NationStates Jolt Archive

The Queendom of Mezzenrach has submitted the following for consideration by the delegates to the United Nation. Voting for this proposal ends on Tuesday, March 30 - so please, if you feel that this is something that you can support, visit the UN and vote for the proposal (or ask your delegate to do so).

Thank you very much,
Queen Mezzen

A Ban on Eugenics

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Mezzenrach
Description: Recent advancements in the fields of modern medicine and scientific research, particularly the successful completion of the Human Genome Project have now made possible, even more than any other time in human history, the idea of the creation of the "Perfect Human" through medical assistance.

While the use of medical technology and genetic screening may be of assistance to prevent the birth of children with horrific congenital birth defects, the quest to eliminate all things that do not fit into a specific persons ideal as to what constitutes a "perfect" child is a violation of the rights of natural self-determination, as well as the rights of parents to choose whether or not they desire to have children.

This resolution therefore recommends the following:
1) All research into the cloning, genetic altering (toward the "perfecting" of the human species) and selective breeding of humans be banned.
2) That there be a ban on the establishment of any organizations and/or companies, either state sponsored or individually owned, whose express purpose is the "cleansing" of the human race by removing any individuals who are deemed to be unworthy to reproduce either by forced sterilization, execution or incarceration.
3) That no individual shall be denied the right of reproduction.
4) That no medical testing on the unborn shall be used to force parents to decide to abort any viable foetus.

Okay, a few tings I don't like here, still, good effort, me like, in general.

1) Your proposal only "recommends" rather then defining "Hey, you, quit it!" There is a linky here about with a good list of terms which may suit it better. I know "recommends" is an operative clause, but it just does not have the jargon-istic ring to it, :wink:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=124639

2) I like your clause three, on all having the right to get jiggy with it and reproduce. Good stuff.

3) Number 4 how-ever concerns me, it sounds like your trying to diss pre-birth testing. I suggest you say its okay, and the parents have the right to decide, "without any coercion of any sort" if you know what I mean, they should have the "right to decide and self affirmation on the decision" if that makes any sense, its too early here for me to be awake... :wink:

4) And finally skipping back to the start, you say no cloning "towards the perfecting of the human race..." which concrns me, what about theraputic cloning and the cloning of organs/parts for the ill? That valid medical use is in a sense a perfecting... what say you?

Thats all I got for now, signing off out, and over...

- The Rep of Komokom.

While we abhor eugenics, and all it stands for, we have a few qualms here and there...

3) That no individual shall be denied the right of reproduction.

This is tricky. It might be taken to mandate that the state provide IVF or similar costly treatments to the infertile, or partners to the unattached. We also submit that it should be a choice available to states to deny reproduction to violent criminals, sex offenders or others who could harm children, or to impose limits on family sizes in the interests of population control. Certain jobs - such as certain branches of the military or astronauts - could, at the discretion of individual nations, validly demand that pregnancy not occur within certain periods of service. And so on. Instating reproduction as a right goes too far.

1) All research into the cloning, genetic altering (toward the "perfecting" of the human species) and selective breeding of humans be banned.

This bans research but not the actual implementation. It doesn't take much research to forbid anyone under five foot four from breeding.

We would prefer 'any effort, through genetic engineering or otherwise, to produce a human with a modified genome and allowing it to pass beyond three months gestation.' This would allow things like gene therapy and embryological research while avoiding the eugenic threat.

4) That no medical testing on the unborn shall be used to force parents to decide to abort any viable foetus.

This depends on what 'forcing' is. A medical service could say, 'you don't have to abort, but if you choose not to the child will lose all healthcare benefits.' Does that count as forcing? We're not sure about this one, and will have to consider it.

PDK Orthmann
Ministry of Wu-Wei

While the use of medical technology and genetic screening may be of assistance to prevent the birth of children with horrific congenital birth defects, the quest to eliminate all things that do not fit into a specific persons ideal as to what constitutes a "perfect" child is a violation of the rights of natural self-determination, as well as the rights of parents to choose whether or not they desire to have children.


The what now? How exactly are the rights of self determination in any way, shape, or form, altered or infringed upon when someone uses force to make the action of birth prevention have less negative consequences than its counterpart? Your number of choices is the same!

Example: let's say that I, as the representitive of the government, stand at the ready with a shotgun while you, as a pregnant woman, await the result of your genetic tests. Surprise! Your genetic tests come back unsatisfactory...

Now, there are at least two choices presented before the Government and the Woman. I have the following choices (actually the government has infinite choices, but we are concerned here only with 4):

1. Promise that you will be shot if you go ahead with the unsatisfactory pregnancy.
2. Promise that you will not be shot regardless of whether you go ahead with the pregnancy.
3. Promise that you will be shot if you stop the pregnancy.
4. Promise that you will be shot regardless of whether you go ahead with the pregnancy.

And before you, there are two choices (again, a pregnant woman has infinite choice, but we are only concerned with 2):

1. Go ahead with the pregnancy.
2. Stop the pregnancy.

OK, after both of these choices have been made, I can still choose to shoot you or not. However, if before hand I had promised to not shoot you with the choice you made, that would be contrary to your expectations. If you make one of the choices where you expect to not get shot, it is reasonable to assume that I won't shoot you, and if you made one of the choices where you expect to get shot it would be reasonable to assume that I will in fact shoot you.

But regardless of which choice the government makes, the choices before the woman are exactly the same. In fact, even with this resolution the government has the same choices as regards shooting pregnant women - only the expectations of UN sanctions should it make a choice contrary to such a resolution.

All this resolution does is make it more likely that a government will choose to apply less negative consequences to a woman who chooses to go through with an undesirable pregnancy. But really, why should it be? Why should all nations favor the same choices? Why shouldn't one nation impose penalties on a person who is attempting to alter the next generation in an undesirable manner?

We execute pedophiles on the grounds that they are damaging future generations, if you voluntarily make genetically damaged children, aren't you doing essentially the same thing?

Don't make me come over there.

We expect nobody is paying any attention to the usual spurious reasoning of the deficient nation of Hooglastahn, but we will nonetheless refute their arguments with an air of great patience, as if talking to a small child yet to fully grasp the operation of ethics.

When one renders an option enshrined by a right so unattractive that nobody in their right mind would take it, one violates that right. Let's say I stand by a shiny cream doughnut with a shotgun, and say 'you can take the doughnut if you like, but if you do I'll shoot you.' In one sense I am not preventing you from taking the doughnut, but in any real sense I am. This is how legal systems work.

We punish paedophiles because they're violating the human rights of particularly vulnerable individuals in a particularly nasty way. This is why we treat paedophilia as a more serious offence than inefficient educating or selling junk foods.

When one renders an option enshrined by a right so unattractive that nobody in their right mind would take it, one violates that right.

Hooglastahn is a mentally deficient nation, but this is madness. While you have the right to wear whatever you want, but this does not mean that heavy snow or rain is somehow violating your rights.

You have the right to your own actions, opinions, and expressions so long as you don't interfere with others or yourself. This does not mean that laws fashioned to improve safety, health, and welfare are violating your rights - it means that they aren't.

Bringing a genetically damaged child to term is a drain on the economy and on yourself. Whil laws designed to encourage you to not do so are restrictive of your actions, they are designed for your protection just as they are designed for the protection of others. Similarly, the "no standing on the railing" laws we have for major bridges are restrictive of your actions, but are designed for your protection and the protection of others - so they necessarily do not infringe upon your rights.

The anarcho-hippy maxim "As you harm none, do as thou will" only works as long as you understand and accept the full ramifications of your actions. Genetically damaged children really do have special needs, and a society would be negligent if it did not provide for them. However, this does mean that knowingly carrying one to term is an assault on the economic well being of all peoples in the society. This means that doing so does constitute "harm", and a society is well within its ethical perogatives by regulating such activity.

It is a shame that the cry of "Eugenics" has so often been used to attempt to remove harmless genetic traits such as skin color or nose shape. Such children have no inherent special needs an their presence no more constitutes harm than does any other mouth to feed.

Good night, everyone.

While you have the right to wear whatever you want, but this does not mean that heavy snow or rain is somehow violating your rights.

We said 'one'. Rain or snow isn't anyone; it therefore can't feature as a moral agent. And just because something isn't forbidden doesn't mean it's automatically a right. I don't have a right to do the funky gibbon. There's no law against it, so I can do so if I want, but if the government sees fit to pass a law against doing the funky gibbon no specific rights are violated.

The road to modifying humans to prevent harmful genetic conditions is a slippery one. Heart disease, obesity and various forms of cancer - major killers in developed nations - are predisposed to by genetics. Dispose of those genes! What about depression and alcoholism? Major social ills, predisposed by genes. Hey, this study shows that tall, good-looking men find it easier to get chicks. Who would be so cruel as to damage their child's chances of finding a desirable partner, if they had the considerable money to do so? You know, life's awfully difficult if you're gay, and there might be a gene associated with that, so we'll cut it out just to make sure...

The thing about genes is they have multiple functions. The gene that causes cystic fibrosis if present in two copies is very prevalent among those of West African origin because one copy makes its bearer resistant to malaria. In any population, genetic diversity is the best protection against disease and decay. We consider genetic modification of our own species to be not only deeply unethical but deeply short-sighted.

The gene that causes cystic fibrosis if present in two copies is very prevalent among those of West African origin because one copy makes its bearer resistant to malaria.

Presumably you mean sickle cell aenemia, which in fact actually does that, and not cystic fibrosis, which is capable of defending you against Typhoid when present in one copy. Regardless, we aren't talking about removing people who are carriers of genes that may cause deadly illness when present in more copies - we are talking about preventing the birth of individuals who are crippled by actual genetic defects.

A CF double positive person will most likely not even reproduce - as CF causes trememendous harm to, among other things, the reproductive system. There is no particular concern about preventing the birth of a CF child from a future genetics standpoint - such a child will have no effect on the gene pool of the nation in twenty to forty years any how.

We consider genetic modification of our own species to be not only deeply unethical but deeply short-sighted.

That's puzzling. What do you think you are doing when you decide to do the monkey monkey with a person you find attractive instead of a repulsive human being with open sores? Simply by the act of choosing to have children by some people in preference to others you are genetically modifying the next generation of our species. If you wanted to actually maintain genetic status quo you'd have to force everyone present in this generation to have children with random other people in this generation in equal proportions - and such an act would be as infeasible as it would be barbaric.

Species genetically drift over time - that's how evolution works. If we actually wanted a hands-off approach, we'd let everyone fend for themselves and allow all the people with massively unfavorable genetic dispositions to die off on their own. We don't do that, partially because it is cruel, but also because it doesn't even work very well. There's no genetic selector for traits detrimental to folks over forty, once they've done their reproduction they could jolly well dissolve into jelly for the young to consume for all evolution cares.

We do the opposite, in fact. Those in our society who have damaging traits which in the wild would be fatal are saved and allowed to reproduce with technology. Those who are born with no feet or hands actually get grafts or electro-mechanical replacements and live normal lives. There is nothing wrong with this - we encourage it. Traits which are detrimental in the wild may come with unknown advantages in the present when we can keep these people alive and functioning.

But without that genetic selector, we are losing something. We no longer have direction. A static population is ultimately a doomed one. By not selecting against traits we are not allowing new traits to spread in the population - we are mechanically preventing ourselves from speciating and evolving.

Something has to be done. And evolution is a cruel and fickle mistress with no concern at all for human morals. The only way evolution would allow us to speciate into a form capable of surviving the next cataclysm is by having one individual randomly mutate into having such a beneficial trait and then systematically wiping out all of the offspring of every single other human not descended from that progenitor. That's the way it's always worked before, and frankly I don't want to go through that again.

I don't want to sit back and watch approximately 20 billion people die childless in agony over a hundred and fifty years (minimum) just so that our next speciation event can be done the "natural way". The natural way may have been good enough for nature - but nature is inherently neutral to all ethical concerns. We are not.

If we believe that we need greater radiation resistance, or greater dioxin resistance, or whatever, in order to survive in the long run - we simply are not willing to simply wait until everyone without these traits gets wiped out in a slow, painful, but shockingly systematic fashion. No, we are going to isolate the trait and graft it into the whole next generation.

To do anything else would be to commit the fallacy that "natural equals ethical". It's not. Nature includes all things of beauty, but also every loathesome trespass and hideous sight and act imaginable. Nature has rape, murder, canibalism, and cancer. We are not going to sit back and allow all that to happen just because it's "natural".

We are going to evolve, and people are going to die. If you aren't helping the first, you are helping the latter. Failure to assist evolution doesn't make it go away - it means it takes place at its own pace. Its own pace can take hundreds, or millions, of years.

Not participating in Eugenics is, ultimately, murder. In the most premeditated and loathesome fashion. We don't have to do it now, we don't even have to do it tomorrow. But sooner or later we are going to have to get with the program or die. We've made our choice.

Good night, everyone.

What is with everyone bringing up eugenics lately?

yes i agree the un should be destroyed

I don't know why eugenics has been brought up recently, but it certainly makes a difference to the "gay marriage" threads which have caused such contention.

Anti-Un Nazi leaders: I completely fail to understand how Tuesday Heights' point relates to the destruction of the UN.

ohh i think you know how it related and i agree with u too the un must die

The Shiree sincerely hope that should the study of Eugenics continue within UN nations or without, that there will be many willing volunteers from the ex-nation of Anti-Un Nazi Leaders, to undergo such experimentation.

Imperfect regards
Dexter Kanewitz
Shiree Herald to the IFTA

I have wonderfully novel idea, how about we all accept that God is the maker and creator of all life. That way we can get around this whole issue of eugenics and whether it is right or not and we can get on to more important issues. I know some of you may have picked up on my sarcasm there and I realize that the above reality will probably never occur until Christ is made ruler of all things. To create life and then promptly destroy it with testing is wrong. To decide that a baby is a drain on the economy and society and needs to be aborted is wrong. It is not only wrong, but horrifying and narcissitic as well. The resolution has my full support.

Unashamed Christians

No probs with you doing that in your country, Unashamed Christians. However, we are Unashamed Believe-what-you-likes in Ecopoeia, so we won't be following your lead.

As for eugenics...the comments by Rehochipe and Kappastan have got us all thinking. We will put this proposal to our populace.

Sax Russell
Speaker for Science

I have wonderfully novel idea, how about we all accept that God is the maker and creator of all life. That way we can get around this whole issue of eugenics and whether it is right or not and we can get on to more important issues. I know some of you may have picked up on my sarcasm there and I realize that the above reality will probably never occur until Christ is made ruler of all things. To create life and then promptly destroy it with testing is wrong. To decide that a baby is a drain on the economy and society and needs to be aborted is wrong. It is not only wrong, but horrifying and narcissitic as well. The resolution has my full support.


not much can be added to that one :)
Good word

Unashamed Christians : I have a wonderfully novell idea how bout we all acept some of don't beleave in your god :x and some of don't beleave in any god at all !! :evil: :x

PS 'scuse spelling really early here :shock: need coffee :P

I have wonderfully novel idea, how about we all accept that God is the maker and creator of all life. To create life and then promptly destroy it with testing is wrong.

No problem then. If we accept that some god created all life, then we didn't create the life we are destroying for the purposes of testing and are morally in the clear.

Thanks, that's the best way to shut up religious fanatics I've seen yet.

Good night, everyone.

I have wonderfully novel idea, how about we all accept that God is the maker and creator of all life. To create life and then promptly destroy it with testing is wrong.

No problem then. If we accept that some god created all life, then we didn't create the life we are destroying for the purposes of testing and are morally in the clear.

Thanks, that's the best way to shut up religious fanatics I've seen yet.

Good night, everyone.

I have wonderfully novel idea, how about we all accept that God is the maker and creator of all life. To create life and then promptly destroy it with testing is wrong.

No problem then. If we accept that some god created all life, then we didn't create the life we are destroying for the purposes of testing and are morally in the clear.

Thanks, that's the best way to shut up religious fanatics I've seen yet.

Good night, everyone.

Your logic is just a little bit skewed Kappastan. Yes God creates all life, He creates it with a purpose in mind,
Psalm 139:13-16

"For You formed my inward parts;
You wove me in my mother's womb.
I will give thanks to You, for I am
fearfully and wonderfully made;
Wonderful are Your works,
And my soul knows it very well.
My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the depths of
the earth;
Your eyes have seen my unformed
substance;
And in Your book were all written
The days that were ordained fror me,
When as yet there was not one of
them." (New American Standard Bible)

So yes God does create all life and has a plan for each soul created in this world, and how dare we take away that life that God has so carefully planned and made.

Unashamed Christians

The overall direction of the proposal seems helpful. We should not forcibly manipulate reproduction toward a vision of ideal humanity.

It seems too broad, though. Can we have some room for therapeutic use of cloning and gene splicing? It would not have to be supported by taxes; there is a gtreat public demand which will drive this process.

Your logic is just a little bit skewed Kappastan. Yes God creates all life, He creates it with a purpose in mind,
Psalm 139:13-16

"For You formed my inward parts;
You wove me in my mother's womb.
I will give thanks to You, for I am
fearfully and wonderfully made;
Wonderful are Your works,
And my soul knows it very well.
My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the depths of
the earth;
Your eyes have seen my unformed
substance;
And in Your book were all written
The days that were ordained fror me,
When as yet there was not one of
them." (New American Standard Bible)

So yes God does create all life and has a plan for each soul created in this world, and how dare we take away that life that God has so carefully planned and made.

Unashamed Christians

(Heart felt sigh)

Well at least this one seems rational. :)

Please admit the fact that not every-body is, well, as un-ashamedly christian as you. In fact many of us are not, ashamed or christian at all. In fact, many of us place faith in other gods, and many too do not place faith in any, some of us even prefer to have faith in people and ourselves.

But that aside, I'd just like to ask, as I am curious, what makes the bible from which you quote valid irrefutable evidence, can you prove its relevance to this debate. Sorry, but I see the bible quoted as the be all and end all of debates way to often to further credit it, I suppose at least I give thanks to you for not shouting it in our faces, your a rare beast indeed... :wink:

I am actually writting to say I agree with Collaboration,

The overall direction of the proposal seems helpful. We should not forcibly manipulate reproduction toward a vision of ideal humanity.

And,

It seems too broad, though. Can we have some room for therapeutic use of cloning and gene splicing? It would not have to be supported by taxes; there is a great public demand which will drive this process.

Pretty fair summation of the issue I feel.

Oh, and what about the research of such things as eugenics, will you ban knowledge, or preferrably just its practice?

Final note, will this in any-way effect stem cell research? If it were too, then I would automatically need to vote no... But thats just a minor point right now. :)

In conclusion, it all seems rather tasty so far. Nice work. Just alittle polishing required as suggested by some...

- The Rep of Komokom.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Kappastan: you make some good points. We'll get back to them when our brain is working again.

Unashamed Christians: we'd like to add our voices to the throng of those saying 'we don't care what the Bible says.' The UN, and most of the governments of its member nations, are secular organisations. Even if they weren't, a lot of us don't have high Christian populations. Our own population of Christians is under 0.1%, largely nondenominational. Should the teachings of Christianity be allowed any influence over our policy, they would come behind those of Daoism, Buddhism, Islam, Hayvianism, Ba'hai, pre-Mazdaian Gnosticism, the Universal Polytheist Church, Discordianism and a host of other faiths. We respect your religion and your opinion, but understand that religious-based opinion can have no effect on us, or on UN policy.