NationStates Jolt Archive

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Romanias

Approvals: 19 (August 08, GMT time ~3 PM)
Status: Lacking Support (requires 116 more approvals)
Voting Ends: Tue Aug 10 2004

BELIEVING that quality medical treatments are a basic human right,
ASSERTAINING that any fertilised human egg that has reached 30 days of developement can already be considered a human being,
NOTING that embryonic stem cells only exist in the early stages (first 3-4 division of a regular fertilised egg),
OBSERVING that embryonic stem cells also continue to divide indefinitely when placed in culture, while this is not always the case for adult stem cells,

WE ENCOURAGE you to take into consideration that any (potential) human being in the form of a fertilised egg that is in the early natural division stages (and is only comprised of stem cells) should not YET be considered a human being,
WE CONCLUDE that research and experiments on such organisms do not constitute any harms to any existing human rights, and henceforth

WE RECOMMEND that any scientists in U.N. Nations should be allowed to pursue said research and experiments, under the following conditions:
- the fertilised egg is not allowed to develop beyond 14 days of natural developement under any circumstances
- written approval must be obtained from both biological male sperm and female egg donors
- only fertilised eggs that will NOT be used in the foreseable future to concieve a baby should be used

IN CASE the resolution does not acheive quorum in this revision, or
IN CASE you find discrepancies between or redundancy with this form of the proposal and previous UN resolutions, or
IN CASE you think this is a good/bad ideea...
PLEASE DISCUSS HERE :)

Starting notes:
- it doesn't mean you HAVE to implement a "stem cell research" program in your nation, it just means you're ALLOWING it, and unde those conditions listed
- it also doesn't mean you have to TIGHTEN any conditions of any "stem cell research" program you already have... this only applies to nations that DON'T allow it
- in nations where such a thing would be considered "imoral", the "requiring approval of both biological parents" should be MORE than enough to prevent any of this from happening to (presumtive potential future) citizens of your nation
- this proposition is NOT forcing your nation to adopt any oppinion on human fertilised eggs as being/not being humans and having/not having rights, it's only "urging you to consider" that a fertilised egg could indeed not be a human being YET... and under the provisions listed, only those that will never BE humans are allowed to be used, so you're not commiting any "moral crime", no matter how harsh your beliefs might be
- AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST IMPORTANT: you are only receiving a "recommandation" with this proposal...


Any comments ?

BELIEVING that quality medical treatments are a basic human right,
Well you may find disagreement there.

ASSERTAINING that any fertilised human egg that has reached 30 days of developement can already be considered a human being,
This is a belief, I don't think the UN should assert beliefs. Yes I'm aware that you use 'can' but it implies, however indirectly, that can is more correct then can not.

NOTING that embryonic stem cells only exist in the early stages (first 3-4 division of a regular fertilised egg),
OBSERVING that embryonic stem cells also continue to divide indefinitely when placed in culture, while this is not always the case for adult stem cells,
I'll take your word for that.

WE ENCOURAGE you to take into consideration that any (potential) human being in the form of a fertilised egg that is in the early natural division stages (and is only comprised of stem cells) should not YET be considered a human being,
In which case you should define human being and person. We believe once a foetus has brain activity it should be considered a live human being but it isn't a person until it develops rationality and self awareness. I assume this proposal implements the similar system but it's hard to tell.

WE CONCLUDE that research and experiments on such organisms do not constitute any harms to any existing human rights, and henceforth

WE RECOMMEND that any scientists in U.N. Nations should be allowed to pursue said research and experiments, under the following conditions:
- the fertilised egg is not allowed to develop beyond 14 days of natural developement under any circumstances
- written approval must be obtained from both biological male sperm and female egg donors
- only fertilised eggs that will NOT be used in the foreseable future to concieve a baby should be used

U.N Nations= United Nations' Nations. It's correct but it sound clumsy

Lady Desdemona of Merwell
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

Status: Lacking Support (requires 111 more approvals)

I agree with the 30 day definition of human being and in general agree with this proposal.

ASSERTAINING that any fertilised human egg that has reached 30 days of developement can already be considered a human being,
No. This is I see a possible Giant Can of Worms, (tm) ... I'll trudge back here later when I get home and can safely log into Komokom, and go into this further ...

On the "30 days can be considered human":
No. This is I see a possible Giant Can of Worms, (tm) ... I'll trudge back here later when I get home and can safely log into Komokom, and go into this further ...

Please note the wording: "can be considered".
That's as much as "some say that it is so" and "some might disagree".
The issue up to debate is not that 30-day limit and wether or not that specific life form (fertilised human egg) should or should not have human rights... you're taking it completely out of context. It's only one of the preamble/introductory suppositions, not conclusions nor statement.
___

Status: Lacking Support (requires 106 more approvals)
9 Aug, GMT time ~8 AM

Please note the wording: "can be considered".
That's as much as "some say that it is so" and "some might disagree".
The issue up to debate is not that 30-day limit and wether or not that specific life form (fertilised human egg) should or should not have human rights... you're taking it completely out of context. It's only one of the preamble/introductory suppositions, not conclusions nor statement.

Far be it for me to speak for Trok...

Yes I'm aware that you use 'can' but it implies, however indirectly, that can is more correct then can not.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

On the "30 days can be considered human": Please note the wording: "can be considered".
That's as much as "some say that it is so" and "some might disagree".
The issue up to debate is not that 30-day limit and wether or not that specific life form (fertilised human egg) should or should not have human rights... you're taking it completely out of context. It's only one of the preamble/introductory suppositions, not conclusions nor statement.

Yes, but by putting it as such in a resolution, leaves it open still to being interpreted as an quasi-legal definition, and it provides a possibility of setting a legal precedent. Its also going to have a potential knock on effect in regards to past and future " human rights " things ...

Now, I'm not taking it out of context, I'm warning of the kind of context it could be jammed in, and if is not up for debate, then whats it doing in a proposal on a public forum, ;)

Would you have rather have a resolution proposal that starts directly at "we propose" ?
;)

THIS what is up for debate:
WE RECOMMEND that any scientists in U.N. Nations should be allowed to pursue said research and experiments, under the following conditions:
- the fertilised egg is not allowed to develop beyond 14 days of natural developement under any circumstances
- written approval must be obtained from both biological male sperm and female egg donors
- only fertilised eggs that will NOT be used in the foreseable future to concieve a baby should be used

The rest is an introduction.

10 Aug, ~2AM GMT time
Status: Lacking Support (requires 99 more approvals)

Ignoring for the moment the ethical, scientific, or humanitarian reasons behind this proposal, Frisbeeteria would oppose it because of this single sentence.
ASSERTAINING that any fertilised human egg that has reached 30 days of developement can already be considered a human being
By passing this, you introduce into international law a precise definition of the beginning of human life. The fact that it's not intended to be such a definition is irrelevant. The fact that it wasn't intended to be taken out of context is irrelevant. The fact that it's in the introduction is irrelevant. If passed, the ENTIRE proposal becomes LAW.

This has implications far beyond human rights, far beyond the abortion quandry. This will affect property, inheritance, criminal law, civil law, war crimes, immigraton, voting rights, census counts, and probably half a thousand other broad and fine categories we haven't listed.

Nope. I realize that taking this clause out of the proposal would render it useless, but this one you've got to leave to the Nations. I doubt the casual voter would even consider the implications, but I'll bet they would once we started lobbying against it.

If you can come up with a way of phrasing this proposal whilst leaving the definition of 'human' out of it, we might consider support instead of violent opposition.

Our scientists have been experimenting with alternatives to the use of stem cells and have been made aware of pancreas extraction to get cells whose functions can be triggered the same way stem cells can.

http://www.betterhumans.com/News/news.aspx?articleID=2004-06-02-2

http://springerlink.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?wasp=agxy6yfqwndkuhe0tpq0&referrer=parent&backto=issue,121,313;journal,1,130;linkingpublicationresults,1:100501,1

The Gaiatech Institute of Ghetalion whole-heartedly endorses any research into adult stem cell extraction over its controversial counterpart.