NationStates Jolt Archive

Previously passed resolution #82, which mandated UN funding of stem-cell research, gave no specifics of what kind of stem-cell reserach is to be funded. There are many different types of stem-cells, and I believe that "Fetal" stem-cells, those harvested from fully developed fetuses, should not be researched with mandated UN funds. Here is my proposal, currently on page 18:

Fetal Stem Cells, which many scientists consider the most viable form to experiment with, are harvested from a fully formed fetus. A fetus fully capable of living on its own outside of the womb, and with sentient brain activity, must be killed in order for scientists to harvest this form of stem cell. This is gruesome science, and goes against the spirit of scientific advancement.

Recognizing that the previously passed UN Resolution #82, Stem Cell Research, mandates that UN member nations pay for said research.

Acknowledging that scientific advancement is important to the well-being of humanity.

Further acknowledging that the ends does not justify the means when scientific progress comes at the willful extinguishing of human life.

Be it resolved that the UN shall not fund scientists who work with fetal stem cells. Furthermore, be it resolved that the UN shall not fund any research which requires the extinguishing of human life in order to facilitate results.

I urge that all my fellow delegates support this proposal. It's currently on page 18 of the proposal list, or you can do a name search "Fetal Stem Cell Amendment"

I'm pretty sure its already illegal ( Sorry ) because of the mention of the term " Amendment " ... I'd love to explain why, but I'm off to bed before this in-coming thunder-storm puts my lights out and my computer off any-way.

I'm sure some other N.S.U.N. Forum regular will be nice enough ti explain to you the touchy nature of " Amendments " here, why their not really allowed, and the " repeal THEN replace " method of doing business ...

You can only repeal past resolutions, then replace them with new ones. You can't amend them once they have been passed in to law.

Ignoring, for a moment, that because amendments are not allowed, and thus this proposal is illegal ...

Fetal Stem Cells, which many scientists consider the most viable form to experiment with, are harvested from a fully formed fetus.
Actually, embryonic stem cells are the best, and those are *not* taken from fetuses. They're often harvested from fertility clinics, when there are excess embryoes that the "parents" did not have a need/use for.

A fetus fully capable of living on its own outside of the womb, and with sentient brain activity, must be killed in order for scientists to harvest this form of stem cell.
Again, not true. The stem cells that were in the embryo have already differentiated to *form* the fetus, and therefore no longer have the pluripotent ability that makes stem cell research so promising. No one should be killing fetuses that can live outside the body in order to harvest stem cells. It simply wouldn't provide any useful stem cells.

Further acknowledging that the ends does not justify the means when scientific progress comes at the willful extinguishing of human life.
You could make a case that using embryonic stem cells destroys embryos, which have the potential to *become* a life, but as your proposal is written now, there is absolutely no factual evidence to backup the statements you're making. Without fact to support your conclusion, your conclusion is invalid and not worth considering.

Furthermore, be it resolved that the UN shall not fund any research which requires the extinguishing of human life in order to facilitate results.
Sometimes drug testing within my nation (prior to approval by the MFDA - Mousebumples Food and Drug Administration) results in the loss of human life. It is of course unexpected and avoided as much as possible. But would that mean that human drug testing would be unacceptable? Or since the deaths are not planned and required, would that still be allowed?

All the points made above aren't really relevant since your proposal isn't legal. Still, if you do ever write this up as a repeal there are a number of *facts* you might want to verify first ...

Despite the title of this proposal, it is not an "Amendment" as specified in the proposal guidelines. It does not seek to alter the previous resolution, but only expands on the subject. There is no mention of fetal stem cells in resolution 82. I see that those opposed simply want it gotten rid of because of the title.

Despite the title of this proposal, it is not an "Amendment" as specified in the proposal guidelines. It does not seek to alter the previous resolution, but only expands on the subject. There is no mention of fetal stem cells in resolution 82. I see that those opposed simply want it gotten rid of because of the title.

You are taking action to limit the scope of another resolution. Although the resolution you cite doesn't say you can use fetal stem cells, it does not ban them, indicating that the law currently says you can use whatever stem cells you desire.

By putting your proposal forward, you seek to limit that - ban it completely infact - and so whether you think it is an amendment or not, it is and so it is illegal.

I see that those opposed simply want it gotten rid of because of the title.
I see that you didn't read the post directly above the one I'm quoting (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8337120&postcount=4). Seems to me that Mousebumples had plenty of legitimate and well-presented problems with the way this proposal is phrased. Were you planning to address those, or just blow them off?

Cut to the chase.

It's an ammendment - it seeks to modify a prior resolution and is dependant upon that resolution to exist.

As such, it's illegal.

Submit it, and you're likely to get warned. As at least one other newbie on here has found out, keep it up and you get bounced from the UN.

Thou hast been warned by several of us. Do as you will.

Maybe you should attempt to repeal the other resolution first, while continuing to work on this one here on the forums.

A fetus fully capable of living on its own outside of the womb, and with sentient brain activity, must be killed in order for scientists to harvest this form of stem cell. This is gruesome science, and goes against the spirit of scientific advancement.

Has this been prooven?

Seems to me i didnt think therefore i am untill i was at least 6 months old.

Maybe thats just me. I am judging that on my earliest memory.

Be it resolved that the UN shall not fund scientists who work with fetal stem cells. Furthermore, be it resolved that the UN shall not fund any research which requires the extinguishing of human life in order to facilitate results.

I wasn't aware that the NSUN was funding any fetal stem cell research. Where do I apply?

I would tend to think that abortion is a wretched practice and that we should do everything possible to reduce the number of dead fetuses in the world, but if babies are being killed anyway, lets get the most good out of the tradgedy we can.
Your statement that experimenting on live subjects is somehow non scientific is ridiculous. Hooke the founder of modern Biology was known to disect living dogs and see how long they could be kept artificially alive. We understand the human genome because of experiments that killed mice.
So it is perfectly ok to treat animals cruelly in the name of science, but not humans? Sorry I like humans... in general, 'cept republicans... but I think that some sacrafice is always expected in research.

-Dan

I would tend to think that abortion is a wretched practice and that we should do everything possible to reduce the number of dead fetuses in the world, but if babies are being killed anyway, lets get the most good out of the tradgedy we can.
Your statement that experimenting on live subjects is somehow non scientific is ridiculous. Hooke the founder of modern Biology was known to disect living dogs and see how long they could be kept artificially alive. We understand the human genome because of experiments that killed mice.
So it is perfectly ok to treat animals cruelly in the name of science, but not humans? Sorry I like humans... in general, 'cept republicans... but I think that some sacrafice is always expected in research.

-Dan

Er ... because we now have ethical guidelines, many of which cover other species of animals as well. There are also calls to extended these ethical behaviours even further.

Despite the title of this proposal, it is not an "Amendment" as specified in the proposal guidelines. It does not seek to alter the previous resolution, but only expands on the subject. There is no mention of fetal stem cells in resolution 82.

That's why they call it an amendment. Funny that, eh? :rolleyes: