated, the person who is the clone did not actually give that permission.

This also brings up a risk of crime being commited with two or more possible suspects that cannot be proved guilty or innocent by DNA.

While it's not implied to be something funded by governments, cloning in this sense seems like a waste of resources, whereas genetic modification could reduce or eliminate defficiencies.

Savage, just because the characteristics of one plant are similar to that of another doesn't mean they have the exact same DNA. If all plants were "clones" there would only be one kind of plant.

We veiw cloning differently. In the Setain religion the god Hara'kash "cloned" him self to create a brother to fight with. In the Tharomin(or holy book) it talks about the benifets of Jah'kel or cloning. So as a religious socity we vote for cloning.

WHAT SHOULD OUR ATTITUDE TOWARDS CLONING BE? Christians and NON-Chistians read alike.



Why the hell did I waste my time reading that?

I am thinking about voting no but for reasons that have nothing to do with Theocracy or Religion.

The wording of this Resolution seems to have 2 flaws:

1) It links two ideas, namely that each person owns their own genome and that each indiviual has the right to clone. I agree with the first idea but the argument has not been made oin the resolution as to why that automatically gives me the right to clone!

2) The UN resolution if passed removes any UN right to ban clonign but leaves the rights for local laws in the hands of individual governments. What is achieved?

The World needds good legilsation around genetics and biotech, this piece of legislation simply doesnt cut it!

Cloning of ideology? I needed to vote yes on this one so we can test later what this would result, then react with an other one and so on, even if we pass our time doing so, we are going to accepte at least that we can be only this forever, building the world by making vote on everything.
But voting has to be vote? Can we vote for the thinking we should vote?
Iam for a resolution on where we have to vote and where we need that everyone is understanding the result, do we on this issue while in the reality we don't? Where can go the science? Where can it goes then how can we live with these evolution. What we need is to make sure the human is in vacation, so food and ressources are free, then that the world is capable of being part for a humanist way in the science.
Too many people? The right for suicide, the right for killing when the other cost too much to the system, eliminate the weaken part?
The right for suicide, the right for free living, the right to interfere on every law by democratic way when its a matter of everyone, then that social solution be for a process of scientific works in leasure?
anyway..

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

WHAT SHOULD OUR ATTITUDE TOWARDS CLONING BE? Christians and NON-Chistians read alike.

First off, humans did not did not discover cloning. Cloning is not a human invention. The Creator Himself planned this way of reproduction. When we plant potato tubers of the previous year, the potatoes we later harvest are just as nutritious and tasty. This is because there was no new combination of hereditary information, with one plant being pollinated with the DNA of another. They are in fact clones of the previous year's plant.

SO IS HUMANITY ALLOWED TO USE THE CLONING TECHNIQUE?

Humans are appointed rulers over 'the fish of the sea and over the fowl [birds] of the air and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth' (Genesis 1:28). So I see no reason why it should not be used in plants and animals. Especially where there is a benefit to mankind, such as less hunger or disease. Christ's example indicates that things (such as healing, binding wounds, peace-making, and feeding the hungry) which oppose the effects of the Curse are 'blessed'.

When humans breed wheat that can be cultivated in cold areas, or use artificial selection to get cows yielding more milk, we are also 'manipulating nature'. But of course, few would (or should) oppose such intervention. I think that God's instruction to humans to subdue the earth (Genesis 1:28) also allows for cloning.

WHAT ABOUT USING THE CLONING TECHNIQUE ON HUMANS?

In today's 'evolutionized' world, there is no dividing line between the animal kingdom and humans, so the same ethical standards apply to dealings with both. THE BIBLE, HOWEVER, draws a clear line between animals and humans, and gives us ethical guidelines:


Humans were created separately, in God's image, unlike the animal kingdom (Genesis 1:27). Our existence extends beyond physical death (Luke 16:19-31, Philippians 1:23). This is nowhere indicated for animals.


God allowed humans to kill animals (Genesis 9:2-3). Concerning other humans, He gave the commandment: 'Thou shalt not kill' (Exodus 20:13).


God entrusted humans with dominion over the animal kingdom (Genesis 1:26). But humans were never told to have dominion over other humans, nor manipulate them, as would be the case if cloning humans.


Furthermore, humans are meant to have fathers and mothers, to be where possible the offspring of a sacred marriage relationship, the family ordained by God. While unfortunate circumstances in a fallen world mean that sometimes children have to be raised by only one parent, a clone could never have two parents. THUS THE ARTIFICIAL CLONING OF A COMPLETE HUMAN BEING, BECAUSE IT DELIBERATELY SETS OUT TO CAUSE SUCH A SITUATION, IS OPPOSED TO BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES.

There are further reasons for rejecting the artificial cloning of humans. Each fertilized egg, including those from cloning, is a new human individual. Yet perfecting the cloning technique requires many experiments. Many individuals would be enabled to commence life, only to be deliberately destroyed.

CONCLUSION

Thus, while it may be right under certain circumstances to clone animals to benefit people, I think it is absolutely wrong to try to clone humans, and because of this, I urge all nations of the UN to vote NO for the 'The GenetiCorp Convention'.

COMMENTS?
If you have any comments of what i just posted, you can telegram me a message, and i'll get back to you. Savage Fobs is my nation. No hate mail. If you like what I wrote feel free to endorse me. It'd be most nice of you. Thanks for reading this.

-The Armed Republic of Savage Fobs


Actually, I voted FOR it. And our nation reserves the right to develop and use whatever cutting edge sciences we chose to with or without U.N. sanction. This is not an issue that should have been brought before the U.N. to begin with, unless you want it regulated by the international community AFTER you have decided, on a nation by nation basis, whether or not to develop this as a national resource.

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

Indeed, and the only concern of the International Community should be regulating the process when it is used on a international scale, for multi-national purposes. As long as a nation's genetic's program remains inside that country and does NOT affect the world community, I'd recommend that the U.N. dismiss the issue as it is currently written.

Second...this Resolution specifies HUMANS. There are nations in this NS world where humans are NOT the dominant species...I know of several Elven nations, and even a few nations that are populated by machines.

I'd feel better about the Resolution if it were so worded that HUMANS was replaced with CITIZENS. Just semantics...but as any good politico knows, semantics are very important in how the law is made, arrived at, voted on, interpreted, and applied in our world.


However, there is also the problem of humans who are not citizens. The NSUN has not yet decreed that citizenship must extend to encompass all persons native to a NSUN member nation (comparable to the Fourteenth Amendment to the USA Constitution).

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.

The Holy Empire's religion does not allow cloning, to quote our Holy Scripture:

"Cloning is the root of all evil and it gives you bad gas." (Sheik 2:6)

Therefore, we have voted against this resolution.

Akmed Teriff
Aooogah's Ambassador to the UN

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.

So you think that an international body should decide your domestic policy, rather than your own sovereign government?

Fascinating.

We have voted no on this bill for the expressed purpous that it limits the ability of nations to determine thier own cloning policies. The nation of Taka for example has a vast cloning system, with full scale manipulation of genetic information and the rewiring of the neurological system. Should this law go into effect, we would be hampered in this by having our labs subject to inspectoins, being forced to recognize the rights of these geneticaly produced clones, and in effect, being forced to give voice to a creature we have not only created, but have effectivly indoctrinated. I would vastly underwrite democracy. . . wait, I'm a dictator, thats a wonderful idea, everyone support this bill now.

Let's go beyond religion, and look at the real problems:

1. The world is already too overcrowded. People die, making room for another who is born. That's how nature works. There is evidence to support the theory that twins were a rareity in times past, and that it is the advent of The Pill and Viagara, along with other fertility/verility medications which cause this anomoly.

2. Anyone seen multiplicity? Look, people are dumb enough, let's not push it.

3. If people are able to clone themselves, then won't they make a clone to work for them? And if the clones are given the same rights as humans, won't the original person be practicing slavery? What then?

This is a bad idea from the get-go. Let's not sin against nature. :shock:

It should be spesified if the cloning is terapautic or if its reproductive.

Reproductive - you make a clone of another existing/deceased individual, human or otherwise. I have great ethical issues with this one, and Im more an agnostic than a christan, muslim or otherwise. This type of cloning is the one most objects to and its illiegal for humans in many countries.

Terapautic - can be used to make cures and medicine. This is usually cloning of a single cell which is cloned in order to be used in research for one purpose or another and can one day be used in order to cure people. Im more positiv with this one althought I feel that It should be controlled since it may get abused in some way.

I just noticed something that absolutely made up my mind on this Resolution...

IT WAS PROPOSED BY THE GLOBAL MARKET!!!

MY VOTE IS HELL NO!!

I oppose ANYTHING Global Market is for, out of sheer principle and spite.

There's a long-running battle of mutual hatred between Global Market and my nation...my nation stands firmly opposed to ANYTHING Global supports.

(Unless they go out and try a little reverse-psychology, of course...proposing something they, themselves are against...then I'd go for it...)

Okay, here we go... for the possiblity of cloning oneself to commit a crime and get off free, I must point out that a clone is not born fully-grown. It has to develop just like any other human being. The only difference is that the clone bears the same genetic code as an older human being. Otherwise, clones are normal people. Besides, you guys seem to be forgetting that other forensic evidence can be brought into a case. Fingerprints, as someone mentioned earlier, are different in identical twins and would be different in clones.

Secondly, the resolution makes it possible for you to control research in your nation; it only stipulates that the free flow of information not be impeded.

I tend to lean against the proposal because of the anti-business nature of the first article.

For example, let's say I want to produce human insulin by inserting the gene for human insulin into a bacterium and growing up huge batches. Anyone whose allele matched the one I used could sue me for a share of the profits.

Ahh! Why do you have 8) after your biblical references? You're not cool. And what does the Bible mean? I could base a religion on an AA road map. At least I wouldn't get stuck on the M25.

3. If people are able to clone themselves, then won't they make a clone to work for them? And if the clones are given the same rights as humans, won't the original person be practicing slavery? What then?

It would be prosecuted in the according state since iirc slavery is forbidden by the UN.

In my honored opinion, this resolution should be voted down. Cloning is a barbaric act. The very thought that clones should be given every right as a natural born citizen is outrageous. Cloning has yet to be proven to work well enough to even be considered on a human.

I just noticed something that absolutely made up my mind on this Resolution...

IT WAS PROPOSED BY THE GLOBAL MARKET!!!

MY VOTE IS HELL NO!!

I oppose ANYTHING Global Market is for, out of sheer principle and spite.

There's a long-running battle of mutual hatred between Global Market and my nation...my nation stands firmly opposed to ANYTHING Global supports.

(Unless they go out and try a little reverse-psychology, of course...proposing something they, themselves are against...then I'd go for it...)

So much for impartial judgement and rational argumentation....

I am a christian myself, so naturally i think no, but now, i know NO! :P

First off - no matter if you believe the in the bible or not, nobody has a right to be-little it. Its has defined 80% of mankinds history for the last 2000 years. Although, it may not be pretty.

Second off - it should not have been represented in this depate in this matter. There seems to be enough people who nevermind don't believe in it, but don't know what it says. To who can't cross reference the quotes shown. If a nation has a religion or not, they will use there own morality for this issue. You don't have to be "spiritual" to have morality.

Personally I disagree with cloaning individual humans(imagine the confusion a cloaned indivdual would be subjected to), however I highly encourage organ and part cloaning for development in an incubator.

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.

agree and tritumia casts a NO vote on this basis as well. there will be wars arising from attempts to impose an international will upon the genome management practices of traditional societies.

tritumia will oppose any efforts to enforce this clause should this resolution be unwisely adopted by this august body.

Let's go beyond religion, and look at the real problems:

1. The world is already too overcrowded. People die, making room for another who is born. That's how nature works. There is evidence to support the theory that twins were a rareity in times past, and that it is the advent of The Pill and Viagara, along with other fertility/verility medications which cause this anomoly.


So you're saying medications designed to prevent pregnancy and maintain erections, somehow magically increased the appearance of twins?


2. Anyone seen multiplicity? Look, people are dumb enough, let's not push it.

I'm assuming you're alluding to the gimmick in that movie of the clones creating a clone of one of them and the resulting clone was an idiot savant. If you are, shame on you for making that clone look like a genius by comparison. That was a lame story idea based upon a photo-copying metaphor; humans are not like printed paper, they will not become 'less sharp' if you clone a cloned human...



3. If people are able to clone themselves, then won't they make a clone to work for them? And if the clones are given the same rights as humans, won't the original person be practicing slavery? What then?


And how exactly is one "practicing slavery" if their clone(s) is/are "given the same rights as humans"?



This is a bad idea from the get-go. Let's not sin against nature. ::

You said "let's go beyond religion," but outside of religious and moral bull, you have no real arguement. It's all ignorant opinions from people that can't think outside of the tiny mold a book is supposedly telling them to have...

Put plain and simply-Little orange kittens votes NO on this.

There are issues about property rights....anyone care to legislate slavery?

Concerning the issue of medical use....Lok is of the humble opinion that we have more than enough people on this planet...why add to that?

Put plain and simply-Little orange kittens votes NO on this.

There are issues about property rights....anyone care to legislate slavery?
This resolution was designed to be against slavery, since it makes clear, that all clones are human beings and hacve the same rights. Slavery itself is iirc abolished in the Universal Bill of rights

First off - no matter if you believe the in the bible or not, nobody has a right to be-little it. Its has defined 80% of mankinds history for the last 2000 years. Although, it may not be pretty.

Second off - it should not have been represented in this depate in this matter. There seems to be enough people who nevermind don't believe in it, but don't know what it says. To who can't cross reference the quotes shown. If a nation has a religion or not, they will use there own morality for this issue. You don't have to be "spiritual" to have morality.

Personally I disagree with cloaning individual humans(imagine the confusion a cloaned indivdual would be subjected to), however I highly encourage organ and part cloaning for development in an incubator.

I have, and maintain, every right in the world to belittle the Bible. And I shall do so, too. Anyone who would abdicate their life and responsibility for themselves..and base their actions on a book written 2,000 years ago, by people who thought the world was flat...well, I don't think that shows great foresight, or desire to control your own life and destiny.

More to the point, the Bible is, with all it's religious overtones stripped away...nothing more than a book of prophecy, and testimonials. Testimonials are as belivable as the person giving the testimony. What do we really know of the writers of the Bible?
What do we know of their integrity and honesty...or their motivations?
What do we REALLY know ?? Answer: we don't.
So, until we do, I, for one, am not going to base MY life on it...as if it were absolute truth.
Besides...even going past the writers...how do we know of the integrity of those who've translated and re-translated it thru the millennia? Do we know that some subtle changes have not occurred, and completely changed the meaning of the original authors?
No, we don't.

How anyone could make decisions based on all this uncertainty is, quite frankly, beyond the ability of my logical mind to grasp.

I just noticed something that absolutely made up my mind on this Resolution...

IT WAS PROPOSED BY THE GLOBAL MARKET!!!

MY VOTE IS HELL NO!!

I oppose ANYTHING Global Market is for, out of sheer principle and spite.

There's a long-running battle of mutual hatred between Global Market and my nation...my nation stands firmly opposed to ANYTHING Global supports.

(Unless they go out and try a little reverse-psychology, of course...proposing something they, themselves are against...then I'd go for it...)

So much for impartial judgement and rational argumentation....

Generally, I do go for impartial judgement. But not in your case, Global. You have a history of bait-and-switch, and seeming to say one thing while really saying something else. You also have a history of changing the circumstances of an argument...sublty changing what people have said...in order to support the conclusions you want to produce. I don't trust you or your motives, and it is as simple as that.
Once bitten twice shy, as they say.

First off - no matter if you believe the in the bible or not, nobody has a right to be-little it. Its has defined 80% of mankinds history for the last 2000 years. Although, it may not be pretty.

Second off - it should not have been represented in this depate in this matter. There seems to be enough people who nevermind don't believe in it, but don't know what it says. To who can't cross reference the quotes shown. If a nation has a religion or not, they will use there own morality for this issue. You don't have to be "spiritual" to have morality.

Personally I disagree with cloaning individual humans(imagine the confusion a cloaned indivdual would be subjected to), however I highly encourage organ and part cloaning for development in an incubator.

I have, and maintain, every right in the world to belittle the Bible. And I shall do so, too. Anyone who would abdicate their life and responsibility for themselves..and base their actions on a book written 2,000 years ago, by people who thought the world was flat...well, I don't think that shows great foresight, or desire to control your own life and destiny.

More to the point, the Bible is, with all it's religious overtones stripped away...nothing more than a book of prophecy, and testimonials. Testimonials are as belivable as the person giving the testimony. What do we really know of the writers of the Bible?
What do we know of their integrity and honesty...or their motivations?
What do we REALLY know ?? Answer: we don't.
So, until we do, I, for one, am not going to base MY life on it...as if it were absolute truth.
Besides...even going past the writers...how do we know of the integrity of those who've translated and re-translated it thru the millennia? Do we know that some subtle changes have not occurred, and completely changed the meaning of the original authors?
No, we don't.

How anyone could make decisions based on all this uncertainty is, quite frankly, beyond the ability of my logical mind to grasp.

Props to this guy

i voted no primarally for the fact that the UN should have no buisness stipulating what a country can and cannot ban

No -- because the proposal leaves open the ownership of clones (ownership of genome) which could lead to creating clones for organ harvesting, plus cloning itself is proven to be flawed beyond belief -- like Dolly the sheep, a clone starts off with cells as old as its original, so your typically cloning age-of-consent adult will be creating an entity with the physiological burden of that age of consent already built-in.

These possibilities are repellent to us. What kind of life would a clone have?

Nope, nice utopian idea, poorly executed, thumbsdown.

First off - no matter if you believe the in the bible or not, nobody has a right to be-little it. Its has defined 80% of mankinds history for the last 2000 years. Although, it may not be pretty.
allow me a moment to calm down a little and i'll reply properly, as the original message deserves.

TOOL a HOO, you arrrogant little moron, please shut up. on your first point, the Bible is just a BOOK to anyone who is not a christian. A very old one, but not in any other significant way different to a hundred other texts of a similar age. As a historical document it has some value (though it has been translated and re-translated enough times that even that is questionable), but as the work of fiction ('based on a true story' as it may be) i believe it to be it is very much my right to belittle it if i so choose.

Its has defined 80% of mankinds history for the last 2000 years. Although, it may not be pretty.Is that ignorance, or do you just have an extremely narrow enterpretation of 'mankind'? Today, Bhuddists alone outnumber christians several times over. even by the 16th Century CE, just 400 years ago, Christianity was still almost entirely restricted to europe. What part do the other five continents play in your 80%? You also ignore the fact that the Bible - the old testament at least - has been around considerably longer than 2000 years, though it seems to be something Christianity in general would prefer to forget.

*deep, slow breathing*

Someone suggested Articles II and III were contradictory. Not quite true, though that's mainly down to sloppy wording.

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.

Anyone can do whatever 'Development' they want, since nations can only legislate against 'research'.

I think there needs to be a solid, sensible proposal on this matter; i just think this one's half-baked.

Today, Bhuddists alone outnumber christians several times over.


i really would like to know where you got your information from because it is very wrong

this is from the CIA world factbook

Christians 32.79% (of which Roman Catholics 17.33%, Protestants 5.62%, Orthodox 3.51%, Anglicans 1.31%)

Buddhists 5.88%

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/xx.html

Christianity: 2 billion / 33%
Buddhism: 360 million / 6%

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

as you can see budist don't come close to christians infact they don't even get close to muslams, hindus and non-relligous

Im an agnostic but I must say that christanity is still today the largest religion, even if they are losing terrain. Im not quite sure how reliable this link is, but I have read something similar in the papers.

http://psalmpublishing.bei.t-online.de/

[Edit] Looks like BIteland beat me to it, cool CIA link, one for my favorit links [Edit/]

On the issue of cloning, there is also the problem of what is considered to be human. If you take human cells, mix (for the lack of a better medical term, you know what I mean) the cells to that point where one might say that the individual is no longer human. Thus one could creates a clone who possess so many altered genes that he is no longer truely human, but can be considered to be of a different species, how would this law protect such individuals from beening abused by industry, goverment or individuals?

[Edit] Looks like BIteland beat me to it, cool CIA link, one for my favorit links [Edit/]

On the issue of cloning, there is also the problem of what is considered to be human. If you take human cells, mix (for the lack of a better medical term, you know what I mean) the cells to that point where one might say that the individual is no longer human. Thus one could creates a clone who possess so many altered genes that he is no longer truely human, but can be considered to be of a different species, how would this law protect such individuals from beening abused by industry, goverment or individuals?

i totally agree all one has to do is add one gene from another speaces and the resulting clone would then fall out side the protection of this legislation, ow and sorry i like to get things in first

I tend to lean against the proposal because of the anti-business nature of the first article.

For example, let's say I want to produce human insulin by inserting the gene for human insulin into a bacterium and growing up huge batches. Anyone whose allele matched the one I used could sue me for a share of the profits.

Hmmm, no responses from the backers of the bill. Apparently it is an anti-business measure as I surmised. Very well. I am off to vote "no".

This resolution is obviously overstepping the bounds of the U.N.'s power. I am fine with the idea that one of my citizens may choose to go to another country because they want to live according to the views of that country -- i.e., the right to be cloned. The majority of my citizens, however, do not feel that cloning should be legal within our borders for religious, economic, and scientific reasons. So is it right for a group of other nations, full of people who don't live in our borders, come in and tell us we have to allow a minority of citizens to clone themselves? I think not. The U.N. and some of its power-hungry leaders need to get their noses out of the personal business of member nations and start showing concern for the world as a whole.

Ursoria maintains a policy of separation of church and state. However, we cannot ignore the fact that about 85% of our people are Catholic, and many harbour deep reservations about the ethics of cloning. Those reservations were very well expressed in the following statement by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops:

"Creating human life in the laboratory by cloning should be condemned because it reduces human beings to mere products of a manufacturing technique. When cloning is done to attempt a live birth, the child is produced and wanted not for his or her own sake, but because he or she will carry traits that someone else values and wants to replicate. When cloning is done to pursue medical research, the reduction of human life to a mere instrument is even more complete, for a new human being is created solely to be destroyed for his or her cells and tissues. Even if medical benefits could be derived from such destruction, it is never morally permissible to achieve good ends through evil actions."

The Geneticorp Resolution puts the U.N. on record as specifically endorsing the practice of human cloning. We do not feel that such a body, which is supposed to represent ALL of humanity, should endorse a procedure that is contrary to the deeply-felt convictions of a large portion of the world's people.

First off - no matter if you believe the in the bible or not, nobody has a right to be-little it. Its has defined 80% of mankinds history for the last 2000 years. Although, it may not be pretty.

Second off - it should not have been represented in this depate in this matter. There seems to be enough people who nevermind don't believe in it, but don't know what it says. To who can't cross reference the quotes shown. If a nation has a religion or not, they will use there own morality for this issue. You don't have to be "spiritual" to have morality.

Personally I disagree with cloaning individual humans(imagine the confusion a cloaned indivdual would be subjected to), however I highly encourage organ and part cloaning for development in an incubator.

I have, and maintain, every right in the world to belittle the Bible. And I shall do so, too. Anyone who would abdicate their life and responsibility for themselves..and base their actions on a book written 2,000 years ago, by people who thought the world was flat...well, I don't think that shows great foresight, or desire to control your own life and destiny.

More to the point, the Bible is, with all it's religious overtones stripped away...nothing more than a book of prophecy, and testimonials. Testimonials are as belivable as the person giving the testimony. What do we really know of the writers of the Bible?
What do we know of their integrity and honesty...or their motivations?
What do we REALLY know ?? Answer: we don't.
So, until we do, I, for one, am not going to base MY life on it...as if it were absolute truth.
Besides...even going past the writers...how do we know of the integrity of those who've translated and re-translated it thru the millennia? Do we know that some subtle changes have not occurred, and completely changed the meaning of the original authors?
No, we don't.

How anyone could make decisions based on all this uncertainty is, quite frankly, beyond the ability of my logical mind to grasp.

Easy Tiger,
[I'm actually torn on this resolution. I have no Biblical qualms about cloning...But it is not my purpose here to get into a Biblical harangue, or an argument over the existence/non-existence of "God" or what "God" might want us to do or not to do.

Sound Familiar, enough said.

First off the proposal is ridiculous! CLONES WITH RITES!!!! I DONT KNOW ABOUT YOU but would you want a bunch of yourself running around and making clones for you. Sure this states the point, then why have any clones at all, answer would be that people are to lazy to do things themselves. :shock:

First off the proposal is ridiculous! CLONES WITH RITES!!!! I DONT KNOW ABOUT YOU but would you want a bunch of yourself running around and making clones for you. Sure this states the point, then why have any clones at all, answer would be that people are to lazy to do things themselves. :shock:

Ack! ANother one that doesn't know how cloning works!

No wonder this bill isn't passing.

A CLONE IS JUST LIKE AN IDENTICAL TWIN.

IT REQUIRES A SURROGATE MOTHER.

IT IS NOT EXACTLY THE SAME AS ITS PARENT, BECAUSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES.

First off - no matter if you believe the in the bible or not, nobody has a right to be-little it. Its has defined 80% of mankinds history for the last 2000 years. Although, it may not be pretty.
allow me a moment to calm down a little and i'll reply properly, as the original message deserves.

TOOL a HOO, you arrrogant little moron, please shut up. on your first point, the Bible is just a BOOK to anyone who is not a christian. A very old one, but not in any other significant way different to a hundred other texts of a similar age. As a historical document it has some value (though it has been translated and re-translated enough times that even that is questionable), but as the work of fiction ('based on a true story' as it may be) i believe it to be it is very much my right to belittle it if i so choose.

Its has defined 80% of mankinds history for the last 2000 years. Although, it may not be pretty.Is that ignorance, or do you just have an extremely narrow enterpretation of 'mankind'? Today, Bhuddists alone outnumber christians several times over. even by the 16th Century CE, just 400 years ago, Christianity was still almost entirely restricted to europe. What part do the other five continents play in your 80%? You also ignore the fact that the Bible - the old testament at least - has been around considerably longer than 2000 years, though it seems to be something Christianity in general would prefer to forget.

*deep, slow breathing*

I am so very sorry for insulting your rights...perhaps I was out of line says knowone has any right...then you get personal...ANTICHRIST. :twisted:

Excuse me...Europe and Russia were christian since the rise of the Byzantine Empire 1025AD...and rapidly spread to northern africa..and ther Americas at the time of there discovery.

Anyways....back to cloaning

"The United Socialist States of the KoRT Sovjet does not endorse Religious views, feeling that religion and government should remain as seperate entities. Although The KoRT Sovjet allows religious freedoms amoungst its people, religious reasons for or against laws are not considered when voting, thus your statement is void to us." - Vladimir Borislav, Chairman of the KoRT Sovjet

"The United Socialist States of the KoRT Sovjet does not endorse Religious views, feeling that religion and government should remain as seperate entities. Although The KoRT Sovjet allows religious freedoms amoungst its people, religious reasons for or against laws are not considered when voting, thus your statement is void to us." - Vladimir Borislav, Chairman of the KoRT Sovjet

This seems to be an apprioprate method of arguing a biblical reference.

Consider the fact that the Bible is comprised of 66 Books written over a period of about 1500-2000 years by over 40 authors from all walks of life, with different kinds of personalities, and in all sorts of situations. It was written in three languages on three continents, and it covers hundreds of controversial subjects. Yet, it fits together into one cohesive story with an appropriate beginning, a logical ending, a central character, and a consistent theme.

These 40 people, from multiple cultures came from a variety of occupations: kings, fishermen, tax collectors, shepherds, prophets, and even a physician. In all it would be difficult to find a more diverse collection of writers. They run the gamut from Moses, who was highly educated, to Peter, who was a fisherman. Though they wrote at different periods of world history, their writings dovetail with one another, not superficially, but intricately and brilliantly.

How does one begin to explain such historical, structural, prophetic, doctrinal, and spiritual congruency (harmony) apart from the fact that it's real author was Divine?

There is no logical reason why this could not be true. After all, even fallible humans can get things right some of the time, especially if they are supervised by Someone who is infallible.

As delegate of the Sovjet Socialist Republics I agree and hereby say that the official stance of all countries in our union are from now on against the intervention of the UN in the personal matters of state. The seperation of state is less than most would expect but it can not interfer with science. Cloning is an important provision of human sciences but should not be controlled by the UN and its associates but by the region and state.
Official as of seven fifty-three[PM] October the Ninth, 2003

Consider the fact that the Bible is comprised of 66 Books written over a period of about 1500-2000 years by over 40 authors from all walks of life, with different kinds of personalities, and in all sorts of situations. It was written in three languages on three continents, and it covers hundreds of controversial subjects. Yet, it fits together into one cohesive story with an appropriate beginning, a logical ending, a central character, and a consistent theme.

These 40 people, from multiple cultures came from a variety of occupations: kings, fishermen, tax collectors, shepherds, prophets, and even a physician. In all it would be difficult to find a more diverse collection of writers. They run the gamut from Moses, who was highly educated, to Peter, who was a fisherman. Though they wrote at different periods of world history, their writings dovetail with one another, not superficially, but intricately and brilliantly.

How does one begin to explain such historical, structural, prophetic, doctrinal, and spiritual congruency (harmony) apart from the fact that it's real author was Divine?

There is no logical reason why this could not be true. After all, even fallible humans can get things right some of the time, especially if they are supervised by Someone who is infallible.

Since this has nothing to do with the bill at hand, would you mind taking this discussion elsewhere. Thanks.

Consider the fact that the Bible is comprised of 66 Books written over a period of about 1500-2000 years by over 40 authors from all walks of life, with different kinds of personalities, and in all sorts of situations. It was written in three languages on three continents, and it covers hundreds of controversial subjects. Yet, it fits together into one cohesive story with an appropriate beginning, a logical ending, a central character, and a consistent theme.

These 40 people, from multiple cultures came from a variety of occupations: kings, fishermen, tax collectors, shepherds, prophets, and even a physician. In all it would be difficult to find a more diverse collection of writers. They run the gamut from Moses, who was highly educated, to Peter, who was a fisherman. Though they wrote at different periods of world history, their writings dovetail with one another, not superficially, but intricately and brilliantly.

How does one begin to explain such historical, structural, prophetic, doctrinal, and spiritual congruency (harmony) apart from the fact that it's real author was Divine?

There is no logical reason why this could not be true. After all, even fallible humans can get things right some of the time, especially if they are supervised by Someone who is infallible.

Since this has nothing to do with the bill at hand, would you mind taking this discussion elsewhere. Thanks.

Agreed...but I'd like to point out here that if one reads the story of the birth of Buddha...it is very similar to the story of the birth of Jesus. Who's to say all these authors didn't re-write popular stories of their times...which were often told in many far-flung lands by traveling bards...it then would seem to make sense that these different books would seem to dovetail one another, etc.
Who's to say they weren't merely re-qorking the mythology and stories of their times and places into a different, yet similar story that their audiences could relate to?

In short...THERE IS NO PROOF WHATSOEVER THAT THE BIBLE IS ANYTHING MORE THAN A NICE STORY...A BOOK, FILLED WITH PROPHECY, AND TESTIMONIALS. WHICH MEAN ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO NON-CHRISTIANS. SO WHY WOULD WE BASE OUR PERSONAL LIVES, OR THE DIRECTION OF OUR NATIONS, ON A BOOK THAT HOLDS NO MORE VALLUE FOR US THAN ANY OTHER BOOK?

why would you tell christians and non-christians alike to read your argument? your entire spiel is based off your belief of god or christ, which does not apply to everyone. hence, there is no sense to it, as only a percentage of people actually believe in the creation and that scientific progress in that area. besides, just to play devil's advocate, why would your god have allowed humans to progress this far in research if he hadn't meant it to be? and your interpretation of the bible to mean the things you say they do don't mean the same things to all people (take the debate over homosexuality and the bible for example). in short, if you're going to tell everyone to vote against the cloning resolution, use some logic and sense, not your belief in a god to back yourself up...people who don't believe in god or christ automatically won't buy your argument. think this through next time you post.

I see the same thing being said every time a bill is being discussed- they say it threatens a nation's sovereignty. If nations were concerned about that, why would they be joining the UN in the first place? Why would there even be any proposals at all?
Clones are just as human as we are. The process of making them is no less "valid" as what is used right now. If humans can create clones, is this something new? Humans have been reproducing and creating other humans for as long as they've existed. Denying clones rights is denying human beings basic civil liberties- this idea seems just as outrageous as slavery. Religion plays little infuence in the politics of my nation- we believe in thinking for ourselves, not listening to what a book tells you just because its so popular. Truly if there were a god and he forces us to live by such an ascetic lifestyle as some insist, then he could only be a dictator.
The United Socialist States of Etamah has voted FOR this resolution, and urges other nations to help pass this proposal.

As to Etamah and his petty squandering in the world of politics. The main reason for a nation joining the UN is not to be controlled and assimilated, but to be part of a Unity where thoughts and matters can be explained thoroughly and thoughtfully by and with UN delegates and members. This does not give the UN the right and power to control the beliefs of a people. The doings of science should be controlled by the ones paying for it not by the ones waiting for the results. And the separation that is needed (from UN and individual state) is simply a matter of what is needed to be done for a common understanding and to prevent unnecessary warfare. This therfor is the reason for joining a world politcial "court" rather than isolate yourself from global society, hence the United Nations, NOT FOR ONE CAUSE BUT FOR ONE COMMON GOAL.

As to Etamah and his petty squandering in the world of politics. The main reason for a nation joining the UN is not to be controlled and assimilated, but to be part of a Unity where thoughts and matters can be explained thoroughly and thoughtfully by and with UN delegates and members. This does not give the UN the right and power to control the beliefs of a people. The doings of science should be controlled by the ones paying for it not by the ones waiting for the results. And the separation that is needed (from UN and individual state) is simply a matter of what is needed to be done for a common understanding and to prevent unnecessary warfare. This therfor is the reason for joining a world politcial "court" rather than isolate yourself from global society, hence the United Nations, NOT FOR ONE CAUSE BUT FOR ONE COMMON GOAL.

As to Etamah and his petty squandering in the world of politics. The main reason for a nation joining the UN is not to be controlled and assimilated, but to be part of a Unity where thoughts and matters can be explained thoroughly and thoughtfully by and with UN delegates and members. This does not give the UN the right and power to control the beliefs of a people. The doings of science should be controlled by the ones paying for it not by the ones waiting for the results. And the separation that is needed (from UN and individual state) is simply a matter of what is needed to be done for a common understanding and to prevent unnecessary warfare. This therfor is the reason for joining a world politcial "court" rather than isolate yourself from global society, hence the United Nations, NOT FOR ONE CAUSE BUT FOR ONE COMMON GOAL.

As to Etamah and his petty squandering in the world of politics. The main reason for a nation joining the UN is not to be controlled and assimilated, but to be part of a Unity where thoughts and matters can be explained thoroughly and thoughtfully by and with UN delegates and members. This does not give the UN the right and power to control the beliefs of a people. The doings of science should be controlled by the ones paying for it not by the ones waiting for the results. And the separation that is needed (from UN and individual state) is simply a matter of what is needed to be done for a common understanding and to prevent unnecessary warfare. This therfor is the reason for joining a world politcial "court" rather than isolate yourself from global society, hence the United Nations, NOT FOR ONE CAUSE BUT FOR ONE COMMON GOAL.

Did you really have to post that four times? o.0
I'm curious why nations couldn't explain those ideas and matters with each other on their own. Have you as a nation voted for any resolution at all in the UN? Even the ones designed to "prevent unnecissary warfare" would be opposed by someone. How can you say what resolutions would prevent war and which ones do? The fact is, any resolution could be threatening the sovereignty of a nation. Just what is this common goal you're talking about?
I could say any nation were practicing "petty squandering in the world of politics." I don't however, because it's a pretty irrelevant and unconstructive comment. I hope you wouldn't be promoting moving toward a common goal, and would then go insulting other nations for no reason. Your argument would be just as valid or not valid without such pointless comments.

I posted it four times on accident(obviously, I have no reason other than accident to do so! o.0)
You try to be smart but your words are simple. As for my "unconstructive" comment it was in line with your comment on my issue of sovereignty. What right do you have to judge others opinions, that was my point. You seem to think that a "completely global government" would be better than many individual semi-global goverments. The purpose of one common goal is simple, if a majority votes yes then it is obviously acceptable on the world scale, no? And as for my comments i happen to run a nation based on extreme freedom of speech, so I used my right to do so and expressed my feelings with it. Well? :wink:

What right do you have to judge others opinions, that was my point.
...
You try to be smart but your words are simple.
You seem to think that a "completely global government" would be better than many individual semi-global goverments.
And you're not judging? Where did I say I wanted this "completely global government"?
The purpose of one common goal is simple, if a majority votes yes then it is obviously acceptable on the world scale, no?
...
This does not give the UN the right and power to control the beliefs of a people.
If the majority voted yes on this bill I get the impression you wouldn't find it very acceptable.
And as for my comments i happen to run a nation based on extreme freedom of speech,...
As do I.
...so I used my right to do so and expressed my feelings with it. Well? :wink:
That you did. And I expressed mine.

Regardless of personal opinions, you shouldn't impose those opinions upon others. If some wish to clone themselves, let them. It does no harm to you. I agree with Etamah and hope that others do so as well.

I don't understand the complaints with this law.

All it does is give the rights to decide whether or not to clone people or to allow cloning over to each individual government.

As for article 4 it is up to each nation to determine what is and what is not information of civilian nature, and so this article doesn't have any real effect.

You have completely failed to give any "NON-Christians" reason to read this. Your arguments are rooted entirely in the Christian Bible. In the Jingoisitc States of Hutsonia, we believe religion is an individual experience that everyone should interpret for themselves, and we encourage such personal reflection and spiritual development. We also do not believe in the regulation of science. We see no reason to give the option of pursuing cloning to any country who wishes to pursue it, and we believe very strongly in giving ANY human, even a cloned one, the full rights and privileges accorded to anyone. I can see no logical reason to oppose this law, as any country wishing to enact their own legislation preventing or controlling genetic research is still free to do so.

Well, if this law were passed, all nations would be forced to give equal rights to clones IF THEY CHOSE TO DEVELOPE CLONES IN THE FIRST PLACE. If it doesn't pass, nations will be able to freely choose to give full rights to clones on their own accord. The resolution passing would leave all nations forced to give rights.

Vladimir Borislav, Chairman
The United Socialist States of the KoRT Sovjet

Argh, I never thought I'd find myself posting in this forum...but the debate here is generally above the normal quality of the UN forum. I voted no on this resolution, mainly because it does this:

Prevents the banning and/or control of stem cell research.

I have no problem with the resolutions rules on cloning and genetic code ownership, but when it states that a government cannot ban and/or control cloning/stem cell research that is where I vote no. Because cloning is such a divisie issue, I believe that at the moment the UN SHOULD NOT pass any resolution banning cloning and banning banning cloning. this is one of the few issues that should be left up to nations respective governments...

And as for the Bible debate...take it somewhere else, not this thread.

Wether you supported this proposal or not, my proposal "The Essential Right of Self" is currently languishing in hell, needing over 100 votes still. It does overlap the GenetiCorp Convention in some important areas. I urge you to at least take a look at it.

Prevents the banning and/or control of stem cell research.

I have no problem with the resolutions rules on cloning and genetic code ownership, but when it states that a government cannot ban and/or control cloning/stem cell research that is where I vote no. Because cloning is such a divisie issue, I believe that at the moment the UN SHOULD NOT pass any resolution banning cloning and banning banning cloning. this is one of the few issues that should be left up to nations respective governments...



But... it doesn't... Article 3 clearly states that nations shall retain the power to ban/regulate cloning however they see fit. All it does is to prevent the United Nations from banning cloning and or stem cell research.