NationStates Jolt Archive

BioRights Declaration

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights (buncha busy-bodies)
Strength: Significant (busier than normal)
Proposed by: The free carolinas (congrats on getting a proposal into queue)

Description: The United Nations and its member states shall hereby recognize and henceforth regard the inherent rights of cloned and genetically engineered persons as being the equal of those of naturally born and unmodified persons.

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

Let the debate begin!
As one of this Declarations endorsers, I do support it and will vote accordingly, but clearly it doesn't go far enough. We need a further resolution to propose similar rights for Artificial Intelligence programs and uploaded human personalities on the 'Net. Such a proposal will guarantee the rights of AI's and thus limit their interest in going Replicant like the late and notorious ex-Agent Smith.

As for this Declaration. If you're human, then you're human and how you got here doesn't matter half so much as what you do after you get here. Clearly a similar bill endorsing human rights for non-Humans that can pass a sapience test should also be proposed for bio-forms along with an AI rights bill.

Emperor Pro-Tem "Big D"

I also intend to vote for this resolution. All humans have equal rights, no matter how they got here.

The Confederacy of Alphared declares that this proposal is representitive of it's values, and that a positive vote from this member-nation will be tendered (once this member-nation figures out how that is exactly done :oops: ).

I fully agree with this proposal.

It does not say that you must agree or disagree with ge you should treat humans like humans.

It has my full support.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Full New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

I like the idea, and may well vote for it when it comes to the floor, but I am troubled by a couple of scenarios at the extreme ends of the spectrum:

1) What if an organism was created with a genome taken from a human, but modified to such an extent that they bore about as much resemblance to a human as a dog, and had the intelligence of, say, a frog. Would they still have to have the same rights as a human, and wouldn't it therefore make sense that if we give this organism those rights, frogs are just as deserving of those rights?

2) If a modified human was created with abilities so enhanced but their behaviour was unpredictable so that they might pose a severe threat to others around them, could they still be imprisoned for others' safety before they had the chance to do commit a crime, given that human rights would include the right not to be locked away without being charged of committing a crime?

These points may or may not make sense, I'm kind of tired so I'm probably missing something.

Really, we don't think genetically modified or cloned individuals should be allowed to come into being in the first place, but if an irresponsible regime has screwed up in this respect we understand the need to protect the rights of such individuals.

Lindim supports this act, and is frankly surpised enough delegates actually bothered to endorse it. Not an insult against the act, but against certain delegates that do nothing. However, a needed act and will be incorporated into the World Body Act.

if a person or corporation spends all the money to produce something like a clone, they should own it.

to argue otherwise is to argue against patent law, and therefore against private property itself.

this awful bill is, therefore, communist. we therefore oppose it.

besides, there are no clones anyways. except in our top-secret government military labs, and we wouldn't let something as petty as "rights" stop us from controlling our soldiers.

bah. communists. :evil:

I have one problem with this proposal. It gives clones the right to vote, and therefore, essentially gives one person two votes on the same issue simply for being a clone. I am against this proposal as written.

Giving a clone the vote is not the same as giving one person two votes. To be genetically identical is no guarantee of the same personality, or views. Clones should be regarded as identical twins (except for the fact that they are not born at the same time). Bursledon fully supports this proposal. To reject it would set a dangerous precedent with regards to genetic discrimination.

I have one problem with this proposal. It gives clones the right to vote, and therefore, essentially gives one person two votes on the same issue simply for being a clone. I am against this proposal as written.
That's not really how cloning works. Your genetic makeup has no bearing on your political standings; that's determined by your upbringing, etc. A cloned person is NOT a copy of the original as much as it is a new, different individual, because so much of someone is determined not by their genes, but by their experiences in life. (Also, the clone would be younger than the original.)

EDIT: I am quite surprised that someone who hardly ever posts gets beaten to the punch, but that's what happened here.

Technology to replicate a consciousness does not currently exist. A clone is an individual, with different experiences and outlooks on life.

Any self-aware entity should have rights, and hence if a clone is self-aware and not engineered to be a threat or menace, then they should have rights, too.

If this passes, stem cell research and growing donor organs will be impossible!

Please, vote against!

Stem cells and vat-grown donor organs aren't humans. Therefore, they're unaffected by this proposal.

I like the idea, and may well vote for it when it comes to the floor, but I am troubled by a couple of scenarios at the extreme ends of the spectrum:

1) What if an organism was created with a genome taken from a human, but modified to such an extent that they bore about as much resemblance to a human as a dog, and had the intelligence of, say, a frog. Would they still have to have the same rights as a human, and wouldn't it therefore make sense that if we give this organism those rights, frogs are just as deserving of those rights?

2) If a modified human was created with abilities so enhanced but their behaviour was unpredictable so that they might pose a severe threat to others around them, could they still be imprisoned for others' safety before they had the chance to do commit a crime, given that human rights would include the right not to be locked away without being charged of committing a crime?

This man makes good sense, pay him heed!

This proposal is foolish and flawed, think before your knee-jerk reaction carries you in-favour.

I would support it if it specified the extent of modification but it does not, would you really want some genetic accident to have the same rights as you? Hell no!

Wake up, please.

Giving a clone the vote is not the same as giving one person two votes. To be genetically identical is no guarantee of the same personality, or views. Clones should be regarded as identical twins (except for the fact that they are not born at the same time). Bursledon fully supports this proposal. To reject it would set a dangerous precedent with regards to genetic discrimination.

Actually yes it is...

...Again people i ask you to think clearly. If a corrupt party created thousands of clones and nurtured them then they would vote for the corrupt party. They would owe their existence to the party in government and so would in gratitude vote for them, after-all they have been created, looked after and gifted by the gov't.
However this would be at the detriment of us normal individuals who may be violated by the corrupt and viscious gov't.

Basically it would allow nations to breed voters by cloning them, giving them desirable characteristics and a dominant role in the suppression of us 'normals'. This would make a "Democratic Dictatorship" and we'd be powerless to stop it.

DO NOT PASS THIS PROPOSAL.

IF YOU HAVE, REVISE IT.

You do not know what harm you are inflicting on the world, on the future, on your children and grandchildren.

TNE

I am recommending a vote against this to all Delegates and members -

This proposal not only gives rights to clones, but sanctions cloning and genetic engineering in the first place. If we were intended to play God, then we would be God. We have enough population problems in the world as it is, and there are better (and quite frankly, easier) ways to cue diseases without unnaturally creating life. Cloning is bad! Let natural selection take it's course! VOTE AGAINST THIS RESOLUTION!


I may be seen voting FOR this resolution, but that would be because I always vote alongside my region in order to properly represent them. I am recommending that they vote AGAINST it, but their votes are up to them...

Also, this is probably the last time I will post here, as the forum hates me. :lol:

Human rights I can agree with.....but is this really an issue? To my knowledge there are no cloned humans. Can we stop wasting time with these frivolous resolutions?

Human rights I can agree with.....but is this really an issue? To my knowledge there are no cloned humans. Can we stop wasting time with these frivolous resolutions?
Cloning occurs, and is legal in some countries, admittedly mine isn't one of them but it happens.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

I'll support it.

By opposing it would be descriminatory against these peoples

I'll support it.

By opposing it would be descriminatory against these peoples

You would pass a resolution which can easily result in the transformation of a nation from stable democracy to democratic dictatorship on account that it might be "descriminatory"?

Option 1) *In Favour*

"I'll overlook the ease with which this can be used in order to collapse the foundations of democracy, indeed of society itself. I will surrender the rights my individuality gives me in order to support these genetic abnormals who in almost ever nation do not exist and are already prevented from being brought into being."

Option 2) *Opposed*

"I will take note of the fact that giving clones such rights as the right to vote will give evil governments a very simple means of remaining in power, what's worse, remaining apparently justly in power while they abuse the 'normals' who would now be a minority. I wish to keep democracy democratic and not open to abuse by allowing government to clone and edit themselves a loyal electorate. I will vote against in order to ensure freedom. There are very very very very few cloned individuals anyway. If any."


I vote against.

I'll support it.

By opposing it would be descriminatory against these peoples

You would pass a resolution which can easily result in the transformation of a nation from stable democracy to democratic dictatorship on account that it might be "descriminatory"?


To speak only for myself…

I would not make someone less of a person because of how they might vote.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

I like the idea, and may well vote for it when it comes to the floor, but I am troubled by a couple of scenarios at the extreme ends of the spectrum:

1) What if an organism was created with a genome taken from a human, but modified to such an extent that they bore about as much resemblance to a human as a dog, and had the intelligence of, say, a frog. Would they still have to have the same rights as a human, and wouldn't it therefore make sense that if we give this organism those rights, frogs are just as deserving of those rights?

2) If a modified human was created with abilities so enhanced but their behaviour was unpredictable so that they might pose a severe threat to others around them, could they still be imprisoned for others' safety before they had the chance to do commit a crime, given that human rights would include the right not to be locked away without being charged of committing a crime?

These points may or may not make sense, I'm kind of tired so I'm probably missing something.The resolution imposes no restriction on the government's ability to regulate the uses of genetic engineering or cloning. If they don't wish to allow the creation of such organisms, they don't have to, however it does protect these lifeforms in the event that they are created.

The resolution imposes no restriction on the government's ability to regulate the uses of genetic engineering or cloning. If they don't wish to allow the creation of such organisms, they don't have to, however it does protect these lifeforms in the event that they are created.

It protects them too much, this proposal would be just if it set limits but it does not, this flaw gives it infinite capacity for evil.

Simple as that.

GM-modify millions of dumbass 'humans' who know no better then to vote for the hand that feeds them although the same hand stikes down and abuses the genetically normal. It seems farfetched but if this is passed it will become very simple for a corrupt gov't to do such a thing.

We clone, and don't splice human stock although others do.

At what point is a tiger-person more tiger than person? How do we define "person", or "human"? By percentage of DNA?

I would like to point out that one does not need to be a clone for the government to be able to brainwash them into voting however the government chooses.

Millions of 'dumbass humans' already just vote for the hand that feeds them. Many of the so-called democracies that exist today are really nothing more than a few individuals brainwahing the rest of the population into voting for them.

Oh great Northern B, so we need to make it even easier do we?

Is that what you're telling me?

"Hey, the world isn't perfect...lets vote to make it worse!"


What sort of UN member are you? :evil:

Rally against the proposal!!

Convert those who don't see the harm this can cause!!

Vote against, if you voted 'in favour' then there is still time for you to see sense and switch it back...look at the sheer common sense of overturning it.

Why is common sense so damnably rare?

The arguments against the proposal are a bit backwards. First, the issue is not whether or not cloning is to be recognized as a legal or acceptable means of bringing someone into the world. In many places, giving birth out of wedlock is neither legal or acceptable. The fact is it still happens. Scientists have cloned mice and sheep. It is only a matter of time, legal or not, taboo or not, until someone clones a human. Like a baby born out of wedlock, a cloned human should share equal rights with everyone else.

Second, regarding the concern that a corrupt government would breed and nurture voters to support their own cause, corrupt governments are already corrupt and most likely already have the mechanisms in place to keep themselves in power. This is why most dictatorships that hold "open elections" tend to win 100% of the vote. In addition, passing this resolution means that governments do NOT have ownership of cloned humans. Strong enforcement measures would ensure that a rouge nation could not, then, breed a voter base. Rejecting this resolution, on the other hand, gives these nations a free pass to grow themselves a majority vote, or even a genetic army.

What defines a "person" Some defines a person at the moment of conception (when the egg is fertilized) others when it's recongnized as a humanoid form (fetus) and still others when it is actually born.

What is a clone. Does it have to be humanoid? At what point is it declared to have life? When the Cells are viable?

These are important questions, for if it's choice 1) then Stem cell research would be deemed inhumane. If the cells being viable means it's alive, then "growing organs" would then be illegal for the organ must have the right to choose if it wants to be implanted (stupid, but lawyers have argued and won on even dumber grounds.)

Would it be guaranteed that the clone would not have it's owner's brainwaves "copied" over to the new body (ooc: yea it's stupid but this is going into the realms of Sci-Fi where anything is possible) If not, what's preventing some rich individual cloning himself several times to get a friend/puppet elected into office?

How would DNA evidence be affected? who's to say which clone did the crime since all will share the same DNA. (any form of tattoos or marking would be deemed discriminatory and violates their newly won/given rights)

people vote yes, cus it's a feel good proposal... but they are blind to the effects this very vague proposal will bring.

The arguments against the proposal are a bit backwards. First, the issue is not whether or not cloning is to be recognized as a legal or acceptable means of bringing someone into the world. In many places, giving birth out of wedlock is neither legal or acceptable. The fact is it still happens. Scientists have cloned mice and sheep. It is only a matter of time, legal or not, taboo or not, until someone clones a human. Like a baby born out of wedlock, a cloned human should share equal rights with everyone else.

They should on principle but not in reality for it would leave the system very open to abuse. That fact cannot be denied.

Second, regarding the concern that a corrupt government would breed and nurture voters to support their own cause, corrupt governments are already corrupt and most likely already have the mechanisms in place to keep themselves in power. This is why most dictatorships that hold "open elections" tend to win 100% of the vote. In addition, passing this resolution means that governments do NOT have ownership of cloned humans. Strong enforcement measures would ensure that a rouge nation could not, then, breed a voter base. Rejecting this resolution, on the other hand, gives these nations a free pass to grow themselves a majority vote, or even a genetic army.

Passing this would mean they do not have ownership of the clones but the cloned people would still owe their lives to the organisation which brought them into being. This is as good as ownership and so passing this does no good and a great deal of bad.
Passing it gives every nation a free-hand to grow an army or a baised electorate or a personal security sefvise with which to suppress the genetically normal.

Do we want this? No, we don't.

Simple.

..and so we have concluded that the only justifiable response is to overturn the said UN proposal.

If pasted my nation will withdrawal from the UN.

By the vagueness of the proposal, giving a clone the same rights as a human means what exactly?

That after a certain stage, it couldn't be aborted?

Or that until it reaches a certain stage, it could be aborted.

If you look at it the first way, stem cell and other research could be hampered.

If you look at it the second way, scientists could create thousands of clones for research purposes conviently aborting them when they reach the viability period depending on the country.

Think twice before voting for this too vaguely worded bill.

again, alot of us are of the mind that this bill is wrong, however the Sheep votes are winning.

I'll support it.

By opposing it would be descriminatory against these peoples

You would pass a resolution which can easily result in the transformation of a nation from stable democracy to democratic dictatorship on account that it might be "descriminatory"?

Option 1) *In Favour*

"I'll overlook the ease with which this can be used in order to collapse the foundations of democracy, indeed of society itself. I will surrender the rights my individuality gives me in order to support these genetic abnormals who in almost ever nation do not exist and are already prevented from being brought into being."

Option 2) *Opposed*

"I will take note of the fact that giving clones such rights as the right to vote will give evil governments a very simple means of remaining in power, what's worse, remaining apparently justly in power while they abuse the 'normals' who would now be a minority. I wish to keep democracy democratic and not open to abuse by allowing government to clone and edit themselves a loyal electorate. I will vote against in order to ensure freedom. There are very very very very few cloned individuals anyway. If any."


I vote against.

Governments could also use artificial insemination from sperm banks and the like to raise voters or just use the good old fashioned way - why is this any different?

If you ban cloning for this reason, you might as well ban having sex - they both produce the same outcome.

Most people have the misconception that to clone a person is to make an indentical copy of them in a very short space of time. This is rubbish. Cloning re-creates the genes of the person, not what he has learned or experienced. A cloned human will have the same number of chromosomes as a child created sexually, be gestated by a woman, would ethically be human and a person.

while i understand the idea that a party could "clone voters" it really wouldnt be as simple as that. to actually affect a vote, it would require millions of clones, and they would have to mature to voting age. that concept in and of itself is unreasonable. it is unpractical for anyone to clone voters, and if they had the resources to do so, they would become the leader by cheaper and more effective means. there are plenty of ways that people are influenced to vote a certain way without being cloned. propoganda isnt nearly as expensive as millions of cloned human beings. is it more of a threat that governments would be crazy enough to spend billions, even trillions of dollars to clone voters who after 18 years will be able to have the chance to effect a vote, or is it worse that coorporations could clone slaves. that would wreak havoc on the economy and civil rights. when jobs suddenly disapear to unpaid clones who work in sweat shops who have no rights, i say that country is headed for disaster.

to all you opposed to this resolution, hear me out. the only arguable issue would be how extensive could an engineered human be, and still recieve rights. i propose we pass this bill immediately. when the occasion arises, we can revive the issue to create an ammendment, but at the present, there is no real way to modify humans in a specific desireable fashion. cross one bridge at a time.

- UN Delegate of Brownsburg

What about genetically altered persons? Gene spliced entities?

[OOC: remember, this resolution breaks the boundaries of conventional science and enteres the SCI-FI realms. Anything goes now!]

Clones/gene altered beings can be subjected to advanced growth (some nations profess a greater technological civilization,) Mind Imprinting, and be made faster than the 'Natural' way. Also Clones may not have the same number of genetic codings. remember the proposal includes "Genetically engeneered persons" as well.

The nutcases against this law are forgetting that this resolution works the other way too... that dictators could ONLY allow clones to vote and gain the vote that way.

On the other hand, if this resolution is overturned, then nations could use it to make clone armies.

As this is my first post on the forum, I'll first of all greet all the people participating in it. Now, on to the main topic. I have read some remarks on the UN proposal in favour of human rights for clones/genetically modified individuals. The Government of LawAlone distinguishes its citizens in two groups: honest and criminals.
The first group has a full right to self-determination and the seeking of happiness (and so forth) while no rights at all (not even *life*) can be granted to the second group. Now, as the Government of LawAlone sees no link between clones and criminals in general, LawAlone will support the resolution :!:
Sincerely,
The Dictator of LawAlone

As this is my first post on the forum, I'll first of all greet all the people participating in it. Now, on to the main topic. I have read some remarks on the UN proposal in favour of human rights for clones/genetically modified individuals. The Government of LawAlone distinguishes its citizens in two groups: honest and criminals.
The first group has a full right to self-determination and the seeking of happiness (and so forth) while no rights at all (not even *life*) can be granted to the second group. Now, as the Government of LawAlone sees no link between clones and criminals in general, LawAlone will support the resolution :!:
Sincerely,
The Dictator of LawAlone

Governments could also use artificial insemination from sperm banks and the like to raise voters or just use the good old fashioned way - why is this any different?

If you ban cloning for this reason, you might as well ban having sex - they both produce the same outcome.

Most people have the misconception that to clone a person is to make an indentical copy of them in a very short space of time. This is rubbish. Cloning re-creates the genes of the person, not what he has learned or experienced. A cloned human will have the same number of chromosomes as a child created sexually, be gestated by a woman, would ethically be human and a person.

1) "Governments could also use artificial insemination from sperm banks and the like to raise voters or just use the good old fashioned way - why is this any different?"

Yeah, if they had millions of women they could inseminate, which they don't.

2) "If you ban cloning for this reason, you might as well ban having sex - they both produce the same outcome."

Actually no. You see clones are all the same and would all owe their lives to the oppressive gov't, normally produced people wouldn't. Millions of cloes with the same genes are rather different from millions of people who'd be born anyway.

3) "Most people have the misconception that to clone a person is to make an indentical copy of them in a very short space of time. This is rubbish."

This is true, so what if the gestation period is the same? You can recreate a clone millions of times and they'd all be the same. Not what you want. They'd also all owe their lives to one single organisation, one gov't.

4) "A cloned human will have the same number of chromosomes as a child created sexually, be gestated by a woman, would ethically be human and a person."

Read the proposal, it includes modification. Is a man crossed with a dankey still a man with right to vote? Is a man of subnormal intelligence but loyalty to an evil government due the right to vote?
Where do we draw the line?

Answer, we cannot, the proposal does not specify. A nation could breed subhumans in order that they may vote in ways they want or superhumans so that they could excel in areas others cannot.

Do we want this?

No.

Yakostanesia, to this date, no admendment has been passed to alter a previous resolution. Sheep votes as well as supporters of Feel Good resolutions will kill anything sounding remotely wrong to them. the same suggestion can be to kill this bill and have the author re-write it and re-submit.

If cloning is done so cheaply and easily in your nation, then employment problems as well as clone rights are your concern, not ours. if the extent of genetic engeneering is the only arugable problem you see in this resolution, then IMHO, you did not read the resolution well enough.

Here are my concerns. it does not Define CLONE well enough. Cloning organs would become illegal. Stem Cell Research would become Illegal. Nations that ban cloning would be accused of discrimination for not granting clones the basic right to life.

Defaultia, they can do that now. raise armies I mean, after all, compulsory Military service does not infringe on rights. There are military posistions for pasifists. The only thing this does is hamper control over cloning and genetic engeneering.

Governments could also use artificial insemination from sperm banks and the like to raise voters or just use the good old fashioned way - why is this any different?

If you ban cloning for this reason, you might as well ban having sex - they both produce the same outcome.

Most people have the misconception that to clone a person is to make an indentical copy of them in a very short space of time. This is rubbish. Cloning re-creates the genes of the person, not what he has learned or experienced. A cloned human will have the same number of chromosomes as a child created sexually, be gestated by a woman, would ethically be human and a person.

1) "Governments could also use artificial insemination from sperm banks and the like to raise voters or just use the good old fashioned way - why is this any different?"

Yeah, if they had millions of women they could inseminate, which they don't.

2) "If you ban cloning for this reason, you might as well ban having sex - they both produce the same outcome."

Actually no. You see clones are all the same and would all owe their lives to the oppressive gov't, normally produced people wouldn't. Millions of cloes with the same genes are rather different from millions of people who'd be born anyway.

3) "Most people have the misconception that to clone a person is to make an indentical copy of them in a very short space of time. This is rubbish."

This is true, so what if the gestation period is the same? You can recreate a clone millions of times and they'd all be the same. Not what you want. They'd also all owe their lives to one single organisation, one gov't.

4) "A cloned human will have the same number of chromosomes as a child created sexually, be gestated by a woman, would ethically be human and a person."

Read the proposal, it includes modification. Is a man crossed with a dankey still a man with right to vote? Is a man of subnormal intelligence but loyalty to an evil government due the right to vote?
Where do we draw the line?

Answer, we cannot, the proposal does not specify. A nation could breed subhumans in order that they may vote in ways they want or superhumans so that they could excel in areas others cannot.

Do we want this?

No.

You are falling victim to Hollywood and the junk science that comes with it. Let's say that a government (or corporation, whatever) did want to use cloning to create voters/workers. To start with, cloning requires in vitro fertilization, which is expensive and inefficient, with only a 20% success rate. Secondly, you'd have to wait at least 16 years before they were of any use to you. It has no logic at all. You might as well indoctrinate 'normal' humans.

Cloning is no more 'evil' than artificial insemination. It's just another way of reproducing. You could be a clone and not even know it. Like I said - creating a clone DOES NOT replicate memories or ideas - only genes. Trying to exactly recreate a person millions of times would be a collosal waste of time, money and effort. Technically speaking, identical twins are clones of each other - but, of coures, each individual twin can and will behave in a way completely different to his clone.

Please read up on the exact process of cloning to find out why they would not be pre-programmed to think one way or another: http://science.howstuffworks.com/cloning.htm

As for breeding genetic supermen/sub-humans, if anything this resolution would be a good thing for them. It would prevent exploitation.

Yakostanesia, to this date, no admendment has been passed to alter a previous resolution. Sheep votes as well as supporters of Feel Good resolutions will kill anything sounding remotely wrong to them. the same suggestion can be to kill this bill and have the author re-write it and re-submit.

If cloning is done so cheaply and easily in your nation, then employment problems as well as clone rights are your concern, not ours. if the extent of genetic engeneering is the only arugable problem you see in this resolution, then IMHO, you did not read the resolution well enough.

Here are my concerns. it does not Define CLONE well enough. Cloning organs would become illegal. Stem Cell Research would become Illegal. Nations that ban cloning would be accused of discrimination for not granting clones the basic right to life.

Defaultia, they can do that now. raise armies I mean, after all, compulsory Military service does not infringe on rights. There are military posistions for pasifists. The only thing this does is hamper control over cloning and genetic engeneering.

First off, when you say "If cloning is done so cheaply and easily in your nation, then employment problems as well as clone rights are your concern, not ours." I first argue that I never said that. I said that coororations will use clones as investments for free labor, OR if clones have no rights, they could be bought or sold as slaves and be forced to work for free. This would happen regardless of how expensive and/or easily a country can clone. Your argument on stem cell research and oran cloning not being legal is absurd. This legislation specifies for PERSONS, not organs. Last time I checked, non-cloned organs dont even have the same rights as regular people. It specificly states cloned or geneticly engineered PERSONS. Therefore genetic accidents or cross breeds would not qualify. I believe that everyone knows the difference between a person and a non-person. As for saying there has never been an amendment passed yet, that means nothing to me. It doesnt mean its impossible. Plus we don't even have a need for such an amendment yet. Keep your eyes on the issue at hand. Support the rights of cloned and geneticly enginered individuals.

I think many members are missing the point of this issue. It is an issue of treatment of individuals of a distinct group, a group not otherwise represented. It is not an issue of endorsement for or against that group.

Yakostenesia:
Define Person, No wait, lets bring out the flaws of this resolution. QUOTE ME FROM THE RESOLUTION the definition of person.

What makes a person different from animals? Self awareness? Some animals (simians and Primates) have a rudementary awarness of self? Horses think in terms of Herds, Part of a group whole... you know, like how most major corporations want their employees to think. Communications? Insects and animals have a complex system of communications that compared to us humans, would be far advanced.

Homo Sapiens as persons?

When you start mixing genetics, where does the line get drawn between man and animal? once the door gets opened, what happens? What percentage will it take for a person to "loose" his standing as a person? 20%? 50%? 90%?

When they breed (their inherent right to propogate their species) they would be a viable new spiecies thus not Homo Sapiens.

A person is someone who looks like us?

Charles Manson, Ted Bundy and several others throughout history looked like us but committed acts so abhorrant that they don't even qualify as animalistic. Gene altered persons may not look like us, does that disqualify them?

Granted to clone the millions you mentioned may take some time (High Tech Nations not withstanding) but this resolution does not regulate such activities. Should this get passed, it's so vauge that Amendments are needed. So again, why not kill the bill and re-write it so that all concerns are met?

And just because it states PERSON... when does a Zygote (fertilized egg) become a person? Stem Cells are taken from unborn fetuses? Those stem cells are used to clone organs. Qualify a Zygote a PERSON, and yes, abortions, stem cell research, and organ cloning would become illegal. Major advances in Medical science would be halted.

When that happens, only those who have tech to clone without the stem cells would be free to continue. they would own a vitural monopoly on cloned organs.

Slaves, Hell yes I'm against slavery. but this resolution is so vague, I'm against it. Better a resolution regulating the cloning first. Then work on the rights. (which would be considered redundant since the clones would fall under citizens of their nation, thus protected by past resolutions.) Corporations already use low cost, cheap to the point of slavery workers in third world countries. so nothing changes with this resolution passing.

and again. No Admendment thus far has gotten to quorum. Your idea to fix the resolution with admendments is wishful thinking at best. (tho you are free to try... like I am.)

Alphared:
This resolution does not make that distinction. Due to that, Supporting the person or group also supports the group and Activites (in this case, cloning and genetically alterations.)

His Holiness the Governor-General extends to this body his concern over this current United Nations Resolution, `BioRights Declaration'.
His Holiness believes the language to be so vague as this resolution may actually cause considerable harm and inequity. Particularly the phrase `... as being the equal of those of naturally born and unmodified persons' is suspect of an ulterior motive.

1) There are already numerous resolutions that specify how human beings are to be treated, yet this resolution differentiates between humans, human clones, and modified humans; and even suggests modified human clones. Such distinction is itself obviously a dedication in favour of apartheid.
2) This resolution does not, in any way, define what `genetically engineered persons' are. A garden vegetable with a minute amount of human DNA could be interpretted as a `genetically engineered persons', which would make a mockery of this assembly. The true danger is a human with a minute quantity of vegetable DNA, for possibly a chloriphyl metablism, could be considered a garden vegetable instead of a human being!
3) Given the above there is a very real danger of a government arbitrarily declaring a subject `not human' and condemning the new `property' to a lifetime of slavery, all under the auspicies of this very act!

His Holiness the Governor-General therefore most vehemently objects to this resolution, wishes other nations will do the same, and will remain adamant in his decision until the language of the resolution is suitable for ratification.

[signed]
The Bishop Fred al-Rubei of The Directorate of Foreign Relations of The Dominion of North East Cathanistan

His Holiness the Governor-General extends to this body his concern over this current United Nations Resolution, `BioRights Declaration'.
His Holiness believes the language to be so vague as this resolution may actually cause considerable harm and inequity. Particularly the phrase `... as being the equal of those of naturally born and unmodified persons' is suspect of an ulterior motive.

1) There are already numerous resolutions that specify how human beings are to be treated, yet this resolution differentiates between humans, human clones, and modified humans; and even suggests modified human clones. Such distinction is itself obviously a dedication in favour of apartheid.
2) This resolution does not, in any way, define what `genetically engineered persons' are. A garden vegetable with a minute amount of human DNA could be interpretted as a `genetically engineered persons', which would make a mockery of this assembly. The true danger is a human with a minute quantity of vegetable DNA, for possibly a chloriphyl metablism, could be considered a garden vegetable instead of a human being!
3) Given the above there is a very real danger of a government arbitrarily declaring a subject `not human' and condemning the new `property' to a lifetime of slavery, all under the auspicies of this very act!

His Holiness the Governor-General therefore most vehemently objects to this resolution, wishes other nations will do the same, and will remain adamant in his decision until the language of the resolution is suitable for ratification.

[signed]
The Bishop Fred al-Rubei of The Directorate of Foreign Relations of The Dominion of North East Cathanistan

His Holiness the Governor-General extends to this body his concern over this current United Nations Resolution, `BioRights Declaration'.
His Holiness believes the language to be so vague as this resolution may actually cause considerable harm and inequity. Particularly the phrase `... as being the equal of those of naturally born and unmodified persons' is suspect of an ulterior motive.

1) There are already numerous resolutions that specify how human beings are to be treated, yet this resolution differentiates between humans, human clones, and modified humans; and even suggests modified human clones. Such distinction is itself obviously a dedication in favour of apartheid.
2) This resolution does not, in any way, define what `genetically engineered persons' are. A garden vegetable with a minute amount of human DNA could be interpretted as a `genetically engineered persons', which would make a mockery of this assembly. The true danger is a human with a minute quantity of vegetable DNA, for possibly a chloriphyl metablism, could be considered a garden vegetable instead of a human being!
3) Given the above there is a very real danger of a government arbitrarily declaring a subject `not human' and condemning the new `property' to a lifetime of slavery, all under the auspicies of this very act!

His Holiness the Governor-General therefore most vehemently objects to this resolution, wishes other nations will do the same, and will remain adamant in his decision until the language of the resolution is suitable for ratification.

[signed]
The Bishop Fred al-Rubei of The Directorate of Foreign Relations of The Dominion of North East Cathanistan

His Holy Majesty's Government shares some of these concerns; what, exactly, is a genetically engineered person? If we were to splice DNA from other species, or insert synthetic genes of our own, such that the majority of the DNA is not from a human being, is the result human? What if this result feels, thinks, and looks like a human, but only has minority human DNA?

We also share some of Ichi Ni's concerns, particuarly as to when during the stages of pregnency, or whatever process is being used in High Tech Nations, a clump of cells becomes a person under this resolution.

We would also like to know what you define as "naturally born and unmodified"?

Until our concerns are addressed, His Holy Majesty's government will withold its support, and will encourage other nations to do the same.

Sir Septimus Vasard, Secretary of State for the United Nations.

I had hoped that we would begin avoiding resolutions with imprecise, inadequate and vague wording. Obviously I was wrong.

Do the members of this body really and truly feel that we can, with the writing of one small paragraph, ensure equal rights for all biological people? Please. This topic is entirely too large to be covered in a pithy little submission like we have here.

Does that mean that the proposer's heart is in the wrong place? No. In fact, we certainly should address this issue. However, it needs to be in the proper way--formally, not as a "please God, give me SOMETHING to vote on" selection like we've been given.

Problems:
1. Exactly what rights are to be extended to them? Even if you are feeding off a previous UN resolution, you should name it. Otherwise this gives nations no direction as to what they are supposed to enforce.
2. What do these scientific terms mean? Genetically altered? Engineered?

Resolutions must needs be precise and clear. We recently defeated a proposal that was actually well written, but had faults. Now I know its been almost a whole gosh darned week since you've been able to vote, but that doesn't mean we should go backwards to the time where anything was passed.

Good ideas are only the beginning of the process. Wording is just as important and should not be compromised on for the sake of passing something.

Bootai-Bootai disagrees with the objections raised by others regarding the proposed resolution. If a lack of a definition of "person" is a weakness of this resolution, then it is a weakness of all human rights resolutions, and if the hypothetical situations to which you refer occur, then clarification of what a person is would be required regardless of whether this resolution is passed or not. In the near- to mid-future, we will most likely not have to deal with situations that are as extreme as you are describing- in the near-future,individuals that will have gentic modifications (such as for treating disease) or will be the result of cloning will have a fully human genome and physiology. The possible exigencies of more advanced genetic engineering should not be addressed now, since the specifics of such exigencies will be shaped by scientific advances, implementation and technological advances, and social and economic factors that we cannot imagine.

In the opinion of Bootai-Bootai, the real weakness of this resolution is that it really does not add anything truly substantial to already established human rights resolutions. However, it does reaffirm that human rights extend to humans who are the result of or have undergone these procedures (though it is not obvious that this is required), and so it recieves the support of the nation of Bootai-Bootai. Bootai-Bootai agrees with other nations that the resolution would have been made stronger with brief descriptions of the technology being referred to.

His Holiness the Governor-General acknowledges the existing human rights definitions and asserts his objections are because because human rights are of primary concern to him and the peoples of North East Cathanistan.

It is not a matter of `brief descriptions', it is a matter of *LEGAL* definitions. No nation, committed to the protection and embetterment of her citizens, should attempt to enact laws on such feeble terms. Any such practice only leads to tyrany and cronyism.

His Holiness would suggest the optimal solution to this issue, and the issue of human rights in general, would be to:
1) reject this resolution as toothless at best, and nightmarishly frightening at worst
2) define `sentience'
3) draft a resolution defining the rights and liberties for all sentients, which must include an ammendment proceedure
4) repeal all previous human rights legislation on the successful adoption of the new standard regarding all sentients

[signed]
Mayor-Captain Walid Stevens of The Maximum Veracity Directorate of The Dominion of North East Cathanistan, Consul of Law & Order to His Holiness the Governor-General

Technically, unless otherwise programmed, clones have the same mental capacity as a normal human. They should have the same rights.

I realise now that since "person" is undefined in the resolution, it is left up to individual nations to decide what constitutes a person. Which actually means that I don't really mind if this resolution passes, as our democracy can simply define "person" as we see fit - i.e. a sentient being.

The cloning voters scenario is extremely unlikely - it would be easier simply to get all supporters of the party to have lots of kids and indoctrinate them.

1) "Governments could also use artificial insemination from sperm banks and the like to raise voters or just use the good old fashioned way - why is this any different?"

Yeah, if they had millions of women they could inseminate, which they don't.

The requirement of a female to gestate the embryo is the same for cloned young as for IVF - Dolly the sheep was not grown in a jar. So you would also need millions of women if you wanted millions of clones, unless your technology allowed you to grow clones in jars, in which case you could also do that with IVF babies. Either way, IVF is cheaper, easier, and with a much higher success rate.

Let me reiterate....

Why do we need to define "person," "sentience," or "human" in this resolution when we have not had to do so in previous human rights resolutions? This resolution applies only to "persons," and in the near future, there is not going to be any ambiguities as to who or is not a person. If we reach the point where there are ambiguities as to what is person, then the term "person" will have to be defined anyways in order to properly interpret human rights resolutions. In Bootai-Bootai's opinion, at worst this resolution is toothless, and at best it will prevent human rights abuses.

Let me reiterate....

Why do we need to define "person," "sentience," or "human" in this resolution when we have not had to do so in previous human rights resolutions? This resolution applies only to "persons," and in the near future, there is not going to be any ambiguities as to who is or is not a person. If we reach the point where there are ambiguities as to what is a person, then the term "person" will have to be defined anyways in order to properly interpret human rights resolutions. In Bootai-Bootai's opinion, at worst this resolution is toothless, and at best it will reaffirm the universality of human rights.

EDIT: a couple of omitted words

Everyone please vote for this to pass. Discrimination should be against the law. They are as human as you and me.

However, I urge all countries to think about this issue.........two classes of humans. Employers will want genetically enhanced humans in the future to work, leaving unmodified humans with no jobs. An Anti-Discrimination law should also be considered.


Signed

Ken Masta UN Representative

If you have a problem with having "person" defined in this one specific resolution I believe you need help. Do we have to define every single work in here? Lets not get so caught up on such a technicality. I find it better that it is not defined here, that way, as was stated earlier, each nation can choose what specificly specifies a geneticly engineered "person". Do we have to state exactly which rights as well? This resolution has the elasticity. It gives a baseline rule that grants the rights deserved to clones, and whatever degree of engineered person a country recognizes as a person.

I believe the obvious rule is this: if a country demands you to file taxes, you are a person. Person and taxpayer unfortunately go pretty hand in hand. Also there are scientific ways to tell. If they are the same species as humans, they can reproduce with humans. As of right now, nobody has created new races of people, and without this having happened, there is no way to tell if they are deserving of these rights. That has to be handled on a country's level, not on the UN level. This proposal sums up everyone that deserves these rights for sure.

I urge my fellow delegates to reject the very basis of the arguments offered from Yakostanesia and Inversetonia. It is this sort of sensationalism that erodes the validity of this body's decisionmaking power. I offer the following rebuttal:

Yakostanesia--

1. Yes, we should be concerned with ANY resolution that leaves doubt about a defination or categorization that goes to its very heart. If you have any doubt that NOT defining what a person is has caused trouble in the past, then look no further than slavery. Such phrases as "we the people" and "all men are created equal" supposedly meant so much, and yet we overlooked the fact that whole parts of the US (and other nations as well) were not included in those documents. This was able to happen because we used a term, but did not bother to define it. Yakostanesia would have you believe that this vagueness is somehow a strength. That allowing each nation to define what a "person" is would be good. Complete rubbish. All that means is that if his nation chooses to determine that genetically altered people are not "persons" then he is free to deal with them however he chooses. That being the case, what is the purpose of the resolution?

2. He makes the same argument on the vagueness of the rights protected. Is this a joke? We're to pass a resolution protecting people's rights but not even mention what they are? He uses a nifty political term--elasticity--which in this case only means "give them whatever rights you want". What kind of resolution is that?

3. "...nobody has created new races of people, and without this having happened, there is no way to tell if they are deserving of these rights. That has to be handled on a country's level, not on the UN level"

EXACTLY.

and as for Inversetonia--

1. This blatant plea is shameful. Voting against this resolution in no way makes one against protection of rights. Quite the opposite. I reject it because IT DOES NOT PROTECT ANYTHING. Vague, imprecise wording. No enforcement. No effectiveness. Reject because of this and demand that we be sent serious resolutions that we can be proud of, not more of the things that get us laughed at by non-members.

Cast a vote that says we demand a higher quality of resolution. We want resolutions that actually DO something. Resolutions should be well thought out works of art, not a couple of sentences that sound nice.

with regard to what myopia said, i don't think the threat would be a problem. if a modified human were to commit a crime, they would be as equally responsible for their action as any natural human-- and therefore would be punished in the same fashion. no special treatment would be give to them; because they would be equal.

I will presist to support this resolution. The millions of clones throughtout my nation, and there billions of anticendents demand that I persist.

Unbeknownst to all the nations, my nation has had cloning technology for millions of years. In all that time we have failed to surpass the normal Human gestational period, though we have found means to control pre-mature gestational disruptions. We have found it is best, to create normal individuals, by allowing cloned individuals to mature at a normal rate with there peers and a small group of chaperones, some specially trained to assist in the clones upbringing. After sufficient training with supervision clones are released into society to live normal lives, they are given the same rights as all other persons in our society, and are freely allowed to create clones of there own.

(Fortunately nature has been so kind as to facilitate our breeding projects by providing appropriate incubation technologies, fertilization facilities, and self-educating neuro-electrical learning centers.)

Really, we don't think genetically modified or cloned individuals should be allowed to come into being in the first place, but if an irresponsible regime has screwed up in this respect we understand the need to protect the rights of such individuals.
Science has blessed us with the ability to achieve such a great feat, we must not let our own liberalism ruin this. There are people all over the world that are searching for human right, lets give them a helping hand first.
Aside from that point, we would also be doing the global economy a major diservice--think about what this would do to the workforce.
I will not vote for this issue, and I strongly urge all of your to withhold your votes!

Tarazania intends to abstain from this proposal for the following reason: surely all rights guaranteed by the UN already apply to all persons (except where specifically confined to certain subsets of people) regardless of their origin. While we applaud the efforts of the free carolinas to enshrine the recognition of certain persons as persons, the proposal as written appears to be redundant.

What might be more fruitful would be a declaration to clearly define the meanings of the terms 'person' and 'human', thus demarking differences between, for example, beings similar to the rest of us aside from having been conceived in vitro and non-self-aware fetuses created for medical purposes; or 'sentient' (in the science-fiction sense) artificial intelligences and computers running simple conversation programs.

The Grand Duchy of Tarazania.

The simple fact that many corrupted people would then be able to take advantage of these law and clone people to add to their political party, should scare most of you other countries enough. Do we really want one type of party force feeding its clones propaganda constantly as to gain an army of people that are willing to die for their beliefs? If you want your country consistantly bombed by opposing nations that have raised their clones to do so, then vote for this resolution. The Kingdom Of Joneax is opposing this resolution as written. Our country would much rather have cloning banned about the world, except in cases of stem cells and such.

Signed,

The Kingdom of Joneax

One Problem Buzzmania foresees is that by giving clones equal rights, we have opened up a whole new area of joint property law, clone-napping for organ theft, Illegal cloning, and a host of other problems. Here in Buzzmania, we have perfected organ and tissue cloning, so we naturally have no objections to bio-engineered citizens gaining full rights and citizenships in equality with all "naturally born"
we just want to see clones rights protected and enforced once this proposition passes!

Marcus one and two
Ministers of Science
Buzzmanian delegation to the UN

I'll try and use parliamentary and UN appropriate language here, but the general idiocy of
a) the proposal, and
b) the nation who drafted the proposal
may not permit me to do so. When one creates a clone, one create a replica of his/her self. Either revise the definition of a clone so that they don't end up being some enraged psychopathic mutant or dismiss this resolution. Too much is left for interpretation and I am quite surprised this made it to the UN. Wow, we must be getting bored around here. I applaud the poeple who realize the devestating effect this can and undoubtedly will have on our nations. Corruption is present in every nation be it evident or discreet. Corporate enterprises could take advantage of this, and create clones of say.........20 workers. Legally, according to patent laws one of two parties claims right to the clone
a) the person who the clone is of
b) the party who has done the cloning
So essentially the distribution of wealth goes down the shit chute as we see about 10-15 people become the elite of a society because some large corporation decided to take advantage of a ridiculous proposal that was passed by ultra-liberal voters. Sorta like that MP from Canada thats advocating android and human marriages.....dealing with an issue that
a) not currently a problem
b) absolutely ridiculous and deserves no place in an election campaign or on the table for voting of the UN
If you haven't figured it out yet, im dead against the resolution

I don't feel I can fully back this one. There is no defiiton of when a clones life begins, and as such, this proposal could be used as a wapon to down lots of potential beneficial research.

The benefits of cloning have not yet been fully realized, and I don't think we should nip it in the bud with such a proposal.

It needs to be reworded so that the life of said clone is clearly realized.

Zigs has voted AGAINST this resolution, as has most of our region. Artifical organic units should have no more right to vote than mechanical units.
-LK/Zigs

Even if I were in favor of granting rights to clones and genetically engineered creatures (which aren't clearly defined here--suppose I cross a human with a carrot...is the resulting creature still human?), and even if anyone could derive a clear sense of what "cloned," "genetically engineered," or "human" means in this resolution (since none of these terms are defined), this would still be a lousy proposal. All this proposal requires is that genetically engineered people be treated just like normal people. If nations treat their normal people badly, then they will have every right to abuse the "Frankensteins," too. This resolution will effectively do nothing to improve worldwide human rights.

Until someone can draft a resolution that actually means and does something, VOTE NO!

Kelssek is against cloning except for the purpose of stem cell harvesting. And while we support the principle behind the resolution, and we do already grant equal rights to any clone, since they are not to be blamed for their birth nor for the crime committed in their conception, it is much too vague.

Most grevious, we feel, is the lack of any proper definitions, which will render the resolution ineffective.

Our vote is against it, although undoubtedly, it will pass thanks to the "blinkers vote".

At what time does the clone become human?

Ok Alphared, so you have millions of clones... You grant those clones rights... that is your choice. Why force that choice on nations that feel that Cloning is vile and evil and so do not practice Cloning? Your argument does nothing but prove that this should be a NATIONAL issue, not an international one.

For those who are arguing about "definitions" Here's one. Some insane, radical group injects your cattle, poultry, and other food livestock with 1% human genes. Because there is no "definition" of person nor "specific details" on what is a genetically altered/engeneered person, it can then be argued that now those animals deserve to be protected. (remember, lawers can win 'stupid' cases... like the guy who sued the Fast Food industry for his obesity.) Suddenly, cats and dogs are no longer defined as pets (slavery) as these radicals also inject them with human genetic material. And while, yes, nations probably can define the word Person, other nations (and the UN) can do the same. and it has to be the UN's definition that we all MUST follow.

For the UN, it has to be the LETTER of the law we must follow... Not the SPIRIT. How it's written is just as important as the Heart behind it.

ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL - that was originally written for men only... white men only. no African-Americans, no Indians, no Chinese, No Japanese and NO WOMEN. it took wars and civil unrest to get them to include everyone. Is that what'll take to make people realize that Unclear resolutions are more harmful than no resolutions?

Description: The United Nations and its member states shall hereby recognize and henceforth regard the inherent rights of cloned and genetically engineered persons as being the equal of those of naturally born and unmodified persons.

The People's Republic of Groot Gouda supports the idea of this proposal. However, it is badly worded and ill-defined, and we fear that this resolution will prove worthless. A cause like this deservers better.

Unless our region tells us otherwise, we will vote against this resolution and hope a better worded, clearer defined resolution will be the result.

What constitutes a person? Where and why does that "person" not have the same rights as other "persons"? What is "naturally born" and why is that apparently the opposite of clones? Clones can be born naturally. Where does one draw the line? Does a half-man, half dog still have the same rights? And what about duties?

Too many questions, too few answers.

Regards,

the PRoGG

Again, let me reiterate that, "person" being undefined, it is up to individual nations to work it out as they see fit. Since clones are copies of humans, they must be human and so must fall under the protection of this resolution. I accept that the resolution may be a little toothless regarding modified humans, because a government could legitimately class anything with slight genetic differences to a human as not a person. But this doesn't mean that this is worse than no resolution. It just means that in some cases the resolution won't actually work. Just as tax laws aren't an endorsement of the use of loopholes in them, this would not constitute an endorsement of governments using the vagueness to ignore the rights of certain modified humans.

Ichi Ni, this isn't an endorsement of cloning, just as a decree that all non-modified/cloned people have equal rights isn't an endorsement of incest.

Also, the second part of your argument doesn't work. Genetic engineering techniques require that DNA be altered at the beginning of development. Right now, we cannot simply inject human genes into grown animals, because those genes would not be incorporated into the animals' genomes, they would just float around in the blood. Plus, you could define "person" in your own nation to mean anything which has at least 80% human genes, or you could define it as anything with a comparable level of intelligence or sentience to an average human. You say that this is untrue because "has to be the UN's definition that we all MUST follow" but the UN has not defined "person", so until it does, we can define it how we like.

With regards to when a clone becomes human, the UN does not force a definition upon nations. Most countries have abortion laws. Those who ban abortions - i.e. give embryos the right to live from conception - would also have to give clones and GM humans the right to live from their creation, and so yes they would have to ban much research in this area (but those who would oppose abortion would also mostly oppose this research anyway). But those who say, for instance, abortion is legal up to point x in pregnancy, and thus grant embryos the right to live from point x onwards, would have to apply the same rules to clones and GM humans - i.e. they could be created for research but could only be destroyed before point x in their development.

As to indoctrination of clones, it would be easier to have lots of kids naturally or through IVF and indoctrinate them.

As to the lack of definition of rights, that makes perfect sense. It means all rights that "normals" have or in future acquire, will automatically apply to those who are protected by this resolution.

Giving a clone the vote is not the same as giving one person two votes. To be genetically identical is no guarantee of the same personality, or views. Clones should be regarded as identical twins (except for the fact that they are not born at the same time). Bursledon fully supports this proposal. To reject it would set a dangerous precedent with regards to genetic discrimination.

Actually yes it is...

...Again people i ask you to think clearly. If a corrupt party created thousands of clones and nurtured them then they would vote for the corrupt party. They would owe their existence to the party in government and so would in gratitude vote for them, after-all they have been created, looked after and gifted by the gov't.
However this would be at the detriment of us normal individuals who may be violated by the corrupt and viscious gov't.

Basically it would allow nations to breed voters by cloning them, giving them desirable characteristics and a dominant role in the suppression of us 'normals'. This would make a "Democratic Dictatorship" and we'd be powerless to stop it.
TNE

This is so extremely wrong, it boggles the mind. My parents created me, but I do not therefore regard them as the all-powerful life creators that have blessed me with the gift of life and therefore I must vote for their political party. That's just stupid. You would have to brainwash the clones, and THAT IS THE KIND OF THING OUTLAWED BY THIS PROPOSAL. Your own pathetically flawed logic works against you to prove that you should, in fact, be supporting this proposal (if the above quote is your only objection to it.)

Technically, unless otherwise programmed, clones have the same mental capacity as a normal human. They should have the same rights.

Not so for the genetically modified.

Overtun the proposal.

I will presist to support this resolution. The millions of clones throughtout my nation, and there billions of anticendents demand that I persist.

Unbeknownst to all the nations, my nation has had cloning technology for millions of years. In all that time we have failed to surpass the normal Human gestational period, though we have found means to control pre-mature gestational disruptions. We have found it is best, to create normal individuals, by allowing cloned individuals to mature at a normal rate with there peers and a small group of chaperones, some specially trained to assist in the clones upbringing. After sufficient training with supervision clones are released into society to live normal lives, they are given the same rights as all other persons in our society, and are freely allowed to create clones of there own.

(Fortunately nature has been so kind as to facilitate our breeding projects by providing appropriate incubation technologies, fertilization facilities, and self-educating neuro-electrical learning centers.)

Keep RP an fiction elsewhere. This shouldn't enter real debate.

Should this resolution be voted down, it wouldn't affect any nation's ability to grant rights to their clones. It only has an effect if it's voted in. And rejecting this resolution will not mean no one can ever propose it again. Keep that in mind.

So don't vote for this because your cloned citizens or people you engineered to glow in the dark or grow cabbage as hair or whatever are going to riot. It takes nothing away from them. Vote for it only if you want to enforce this vague, loophole-filled resolution on all the UN members. In fact, loophole-filled isn't the right word, because it's one big loophole.

Restatement: I support the principle, but not the resolution itself. It's very unfortunate that it's heading for ratification.

This is so extremely wrong, it boggles the mind. My parents created me, but I do not therefore regard them as the all-powerful life creators that have blessed me with the gift of life and therefore I must vote for their political party. That's just stupid. You would have to brainwash the clones, and THAT IS THE KIND OF THING OUTLAWED BY THIS PROPOSAL. Your own pathetically flawed logic works against you to prove that you should, in fact, be supporting this proposal (if the above quote is your only objection to it.)

No, but if you were genetically modified to simply do as you are told with your lowered intelligence then you would. You do not need to brainwash when you can simply tamper with their genes before birth.

So actually i'm right old chap, let's not fall to insults shall we?

Regards,

TNE

The Dominion of Timsylvania, being a delegate to the United Nations, has elected to vote in favor of this proposition. It affords ALL humans - regardless of the method by which they came into being - the rights afforded all "naturally-born" citizens.

Yours,
codespace
Duly Elected Leader
Dominion of Timsylvania
UN Delegate representing the region of PACult

Why is some people assuming that cloning will create a stupid working class for the elite to govern around? Let's improve all lives of our nation by using obligatory cloning to eliminate genetically connected diseases and illnesses.

It only has an effect if it's voted in. And rejecting this resolution will not mean no one can ever propose it again. Keep that in mind.

But we can pass revised proposals, a differently worded one.

Pity the sheep are carrying this proposal too far, they should read this thread and reverse their decisions.

:(

The Rogue Nation of Pithica does not support nor condone this bill. The verbage of the ruling is too vague and could lead to a number of negative consequences in multiple fields.

While we have legalized cloning technologies for all purposes, and are fully in support of the idea of human rights in every situation, we see this bill as easily being taken too far by the United Nations. If it were to limit the verbage to only apply to those clones who are designed to be fully functional members of society, we would be in whole-hearted support. We have already granted these beings, as well as modified animals and artificial intelligence's civil rights.

However, we also have allowed medical research to legally grow bodies exclusively for experamentation purposes, and allowed the production of biological platforms for other technologies in military purposes (cloned cyborgs for example). Since the broad text could apply to these 'organ sacks', as we like to call them, as well as to the fully functional clone, we cannot in good conscious support such an act.

There is no ethical reason that clones and/or genetically altered people should not have rights.
If they serve a sinister purpose, they can be punished like a normal person. Where's the issue?

Why is some people assuming that cloning will create a stupid working class for the elite to govern around? Let's improve all lives of our nation by using obligatory cloning to eliminate genetically connected diseases and illnesses.

Some people 'is' assuming this because it is quite possible to occur, likewise the reverse. GM-folk with characteristics which, were they given the same rights as us, could cause great harm. These people would need to be more closely watched than others who do not have these previously unknown abilities.

There is no ethical reason that clones and/or genetically altered people should not have rights.
If they serve a sinister purpose, they can be punished like a normal person. Where's the issue?

The issue is that they should not have the SAME rights as us. Modification can lead to a specrum of people from animalist dogs at one end and supra-humans at the other.

If a clone was created without a psyche, it would be no more than a complex biological shop dummy. If it did have one, then it would be a human being and so have rights under this issue.

Really, we don't think genetically modified or cloned individuals should be allowed to come into being in the first place, but if an irresponsible regime has screwed up in this respect we understand the need to protect the rights of such individuals.

My government respectifully disagrees and supports this resolution. It has been a long standing policy that the method of birth does not grant or take away certain rights. Grown with or without aid, a human is still just that.

10kMichael

Define "psyche".

I'm sure there is some sort of spectrum which it is impossible to draw a line on.

The issue is that they should not have the SAME rights as us.


You do realize that the above is not a fact, but an OPINION. And it is a bigotted one at that.


Modification can lead to a specrum of people from animalist dogs at one end and supra-humans at the other.

Here is why your opinion it bigotted. The minute you start handing out rights based on "ability" or "inteligence" you are creating different classes of citizens. Your dog people become an untouchable class ... your transhumans become slaves as well ... all working for who? A class of people whom judge themselves to be different and thus able to hold certain rights.

Instead of talking about dog people and transhumans what if you had said:

"Modification can lead to a specrum of people from dark skinned humans at one end and white at the other."

Dog, transhuman, skin color, it matters not.

I'll support it.

By opposing it would be descriminatory against these peoples

True. People, gentically modified or normal, are still humans. I'm voting for it!

My government respectifully disagrees and supports this resolution. It has been a long standing policy that the method of birth does not grant or take away certain rights. Grown with or without aid, a human is still just that.
10kMichael
True, would it make a difference if a person was created by IVF?

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

Really, we don't think genetically modified or cloned individuals should be allowed to come into being in the first place, but if an irresponsible regime has screwed up in this respect we understand the need to protect the rights of such individuals.

My government respectifully disagrees and supports this resolution. It has been a long standing policy that the method of birth does not grant or take away certain rights. Grown with or without aid, a human is still just that.

10kMichael

I respectfully choose to raise the issue, how would you define a human? How much modification would it have and still be due the same human rights?

(triple-post)

(triple-post)

:oops:

I'll support it.

By opposing it would be descriminatory against these peoples

True. People, gentically modified or normal, are still humans. I'm voting for it!

What about a man with dog DNA, or a dog with man DNA, or a man with equal measures of man and sheep DNA, or elements from the DNA of jellyfish?

I'm NOT voting for it and nor should ayone. Revise your opinion.

TNE

Let's start with a simple genetic alteration. Someone is altered to remove say the risk of getting cancer. This person then grows up and is not allowed to have the same rights as unaltered people. I don't think so. This declaration MUST be passed and the more alarmist consequences that are being dreamt of will have to be dealt with on a case by case basis later.

We will Vote for this Declaration

UN Minister of the Grand Duchy of CaptainBeaver.

The issue is that they should not have the SAME rights as us.


You do realize that the above is not a fact, but an OPINION. And it is a bigotted one at that.


Modification can lead to a specrum of people from animalist dogs at one end and supra-humans at the other.

Here is why your opinion it bigotted. The minute you start handing out rights based on "ability" or "inteligence" you are creating different classes of citizens. Your dog people become an untouchable class ... your transhumans become slaves as well ... all working for who? A class of people whom judge themselves to be different and thus able to hold certain rights.

Instead of talking about dog people and transhumans what if you had said:

"Modification can lead to a specrum of people from dark skinned humans at one end and white at the other."

Dog, transhuman, skin color, it matters not.

Oh dear, where to start eh?

Well.. I shall say to you that i couldn't care less about external appearenace, people are people regardless what they look like. The problem arises with genetic alteration.
I do wish you'd not tried to play the 'race card' against me, the simple fact is that colour is only skin deep and so everyone should have the same rights.
If however you were to create a person with the charactersitics not of another sort of human but with the characteristics of an animal we run into problems regarding rights. animals are not as intelligent, aware or capable as people. People of other ethnic backgrounds most certainly are.

Don't delude yourself that a 'black man' is just as different from a caucasian as a person with the DNA of a dog or a jellyfish. I told you to keep race out of this, it does not do anything for either argument.

Let's start with a simple genetic alteration. Someone is altered to remove say the risk of getting cancer. This person then grows up and is not allowed to have the same rights as unaltered people. I don't think so. This declaration MUST be passed and the more alarmist consequences that are being dreamt of will have to be dealt with on a case by case basis later.

We will Vote for this Declaration

UN Minister of the Grand Duchy of CaptainBeaver.

Later? The problems would arise the instant this is passed, rather foolish of you to say that we can 'sort it later'.
You assume that the elterations will only be for good purposes, don't delude yourself and don't even try deluding others.

Regards,
TNE

animals are not as intelligent, aware or capable as people.

Neither are some humans.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Cynical New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

This resolution has horrible consequences upon countries that already ban the process of cloning. Countries such as The Kingdom Of Joneax, are going to have to repeal their bans because of this resolution. Once this resolution passes as written, anybody that has the technology to clone; can. Then once a clone is created in my country, I have to give it rights of a citizen? This is a horribly written resolution, and should give countries a choice to ban cloning. If they do, this resolution should NOT apply to them. This is one resolution that if passed, Joneax's politicians will go through with a fine toothed comb to find any and all loopholes to declare to the world. Make the UN seem as weak as the League of Nations was, as the sheep vote seems mighty high. Reverse this resolution!

Signed,

King Geoffry I
The Kingdom of Joneax

animals are not as intelligent, aware or capable as people.

Neither are some humans.

...but they are still 100% human, 100% unedited normality.

Once this resolution passes as written, anybody that has the technology to clone; can.

To my understanding it doesn’t legalise cloning, it just give rights to those who are cloned.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

..or genetically altered.

Let's start with a simple genetic alteration. Someone is altered to remove say the risk of getting cancer. This person then grows up and is not allowed to have the same rights as unaltered people. I don't think so. This declaration MUST be passed and the more alarmist consequences that are being dreamt of will have to be dealt with on a case by case basis later.

We will Vote for this Declaration

UN Minister of the Grand Duchy of CaptainBeaver.

Later? The problems would arise the instant this is passed, rather foolish of you to say that we can 'sort it later'.
You assume that the elterations will only be for good purposes, don't delude yourself and don't even try deluding others.

Regards,
TNE
Well, TNE, you are equally assuming that the alterations would be used for sinister purposes. You are seemingly prepared to allow this injustice, which is your choice and down to your conscience, but do not accuse me of trying to delude people when taking a moral stance thank you.
Regards CB.

Once this resolution passes as written, anybody that has the technology to clone; can.

To my understanding it doesn’t legalise cloning, it just give rights to those who are cloned.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

That is not what I meant. If you are giving clones all of these rights, this is basically saying that go ahead clone... we have to give the clones rights anyways.

Yes, he does Assume that this proposal would be used for Sinister pourpose, But he does prove a point.

Let's start with a simple genetic alteration. Someone is altered to remove say the risk of getting cancer. This person then grows up and is not allowed to have the same rights as unaltered people. I don't think so. This declaration MUST be passed and the more alarmist consequences that are being dreamt of will have to be dealt with on a case by case basis later.

We will Vote for this Declaration

UN Minister of the Grand Duchy of CaptainBeaver.

Later? The problems would arise the instant this is passed, rather foolish of you to say that we can 'sort it later'.
You assume that the elterations will only be for good purposes, don't delude yourself and don't even try deluding others.

Regards,
TNE
Well, TNE, you are equally assuming that the alterations would be used for sinister purposes. You are seemingly prepared to allow this injustice, which is your choice and down to your conscience, but do not accuse me of trying to delude people when taking a moral stance thank you.
Regards CB.

It doesn't seem as if he is 'equally assuming that the alterations would be used for sinister purposes.' He is just saying that people are going to genetically alter for both good and evil. That's just a fact of life.

KGI

I hardly think that he's proved anything IMHO

Cheers CB

That is not what I meant. If you are giving clones all of these rights, this is basically saying that go ahead clone... we have to give the clones rights anyways.
Encourage perhaps, but not force. It can still be made illegal in your country, you can still ban it through the UN.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

It doesn't seem as if he is 'equally assuming that the alterations would be used for sinister purposes.' He is just saying that people are going to genetically alter for both good and evil. That's just a fact of life.

KGI

Point taken Joneax. So perhaps it becomes an issue of glass being half full or half empty ?

CB

That is not what I meant. If you are giving clones all of these rights, this is basically saying that go ahead clone... we have to give the clones rights anyways.
Encourage perhaps, but not force. It can still be made illegal in your country, you can still ban it through the UN.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

Well then, I shall start trying to push through a resolution in the UN to ban cloning all together except to harvest stem cells. If I find one, great. If not, I will write one.

But the fact that at this point, there are no known clones in my country; it sort of is something out there. We are adament on using cloning for only medicinal purposes, so thus giving clones rights forces me to allow them civil rights. I do not think this is a horrible resolution, I just think that the wording is flimsy and too broad.

It doesn't seem as if he is 'equally assuming that the alterations would be used for sinister purposes.' He is just saying that people are going to genetically alter for both good and evil. That's just a fact of life.

KGI

Point taken Joneax. So perhaps it becomes an issue of glass being half full or half empty ?

CB

Exactly. I think that the resolution should be denied, and rewritten.

Well then, I shall start trying to push through a resolution in the UN to ban cloning all together except to harvest stem cells. If I find one, great. If not, I will write one.
Please keep me up to date with this.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

I´m agree with the proposal.
It has all my support.

All men are created equal and it doesn't make any difference how or by what/who they were created. Cloning may not occur too often yet, but you can't stop science and there will be a time. It would be terrible to think that us failing to recognize the rights of cloned persons would possibly lead to exploitation of those persons. By ensuring their equal rights now, they will be treated like equals from day one.

I support this proposal

His Holiness the Governor-General wishes to address his concerns to this body.

His Holiness is curious why some states, who are United Nations Members, may claim with impunity that `niggers and jews' are not `humans' or `persons', and therefore treat them as property, clearly in violation of several United Nations Resolutions. His Holiness correctly recognizes this sham of a proposal as a powerless and impotent shell which will only benefit constitutional/parlimentary lawyers in their never-ending bickerings about what constitutes a `person'. One would need only look back almost seventy years when the NAZIs *LEGISLATED* the non-humanity of jews, gypsies, and homosexuals. The NON-HUMANITY! His Holiness warns that either imposing or differentiating between races will only lead to castes and tyrany. His Holiness fears that any endorsement for this proposal is actually a condemnation of social equality.

His Holiness is also curious why there are competing and overlapping definitions of `human rights'. Until and unless there is a defnitive resolution prescribing what constitutes a `human right', one that also includes an ammendment procedure, any notion of `human rights' is vacuous and absolutely devoid of any and all meaning. It should therefore be obvious that any proposal seeking to `piggy-back' on the aforementioned nebulous collection of `human rights' is also, by transitivity, completely devoid of meaning as well!

His Holiness questions the applicability of this proposal. Where are the `oppressed clones' this proposal seeks to protect? What nations are currently oppressing them? How are they being oppressed? Assuming for a moment that the current human rights legislation is both well-defined and enforceable, which is far from the truth, His Holiness would like to know why `clones', whatever that means, would not be protected under current legislation. This proposal will create a bottle-neck in the legislation, and at worst will invite the aforementioned atrocities.

His Holiness must again block and bar any resolution which will actually promote genocidal atrocities rather than preclude such vile acts.

[signed]
Mayor-Captain Walid Stevens of The Maximum Veracity Directorate of The Dominion of North East Cathanistan, Consul of Law & Order to His Holiness the Governor-General

I am all for clones getting human rights. But this resolution is vague and poorly written to the point that many undesirable qualities might be read into it. I am frankly very surprised that the UN did not rewrite or specify the conditions in this resolution. For this reason alone I am inclined to vote against it.

First of all, sorry for the long post.
Second of all, this is in reply to the reply to my post 2 or 3 pages back.

Myopia wrote:
“Again, let me reiterate that, "person" being undefined, it is up to individual nations to work it out as they see fit. Since clones are copies of humans, they must be human and so must fall under the protection of this resolution. I accept that the resolution may be a little toothless regarding modified humans, because a government could legitimately class anything with slight genetic differences to a human as not a person. But this doesn't mean that this is worse than no resolution. It just means that in some cases the resolution won't actually work. Just as tax laws aren't an endorsement of the use of loopholes in them, this would not constitute an endorsement of governments using the vagueness to ignore the rights of certain modified humans.”

What good does this resolution do? Other than give “good” ticks on those who vote for them? I could reclassify any creature whose genes have been touched by science a Genetic Entity and not a person. Boom, this resolution no longer applies to me. Why, because clones are people who’s genes are “touched by science” and thus they are not clones but Genetic Entities. And by saying that all Genetic Entities are now considered not people, then they no longer are protected by this resolution. Which makes this resolution useless because of it’s vaugeness… a hollow shell meant only to make people “feel good”

As you say, tax laws don’t encourage use of loopholes, but they are USED anyway, and the government spends mega-bucks, trying to close all those “Loopholes.” Because everyone is supporting a badly written, vague resolution, they are saying that those loopholes are ok.

Myopia Wrote:
“Ichi Ni, this isn't an endorsement of cloning, just as a decree that all non-modified / cloned people have equal rights isn't an endorsement of incest.”

When does a “clone” get its rights? When its genetic material are combined? When it looks human? When it is “born?” Those are the same questions abortionists and right to lifers are constantly arguing about. Some renegade scientist can illeagally start a clone and argue that success or failure, the UN resolution safeguards this clones basic right to life since it states that all Cloned Humans (and by your definition, it will be human) are now protected. Should the government do anything to halt the procedure, then they would be in violation of this resolution… sounds pretty endorsing to me.


Myopia wrote
“Also, the second part of your argument doesn't work. Genetic engineering techniques require that DNA be altered at the beginning of development. Right now, we cannot simply inject human genes into grown animals, because those genes would not be incorporated into the animals' genomes, they would just float around in the blood. Plus, you could define "person" in your own nation to mean anything which has at least 80% human genes, or you could define it as anything with a comparable level of intelligence or sentience to an average human. You say that this is untrue because "has to be the UN's definition that we all MUST follow" but the UN has not defined "person", so until it does, we can define it how we like.”

With the advancement of Viral Manipulation and NanoTechnology, the technology to alter genetic material in Adults to pass the changes on to their offsprings are closer than you think. And yes, it has to be the UN’s Definition. If that definition is not solidified, then it’s up to the Secretary General or Security Council’s undocumented Definition we will have to follow. The chaos that will ensue will be catastophic. Double standards within the UN will not be the exception, it will be the rule.

Myopia wrote:
“With regards to when a clone becomes human, the UN does not force a definition upon nations. Most countries have abortion laws. Those who ban abortions - i.e. give embryos the right to live from conception - would also have to give clones and GM humans the right to live from their creation, and so yes they would have to ban much research in this area (but those who would oppose abortion would also mostly oppose this research anyway). But those who say, for instance, abortion is legal up to point x in pregnancy, and thus grant embryos the right to live from point x onwards, would have to apply the same rules to clones and GM humans - i.e. they could be created for research but could only be destroyed before point x in their development.”

But the UN has no official stance on Abortion that’s why it’s up to the Nations. Abortion (for now anyway) is a NATIONAL ISSUE not an UN ISSUE. And even then, Arguments within those nations are still going on as to when “Life” begins.

I however agree with the lack of definitions for rights… that is not necessary because it states as long as they are equal to everyone else…

Oh and OF THE NEW EMPIRE
This is fantasy. If this were to be RL, then there would be a Secretary General, Repeal Processes, and consiquences for bad resolutions as well as not following resolutions. If nations wish to be Ultra-High-Tech, that is their wish… just the same as if they wish to have Knights and Dragons.

As a newly joined member of the UN I am all for the Bio Rights and I intend on voting for this proposal. All humans no matter how they came to be should have equal rights.

Rachel
UN Representative
The Rouge Nation of Cozayman

Ok Alphared, so you have millions of clones... You grant those clones rights... that is your choice. Why force that choice on nations that feel that Cloning is vile and evil and so do not practice Cloning? Your argument does nothing but prove that this should be a NATIONAL issue, not an international one.

I'm afraid you missed my point, completely, I leave you to ponder my true meaning...

I will presist to support this resolution. The millions of clones throughtout my nation, and there billions of anticendents demand that I persist.

Unbeknownst to all the nations, my nation has had cloning technology for millions of years. In all that time we have failed to surpass the normal Human gestational period, though we have found means to control pre-mature gestational disruptions. We have found it is best, to create normal individuals, by allowing cloned individuals to mature at a normal rate with there peers and a small group of chaperones, some specially trained to assist in the clones upbringing. After sufficient training with supervision clones are released into society to live normal lives, they are given the same rights as all other persons in our society, and are freely allowed to create clones of there own.

(Fortunately nature has been so kind as to facilitate our breeding projects by providing appropriate incubation technologies, fertilization facilities, and self-educating neuro-electrical learning centers.)

Keep RP an fiction elsewhere. This shouldn't enter real debate.

You are the second member to misunderstand my point. But, I will give you a hint, my post wasn't RP in anyway.

As the Spokesperson for Industrial Experiment, I must call upon the international community to step back for a moment and reconsider this proposal. While the individual rights of cloned or genetically altered humans are something to be considered, the vagueness of this proposal leaves many possible interpretations. The passing of this proposal would lead to the possiblity of widespread cloning by anyone who could afford the machines needed to complete the process, thereby causing gross overpopulation. We, the government of Industrial Experiment, call for this petition to be pulled off of the vote and rewritten with more specific regulations on cloning put in. Cloning should be a practice controlled by the UN on an international level, not up to individual nations for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is the threat of a cloning nation to a non-cloning nation.

Would you like to be the victim of an immense army made up almost entirely of clones? That is a possibility according to the current form of this proposal. For instance, if they were to get equal rights, they would recieve equal responsibilities, correct? In this case, any nation with draft laws would be forced to draft clones, and they would also be forced to accept clone volunteers, thus starting a dangerous precident of nation's armies being swelled in numbers by copies of their actual citizens. What could this mean for a nation such as the Kingdom of Joneax, one that has outlawed cloning within their borders?

And what of genetically altered beings? Are you for giving equal rights to them, and thereby putting the normal, completely natural humans in a position of disadvantage? Would you have a world in which there is a majority of people to poor to genetically alter themselves, and as such are in every way inferior to the elites of society that have made themselves artificially better than everyone else?

I didn't think so. The basis of the capitalism that keeps our world going round is that everyone is given a chance to suceed or fail based ont heir own merit, not on the money the came by that allowed them to make themselves better than the competition. As a side note to this, however, I am in no way suggesting the disallowence of big business and corporate monopolies, if the competition can't snuff it up, they don't belong in the market.

No, this draft is poorly thought out, and must be rewritten to leave the legality of cloning to the nations themselves, and for the UN and the world as a whole to regulate those countries that do decide to legalize this practice.

Not to mention the great benefits to the world economy presented by organ harvesting and stem cell research that would be thrown out the window if this were to pass.

I'm opposing this as how do we know that by cloning humans, they are still truly human? If we want this bill passed, we should have clear bounds to what qualifies us as humans. After all, would we want to give clones the chance to destroy those who were born into humanity in the future?

I respectfully choose to raise the issue, how would you define a human? How much modification would it have and still be due the same human rights?

The issue at hand isn't being "human" but being sentient. Remember, that there are nations in NationStates Earth that are populated by elves, dancing pengiuns, and killer robots.

Surely if we accept UN membership to a nation of killer robots or dancing pengiuns, we shouldn't go about setting up a racist policy that judges humans (i.e. sentients that share a genetic structure) just because we fear some new world order.

10kMichael

What about a man with dog DNA, or a dog with man DNA, or a man with equal measures of man and sheep DNA, or elements from the DNA of jellyfish?

I'm NOT voting for it and nor should ayone. Revise your opinion.


You already share some dog DNA. We all do.

What you're asking is, when are we talking about a new species. But you continue to miss the point ... it doesn't matter one damn bit. Human (homo sapien) or Transhuman (homo something-else) still have the ability to be self-aware.

Frankly, denying civil rights of a human clone is utterly barbaric. The question I have to wonder is why would one group of humans would wise to deny the rights of another group of humans. Fear of replacement? Guess what, if a line is drawn such that the international community treats all sentients as equals, you'll have your own rights protected by the voices of many should one day a crab-person seek to deny you your right to freedom of expression and freedom of travel (just two of the most basic civil liberties).

One would need only look back almost seventy years when the NAZIs *LEGISLATED* the non-humanity of jews, gypsies, and homosexuals. The NON-HUMANITY! His Holiness warns that either imposing or differentiating between races will only lead to castes and tyrany. His Holiness fears that any endorsement for this proposal is actually a condemnation of social equality.


You lost me once you started talking about how the Nazis legislated non-humanity and then did a 180 saying that legislating equality is the same thing as condmenation.

10kMichael

I'm opposing this as how do we know that by cloning humans, they are still truly human? If we want this bill passed, we should have clear bounds to what qualifies us as humans. After all, would we want to give clones the chance to destroy those who were born into humanity in the future?

Human adj. of, characteristic of, or having the qualities typical of mankind _n. a person : also human being

Mankind n. 1. the human race

Person n. 1. a human being

Homo Sapiens n. man; human being

Source: Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language.

I think until the NS-UN defines these terms in a way that excludes these definitions, that we as an intelligent gathering of individuals can at least assume that the definitions of the language in use apply.

we cant allow clones the same rights as true humans, if we do we are heralding our own extinction. These clones are being created to destory mans inherant weakness, if we create a race of humans without diseases and bred for strength or inteligence they will be our superior. If this new artifical human super race ever decides that it is time for natural selectiont o take place and the strong to prevail over the weak then it is our time to die. We made a choice in playing god, now we have to assume responsibility for our creation.

we cant allow clones the same rights as true humans, if we do we are heralding our own extinction. These clones are being created to destory mans inherant weakness, if we create a race of humans without diseases and bred for strength or inteligence they will be our superior. If this new artifical human super race ever decides that it is time for natural selectiont o take place and the strong to prevail over the weak then it is our time to die. We made a choice in playing god, now we have to assume responsibility for our creation.

I heard this before ...

"we cant allow negros the same rights as true people, if we do we are heralding our own extinction."

That type of thinking was plain wrong then, and is now.

A clone is a genetic reproduction, it does not mean that it is an improvement. You are confusing cloning with genetically engineered humans (clones are genetically engineered, but replications, and thus not different than the donor organism).

But what is a genetic modification? Is it limited to enhancements prior to birth? What about giving soldiers drugs? Say a Super Soldier Serum?

Why should a genetically modified individual who once had rights lose those rights because he / she was physically enhanced?

It is a matter of record that governments are modifing its populations, for numerous reasons: including removing birth defects -- something most socities believe is good. A child who has a physical deformity before birth has been engineered, but certainly poses no more threat to a nation than an unengineered child. In fact, the genetic engineering may in fact save that nation money in future medical costs.

While my nation believes each society should make the choice on how to approach this subject: I want to be perfectly clear on one point:

To deny the civil liberties of any sentient being is nothing short of racism. It matters not on how sentience is achieved, but that any sentient life is treated with respect.

I honestly think that if instead of clone or genetically modified human that if you start replacing those words with various ethnic groups, you'll be surprised out how offensive some of the arguments against this proposal become.

Remember, 100+ years ago, the reason the term "racism" came about is because it was popular belief that something such as skin color was enough to determine a separate race. Just as people are of one race: the human race. A genetic replication: a clone is as well. It has to be, because by definition a clone is a copy.

This is not to suggest that there are not reasons to vote no on the proposal. There are some con arguments that my nation does in fact respect. I would just like to be completely clear on the fact that my nation takes exception to the arguments that are either based in ignorance or racism (i.e. fear and hatred).

I think that the fact that a large number of arguments are being based on these grounds really underscores the importance of this international declaration. It is time people stop focusing on skin color, hair color, the presence or lack of physical differences, and begin to view people as creatures capable of independent thought. And if there is any one characteristic that combines all sentients it would be compassion.

With that in mind, I would urge any nation voting against this proposal to arrange a chance to speak with a genetically modifed (clone or enhanced) human. You will not find a man or woman bent upon destruction, but rather somebody no different than the rest of us.

10kMichael

I have voted FOR this as I have cloned humans in my nation and beleive it to be fair

The Confederacy of Decentralised Regions rejects this proposal.
We are against cloning of human beings and our government has forbidden it.

We believe that far more scientific research is needed before the consequences of this practise can be evaluated.
We fear that corporations will clone human beings for quick profit and will endanger the health of our population.

Research on genetic engineering is conducted in government laboratories only in Dec. Regions. The research is supervised by an autonomous institute that informs the public about the progress.

Therefore genetically engineered human beings do not exist within the borders of our confederacy and therefore the need to accept their inherent rights is non-existent.

If GM people would enter Decentralised Regions, they can claim asylum, live in our confederacy. There is one limitation though: they are not allowed to reproduce on our territory.

@ Decentralised regions: That means, you'll have to sterilize every clone to ensure that they don't reproduce, or you have to kill the eventual offspring, or have to lock the clones away.

Before we start our argumentation, we wish to state, that our country is strictly against the cloning and genetical manipulation of human beings. But since this is not the case in all countries, clones and genetic manipulated persons will eventually show up in our country, so we have to decide on this bill too.

Anterior remark: We refer to clones AND genetically manipulated/engineered persons as neuter clones, for reasons of simplicity.

A clone will, in most cases, be not differentiated from natural humans by sight. It looks like a normal natural human. So clones blend into society and move about, work for society, meet people, eventually fall in love, mate with natural humans and reproduce. If a country doesn't grant human rights to clones, what does it do with a clone's offspring. It's half clone. Does it deserve human rights? It's offspring again is quarter-clone a.s.o. Where do human rights start?
If a country agrees with this argumentation so far, but still doesn't want to grant human rights to clones, it'll have to make sure that clones are being recognized, e.g. by giving them badges, or it'll have to separate clones and natural humans, e.g. by putting clones into separated habitations (i.e. ghettos) or totally locking them away, or annihilate them (if that, what's the use of creating clones in the first place?). NOW THAT HAPPENED BEFORE, REMEMBER?

When is a human being a human being? As long as it's DNA is compatible with other human beings. A Neanderthaler was no doubt a human being, although not a homo sapiens. It was most probably able to reproduce with homo sapiens. So how much Neanderthal-genes does homo sapiens carry (besides the ones they share through the same ancestry)? Is homo sapiens homo sapiens at all or is it a hybrid?
If a Neanderthaler is a human being, A CLONE IS EVEN MORE SO! It shares the same genome with natural humans.

Following the argumentation of our Council of Science and Ethics,
we vote for this resolution,

Amor of Germ Nation

DP
Sorry

Alphared, if your point was "missed" explain or else it will be noted that the point was not in fact missed and you have no rebuttal.

Mikitivity: the point is the resolution does not state 'Sentience' it states person, a very important point in my arguments. In fact... Thank you Alphared for making my point clearer.

Human adj. of, characteristic of, or having the qualities typical of mankind _n. a person : also human being

(but then Genetically Engineered/Enhanced people may not have the same qualities of 'typical Mankind. are they to be denied?)

Mankind n. 1. the human race
(this World is made up of other Sentient Beings who proclaim themselves not Human... are you discriminating against them as well?)

Person n. 1. a human being
(Same point. I know some nations that have Half-breeds, Demi-humans (elves, dwarves and such), and Alien species are you saying they are not People?)

Homo Sapiens n. man; human being
(Again this shows the genetic racism that this resolution will spark off.)

With these definitions so well provided by yourself, you are proving that this resolution is only for "pure homo-sapiens" and thus discrimiates anyone who is in fact Different.

This resolution needs to be re-written to include any and all sentient beings. it needs to be clear that no one is to be left out no matter genetic makeup or composition. It needs to be clear.

Our own constitution was once written only to mean the white male. This constitution is written only to mean the minimally altered, Homo Sapiens. Why invite the same trouble USA did many years ago (and still have BTW)

There are might I add seperarate race of humans: Pygmies and Bushmen
Both live in Africa but the location isn't not important

(Someone asked if there was a seperate race before)
If either has sex and tries to produce a child:
1) child dies before birth because genes reject themselves.
2) Child born sterile like a mule

These two reasons scientifically categorize them as seperate races
Same as Tigers and Lions being a seperate race.

Now Has anyone defined Sentient seeing as that is what some posters define as human:
Defination: capable of feelings: having perception.

My dog is sentient so does that mean he has same rights as humans because of this proposal?

Human:
Define: Of, relating to, being, or characteristics of humans. Having human form or attributes.
Second: Any species of primate mammals comprising all living persons and their recent ancestors.

So half-humans are human because they are related to humans apparently.

Mongoloids, Caucasianoids, and Negroloids are a little bit different due to body evolution.
Negroloids can't float as good as the other two. Something to do with bone structure or distribution or something like. (I forget)

So the race theory while innaccurate was true that they are a little bit different.

Let us quote and answer something, yes?
Frankly, denying civil rights of a human clone is utterly barbaric. The question I have to wonder is why would one group of humans would wise to deny the rights of another group of humans. Fear of replacement? Guess what, if a line is drawn such that the international community treats all sentients as equals, you'll have your own rights protected by the voices of many should one day a crab-person seek to deny you your right to freedom of expression and freedom of travel (just two of the most basic civil liberties).

Now is it a human clone? Depends on defination of country...
"The question I have to wonder is why would one group of humans would wise to deny the rights of another group of humans. "
Humans are funny that way :lol:
"Guess what, if a line is drawn such that the international community treats all sentients as equals, you'll have your own rights protected by the voices of many should one day a crab-person seek to deny you your right to freedom of expression and freedom of travel (just two of the most basic civil liberties). "
So all dogs, cats, cat-people, elfs, demons, angels, humans, clones have rights protected?
As I stated the defined statement of sentience gives my dog equal rights. As would anything that can be "capable of feelings: having perception."

Tell me do not animals/elves feel? If you prick them do they not bleed? If you bite them do they not react by yelping or biting back?
Do they not precieve danger and other objects like we do?

There are might I add seperarate race of humans: Pygmies and Bushmen
Both live in Africa but the location isn't not important


What are their genus / species?

Answer: Homo Sapien

Sites to Visit:
http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/walkers_mammals_of_the_world/primates/primates.hominidae.homo.html
http://www.humboldt.edu/~mrc1/main.shtml
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

Please look over all sites ...


The Negroid Mbuti pygmies of the Ituri Forest in Zaire are an example of a hunting and gathering people and have been well studied. According to Turnbull (1976), their economy requires a minimal technology and is still at the Stone Age level, though Harako ( 1981) explained that they have been substantially influenced by contact with village peoples. They domesticate neither plants nor animals.

Read on:

The pygmies apparently have a belief in God as a universal creator; although they enjoy meat as food, they still somehow regard it as wrong to take life.

And more:

The Mbuti are a society of human beings who live in harmony with their environment.

The bottom line is, if you hunt around, you'll see that humans are homo sapiens. But the question shouldn't really be on gene slicing, because ....

Additional Site:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0520_030520_chimpanzees.html

The above is a worthy read. Part of it challenges using DNA to determine what is and isn't human.


The results suggested that within important sequence stretches of these functionally significant genes, humans and chimps share 99.4 percent identity.



My dog is sentient so does that mean he has same rights as humans because of this proposal?


Somehow I doubt that. Sentience is used by philosophers, religious scholars, and artifical intelligence experts as a measure of for lack of a better term has having EMOTIONS and OPINIONS.

Your dog has instincts. Your dog is most likely not considered to be a higher life form, i.e. capable of feeling sorrow for you ... except of course the fear that your continued absense might mean no more Alpo in his / her dog bowl and less time outside.


Mongoloids, Caucasianoids, and Negroloids are a little bit different due to body evolution.


And a Fox Terrier is by no means a Golden Retriever. They are different breeds, but they are the same genus species: canis lupus. And if you start looking at dog breeds with more detail, the Jack Russell Terrier isn't even a recognized breed in many societies ... it is considered a hybrid. A mutt.

The point here being, it is common to attempt to use DNA or genetic nominiclature to deny rights to humans. It happened before in our history, when darker skinned humans were considered lesser. Why? A circumstance of birth.

And now opponents to this measure are arguing with the same racist zeal as before: dividing and saying, "Clones can't be people, because they weren't born in a womb." or "Genetically enhanced humans can't be people because their DNA is different."

I'll tackle the second one first ... if a chimp and a UN delegate are between 95% and 98% alike, do you honestly want us to believe that a genetically modified human is going to be that much different?

Now do you really think your position has a moral leg to stand on when you are talking about an EXACT copy? 100% alike, but different because of the method of birth?


I've said it before, it really tears upon my heart to see people using similar arguments used by racists 100+ years ago to promote segregation and what-not, especially when they want to start taking parts of humanity, like the pygmies, and deny them their very genetics.

This really is the first step to finding a superior race ... I just wonder where some of you will stop? Nobody here is asking that your dog be given the right to vote, but you never know when the delegate you are talking too, might not have been born exactly the same way as you or if she / he hasn't undergone some slight genetic modification before birth.

Ask yourself this: if you were a parent, and your doctor told you that your child was going to be born without legs, but that a simple medical procedure could change that, would you choose not to give your child legs? Not being a parent, I'm only half qualified to answer this question. I can only say that as somebody else's child there is NO DOUBT whatsoever that my parents would have fought to get me legs. And many of my friends who are parents are equally protective.

The issue isn't should we modify people or not. It is happening. If you don't like it, tough cookies. The issue is there are more and more modified humans sitting right over there. Are we going to treat them with the same respect that we treat ourselves, or are we going to create a class of slaves ... a subspecies if you will.

This resolution asks that very question. It is simple. 100 years ago instead of talking about clones, we'd be arguing about skin color. Of that I'm certain.

10kMichael

His Holiness the Governor-General again lodges his objection.

To quote one of the so-called proponents:
100 years ago instead of talking about clones, we'd be arguing about skin color.
It is considered by all enlightened and lawful governments that `seperate but equal' policies are rarely `equal' in any degree.

His Holiness most thoroughly objects because the classifications proposed invite rather than opose social inequity. It is the opinion of His Holiness all Cathanistani have inalienable liberties which are protected by the very charter of The Dominion of North East Cathanistan. The Dominion of North East Cathanistan does not currently, nor has it ever, made any `seperate but equal' ruling.

It is a historical fact that `seperate but equal' only leads to social inequities and genocidal atrocities. The so-called proponents of this resolution have done more to uncover the insidious nature of this proposal than any of the most adamant of oponents. His Holiness again lodges his objection and urges all nations who truely desire equality - true equality! - to also object most strenuously.

[signed]
The Bishop Fred al-Rubei of The Directorate of Foreign Relations of The Dominion of North East Cathanistan

100 years ago instead of talking about clones, we'd be arguing about skin color.
`seperate but equal' is rarely `equal'

It is considered by all enlightened and lawful governments that `seperate but equal' policies are rarely `equal' in any degree.

His Holiness most thoroughly objects because the classifications proposed invite rather than opose social inequity. It is the opinion of His Holiness all Cathanistani have inalienable liberties which are protected by the very charter of The Dominion of North East Cathanistan. The Dominion of North East Cathanistan does not currently, nor has it ever, made any `seperate but equal' ruling.


While I can appreciate the logic of your argument and honestly do believe your point is valid, I don't think that will be the case with this resolution.

At some point we have to acknowledge that other socities (our both don't) already see a division or human class structure based on something so stupid as circumstance of birth or history of genetic purity (whatever that may be, because we haven't even talked about mutations and my government maintains that there is no such thing as genetic purity).

Basically my government's position is this people are here now and in need of protection.

10kMichael

the fact is a cloned human is not actually human at all, they are made from manifactured cells, a science project, if you will, they should have no rights whatsoever....in fact we shouldn't even make them at all.

NO! to Human cloning

I support this proposal because laws that come into effect that enforce discrimination of cloned humans can be abused quite severly. There is no way to tell if a human is a clone or not after they leave the lab. Of course you could keep records upon records to keep track of them, but what stops people from making records about humans that were born the natural way? If this passes, it difuses many bad situations.

I'm not about to wade through 8 pages, but has anyone brought up the concept of brain-dead donor clones yet? In this likely RW scenario of cloning technology people create clones of themselves and suffocate the brain so it never develops conciousness and then use the clone for donor parts as theirs fail. Would this technology be banned under this proposal? Would the creation of donor clones be allowed, but actually using them as donors be outlawed? I think this proposal needs instead to define human in a way which includes the intended categories and extend to this defintion all human rights instead of proposing a blanket extension of human rights to ill defined groups which are overbroad and too inclusive.

I'm not about to wade through 8 pages, but has anyone brought up the concept of brain-dead donor clones yet?

How would a brain-dead clone donor be different than an organ transplant donor?

If the answer is that the clone is killed in order to be a donor against his or her free will, my nation fails to see how this isn't murder.

The point perhaps here is that if you remove the word "clone" is it a good idea? If the answer is, "Gee, no, when you put it that way, it does sound like murder", then this resolution is a good idea. It makes it clear that clone / genetically modified shouldn't matter a darn.

10kMichael

I had hoped that we would begin avoiding resolutions with imprecise, inadequate and vague wording. Obviously I was wrong.

Do the members of this body really and truly feel that we can, with the writing of one small paragraph, ensure equal rights for all biological people? Please. This topic is entirely too large to be covered in a pithy little submission like we have here.

Does that mean that the proposer's heart is in the wrong place? No. In fact, we certainly should address this issue. However, it needs to be in the proper way--formally, not as a "please God, give me SOMETHING to vote on" selection like we've been given.

Problems:
1. Exactly what rights are to be extended to them? Even if you are feeding off a previous UN resolution, you should name it. Otherwise this gives nations no direction as to what they are supposed to enforce.
2. What do these scientific terms mean? Genetically altered? Engineered?

Resolutions must needs be precise and clear. We recently defeated a proposal that was actually well written, but had faults. Now I know its been almost a whole gosh darned week since you've been able to vote, but that doesn't mean we should go backwards to the time where anything was passed.

Good ideas are only the beginning of the process. Wording is just as important and should not be compromised on for the sake of passing something.

I urge my fellow delegates to reject the very basis of the arguments offered from Yakostanesia and Inversetonia. It is this sort of sensationalism that erodes the validity of this body's decisionmaking power. I offer the following rebuttal:

Yakostanesia--

1. Yes, we should be concerned with ANY resolution that leaves doubt about a defination or categorization that goes to its very heart. If you have any doubt that NOT defining what a person is has caused trouble in the past, then look no further than slavery. Such phrases as "we the people" and "all men are created equal" supposedly meant so much, and yet we overlooked the fact that whole parts of the US (and other nations as well) were not included in those documents. This was able to happen because we used a term, but did not bother to define it. Yakostanesia would have you believe that this vagueness is somehow a strength. That allowing each nation to define what a "person" is would be good. Complete rubbish. All that means is that if his nation chooses to determine that genetically altered people are not "persons" then he is free to deal with them however he chooses. That being the case, what is the purpose of the resolution?

2. He makes the same argument on the vagueness of the rights protected. Is this a joke? We're to pass a resolution protecting people's rights but not even mention what they are? He uses a nifty political term--elasticity--which in this case only means "give them whatever rights you want". What kind of resolution is that?

3. "...nobody has created new races of people, and without this having happened, there is no way to tell if they are deserving of these rights. That has to be handled on a country's level, not on the UN level"

EXACTLY.

and as for Inversetonia--

1. This blatant plea is shameful. Voting against this resolution in no way makes one against protection of rights. Quite the opposite. I reject it because IT DOES NOT PROTECT ANYTHING. Vague, imprecise wording. No enforcement. No effectiveness. Reject because of this and demand that we be sent serious resolutions that we can be proud of, not more of the things that get us laughed at by non-members.

Cast a vote that says we demand a higher quality of resolution. We want resolutions that actually DO something. Resolutions should be well thought out works of art, not a couple of sentences that sound nice.

Once again the people of Dakares find themselves confused at the wisdom of many in this world. Valid and sensible proposals such as space defence are defeated, because of such baffling concerns as 'it might be used as a weapon' or delusions such as 'my nation exists in a region inside a rain drop running down a Rhino's backside, how can a space defence weapon hope to protect me?'.

Now we find a resolution protecting something that should never have been done in the first place and which threatens the future of humanity as we know it. Forgive my rant but no thought is given to the ultimate impact of many resolutions, in terms of funding, significant and unwelcome social change and the rights of humans to give birth naturally and not to fear that their child will be forced into unemployment due to genetically enhanced artificial humans who do everything better and might look upon the very things that make us human as outmoded and irrelevant.

[edit soon after posting for language errors]

From: James Fester, Pontifex Maximus of Calistoga Optimus

To all good Christian nations of this world. I implore you to join me in dennouncing this hanous and malicious attack on the sanctity of human life, both living and divine. Cloning is a sin, and as such the rights of a clone or artifically created human are null and void in the eyes of God and his people. It pains me to see so many good nations supporting such an evil act in the world forum.


The people of Calistoga Optimus will continue to stand by the word of God, his son Jesus and the Bible. We will not submit to any governing body who tries to infringe on the teachings of God!

We will not reconize this ruling if it passes. We will continue to repress cloning, and those who participate in this practice will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of our laws, both human and divine.

We will respond to any nation who tries to force their will on us with kind.


-James Fester, Pontifex Maximus
Keeper of God's Covenant, Protector of the Divine
Please respond with Telegrams

The Neon Knights do agree with those who think that this resolution, as written, is not clear; but the issue is very important, even for those members who doesen't admit cloning.

The Neon Knights shall vote FOR, wishing new proposals for further resolutions in the next future.

But before I'd like to ask to The Free Carolinas delegate if they mean, with this resolution, to make stam cells researches and medical applications become illegal.
If they do, it's clear that the resolution lost its sense.

Best Regards,
S.G. Gibson
UN Delegate
Foreing Affairs Bureau
- ENK -

This resolution will completely destroy our biogenetics industry!!! We currently have a populace of subservient, by normal scales of intelligence measurement retarded genetically modified slaves. They do not think like real humans, nor want rights like normal humans do; they are best compared to a dog. On the other hand, we already have backup stores of clones, with I, Griff Steele's mind imprinted into them, so if this resolution is passed, as it appears it will be, The Scr00d will be the rulers of the modern world.

That is all, :twisted:

Griff Steele,
Benevolent Dictator
of The Holy Empire
of The Scr00d and all
It encompasses.

Why is the United Nations being so slow with issues these days????

If you all take a look to older resolutions, you should not be worried by this one.

Slavery and such ancient abominions are banned, so - in the UN - in my opinion there aren't terms for a kind of "bad use" of this resolution.

I hope you got what I mean; if you didn't, I'm sorry but I'm writing in a foreing language.

Best Regards,
Knight Ringhio I

Emperor
of
The Neon Knights

The Principality of Léonne supports this resolution.

The arguments about vagueness of wording are unfounded. If we must define the words 'person' and 'human' in this resolution, must we also define the words 'member states' and the word 'recognise'? All of these words may be open to some form of interpretation. For example: We do not have to treat cloned persons similarly or enforce these rights, as long as we 'recognise' they have rights. Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? So does the need of defining 'person'. 'Person' in this resolution has the definition of 'person' in any other resolution of the United Nations.

Regarding 'genetically modified' persons, if a dog-human or such were to exist, then they would have the same rights -- if they were otherwise regarded as a person -- i.e. they were required to pay tax, maintain social standards and have the ability to reproduce with other persons. Many nations would already determine when an embryo or foetus becomes a 'person', these existing policies would refer also to any cloned person.

As far as indoctrinated clones taking over the world. This is bordering on paranoia. If a state was capable of indoctrinating millions of clones to vote, the expense and time required to conduct this would far outweigh any benefit. As already mentioned, cloning millions would still require millions of surrogate mothers, near twenty years of housing, feeding and educating these clones and then you would still have to ensure you had brainwashed them enough to ensure they still were not capable of making up their own mind. All this for some votes?

Surely brainwashing the general population through propaganda or staging or outlawing elections altogether would be far more economical and accurate should any nation wish to partake in this. Most notably though, any nation that would be inclined to this, would most likely not pay any heed to United Nations resolutions anyway.

This resolution does not endorse cloning, genetic engineering or modification. It simply gives rights of any person, no matter how they came to be a person to have rights that should be otherwise afforded to them.

The Hon D. Maçxenné,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Principality of Léonne.

-- Repeated post deleted --

It is our opinion that, irrespective of the author's intentions, this issue cannot be legislated on in the terse manner of this resolution. We vote 'nay', though would support a positive and thoughtful articulation of rights for clones.

John Boone
Speaker for Welfare

The Neon Knights would like to thank the Ambassador of Léonne for having explained so clearly the sense and the intention of this resolution.

We invite all the members who haven't still decided to take seriously in consideration this position. :wink:

Best regards,

Preben L. Elkjaer
Knights Spokesman
- ENK -

If you all take a look to older resolutions, you should not be worried by this one.

Slavery and such ancient abominions are banned, so - in the UN - in my opinion there aren't terms for a kind of "bad use" of this resolution.


The question that is on many of our minds is, in those previous resolutions did the ban on slavery extend to all human beings? Did that ban even extend to sentients?

Though I could be corrected, when I last looked at the resolutions prior to Jan. 2004, I was under the impression that they were vague (and not by design).

My government maintains that this is an attempt to fix that. Obviously for those of you who feel that this resolution does a poor job at fixing that, your nations likely will vote opposite of mine. I would only ask that you explain why, so that if the authors wish to propose a future resolution, they will have feedback. :)

10kMichael

Have you people all gone isane! Do you want geneticaly enginered robots playing with your children? Working in your stores? They are not people and they never will be. I plead with the UN to realize the msitake they are making by alowing these....things....righs and freedoms. OUTLAW IT!

The President of Brinam

Feel free to TG me in you would like to further debate this topic.

Leonne: the word Person is different than the word Human. If proven Sentient, a dog can be considered a person yet not human. Genetically Engeneered People won't necessarily be Human. If your dog was genetically engineered to have sentience but keep it's appearance as a dog (as well as other dogs) your pet can then turn around and sue you for slavery of his people and demand reparations (as will be his right for it will fit the common undefined definition of "Person" which is the word used in the resolution.) Whole species of "altered" pets can rise up and demand their equal time in the government as well as reparations for emotional distress from their former "owners". Owners can and will be sued for denying their rights to propgate their species (spayed and neutering.) and let's not forget the fun Lawers will have as they see a whole new source of income for them.

If you are right and define Human in the common defined way. You will be discriminating against Genetically altered/Engineered entities who can claim sentience but are not Human. You will have an uprising equal that to what the USA had to go through because remember. "Man" as in "All MEN are created equal" in the 1800's was commonly known to be WHITE MALES. Native American Indians, African, and women were not included when it was declared that "All Men are created equal." I'm sure you read the long, bloody road that the US set upon with that "Common" definition of man.

By recongizing their rights we are "giving" them their rights. So yes, you can Ignore their "rights" but they can apply to the UN saying that you are "Denying" those same "Rights" that you are "Recongnizing" thus the UN can step in and "Chastise" you (remember Saddam?)

If the Embryo is then protected, then all stem cell research stops! there will be no advancements to organ cloning. and the old and unreliable organ donation will be the only way people will get organs they need. Why? because the basis for organ cloning is through stem cells... the only way to get stem cells is through aborted fetuses. and abortion will be illegal because now it will be called MURDER. (the embryos now have rights.) Health and medical research just it the brick wall... thank you very much.

This resolution does endorse cloning... why? ok, let's say you ban cloning in your nation. Some renegade scientist wants a clone of himself. he start the cloning process. Because a fertelized embryo (in your definition) now has the basic rights as eveyone else, the government cannot stop the process. To do so would be in direct VIOLATION of THIS RESOLUTION. so YES, it does support cloning and Genetic Engineering. Try prohibit or stop the cloning by not denying the clones right to live.

Sounds confusing? that's because this resolution is poorly written and open to many different definitions that can and will lead to anarchy.

Hmm, I'm partly with it and partly against it.
On one hand, I would give clones rights, but genetically modified? If, say, that modification is to prevent some genetical illness, then theys deserve rights. If the modification is negative for the human, such as lower intelligence etc. I would not give equal rights. I voted for it anyway.ww

I support this proposal because laws that come into effect that enforce discrimination of cloned humans can be abused quite severly. There is no way to tell if a human is a clone or not after they leave the lab. Of course you could keep records upon records to keep track of them, but what stops people from making records about humans that were born the natural way? If this passes, it difuses many bad situations.

One post and already overlooked something. You forget that this proposal include genetically altered specimens of humanity.
Again, we do not know where to draw the line. Do humans who have had jellyfish DNA incorporated into them qualify for human rights? (probably, yes) do jellyfish with human DNA incorporated into them qualify for human rights? (probably not, no).

Where do we draw the line, why does this proposal have no safeguards against abuse by less reliable governments?

It is not safe, so why have so many sheep voted for it?

Don't answer, i know. Because it makes you feel like you're a nice person. Surely it makes you a person who hasn't quite thought it out yet..

Regards,

TNE

Actually, Because there is no definition of Person, A jellyfish with Human DNA can be argued to be protected because of the Human DNA. (technically, it can be a human modified with 98% jellyfish)

da lawers are gonna luv dis one.

For the sake of our world I urge all nations to vote against this proposal. We need to keep the Earth pure and clean, and giving rights to these unnatural freaks will only endanger humanity in the future. We need to remove the unnaturals from our society, not give them rights.

The Great Sai, Lord of Heaven and Earth

For the sake of our world I urge all nations to vote against this proposal. We need to keep the Earth pure and clean, and giving rights to these unnatural freaks will only endanger humanity in the future. We need to remove the unnaturals from our society, not give them rights.

The Great Sai, Lord of Heaven and Earth

There is absolutely no way this should be passed. Clones are not human,
they don’t belong to the same classification as humans, and they certainly
shouldn’t share our rights!

By taking something that YOU made and treating it the same as a normal
human, you are by all means, degrading our system by unjust
declarations. It is the same as someone engineering a robot with an
amazing AI system and letting it roam our streets with the same rights as
yourself. Imagine the possibilities for error. What if something goes wrong
and the clone goes haywire? There is no real reason to believe that
something wont, something always does. But I don’t want my countries
children to fear for their lives because some clone goes nuts.

On top of that, what happens when a clone is eventually positioned in high
office? What kind of decisions will they make? I am sure that anything, no
matter the cost, to benefit that clone will be passed with little thought.
They have no reason to be trusted, no reason to treated as a normal
human, and no reason to exist whatsoever!

Brunelian BG advocates have outlawed cloning. Attempted cloning of a potentially sentinent species is regarded as a capital crime. There is no justifiable reason to restrict biodiversity, since evolution depends on it.
On this basis alone, Brunelian BG advocates votes NO.

Brunelian BG advocates have outlawed cloning. Attempted cloning of a potentially sentinent species is regarded as a capital crime. There is no justifiable reason to restrict biodiversity, since evolution depends on it.
On this basis alone, Brunelian BG advocates votes NO.

Replace 'clone' with 'slave', and you get the same backward thinking that has brought down any number of civilizations. "Human" rights must exist for EVERY human, either cloned or livebirth. It is disturbing how many countries have this mindset, and we will be issuing a warning to our population against visiting any of these nations.

There is absolutely no way this should be passed. Clones are not human,
they don’t belong to the same classification as humans, and they certainly
shouldn’t share our rights!

By taking something that YOU made and treating it the same as a normal
human, you are by all means, degrading our system by unjust
declarations. It is the same as someone engineering a robot with an
amazing AI system and letting it roam our streets with the same rights as
yourself. Imagine the possibilities for error. What if something goes wrong
and the clone goes haywire? There is no real reason to believe that
something wont, something always does. But I don’t want my countries
children to fear for their lives because some clone goes nuts.

On top of that, what happens when a clone is eventually positioned in high
office? What kind of decisions will they make? I am sure that anything, no
matter the cost, to benefit that clone will be passed with little thought.
They have no reason to be trusted, no reason to treated as a normal
human, and no reason to exist whatsoever!

Replace 'clone' with 'slave', and you get the same backward thinking that has brought down any number of civilizations. "Human" rights must exist for EVERY human, either cloned or livebirth. It is disturbing how many countries have this mindset, and we will be issuing a warning to our population against visiting any of these nations.

There is absolutely no way this should be passed. Clones are not human,
they don’t belong to the same classification as humans, and they certainly
shouldn’t share our rights!

By taking something that YOU made and treating it the same as a normal
human, you are by all means, degrading our system by unjust
declarations. It is the same as someone engineering a robot with an
amazing AI system and letting it roam our streets with the same rights as
yourself. Imagine the possibilities for error. What if something goes wrong
and the clone goes haywire? There is no real reason to believe that
something wont, something always does. But I don’t want my countries
children to fear for their lives because some clone goes nuts.

On top of that, what happens when a clone is eventually positioned in high
office? What kind of decisions will they make? I am sure that anything, no
matter the cost, to benefit that clone will be passed with little thought.
They have no reason to be trusted, no reason to treated as a normal
human, and no reason to exist whatsoever!

Replace 'clone' with 'slave', and you get the same backward thinking that has brought down any number of civilizations. "Human" rights must exist for EVERY human, either cloned or livebirth. It is disturbing how many countries have this mindset, and we will be issuing a warning to our population against visiting any of these nations.

There is absolutely no way this should be passed. Clones are not human,
they don’t belong to the same classification as humans, and they certainly
shouldn’t share our rights!

By taking something that YOU made and treating it the same as a normal
human, you are by all means, degrading our system by unjust
declarations. It is the same as someone engineering a robot with an
amazing AI system and letting it roam our streets with the same rights as
yourself. Imagine the possibilities for error. What if something goes wrong
and the clone goes haywire? There is no real reason to believe that
something wont, something always does. But I don’t want my countries
children to fear for their lives because some clone goes nuts.

On top of that, what happens when a clone is eventually positioned in high
office? What kind of decisions will they make? I am sure that anything, no
matter the cost, to benefit that clone will be passed with little thought.
They have no reason to be trusted, no reason to treated as a normal
human, and no reason to exist whatsoever!

How would you feel if a clone of yourself took your job? As stupid as that sounds, that's the reality we face. Clones deserve less rights than those of us pure breeds. Watch South Park and you'll know the reality "THEY STOLE OUR JOBS!" P.S. Look at Star Wars... we'll have a clone war eventually unless we keep them under our control and give them restricted rights.

At the same tone, replace "clone" with "pet." Do you own a cat? Dog? Goldfish? Better pray that no insane scientist incorporates human genetic material in them. After all, then they would qualify as Genetically Engineered Person and you will be a "SlaveOwner."

Stupid you say? As stupid as suing the Fast Food Industry for making food that makes people fat? (someone won that case) or someone with Multiple Personallity Disorder having all her 'other personalities' charge one personality's boyfriend with Rape and WIN. (Go ahead, Look it up.) Protecting rights is a GREAT issue, Doing it stupidly and Blindly is harmful.

Everyone so far defines clone... no one has yet defined Genetically Engineered Person (not Human, Not Sentience... PERSON)

The closest someone attempted to was to define person as Human. Well, if they are Genetically Engineered Person, they may not be human. When Asked if those who will not be considered Human will be protected? The panel went silent and concentrated on the definition of 'Clones.' Hmmm. I guess all half-breeds and Genetic Mixes are being LEFT OUT on this one.

AND NO ONE HAS YET QUOTED A DEFINITION FOR CLONE OR GENETICALLY ENGINEERED PERSON THAT IS IN THE RESOLUTION not in the Dictionary, not in the BIBLE. but the definition of who gets protected as stated in the RESOLUTION.

Getting all these definitions in the Forums is fine and dandy, but when all is said and done, it's what is written in the resolution itself that will count. The forums will get purged, but the resolutions will be here to STAY!

Screw the clones! They are nothing but spare body parts that will be used to repair whatever section of our bodies might become damaged. They have no rights, they were only created to incubate our organs so we can drink and smoke endlessly and when our liver is rotted away just like our lungs we know that somewhere selse there are spare ones frozen just waiting to be transplanted.

I think we should only allow stem cell research and it to dangerous to allow humanes to clone themselves

unfortunatly, this involves cloning as well as genetic enhancement/engineering. So stem cell research may fall in that catagory as well.

Rights for everyone thats the idea in S2
Rights for everyone thats the ideal for the world

Well, I'm new to this, and admittedly I didn't read every page of this. But the one thing that stands out to me is that by voting in favor of this resolution, we unintentionally make a step towards saying that human cloning is perfectly fine. Now, I don't know if there has already been a resolution saying that that is allowed, but I personally stand very much against it.

Therefore I propose the following modification to the resolution:
- All clones of humans that have not been significantly altered (so it is still essentially human as far as anyone can tell) receive regular human rights.
- Human cloning is considered highly discouraged, if not banned entirely, but efforts will be made to protect clones should they inadvertantly come about.
- If human cloning is banned, all punishment will be directed at those behind the cloning, and NOT the clones themselves.

There is absolutely no way this should be passed. Clones are not human,
they don’t belong to the same classification as humans, and they certainly
shouldn’t share our rights!

By taking something that YOU made and treating it the same as a normal
human, you are by all means, degrading our system by unjust
declarations. It is the same as someone engineering a robot with an
amazing AI system and letting it roam our streets with the same rights as
yourself. Imagine the possibilities for error. What if something goes wrong
and the clone goes haywire? There is no real reason to believe that
something wont, something always does. But I don’t want my countries
children to fear for their lives because some clone goes nuts.

On top of that, what happens when a clone is eventually positioned in high
office? What kind of decisions will they make? I am sure that anything, no
matter the cost, to benefit that clone will be passed with little thought.
They have no reason to be trusted, no reason to treated as a normal
human, and no reason to exist whatsoever!

I'm not about to wade through 8 pages, but has anyone brought up the concept of brain-dead donor clones yet?

How would a brain-dead clone donor be different than an organ transplant donor?

If the answer is that the clone is killed in order to be a donor against his or her free will, my nation fails to see how this isn't murder.

The point perhaps here is that if you remove the word "clone" is it a good idea? If the answer is, "Gee, no, when you put it that way, it does sound like murder", then this resolution is a good idea. It makes it clear that clone / genetically modified shouldn't matter a darn.

10kMichaelWell the donor clone is never allowed to become concious/develop a conciouness. The brain is treated with a little micro-surgery during gestation and poof no personality/conciouness will ever develop. It is debatable whether or not keeping enough of the brain to run the autonomic nervous system is preferable, but either is potentially usable. There is no question of the clone's free will, it is never allowed to develp a will. The difference between a person who once had a conciousness and a clone which never had one is pretty clear, these donor clones would never be allowed to develop a conciousness just to avoid difficult questions.

Let's instead consider if the only cloning of humans allowed was that in which the brain were killed during gestation, would it be appropriate to confer full human rights onto something which is effectively a plant raised for a specific purpose? Or how about specially grown individual organs, possible - select the organ you want to clone and snip away the excess parts during gestation and put it on an artifical life support system, would these be considered human? This is just clones, with genetic engineering thrown in, in vitero it is conceptually possible to not even bother with micro surgury and just create a foetus in which only the genes to create an organ are activated so only an indivdual organ is grown, but under this proposal these crrated organs would be granted full human rights. Since this law would extend full human right to these non-concious creations, while it would not ban this form of medical research it would make it impossible. Free will again, how do you get a cloned liver to sign a consent form to be donated to someone?

If you are extending full human rights to foeti and gametes then no problem (and no genetially engineered humans either), but if human rights don't exist until birth (or equivalent for clones) then the microsurgury to produce these donor clones are completely OK and playing gametes with gametes to create organs is no problem. Surely you ar enot proposing to extend human rights to artifically created foeti while denying them to naturally created foeti? But if foeti have full human rights (preventing the creation of brain dead donor clones) then abortion must be treated as murder, and all the attendant problems with that.

I don't have answers to the objections I raise. The only sure answer I see is to extend human rights to foeti and that only help with clones, and I find that too controversial to be an acceptable answer. Instead I think this resolution should be allowed to fail and those concerned about the rights of non-natural person instead come up with a defintion of "human" which adresses these concerns without raising more problems.

I also intend to vote for this resolution. All humans have equal rights, no matter how they got here.

The States of Stephenson agrees with this statement, but we would like to condem human cloning, something that we deem wrong and immoral. At the same time, this is not a reason to discriminate against those who have already been cloned. They did nothing wrong.

The proposal as written seems to be misguided and flawed. While the second half the the proposal is adequate, clearly claiming that modified human beings are in fact human, we find no problems with. However, the issue that most of our illustrious nations seem to be neglecting is simply one of ownership.

Even the most scientifically backwards of institutions respect the rights of a human being to his own DNA. The Catholic Church, as well as this budding nation of Inbredsburg, has supported the private ownership of genetic materials. It has been deemed unlawful and unethical for states, in many regions, to claim that the state has any right to proclaim what can and cannot be done with one's own body materials, and that includes that person's unique sequence of DNA.

We must make the following statement from the above information:
1) We urge these find Deligates to either modifiy the referendum as stated and drop the first clause.
-or-
2) Barring modification of the referendum, a vehement nay vote.

Description: The United Nations and its member states shall hereby recognize and henceforth regard the inherent rights of cloned and genetically engineered persons as being the equal of those of naturally born and unmodified persons.

First off I will dispell the myths surrounding identical clones. For starters artificial identical clones are twins that were born apart. Some delegates have posted that the clones would take their jobs, aside from the fact that by the time the clone grows up you'd probably be retired, it would be as any other competent and qualified human was competing for your job.

On the issue of them not being 'natural' because they are 'made', to a lesser degree you have genetically engineered your natural children because you chose your partner based on characteristic you wanted for your offspring. Genetic engineering is just a faster process of natural selection. And in the view of many is quite necessary. Natural selection and the evolution of the human species has come to an abrupt halt. Why is this? Because in the 'natural' world the weak are meant to die and through the strong and better adapted surviving and breeding the species evolves. But in our world we protect the weak, we allow them to breed, we allow the interbreeding between the good mutations and the bad mutations. Genetic engineering can make enhanced humans, to expediate natural selection and put the best genes in and remove the worst ones from the gene pool.

Some delegates have labelled genetically enchanced being as 'freaks' that would endanger society. Well these delegates obviously don't live in the real world. Freaks are all around us. Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, etc. Not only the most famous 'freaks' but there are everyday 'freaks' like murderers and rapists. These 'freaks' are a product of our incest gene pool and random mutations in DNA. Do you put engine oil extracted from the ground full of impurities and grit, or do you put synthetic oil created in a clean and controlled manufacturing plant? Some misguided hipocrite delegates have said that clones would try to benefit themselves when in office and they can not be trusted. These people also don't live in the real world. They don't see that alot of the 'natural' society can not be trusted and are selfish. Aside from this it may be possible with enough development to engineer urges and personality traits to make genetically enhanced humans less aggressive, more intelligent, fair and selfless. Our nation for one would gladly appoint genetically caring bureaucrats to public office, it would be a refreshing change.

The resolution applies rights to 'cloned' and 'genertically engineered' 'persons'. The narrow definition of 'cloned' is "A DNA sequence, such as a gene, that is transferred from one organismt to another and replicated by genetic engineering techniques." Given that it is only cloned 'persons' we should investigate what a person is. Now the definition of person is rather broad, and it is not the intention of this resolution to mean in the legal term but rather the biological. Assuming this we can say that person is meant to be read as 'A living human'.

Now this is the most important point of contention in this debate. What is a human? Biologically speaking this is mearly any biological organism we classify of the genus Homo and of the species Homo sapiens sapiens. Obviously the biological characteristics of a clone would have to be discussed and classified according to taxonomy. This would definitely rule out a human with 98% jellyfish DNA because the resulting organism would not have the biological characteristics of a Homo sapien.

Aside from the biological classification of these 'cloned' 'persons' we can look to their characteristics that qualify them for human rights that we would normally associate with natural humans. Hopefully this last statement will give this discussion more direction. That is, you should be discussing 'When is a human not a human to deny them human rights?'

I'd like to kickstart this new direction with a few ideas. If we take the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from the UN General Assembly Dec 1948, we can infer a number of things. As per Article 1, it is stated that humans are 'born' and that they are 'endowed with reason and conscience'. Given this we should say that 'clones' that were born and have reason and conscience should not be denied human rights. Article 2 goes on to further limit the means by which you can deny human rights to include 'race' which can be seen as genetic deviations in the homo sapiens sapiens species, these genetic deviations could also be achieved through genetic engineering and so could also be classified as 'race'. Failing this condition Article 2 also bars 'other status' from having distinction from human rights, these words are often used to cover unknown circumstances in the future that courts can deem to be intended in the article.

Therefore, it seems that this resolution is not only complimentary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights it can be argued that the issue of cloned persons is already covered by the declaration. To vote in favour of this resolution would simply be ratifying the most important resolution ever passed by the UN.

Some delegates seem to think that giving human rights to sentient beings is wrong. Well those delegates have obviously never read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights so wouldn't know what rights these 'cloned' 'persons' would be entitled to. Rights like freedom of expression, religion, life, liberty, security. Freedom from slavery, torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Equality before the law, and entitled to a full public hearing in an independent and impartial tribunal after a criminal charge against them. Freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. And the list of rights goes on, but to sum it up in words the ignorant delegates would understand: "Genetically engineered persons should have the same protections under law that you would expect to have for yourself".

To vote against the resolution does not necessarily entail the rejection of rights for cloned or genetically engineered ‘people’ it can simply be reserving judgement. It's a complicated question that does imply an endorsement of certain dubious medical practices.

Sorry Guvner, perhaps you should read the resolution again. There is a quote from it in my last post. Recognizing the rights of genetically engineered persons does not endorse creating them in the first place.

Here's an example with no clones in it. If you and your partner have a baby that I didn't endorse I can still endorse that babies human rights once it is born.

Wow. I can't believe I missed that first thing you said Guvner, 'reserving judgement'. Now a reasonable person who is not fully aware of the issue and has a problem reaching a conclusion would abstain from voting. But you have decided to support the status quo and vote against this even though your not fully qualified in your own judgement to make this discision yet. Maybe you didn't mean for it to work this way, but you are effectively supporting NOT giving clones rights by supporting status quo.

I would hope that if you haven't made your mind up on an issue that you would abstain from voting.

The resolution applies rights to 'cloned' and 'genertically engineered' 'persons'. The narrow definition of 'cloned' is "A DNA sequence, such as a gene, that is transferred from one organismt to another and replicated by genetic engineering techniques." Given that it is only cloned 'persons' we should investigate what a person is. Now the definition of person is rather broad, and it is not the intention of this resolution to mean in the legal term but rather the biological. Assuming this we can say that person is meant to be read as 'A living human'.

Now this is the most important point of contention in this debate. What is a human? Biologically speaking this is mearly any biological organism we classify of the genus Homo and of the species Homo sapiens sapiens. Obviously the biological characteristics of a clone would have to be discussed and classified according to taxonomy. This would definitely rule out a human with 98% jellyfish DNA because the resulting organism would not have the biological characteristics of a Homo sapien.

Aside from the biological classification of these 'cloned' 'persons' we can look to their characteristics that qualify them for human rights that we would normally associate with natural humans. Hopefully this last statement will give this discussion more direction. That is, you should be discussing 'When is a human not a human to deny them human rights?'

Well said, however, worthless, because it is not in the resolution. Unfortunately, the majority seems to think that this resolution will actually make a difference, so it will be accepted. A pity, because we feel that with your input, this proposal could have been a lot better and actually do something for the rights of clones and GE people - whatever they are.

so Eruland, a half-dragon (I know some nations that claim to be this) is actually Homo Draconus Sapien. By your definition, they would not receive these rights. since they are not Homo Sapiens

A wolf engineered for human intelligence and humanoid qualities would probably be a Canus Lupus sapien would thus, also not be protected by this resolution. This resolution now becomes Elitists. (a whole subspecies of humans/animal hybrids can be produced as legal slave labor as long as they are not Homo Sapien.) Subspecies will also be discrimiated against because of your definition of person.

Then there is the Declaration of HUMAN rights. As you say, that humans are born. Clones tend to be Grown, not necessarily born. Genetic Engineered Persons tend to be created not born. Granted other status can be a blanket to cover the clones and GEP's. This resolution can set a presidence to remove that blanket and narrow the Other Statused persons from recieving the protection and rights they deserve, by redefining the term Person, Human, and mankind.

I also intend to vote for this resolution. All humans have equal rights, no matter how they got here.

The States of Stephenson agrees with this statement, but we would like to condem human cloning, something that we deem wrong and immoral. At the same time, this is not a reason to discriminate against those who have already been cloned. They did nothing wrong.

So you'd give votes to genetically altered people?

Jellyfish with human DNA?
Humans with jellyfish DNA?
Dogs with human DNA to make them smart enough to do better tricks?
Humans with simian DNA to make them unthinking slaves?
Sheep with human DNA to make them grow larger?

Hmm?

Would ya?

..hows about you change your vote back.

TNE

As for the delegate from Ichi Ni who has trouble reading. Biological classification was part of the consideration for what is a 'person' but if you would read the paragraph after you would discover that 'characteristics' of humans that give us human rights such as intelligent and consciousness. So your wolf engineered for human intelligence and humanoid qualities would not be a slave as it would have the characteristics needed for human rights. On your second issue, you obviously don't know the difference between concieved and born. Clones are concieved in a test tube so to speak, and the embryo is genetically altered, then the embryo is reinserted into the womb. The embryo then grows into a baby in the womb and after full gestation the baby is born in natural birth (or as todays common practice cesarean).

And to the delegate 'of the new empire' as per above your remarks on 'jellyfish with human dna' have already been discussed. Try READING.

The resolution "BioRights Declaration" was passed, 12135 votes to 4726, and implemented in all UN member nations.

Thankyou for your support all delegates who voted in favour, you have done a equitable deed. This debate is over, the resolution passed, now we can move onto the next issue. :)

The Incorporated States of Zaalania have been forced to be in compliance with the United Nations "BioRights Declaration" resolution. How can this be done as Zaalania is a new nation.

Don't worry about it, I've been shafted to on this one - I didn't even know there was a vote on. As far as I'm concerned they can go f uck themselves - I ain't gonna comply with any smelly-bottomed resolution about genetic freaks

people are people and they are no different than any other peoples.

I am for this all the way!

They are freaks.

Of the New Empire, you seem to be saying all people are freeks, though I suspect you mean those of altered - by - man - genetic - disposition, would you mind cropping all your reasons for this in one nice big fat post for me, makes it all the easier for me to rip in with my arguments, its just I've been away for a few days and want some good debate with thee.

Yours respectfully,

- The Rep of Komokom, RMoS.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)

The Incorporated States of Zaalania have been forced to be in compliance with the United Nations "BioRights Declaration" resolution. How can this be done as Zaalania is a new nation.It’s the way the UN works I’m afraid. Every member is effected by the resolution voted in.

Every member.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

mis-posted

Cloning shouldnt be such an issue as to refering to genetic engineering as "clone" basically means an exact replica of the original. "clone" does not imply the fact that there are alterations to the DNA when processed from the original source, an example of a clone could implement the idea to some people of naturally born twins and noone has issues with discussions to scientific significance of twins do they?!

id say that genetic engineering in some ways may be troublesome but you may not know what kind of history-in-the-making significance it could present aforth to the future whether its the near future of tomorrow or 1 hours time or distant future of maybe 20 years time.

so really it should be the matter of genetic engineering to be discussed if need to, clones have no means towards this resolution as they are the same as everyone else but only just a copy of one of us in a million or so.

just thoughts, thats all.


Tytrox Throx
2000th Generation Emperor
Imperial Empire of Zortroth
Commander General Zortrothian Army