NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes all of you..


..all of you who have not looked and taken heed of the "BioRights Declaration" Proposal or the page regarding it.

I know most of you have not because if you had then the proposal would have been overturned by now.

Wake up and act, please..

You make such a convincing arguement.

Baaa.

Yes all of you..


..all of you who have not looked and taken heed of the "BioRights Declaration" Proposal or the page regarding it.

I know most of you have not because if you had then the proposal would have been overturned by now.

Wake up and act, please..

Ohhhh. Right.
Vote FOR the proposal.
Gotcha.

(insulting people: not a good way to get the results you want.)

Yes all of you..


..all of you who have not looked and taken heed of the "BioRights Declaration" Proposal or the page regarding it.

I know most of you have not because if you had then the proposal would have been overturned by now.

Wake up and act, please..

Ohhhh. Right.
Vote FOR the proposal.
Gotcha.

(insulting people: not a good way to get the results you want.)

so you're going to waste your vote because you feel that someone insulted you... right... democracy at work.

If you are reading this in the forum, guess what... you're not sheep. Sheep voters are people who take the resolution at face value... do not take the time to research the proposal on the forums.

Basically this thread is a catch 22. Sheep Voters won't see this... those that do (and check out the thread debating this resolution) are not sheep.

if you know sheep voters, get them on the forums because this is a poorly written resolution that is so vague that anything can happen.

I'm a sheep voter. :oops:

again, if you are taking time to research the topics... then you are not a sheep voter... unless your species are sheep? (I know some nationstates that claim they are dragons.)

if that is the case... I for one did not mean, uhmm... well, :oops:

Already voted for it.
Can't say this thread does much to convince me otherwise.

Since no one really seems interested in tossing out a reason why this is a bad proposal, here are a few:

1) Nations should have the right to decide what happens to their citizens. This proposal may strip away national sovereignty.

2) I say "may strip away national sovereignty" because there is nothing binding in this proposal--treating GM people just like other people doesn't mean much if regular people are being treated like cattle.

3) This proposal doesn't do anything to define "genetically engineered" or "cloned." Who specifically is this giving rights to? Are half-human, half-machine genetically engineered creatures covered under this resolution? Are test tube babies covered? What?

This is generally a poorly worded proposal, and I doubt it's intentions. Maybe someone can write something a little more specific and that spells out its intentions and effects a little more clearly. Until then, vote no.

Yes all of you..


..all of you who have not looked and taken heed of the "BioRights Declaration" Proposal or the page regarding it.

I know most of you have not because if you had then the proposal would have been overturned by now.

Wake up and act, please..

I've acted. Acted against it, that is.
And who are you to be calling me a sheep? :P

What is missing in this proposal is a distinction as to what stage of development the clone becomes human. Also how much genetic composition is necessary to be human, 20%, 50%, 51%, 80%?

1) Nations should have the right to decide what happens to their citizens. This proposal may strip away national sovereignty.
I believe human rights takes precedent over 'national sovereignty'.


2) I say "may strip away national sovereignty" because there is nothing binding in this proposal--treating GM people just like other people doesn't mean much if regular people are being treated like cattle.
There are other proposals that do this. The current proposal only makes sure 'GM people' are included by them.

3) This proposal doesn't do anything to define "genetically engineered" or "cloned." Who specifically is this giving rights to? Are half-human, half-machine genetically engineered creatures covered under this resolution? Are test tube babies covered? What?
Well you're right there.

Of the New Empire- all this proposal does is give clones rights if you are so concerned about the creation of clones for specific uses, such as the ones mentioned in your other posts, please create a separate proposal to deal with it.

You aren’t going to change anybody's mind by insulting them or without giving reasons.

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

Since no one really seems interested in tossing out a reason why this is a bad proposal, here are a few:

1) Nations should have the right to decide what happens to their citizens. This proposal may strip away national sovereignty.

If you value national sovereignity so much, why are you a UN member? By joining, you agree to give up some national sovereignity. If no national sovereignity is given up, the UN cannot function!

2) I say "may strip away national sovereignty" because there is nothing binding in this proposal--treating GM people just like other people doesn't mean much if regular people are being treated like cattle.

True, but there are other resolutions for that.

3) This proposal doesn't do anything to define "genetically engineered" or "cloned." Who specifically is this giving rights to? Are half-human, half-machine genetically engineered creatures covered under this resolution? Are test tube babies covered? What?

This is generally a poorly worded proposal, and I doubt it's intentions. Maybe someone can write something a little more specific and that spells out its intentions and effects a little more clearly. Until then, vote no.

I am completely agreeing with this point, and that's one of our reasons to vote no as well. Although we think the intention is good, but the author simply forgot to read the resolution writing guide and think for more than a few minutes. With that done, this could become a good proposal which will easily pass.

Regards,

PRoGG

Vote FOR on the "BioRights Declaration", for everyone's equal right to life (sounds really corny when coming from a dictatorship right? :wink:). But think of this:

* Only the biological aspect of the cloned person is similar to another one, otherwise the cloned person is a totally new person. The human mind cannot be cloned (except for in Alien4).

* Genetically enhanced persons have an improved gene-bank, more resistant to genetically-connected diseases. The next proposal is to make genemanipulation obligatory to control diseases.

1) Nations should have the right to decide what happens to their citizens. This proposal may strip away national sovereignty.
I believe human rights takes precedent over 'national sovereignty'.

What about the crossover between human and animal? We need a line drawn before we go throwing human rights and beings who may essentially be animals.

What about the crossover between human and animal? We need a line drawn before we go throwing human rights and beings who may essentially be animals.

Humans are, strictly speaking, just animals.

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

Humans are, strictly speaking, just animals.

Oh yes, and they have the same rights do they? They both able to vote?

Oh look they are, strictly speaking, very different.

TNE

Oh yes, and they have the same rights do they? They both able to vote?

Oh look they are, strictly speaking, very different.

TNE

Allow me to clarify; Humans are, biologically speaking, just animals

All humans are animals.

Not all animals are people*.

People get the rights in my country, no one gets a vote.

My use of the term 'human rights' before was a bit misleading but I didn't come up with this term. I should have said persons rights but I was afraid that no one would understand what I meant.

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

*defined as 'rational' and 'self aware' by our law.

The laws of your nation are flawed. Anyone unconscious, comatose or severely retarded is downgraded to animal?

Meh, your choice.

This understand why you've no worries approving a bill which gives human rights to beings who may be more animal than man.

TNE

The laws of your nation are flawed. Anyone unconscious, comatose or severely retarded is downgraded to animal?

Meh, your choice.

This understand why you've no worries approving a bill which gives human rights to beings who may be more animal than man.

TNE
I think you misunderstood.

They are, biologically speaking, just animals anyway.

We treat our 'severely retarded', PVS patents, ect. very well, as we do our non-human animals. We don't treat them I exactly the same way of course, it is a different scenario and as a mostly utilitarian nation we recognise that not all solutions work in different scenarios.

I don't know what you hoped to achieve by mocking my nation, perhaps you wanted to discredit us, I don't know or, frankly, care but I don't really think it was necessary.

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