NationStates Jolt Archive

here is the last draft:
__________________________________________
Regulation of Human Cloning

Category:
Strength:

The United Nations,

-A- FULLY AWARE that there are different kinds of human cloning and that they must be dealt with separately

Part I: “Therapeutic Human Cloning”

-B- DEFINING
- "Diploid" as: the state of a cell or nucleus in which there are two of each type of chromosome present (human body cells are normally diploid, with 46 chromosomes)
- "Therapeutic Human Cloning" as: the transfer of a diploid human cell nucleus into a denucleated egg, with the aim of creating an embryo with an identical nuclear genome to an existing human, so that the resulting stem cells may be harvested during the first 14 days of development for subsequent culture amplification and use in medical procedures. This definition is extended to the creation of an embryo from any diploid cell from an existing human for the same purpose and to similar procedures where the genome is intentionally altered.

-C- CONVINCED that therapeutic human cloning's potential for use in stem cell therapies opens up major opportunities to improve the health and happiness of human beings

-1- STRONGLY URGES all Nations to allow therapeutic human cloning and research into it, and to regulate it carefully to ensure that biological materials are not used without donors’ consent and that responsible and ethical standards are adhered to, particularly regarding the well-being of patients and regarding culture amplification of nerve cells - it shall be noted that this endorsement does not extend to procedures similar to therapeutic human cloning where the stem cells are harvested after more than 14 days development

Part II: “Reproductive Human Cloning”

-D- DEFINING "Reproductive Human Cloning" as: the creation of a human embryo with the intention of allowing it to develop for more than 2 weeks, by transfer of a human cell nucleus into a denucleated egg, with the aim of creating a new individual with an identical nuclear genome to an existing human. In this resolution "reproductive human cloning" also includes stimulating cell(s) from an existing human to develop into a new embryo for the same purpose, and to similar cloning procedures where the genome is altered

-E- RECALLING that resolution 56 "BioRights Declaration" grants cloned and genetically engineered persons the same rights as other persons

-F- HAVING OBSERVED the deformities and diseases suffered by many cloned animals, apparently due to shortcomings in current cloning technologies in many nations where the technologies are relatively new

-2- STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that member nations implement regulations to prevent the use of reproductive human cloning procedures which pose an undue risk to the clone(s) health

-3- REQUIRES all the Nations where reproductive human cloning is legal, to allow it only where the donors of the biological materials used give their consent and where a person or persons have expressed to a competent governmental authority their desire to adopt any and all children that are to be created

Part III: “Mass Reproductive Human Cloning”

-G- DEFINING "Mass Reproductive Human Cloning" as an action of reproductive human cloning performed with the intent to give birth to 5 or more persons cloned from the same individual

-H- ALARMED by the fact that mass reproductive human cloning is a danger to human genetic diversity

-I- CONCERNED that mass production of genetically identical individuals could too easily lead to a failure to fully recognise each of these clones as a human being worthy of the same respect and consideration as any other human being

-4- BANS mass reproductive human cloning
___________________________________









here is the first post:
_____________________________________________________
The most serene republic of love and esterel, want to introduce
The “Human Cloning: Rights & Ban” proposition.

As it’s not an easy topic, we have included 4 definitions in this draft.

As we have submitted another proposition already, we will wait the end of the “Adoption & IVF Rights” process (passed or failed) before submitting this one.

As usual, our aim is to open the debate on this matter, to collect many improvement ideas and critics and try to reflect the opinion of many nations of the UN forum.

Thank you.

Here is the first draft:

________________________________________________________________________
Human Cloning: Rights & Ban

Category: ?
Strength: Strong

The United Nations,

-------------------- Executive Summary ----------------------------------------

-A- FULLY AWARE that there are different kinds of Human cloning and that they must be dealt separately

-1- MANDATES all Nations to allow and support “Scientific & Therapeutic Human Cloning” and to control them very seriously

-2- DEPLORES all action of “Reproductive Human Cloning”; and
RECOMANDS all Nation to deplore them

-3- BAN “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning”

-4- DECLARES “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning” as a crime against Humanity

-------------------- Part I: “Scientific & Therapeutic Human Cloning” --------------------

-B- DEFINING
“Therapeutic Human Cloning” as: the creation of day-old embryo, by transfer of a cell nucleus into an enucleated egg, with the aim of harvesting the cells for subsequent culture amplification and injection into a Human for therapeutic purposes.
“Scientific Human Cloning” as: the scientific researches on “Therapeutic Human Cloning”.

-C- CONVINCED that “Therapeutic Human Cloning”, in the same manner as “Stem Cells” is a very promising way to improve health and happiness of Humans Beings and is a promising booming economic activity

-1- MANDATES all Nations to allow and support “Scientific & Therapeutic Human Cloning” and to control them very seriously

-------------------- Part II: “Reproductive Human Cloning” --------------------

-D- DEFINING “Reproductive Human Cloning” as: the creation of an embryo, by transfer of a cell nucleus into an enucleated egg, with the aim of creating a new individual with the same genetic ID (as an identical twin). In this resolution this definition is also used for the cases when the genetic identity of the person to be born is altered by genetic engineering before or after the cloning.

-E- CONVINCED that the action of “Reproductive Human Cloning” is a violation of the genetic ID of the person to be born, as someone has chose 100% of the genetic ID of the person to be born

-F- TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the argument that every Human Being should have the possibility to perpetrate his genetic ID after his death, by fertilization or other ways

-2- DEPLORES all action of “Reproductive Human Cloning”; and
RECOMANDS all Nation to deplore them

-------------------- Part III: “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning” --------------------

-G- DEFINING “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning” as an action of “Reproductive Human Cloning” in the aim to give birth intentionally to several cloned persons with the same genetic ID

-H- ALARMED BY the fact that “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning” is a great danger to Human Diversity

-3- BAN “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning”

-4- DECLARES “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning” as a crime against Humanity
___________________________________________________________________________

Human Cloning: Rights & Ban

Category: ?
Strength: Strong

The United Nations,

-------------------- Executive Summary ----------------------------------------

-A- FULLY AWARE that there are different kinds of Human cloning and that they must be dealt separately

-1- MANDATES all Nations to allow and support “Scientific & Therapeutic Human Cloning” and to control them very seriously
Hmm, I am not so sure on your definitions in this bit, but I will address that later.
-2- DEPLORES all action of “Reproductive Human Cloning”; and
RECOMANDS all Nation to deplore them
Why? What, exactly, is wrong with it?
-3- BAN “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning”

-4- DECLARES “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning” as a crime against Humanity
You could probably push that one through, if you had a bit mnore supportive argument behind it.
-------------------- Part I: “Scientific & Therapeutic Human Cloning” --------------------

-B- DEFINING
“Therapeutic Human Cloning” as: the creation of day-old embryo, by transfer of a cell nucleus into an enucleated egg, with the aim of harvesting the cells for subsequent culture amplification and injection into a Human for therapeutic purposes.
“Scientific Human Cloning” as: the scientific researches on “Therapeutic Human Cloning”.

-C- CONVINCED that “Therapeutic Human Cloning”, in the same manner as “Stem Cells” is a very promising way to improve health and happiness of Humans Beings and is a promising booming economic activity

-1- MANDATES all Nations to allow and support “Scientific & Therapeutic Human Cloning” and to control them very seriously
There is a problem here. You treat stem cells and therapeutic cloning as something different, when the purpose of therapeutic cloning is to produce stem cells. Also, you state that 'scientific human cloning' refers only to research on therapeutic cloning, effectively discouraging anyone from researching other things that have to do with cloning.
-------------------- Part II: “Reproductive Human Cloning” --------------------

-D- DEFINING “Reproductive Human Cloning” as: the creation of an embryo, by transfer of a cell nucleus into an enucleated egg, with the aim of creating a new individual with the same genetic ID (as an identical twin). In this resolution this definition is also used for the cases when the genetic identity of the person to be born is altered by genetic engineering before or after the cloning.
So you wish to also disallow alteration of genomes? I can see specific cases where that would be good, but I do not like the idea of an all-out ban on genetic engineering. One could conceivably cure diseases and such with it, would that be banned as well?
-E- CONVINCED that the action of “Reproductive Human Cloning” is a violation of the genetic ID of the person to be born, as someone has chose 100% of the genetic ID of the person to be born
Err, how exactly do you define 'violation of genetic ID'? They wouldn't exist if it weren't for being cloned, so that sort of is their genetic ID, isn't it?
-F- TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the argument that every Human Being should have the possibility to perpetrate his genetic ID after his death, by fertilization or other ways
Err, waht's that have to do with anything?
-2- DEPLORES all action of “Reproductive Human Cloning”; and
RECOMANDS all Nation to deplore them
I still don't see why we should. And didn't you already say that in the beginning?
-------------------- Part III: “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning” --------------------

-G- DEFINING “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning” as an action of “Reproductive Human Cloning” in the aim to give birth intentionally to several cloned persons with the same genetic ID
I don't think "several" is a very good word here. Would it count as mass reproductive cloning if only three individuals were created?
Or, is it the case that you actually want that to fall under this definition? If that is so, then I suppose it makes sense the way it is.
-H- ALARMED BY the fact that “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning” is a great danger to Human Diversity
Hmm, I haven't heard that one before. I shall have to ponder it.
-3- BAN “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning”

-4- DECLARES “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning” as a crime against Humanity
Again, didn't you already say that in the first bit?


I hope I didn't come over as being angry, or harsh on you, I'm not trying to.

Anyway, I agree that therapeutic cloning should be allowed, and you might be able to convince me that mass reproductive cloning is bad. But I'm not sure I agree that reproductive cloning is inherently wrong.

There is a problem here. You treat stem cells and therapeutic cloning as something different, when the purpose of therapeutic cloning is to produce stem cells.

yes it's different. Of course "the purpose of therapeutic cloning is to produce stem cells. " but stem cells usually refer to people stem cells, yours, mine, everybody have stem cells

Also, you state that 'scientific human cloning' refers only to research on therapeutic cloning, effectively discouraging anyone from researching other things that have to do with cloning.

yes, we dont want to encourage research on reproductive cloning, because it
obviously lead to reproductive cloning, but we don't want to ban it either

So you wish to also disallow alteration of genomes? I can see specific cases where that would be good, but I do not like the idea of an all-out ban on genetic engineering. One could conceivably cure diseases and such with it, would that be banned as well?

no we don't want disallow alteration of genomes or ban genetic engineering at all, of course not. we want to allow it but it's not at all the topic
sorry maybe we were not very explicit, we will try to improve it

we just want to precise that "reproductive cloning" and "reproductive cloning with altered genome" is quite the same

Err, how exactly do you define 'violation of genetic ID'? They wouldn't exist if it weren't for being cloned, so that sort of is their genetic ID. And I still don't see why reproductive cloning is so bad.

we don't want someone decide by 100% of the genetic ID of someone else

-F- TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the argument that every Human Being should have the possibility to perpetrate his genetic ID after his death, by fertilization or other ways

Err, waht's that have to do with anything?

it's the main argument used by people who are in favor to legalize completely reproductive cloning
we don't agree 100% with but we think it's a strong argument, and it's the reason why we don't want to ban reproductive cloning

I don't think "several" is a very good word here. Would it count as mass reproductive cloning if only three individuals were created?
Or, is it the case that you actually want that to fall under this definition? If that is so, then I suppose it makes sense the way it is.

yes we think the case in which three individuals were created fall under the definition, maybe we must add a graduation to the condamnation



Again, didn't you already say that in the first bit?

yes we were thinking usefull to have an executive summary in the begining, maybe we were wrong

Anyway, I agree that therapeutic cloning should be allowed, and you might be able to convince me that mass reproductive cloning is bad.

thanks

But I'm not sure I agree that reproductive cloning is inherently wrong.

as you, we are not sure

it's why we put 2 arguments inside the proposition:

1: the main arguments of people who want to ban it:
-E- CONVINCED that the action of “Reproductive Human Cloning” is a violation of the genetic ID of the person to be born, as someone has chose 100% of the genetic ID of the person to be born

2:the main arguments of people who want to allow it freely:
-F- TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the argument that every Human Being should have the possibility to perpetrate his genetic ID after his death, by fertilization or other ways


so we are embarrassed because we like the 2 arguments

so we just followed our conscience and try to find a compromise with "DEPLORES"

but here of course we understand very much your concern

maybe we must states:

-F- TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the argument that every Human Being should have the possibility to have a child issued from his genetic ID and to perpetrate his genetic ID after his death, by fertilization or other ways


-D- DEFINING “Reproductive Human Cloning” as: the creation of an embryo, by transfer of a cell nucleus into an enucleated egg, with the aim of creating a new individual with the same genetic ID (as an identical twin). In this resolution this definition is extended to "reproductive cloning with altered genome"

I am really edgy deciding one way or the other on the morality of reproductive human cloning - especially with "bio-rights declaration" in place. Regardless, I think condemns would be better than deplores.

I'll do a piece by piece analysis later (possibly tomorrow), for various reasons.

I am really edgy deciding one way or the other on the morality of reproductive human cloning - especially with "bio-rights declaration" in place. Regardless, I think condemns would be better than deplores.

thanks, it's the big question, we are not sure
we really understand that you prefer "CONDEMS"
and in the same time we understand also a little bit Neo-Anarchists who disagree with "DEPLORES"

we have not make our mind about it

If I'm reading this right, you are banning the reproduction of humans. Yes, cloning is a form of reproduction. I don't think that's legal, especially given the BioRights Declaration.

As far as _Myopia_ is concerned, the only ethical problem with reproductive cloning on an individual basis is the high risk to the clone's health due to shortcomings in modern technology. By the way, we are unconcerned with any supposed "right" of individuals to propagate their genes after their death (I have never heard this stated as a central argument for cloning) - our reasoning is that, once the technology is developed to the point where the clone is not at unreasonable risk of birth defects, and assuming the donor of the DNA gives full consent, nobody's rights or freedoms are infringed by allowing cloning to occur.

Complaints of violating individuality are rooted in the false but common exaggeration of the importance of genes. Regardless of whether a person's genome is unique, that individual is still unique because non-genetic factors play a huge role in determining all kinds of things about a person.

And determining an individual's genetic make-up is nothing new - it is common practice in IVF procedures to produce more embryos than are needed and to select those least likely to suffer genetic diseases.

We therefore cannot support a condemnation of human reproductive cloning.

If I'm reading this right, you are banning the reproduction of humans. Yes, cloning is a form of reproduction. I don't think that's legal, especially given the BioRights Declaration.

we fully agree with the biorights declaration
there are absolutly no contradiction in condemning “Reproductive Human Cloning”, banning “Mass Reproductive Human Cloning” and ""recognizing the rights of cloned and genetically engineered persons as being the equal of those of naturally born and unmodified persons""

By the way, we are unconcerned with any supposed "right" of individuals to propagate their genes after their death (I have never heard this stated as a central argument for cloning) - our reasoning is that, once the technology is developed to the point where the clone is not at unreasonable risk of birth defects, and assuming the donor of the DNA gives full consent, nobody's rights or freedoms are infringed by allowing cloning to occur.

yes but the reason why somebody want a clone is to have a children issue from his genetical identity and to propagate his genetic ID after his death, what else?

and even if you right by stating:
"nobody's rights or freedoms are infringed by allowing cloning to occur"
we think everybody has the right to be different from his conceptor


Complaints of violating individuality are rooted in the false but common exaggeration of the importance of genes. Regardless of whether a person's genome is unique, that individual is still unique because non-genetic factors play a huge role in determining all kinds of things about a person.


we really think genetic factor and non-genetic factor (environment ....) are both important
we think everybody has the right to be different from the genetic point of view from his conceptor

And determining an individual's genetic make-up is nothing new - it is common practice in IVF procedures to produce more embryos than are needed and to select those least likely to suffer genetic diseases.

yes, we have even a proposition pending urging all nation to allow IVF,
we have never condemned and will never condemn genetic make-up
we condemn the fact that someone decide about 100% of the genetic ID of someone else with no argument about why these 100% are good

We therefore cannot support a condemnation of human reproductive cloning.

we understand your position, as we have not fully make our mind about Reproductive Human Cloning

________________________________________________________________________
Human Cloning: Rights & Ban

Category: ?
Strength: Strong

The United Nations,

-------------------- Executive Summary ----------------------------------------

-A- FULLY AWARE that there are different kinds of Human cloning and that they must be dealt separately

-1- MANDATES all Nations to allow and support “Scientific & Therapeutic Human Cloning” and to control them very seriously

-2- DEPLORES all action of “Reproductive Human Cloning”; and
RECOMANDS all Nation to deplore them

-3- BAN “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning”

-4- DECLARES “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning” as a crime against Humanity

-------------------- Part I: “Scientific & Therapeutic Human Cloning” --------------------

-B- DEFINING
“Therapeutic Human Cloning” as: the creation of day-old embryo, by transfer of a cell nucleus into an enucleated egg, with the aim of harvesting the cells for subsequent culture amplification and injection into a Human for therapeutic purposes.
“Scientific Human Cloning” as: the scientific researches on “Therapeutic Human Cloning”.

-C- CONVINCED that “Therapeutic Human Cloning”, in the same manner as “Stem Cells” is a very promising way to improve health and happiness of Humans Beings and is a promising booming economic activity

-1- MANDATES all Nations to allow and support “Scientific & Therapeutic Human Cloning” and to control them very seriously

-------------------- Part II: “Reproductive Human Cloning” --------------------

-D- DEFINING “Reproductive Human Cloning” as: the creation of an embryo, by transfer of a cell nucleus into an enucleated egg, with the aim of creating a new individual with the same genetic ID (as an identical twin). In this resolution this definition is extended to "reproductive cloning with altered genome"

-E- CONVINCED that the action of “Reproductive Human Cloning” is a violation of the genetic ID of the person to be born, as everybody has the right to be different from the genetic point of view from his conceptor, and as genetic factor as well as non-genetic factor are both important

-F- TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the argument that every Human Being should have the possibility to have a child issued from his genetic ID and to perpetrate his genetic ID after his death, by fertilization or other ways

-2- DEPLORES all action of “Reproductive Human Cloning”; and
RECOMANDS all Nation to deplore them

-------------------- Part III: “Mass Reproductive Human Cloning” --------------------

-G- DEFINING “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning” as an action of “Reproductive Human Cloning” in the aim to give birth intentionally to several cloned persons with the same genetic ID

-H- ALARMED BY the fact that “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning” is a great danger to Human Diversity

-3- BAN “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning”

-4- DECLARES “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning” as a crime against Humanity
___________________________________________________________________________

-2- DEPLORES all action of “Reproductive Human Cloning”; and
RECOMANDS all Nation to deplore them
You are specifically instructing nations to deplaore the actions of reproductive cloning - this includes the result. As such, under BioRights, you are instructing nations to deplore beings with full human rights. And if that doesn't raise hackles, I'm not sure what will.
I cannot accept any proposal that deplores humans, for whatever reason.

The “Human Cloning: Rights & Ban” proposition.


-2- DEPLORES all action of “Reproductive Human Cloning”; and
RECOMANDS all Nation to deplore them

-3- BAN “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning”

-4- DECLARES “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning” as a crime against Humanity


As a product of this form of cloning I find this a crime against the People of this Nation and me...... What is to say next we ban the fetus and make the act that forms it a crime... Cloning is here and you need to get over it.. We are living here among you and are you......... Mankind was cloned from rib material from one of it's own kind.. Thus do you make the very process that created you a crime.. No you educate your own to prevent abuses of the process and through it the spread of virus that would end your being... You don't make a process that made you a crime....

Also the idea that those cloned from common genetic material will come our full equals of the original is simply rumor not proven just assumed..... If you looked at genetic markers passed on to the fetus you will find that they mutate due to many things from generation to generation thus so will it be in cloning as many things effect the genetic marking that map out who we are.. Every time we try to reproduce them we change to original genetic markers thus a new map is drawn... a new person is created even in natural reproduction.. even twins from the same genetic material have differences... thus clones will have them also..... The idea of an Army of super clones all having the same minds and strengths is just not possible.. The energy that charges the mind is not passed on in genetic materials... It is planted later as the individual person forms and grows.. We may be created equal but time makes us all different when we die...

Zarta Warden,
UN Ambassador Zeldon
Clone #R2000Z129A

You are specifically instructing nations to deplaore the actions of reproductive cloning - this includes the result. As such, under BioRights, you are instructing nations to deplore beings with full human rights. And if that doesn't raise hackles, I'm not sure what will.
I cannot accept any proposal that deplores humans, for whatever reason.


No this proposition don't want nations to deplore any beings with full human rights it just want to deplores the actions of reproductive cloning. That's not related.
lets take an quite extreme example:
you can deplore, declare as a crime, ban rapes, that doesn't mean you deny any Human rights to people who have been raped.

if we take your argument then we even could not deplore "Mass reprodutive Human cloning".

but yes we should add something in the resolution to say that this resolution agrre fully with the bioright declaration, we will write it soon

Also the idea that those cloned from common genetic material will come our full equals of the original is simply rumor not proven just assumed.....

we strongly disagree with you, cloned people need to have the very same rights every Humans has, as said in the biorights declaration


If you looked at genetic markers passed on to the fetus you will find that they mutate due to many things from generation to generation thus so will it be in cloning as many things effect the genetic marking that map out who we are.. Every time we try to reproduce them we change to original genetic markers thus a new map is drawn.

right now more than 1000 of animals are cloned in the world, even cats, horses and dogs. Of course there are many problems (rapid ageing for example) but its seems that every problem had already or will soon be resolved

The idea of an Army of super clones all having the same minds and strengths is just not possible..

this resolution want to ban "Mass reproductive human cloning"

we added the following:

-F- REAFFIRMING STRONGLY that cloned and genetically engineered persons have the very same rights as other persons as said in the UN RESOLUTION #56 BioRights Declaration

________________________________________________________________________
Human Cloning: Rights & Ban

Category: ?
Strength: Strong

The United Nations,

-------------------- Executive Summary ----------------------------------------

-A- FULLY AWARE that there are different kinds of Human cloning and that they must be dealt separately

-1- MANDATES all Nations to allow and support “Scientific & Therapeutic Human Cloning” and to control them very seriously

-2- DEPLORES all action of “Reproductive Human Cloning”; and
RECOMANDS all Nation to deplore them

-3- BAN “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning”

-4- DECLARES “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning” as a crime against Humanity

-------------------- Part I: “Scientific & Therapeutic Human Cloning” --------------------

-B- DEFINING
“Therapeutic Human Cloning” as: the creation of day-old embryo, by transfer of a cell nucleus into an enucleated egg, with the aim of harvesting the cells for subsequent culture amplification and injection into a Human for therapeutic purposes.
“Scientific Human Cloning” as: the scientific researches on “Therapeutic Human Cloning”.

-C- CONVINCED that “Therapeutic Human Cloning”, in the same manner as “Stem Cells” is a very promising way to improve health and happiness of Humans Beings and is a promising booming economic activity

-1- MANDATES all Nations to allow and support “Scientific & Therapeutic Human Cloning” and to control them very seriously

-------------------- Part II: “Reproductive Human Cloning” --------------------

-D- DEFINING “Reproductive Human Cloning” as: the creation of an embryo, by transfer of a cell nucleus into an enucleated egg, with the aim of creating a new individual with the same genetic ID (as an identical twin). In this resolution this definition is extended to "reproductive cloning with altered genome"

-E- CONVINCED that the action of “Reproductive Human Cloning” is a violation of the genetic ID of the person to be born, as everybody has the right to be different from the genetic point of view from his conceptor, and as genetic factor as well as non-genetic factor are both important

-F- REAFFIRMING STRONGLY that cloned and genetically engineered persons have the very same rights as other persons as said in the UN RESOLUTION #56 BioRights Declaration

-G- TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the argument that every Human Being should have the possibility to have a child issued from his genetic ID and to perpetrate his genetic ID after his death, by fertilization or other ways

-2- DEPLORES all action of “Reproductive Human Cloning”; and
RECOMANDS all Nation to deplore them

-------------------- Part III: “Mass Reproductive Human Cloning” --------------------

-H- DEFINING “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning” as an action of “Reproductive Human Cloning” in the aim to give birth intentionally to several cloned persons with the same genetic ID

-I- ALARMED BY the fact that “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning” is a great danger to Human Diversity

-3- BAN “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning”

-4- DECLARES “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning” as a crime against Humanity
___________________________________________________________________________

yes but the reason why somebody want a clone is to have a children issue from his genetical identity and to propagate his genetic ID after his death, what else?

It depends. But really, the personal motivations are unimportant from a legislative point of view - the only thing that matters is whether anyone's freedoms are restricted.

and even if you right by stating:
"nobody's rights or freedoms are infringed by allowing cloning to occur"
we think everybody has the right to be different from his conceptor

we really think genetic factor and non-genetic factor (environment ....) are both important
we think everybody has the right to be different from the genetic point of view from his conceptor

Ok, for starters, why should we view this as a right when nobody complains that identical twins are having their "rights" to individuality infringed? Second, artificial clones are actually less genetically similar than natural clones (identical twins) - all that is carried across from a donor to a clone is the nuclear DNA, but some genetic material is also carried in the mitochondria of cells. Twins originate from the same cell, so have identical mitochondrial AND nuclear DNA, but in cloning the mitochondria of the egg cell are not removed, so the clone ends up with some original mitochondrial DNA and some from the donor, and thus actually does genetically differ somewhat from its "parent".

But regardless, if you accept that genetic determinism is folly, and that genes do not fully dictate the nature of an individual, why on earth do you persist in claiming that what occurs naturally for twins is suddenly an infringement of rights when done intentionally and artificially?

yes, we have even a proposition pending urging all nation to allow IVF,
we have never condemned and will never condemn genetic make-up
we condemn the fact that someone decide about 100% of the genetic ID of someone else with no argument about why these 100% are good

Why is this relevant? Why does it matter that a person's genetic make-up is determined by the chance shuffling of chromosomes in meiosis? And in fact it would be perfectly possible to sort through eggs and sperm looking for ones with a particular combination of chromosomes and only allow these to combine in IVF, thus determining totally the resulting zygote's genome. My point is that all the ethical "problems" you claim that cloning throws up are in fact already present with other events, merely on a somewhat lesser scale - if you accept totally the legality of IVF and having identical twins, you have already accepted most of the things you object to in cloning.

we understand your position, as we have not fully make our mind about Reproductive Human Cloning

If you have not fully made up your mind about the practice of cloning, then why on Earth are you asking the UN to declare that it deplores it? It would be like if I said "I'm not decided whether I prefer free markets or controlled economies" and then proposed a resolution condemning capitalism's exploitation of the proletariat.

No this proposition don't want nations to deplore any beings with full human rights it just want to deplores the actions of reproductive cloning.



You're saying that you see clones have equal rights with those born of a natural birht process.. thus how can you ban their right to reproduce as they did... by actions of reproductive cloning...

Also you talk about genetic defects passed on in cloning from common materials... concider the same for normal reproductive process... AIDS, Drugs Addiction, Balding, Blue Eyes, Six Toes, all passed on genetic traits in sexual reproductive process.. so why not ban it also... to avoid defective fetuses.. just as you want to avoid defective clones.. You boil an egg you take a chance at breaking the shell... that's like anyway you deal it...


-4- DECLARES “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning” as a crime against Humanity


This to me BANS this process as if it a crime their are laws in place against it that if a person breaks they pay for the crime done... Even if it's something like this proposal does as end the method by which we got here in the first place... as a clone... we will be punished as we will not be able to reproduce others like us... Why do you worry so about defects that might cause a defective clone... The number of problems resulting in cloning a life is far less than that in normal sexual reproduction.... So why not a proposal to make that a crime...

thank you for your post, we appreciate that you know very well this subject and that you mentioned technical point.

It depends. But really, the personal motivations are unimportant from a legislative point of view - the only thing that matters is whether anyone's freedoms are restricted.

ok but as we have said we wonder on the right to be geniticaly diferent from our conceptor

Second, artificial clones are actually less genetically similar than natural clones (identical twins) - all that is carried across from a donor to a clone is the nuclear DNA, but some genetic material is also carried in the mitochondria of cells. Twins originate from the same cell, so have identical mitochondrial AND nuclear DNA, but in cloning the mitochondria of the egg cell are not removed, so the clone ends up with some original mitochondrial DNA and some from the donor, and thus actually does genetically differ somewhat from its "parent".


we fully agree with you, clone don't share the mitochondrail DNA of the nucleus donor


But regardless, if you accept that genetic determinism is folly, and that genes do not fully dictate the nature of an individual, why on earth do you persist in claiming that what occurs naturally for twins is suddenly an infringement of rights when done intentionally and artificially?

we agree


My point is that all the ethical "problems" you claim that cloning throws up are in fact already present with other events,

not about the right to be geniticaly diferent from our conceptor

If you have not fully made up your mind about the practice of cloning, then why on Earth are you asking the UN to declare that it deplores it?

Our principal aim, in this proposal are PART I and PART III, we will not modify their substance

we need advices from every position about PART II
someone has asking usin a TG, if we are considering the option of deleting PART II
the answer is YES, but we don't know yet

in fact we would like to maybe only to "NOT ENCOURAGES" “Reproductive Human Cloning”

yes we have not take any decsion yet about PART II, because in our own past it happens sometimes we were wrong and sometimes we were right, it's why we wanted to open the discussion about it and collect man advices

You're saying that you see clones have equal rights with those born of a natural birht process.. thus how can you ban their right to reproduce as they did... by actions of reproductive cloning...

this proposition don't want to ban “Reproductive Human Cloning”


Also you talk about genetic defects passed on in cloning from common materials... concider the same for normal reproductive process... AIDS, Drugs Addiction, Balding, Blue Eyes, Six Toes, all passed on genetic traits in sexual reproductive process.. so why not ban it also... to avoid defective fetuses.. just as you want to avoid defective clones.. You boil an egg you take a chance at breaking the shell... that's like anyway you deal it...

This to me BANS this process as if it a crime their are laws in place against it that if a person breaks they pay for the crime done... Even if it's something like this proposal does as end the method by which we got here in the first place... as a clone... we will be punished as we will not be able to reproduce others like us... Why do you worry so about defects that might cause a defective clone... The number of problems resulting in cloning a life is far less than that in normal sexual reproduction.... So why not a proposal to make that a crime...

we agree



we will take several hours to think about PART II
we hope maybe others nations will give their advice and writes arguments on this forum
we will come back soon
thanks a lot for your posts

No this proposition don't want nations to deplore any beings with full human rights it just want to deplores the actions of reproductive cloning.


Those actions being to produce a living human being... Who you want the UN to DEPLORE the actions of reproductive cloning.... a living being... In this case citizens of a Nation that is a member of the UN so you are asking the UN to DEPLORE it's own membership or at least a part of it..

Also I believe you support a process of IVF where a fetus often more than one is produced... Thus resulting in twins born often as many a seven in a single birth... Then how can you consider mass cloning of a single genetic material any different than IVF that you support.. The problems with this process are well known... and far greater than those known with cloning... at this point in time... Thus as with all new processes eduction is key to stopping abuse and improving it not banning the process...


We demand the UN santion your nation until you stop all efforts against our citizens and Nation... and call on all member Nations to DEPLORE you....

Zarta Warden
UN Ambassador Zeldon
Clone #R2000Z129A

ok but as we have said we wonder on the right to be geniticaly diferent from our conceptor

Why should this be considered a right? In terms of genetic inheritance, if we have a donor and his clone, it makes most sense to think of the clone as a delayed twin - that is, it makes most sense to consider it a sibling of the donor, and to consider the donor's parents to also be the clone's parents, at least genetically. Thus, in terms of genetic inheritance, this is not dissimilar to the natural production of identical twins - why do you consider it an infringement of rights just because it is instigated by choice rather than accident? People don't normally consider identical twins to be unlucky for their lack of genetic individuality.

Would you consider it an infringement of the child's rights if a woman trying to become pregnant did something which she knew would make it more likely that she would have identical twins (for instance, if a medicine was invented that caused a zygote to divide into two embryos)? This is analogous to what you seem to object to in cloning because it is an active choice to remove the genetic uniqueness of the children.


we fully agree with you, clone don't share the mitochondrail DNA of the nucleus donor

Exactly, so your claim that the clone is having 100% of its genome predetermined and your claim that the clone is being made to be 100% genetically identical to the donor are both wrong and so cannot be valid bases for objecting to cloning.



But regardless, if you accept that genetic determinism is folly, and that genes do not fully dictate the nature of an individual, why on earth do you persist in claiming that what occurs naturally for twins is suddenly an infringement of rights when done intentionally and artificially?



we agree

:confused: If you agree that your argument is wrong and rests on false assumptions of genetic determinism, why on earth do you persist in making it?



not about the right to be geniticaly diferent from our conceptor

As I've pointed out, the clone IS genetically different from the donor (because of mDNA), and you have yet to give any reason why being artificially genetically almost identical to your "conceptor" is any worse than being naturally genetically identical to your identical twin.



Our principal aim, in this proposal are PART I and PART III, we will not modify their substance

we need advices from every position about PART II
someone has asking usin a TG, if we are considering the option of deleting PART II
the answer is YES, but we don't know yet

in fact we would like to maybe only to "NOT ENCOURAGES" “Reproductive Human Cloning”

yes we have not take any decsion yet about PART II, because in our own past it happens sometimes we were wrong and sometimes we were right, it's why we wanted to open the discussion about it and collect man advices

Ok, well we'd like to work out our differences on part II (we'd prefer if you left reproductive cloning alone - if you must say anything about it, I'd simply discourage doing it with technologies that pose undue risk to the health of the clone), and once we've dealt with that there will be some substantial edits I'll suggest to clarify parts I and III and improve the grammar and style.

-B- DEFINING “Therapeutic Human Cloning” as: the creation of day-old embryo, by transfer of a cell nucleus into an enucleated egg, with the aim of harvesting the cells for subsequent culture amplification and injection into a Human for therapeutic purposes.



Why only a day old embryo.........which in effect is equal to a conceived 'day old' fetus.... which many will say is human the intant of conception.... thus we can abort or just take or creat a fetus and use them as one might a cloned embryo... since they are equal... living beings.. from the instant they are created, cloned, or concieved... This ventures into stem cell research and where the cells might come from that are to be used....

NOTE::::
Embryo noun 2. An animal organism in the early stages of growth and differentiation that in higher forms merge into fetal stages but in lower forms terminate in commencement of larval life.
Fetal Adjective 1. Of or relating to a fetus; "fetal development".
Source: WordNet 1.7.1 Copyright © 2001 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
Note: Fetal \Fe"tal\, adjective. [From Fetus.].

Ok, well we'd like to work out our differences on part II (we'd prefer if you left reproductive cloning alone - if you must say anything about it, I'd simply discourage doing it with technologies that pose undue risk to the health of the clone), and once we've dealt with that there will be some substantial edits I'll suggest to clarify parts I and III and improve the grammar and style.

we are not fully convinced, but for the success of Part I and III it seems better to forget Part II and as you say "simply discourage doing it with technologies that pose undue risk to the health of the clone"

thanks for your comment
thanks also to Zeldon 6229 Nodlez and to the nation who had lobbying us by telegram to invites us to delete Part II

we will rewrite the resoluion soon, and we appreciated very much your help to improve the grammar and style, thanks

ok, we changed Part II, as proposed by _Myopia_, Zeldon 6229 Nodlez and others nations
________________________________________________________________________
Human Cloning: Rights & Ban

Category: ?
Strength: Strong

The United Nations,

-------------------- Executive Summary ----------------------------------------

-A- FULLY AWARE that there are different kinds of Human cloning and that they must be dealt separately

-1- MANDATES all Nations to allow and support “Scientific & Therapeutic Human Cloning” and to control them very seriously

-2- MANDATES all the Nations who allow “Reproductive Human Cloning”:
- to discourage doing it with technologies that pose undue risk to the health of the clone; and
- to forbid doing it when there are no parental project for the child

-3- BAN “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning”

-4- DECLARES “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning” as a crime against Humanity

-------------------- Part I: “Scientific & Therapeutic Human Cloning” --------------------

-B- DEFINING
“Therapeutic Human Cloning” as: the creation of day-old embryo, by transfer of a cell nucleus into an enucleated egg, with the aim of harvesting the cells for subsequent culture amplification and injection into a Human for therapeutic purposes.
“Scientific Human Cloning” as: the scientific researches on “Therapeutic Human Cloning”.

-C- CONVINCED that “Therapeutic Human Cloning”, in the same manner as “Stem Cells” is a very promising way to improve health and happiness of Humans Beings and is a promising booming economic activity

-1- MANDATES all Nations to allow and support “Scientific & Therapeutic Human Cloning” and to control them very seriously

-------------------- Part II: “Reproductive Human Cloning” --------------------

-D- DEFINING “Reproductive Human Cloning” as: the creation of an embryo, by transfer of a cell nucleus into an enucleated egg, with the aim of creating a new individual with the same genetic ID (as an identical twin). In this resolution this definition is extended to "reproductive cloning with altered genome"

-E- REAFFIRMING STRONGLY that cloned and genetically engineered persons have the very same rights as other persons as stated in the UN RESOLUTION #56 BioRights Declaration

-2- MANDATES all the Nations who allow “Reproductive Human Cloning”:
- to discourage doing it with technologies that pose undue risk to the health of the clone; and
- to forbid doing it when there are no parental project for the child

-------------------- Part III: “Mass Reproductive Human Cloning” --------------------

-F- DEFINING “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning” as an action of “Reproductive Human Cloning” in the aim to give birth intentionally to several cloned persons with the same genetic ID

-G- ALARMED BY the fact that “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning” is a great danger to Human Diversity

-3- BAN “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning”

-4- DECLARES “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning” as a crime against Humanity
___________________________________________________________________________

We hope to be able to give our respected colleague and friend from Love and esterel some assistance with the language and organization of this proposal. Before we do, we have a question for those interested...

Would "multiple" be a suitable and acceptable replacement for "several" in this section?

-F- DEFINING “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning” as an action of “Reproductive Human Cloning” in the aim to give birth intentionally to several cloned persons with the same genetic ID

Would "multiple" be a suitable and acceptable replacement for "several" in this section?

-F- DEFINING “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning” as an action of “Reproductive Human Cloning” in the aim to give birth intentionally to several cloned persons with the same genetic ID


Yes, I would change it to multiple.

While I'm still not convinced with this, there is a housekeeping matter. Currently, the draft proposal both mandates and bans actions. I don't think this is allowed in the proposal categories, you may have to split it into 'Therapeutic Cloning' and 'Reproductive Cloning' proposals, or somesuch.

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #56
BioRights Declaration A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights Strength: Significant Proposed by: The free carolinas
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.
Votes For: 12,135
Votes Against: 4,726
Implemented: Thu May 6 2004

As Ambassador to the UN from The Theocracy of Zeldon 6229 Nodlez, must ask that this proposal be reviewed by UN legal staff to see that it doesn't violate Resolution # 56 so noted above... In that this would set the reproductive process of a clone as a crime against Humanity and ask that all UN Members Deplore that process which produces clones.... Currently The Theocracy of Zeldon 6229 Nodlez has a current population of 224 million by recent UN census, of this The Zeldon Census Council had determined that 34.3% of our citizens counted in the UN census were produced by the very process this proposal calls a crime against Humanity.. Also many of these have no means of reproducing by normal sexual reproduction thus the only way they have to reproduce is the method by which they themselves were created.... that same procedure this proposal will call on all member nations to Deplore as a Crime against Humanity.. This must not happen as to restrict, limit, ban, deplore their reproductive process would mean they would not have the means to produce another generation of clones as they were reproduced.... As Resolution #56 makes them equal to naturally born and unmodified persons; they should have the right to reproduce another generation as they were produced..... Also the proposer in an earlier proposal presented by them did: ENCOURAGES -3- Scientific stem cells research in the aim that, in a near future, sterile men and women can have gamet from their own genetic identity, these gamets being obtained from their own stem cells, REQUESTS -4- All nations to allow IVF at least for their citizen and citizen of others UN Nation, either the gamets concerned were naturally produced or produced in the way defined in paragraph [3].. seek to get a resolution on IVF passed to help normal humans with their reproductive process yet here she is clearly not trying to help clones with their reproductive process but Deploring it as a crime against Humanity..

If this proposal is to be passed as a resolution it would effect the reproductive process of many clones..... Thus in time they would not be able to produce another generation as they were produced... and eventualy all clones who were created, concieved, or formed by this process would not exist......

Thus a systimatic genocide of all clones produced by this process... and a violation of:::: UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #83
The Eon Convention on Genocide A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights Strength: Strong Proposed by: Tilenca
Description: The UN does hereby state that :-
The genocide is a heinous crime, and should be treated as a crime against all people.
It is a crime that exceeds the jurisdiction of any one nation.
Those who commit genocide should be brought to justice by the international community.

Article 1 : Definition And Limits

§1. Genocide is defined as the systematic and deliberate extermination of a society, or part of a society, based on arbitrary criteria (such as skin colour, genetic conditions or religion). Those covered by this resolution are those protected by The UBR.


We consider how one may reproduce to be an arbitrary criteria... also that the concerns noted in the proposal about genetic defects and such are clearly covered as --genetic conditions...... Thus we ask the UN legal staff to take action to prevent this proposal from moving forward and issue a stern warning to the proposer not to do it again as we feel their intent was good and honorable just they are not aware of all the issues here involved....
If the UN legal staff finds this fact then we ask that this proposal not be carried forward to vote and that the proposer be made aware of action that can be taken if they try again to submit a proposal that violates any active resolution... Also we hope that full implimentation of Resolution #83 not be needed.... but that the proposer shall be made aware of it and what santions or actions can be taken under Resolution #83 against them...

The People of Zeldon Thank You for your time.....

Zeldon Warden,
UN Ambassador Zeldon
Clone #R2000Z129A

Would "multiple" be a suitable and acceptable replacement for "several" in this section?

-F- DEFINING “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning” as an action of “Reproductive Human Cloning” in the aim to give birth intentionally to several cloned persons with the same genetic ID

thanks, "multiple" is indeed better than "several" we will modify the proposition

While I'm still not convinced with this, there is a housekeeping matter. Currently, the draft proposal both mandates and bans actions. I don't think this is allowed in the proposal categories, you may have to split it into 'Therapeutic Cloning' and 'Reproductive Cloning' proposals, or somesuch.


that's a interesting point, thanks.
we looked in "The Great Big Consolidated United Nations Sticky" and "Rules For UN Proposals [Now Binding]"
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=412468
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465
we didnt find any mention of this, but if you show us why it's illegal of course we will split it into 2 proposals

-2- MANDATES all the Nations who allow “Reproductive Human Cloning”:
- to discourage doing it with technologies that pose undue risk to the health of the clone; and
- to forbid doing it when there are no parental project for the child

"Mandates...to" is the wrong phrase. "Mandate" is not only a command, it can instead mean "authorises" and your format suggests the latter meaning. "Requires that nations...discourage... and forbid..." would make more sense here and where this is repeated.

Second, the phrase "discourage doing it with technologies that pose undue risk to the health of the clone" which I suggested was only meant to convey meaning to you, not form an actual part of the proposal text. What I mean is not that nations should be required to discourage it, but that the UN itself should discourage the practice and recommend to nations that they prevent it.

So a better text might be:

"Having observed the deformities and diseases suffered by many cloned animals, apparently due to shortcomings in current cloning technologies in many nations where the technologies are relatively new,

Strongly discourages reproductive human cloning without the use of more advanced technologies that do not pose an undue risk to the health of the clone(s),

Recommends that member nations regulate research into cloning to prevent human reproductive cloning except where technologies which are deemed not to pose an undue risk to the clone(s) health can be used,"

Because this is going to have to be taken on a case-by-case basis, this phrasing allows nations freedom to find the most appropriate regulatory method to make their own judgements on what constitutes a safe method of cloning.

The clause "to forbid doing it when there are no parental project for the child" is very unclear. Can you re-write it so it makes sense, then I can offer my opinion on it.

Why only a day old embryo..


tahnks, we will read scientific articles and consider "one day" or "few days"

Also many of these have no means of reproducing by normal sexual reproduction thus the only way they have to reproduce is the method by which they themselves were created.... that same procedure this proposal will call on all member nations to Deplore as a Crime against Humanity.. This must not happen as to restrict, limit, ban, deplore their reproductive process would mean they would not have the means to produce another generation of clones as they were reproduced.... As Resolution #56 makes them equal to naturally born and unmodified persons; they should have the right to reproduce another generation as they were produced.....

If these people are clones, then they can reproduce by sex, "Reproductive Cloning" (attended it's not Mass reproductive cloning), IVF, and even IVF from "Stem cells harvested Gametes" in the same manner than non-cloned persons (a resolution is in queue about this last 2 possibilities, but unless yhis proposition pass or not, this is not forbidden by the UN). They have also the right to adop children

so these cloned persons have exactly the same rights as non-cloned persons, they can reproduce in the exactly same way. The BioRights declaration is repected

that's a interesting point, thanks.
we looked in "The Great Big Consolidated United Nations Sticky" and "Rules For UN Proposals [Now Binding]"
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=412468
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465
we didnt find any mention of this, but if you show us why it's illegal of course we will split it into 2 proposals

I believe that what Enn is referring to is a cross-category violation. If you wish to grant rights, you need to use the Human Rights category. If you wish to ban certain actions, you need to use the Moral Decency category. You cannot legally do both in the same submitted proposal given the nature of your proposal.

I believe that what Enn is referring to is a cross-category violation. If you wish to grant rights, you need to use the Human Rights category. If you wish to ban certain actions, you need to use the Moral Decency category. You cannot legally do both in the same submitted proposal given the nature of your proposal.

ok that makes sens
may i ask the advice of a mod, or is it really obvious that it's a violation?

tahnks, we will read scientific articles and consider "one day" or "few days"

By the way, what you wrote - "the creation of a day-old embryo" - makes no sense. You can't create a day-old embryo, because it can only be a day old 24 hours AFTER being created. There is a lot that needs clarifying and also correcting for grammar with parts I and III, but I would like us to finalise an agreement of part II before getting into most of that stuff.

ok that makes sens
may i ask the advice of a mod, or is it really obvious that it's a violation?

*shrug* If you want a Moderator ruling on your proposal's legality, ask for one in the Moderation forum.

By the way, what you wrote - "the creation of a day-old embryo" - makes no sense. You can't create a day-old embryo, because it can only be a day old 24 hours AFTER being created. There is a lot that needs clarifying and also correcting for grammar with parts I and III, but I would like us to finalise an agreement of part II before getting into most of that stuff.


thanks for your help, we are working on part II, we will post soon about it and we hope we will reach an agreement

*shrug* If you want a Moderator ruling on your proposal's legality, ask for one in the Moderation forum.


ok thanks, we will do it

If these people are clones, then they can reproduce by sex, "Reproductive Cloning" (attended it's not Mass reproductive cloning), IVF, and even IVF from "Stem cells harvested Gametes" in the same manner than non-cloned persons (a resolution is in queue about this last 2 possibilities, but unless yhis proposition pass or not, this is not forbidden by the UN). They have also the right to adop children

so these cloned persons have exactly the same rights as non-cloned persons, they can reproduce in the exactly same way. The BioRights declaration is repected


Again these people are CLONES.. why do you dought this....... Resolution 56 say these people as clones are equal to those concieved by sexual reproduction. The UN membership has said that clones exist why else would they approve a resolution noted they are equal to normal people. Thus I exist, that part or our national population that is clones exist... and we have the same rights as you.... who I assume was produced by normal sexual reproduction..... You in your proposal for IVF confirmed that it don't always work for normal people so why can't it not work for clones and they want a means to reproduce a new generation..... and they want to use the procedure from which they came to be... not some other form of reproduction... without mandatory birth controls on numbers of fetus produced.

What do you mean BioRights declarationis rejected... are you saying that I as a clone don't have the same BioRights that you might have.... Go read Resolution 56... it says I have any right you do... even those who may be modified do... this means genetic selection or fixing...

Also did you not read the part on geneocide.... as if you ban, limit, resrict reproduction you will in the end leave no clones alive that were created as I was thus you have systematicly geneocided my kind... to leave only humans produced by sexual reproduction... possibly inhanced by IVF or some other method to inhance it to produce multiple fetus.... and how many are multiple... think you went down to three... so IVF has been shown to produce more than three so it is mass reproduction... of what a human... since clones and humans are under 56 equal, how can you ban mass reproduction of one and not the other..... and it was you who made another proposal and in this debate indicated a support for IVF...

We will wait the powers to be to rule on this as it may violate our rights under 56 and in event it is passed in violation of 83..... for reason stated...


Zarta Warden,
UN Ambassador Zeldon,
Clone #R2000Z129A

I was under the impression that multiple births from IVF were not identical. As far as I know, multiple births arise because, in order to increase the odds of success, multiple different eggs are fertilised, each (obviously) by a different sperm. Of these, several that look to have the best chance of avoiding inheritable disorders are usually selected and implanted. But since they are different, it is not equivalent to the mass reproductive cloning which this resolution seeks to ban.

ok thanks a lot to Nations of _Myopia_ and also Ausserland and Zeldon 6229 Nodlez
here is the new part II
we used the sentences advised by _Myopia_
we also replaced "several" by "multiple":
________________________________________________________________________
Human Cloning: Rights & Ban

Category: “Human Rights” and “Moral Decency”?
Strength: Strong

The United Nations,

-------------------- Executive Summary ----------------------------------------

-A- FULLY AWARE that there are different kinds of Human cloning and that they must be dealt separately

-1- MANDATES all Nations to allow and support “Scientific & Therapeutic Human Cloning” and to control them very seriously

-2- STONGLY DISCOURAGES “Reproductive Human cloning” without the use of more advanced technologies that do not pose an undue risk to the health of the clone(s),

-3- RECOMMENDS that member nations regulate research into cloning to prevent “reproductive Human Cloning” except where technologies which are deemed not to pose an undue risk to the clone(s) health can be used,"

-4- REQUIRES all the Nations where “Reproductive Human Cloning” is legal, to allow it only for couples or persons expressing to a competent national authority their desire to be the parent(s) of the future child.

-5- BAN “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning”

-6- DECLARES “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning” as a crime against Humanity

-------------------- Part I: “Scientific & Therapeutic Human Cloning” --------------------

-B- DEFINING
“Therapeutic Human Cloning” as: the creation of day-old embryo, by transfer of a cell nucleus into an enucleated egg, with the aim of harvesting the cells for subsequent culture amplification and injection into a Human for therapeutic purposes.
“Scientific Human Cloning” as: the scientific researches on “Therapeutic Human Cloning”.

-C- CONVINCED that “Therapeutic Human Cloning”, in the same manner as “Stem Cells” is a very promising way to improve health and happiness of Humans Beings and is a promising booming economic activity

-1- MANDATES all Nations to allow and support “Scientific & Therapeutic Human Cloning” and to control them very seriously

-------------------- Part II: “Reproductive Human Cloning” --------------------

-D- DEFINING “Reproductive Human Cloning” as: the creation of an embryo, by transfer of a cell nucleus into an enucleated egg, with the aim of creating a new individual with the same genetic ID (as an identical twin). In this resolution this definition is extended to "reproductive cloning with altered genome"

-E- REAFFIRMING STRONGLY that cloned and genetically engineered persons have the very same rights as other persons as stated in the UN RESOLUTION #56 BioRights Declaration

-F- HAVING OBSERVED the deformities and diseases suffered by many cloned animals, apparently due to shortcomings in current cloning technologies in many nations where the technologies are relatively new,

-2- STONGLY DISCOURAGES “Reproductive Human cloning” without the use of more advanced technologies that do not pose an undue risk to the health of the clone(s),

-3- RECOMMENDS that member nations regulate research into cloning to prevent “reproductive Human Cloning” except where technologies which are deemed not to pose an undue risk to the clone(s) health can be used,"

-4- REQUIRES all the Nations where “Reproductive Human Cloning” is legal, to allow it only for couples or persons expressing to a competent national authority their desire to be the parent(s) of the future child.

-------------------- Part III: “Mass Reproductive Human Cloning” --------------------

-G- DEFINING “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning” as an action of “Reproductive Human Cloning” in the aim to give birth intentionally to multiple cloned persons with the same genetic ID

-H- ALARMED BY the fact that “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning” is a great danger to Human Diversity

-5- BAN “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning”

-6- DECLARES “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning” as a crime against Humanity
___________________________________________________________________________

I was under the impression that multiple births from IVF were not identical. As far as I know, multiple births arise because, in order to increase the odds of success, multiple different eggs are fertilised, each (obviously) by a different sperm. Of these, several that look to have the best chance of avoiding inheritable disorders are usually selected and implanted. But since they are different, it is not equivalent to the mass reproductive cloning which this resolution seeks to ban.


This may well be true still it is multiple births regardless they are by terms if born twins.... even if not identical they are still mass births from a single action of reproduction IVF.... To say a multiple clones can't be produces to select the best is the same as banning IVF for that same reson... as only certain fetus are kept those having the so call best chance so why not same for a clone... As they are equal to normal concieved people so they should have the same chances as normal concieved do to get a perfect child.. IVF as the proposer had in thier earlier propal for it been to allow it so that people unable to have a baby might have on.... Thus clones are people and have the same rights under 56 as normal birthed people they have a right to whatever method of reproduction they may use to get a baby.... If sexual reproduction fails then they know that the method they were produced by will work... so they should have that right to use it... Just as nomal people would have a right to use any method,,, IVF to get a baby if they are not able by natural sexaul actions..

Again from the contents of the debate the proposer is not ready to say clones are active members of the UN.... and is working under the assumtion that they do not exist and have equal rights with normal birth people under 56.. Their very comment if these people are clones shows that.... I've repeadly told them that a portion of my nation are clones and myself.. They refuse to hear me thus refuse to believe that any other clones exist... NS is far more advanced than some dream world based on unknown realities of a mind behind the times... Clones are active productive members of the UN and NS... My Nation is ally with 20 other nations that have citizens that are clones... it's times like this that they look to me and ask why I chose to join the UN... as they see this as another UN effort to turn the NS world into a one race one government United Nations.. Currenty those 20 nations average a population of 200 million each with and average clone population of 24.6% based on a recent Regional Census.. That is about 50 million clones.. all products of what this proposal will make a product of a CRIME against HUMANITY... no wonder 2 in 3 nations stay out of the UN... if it's members are allowed to disregard UN Resolutions like 56... and then make a proposal that will if approved by vote bring the full membership to end reproductive cloneing thus leading to the geneocide of 50 million clones as that is their method of reproduction...

Zarta Warden,
UN Ambessador Zeldon
Clone #R2000Z129A

maybe we must states:

-F- TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the argument that every Human Being should have the possibility to have a child issued from his genetic ID and to perpetrate his genetic ID after his death, by fertilization or other ways


-D- DEFINING “Reproductive Human Cloning” as: the creation of an embryo, by transfer of a cell nucleus into an enucleated egg, with the aim of creating a new individual with the same genetic ID (as an identical twin). In this resolution this definition is extended to "reproductive cloning with altered genome"


We see your effort to now define cloning as an efort to ammend Resolution 56 which did not define it but left it up to an individual nation thus again evidence that you want to genocide all clones produced by this method.. That you have selected these citizens of many nations and singled their method of production out to ban it over your own which has as many faults in the process as might be found in this one... Also again your past efforts to support IVF which only helps humans born of a natural sexual reproductive process show that you want people to have children, add this proposal and you add a excetion... if they are clones and can only reproduce by repoductive cloning which is produces multiply fetus is mass clones and is a crime against humanity.. and should be deplored or whatever you the proposer has changed deplored to now...

Zarta Warden
UN Ambassador
Clone #R2000Z129A

We see your effort to now define cloning as an efort to ammend Resolution 56 which did not define it but left it up to an individual nation thus again evidence that you want to genocide all clones produced by this method.. That you have selected these citizens of many nations and singled their method of production out to ban it over your own which has as many faults in the process as might be found in this one... Also again your past efforts to support IVF which only helps humans born of a natural sexual reproductive process show that you want people to have children, add this proposal and you add a excetion... if they are clones and can only reproduce by repoductive cloning which is produces multiply fetus is mass clones and is a crime against humanity.. and should be deplored or whatever you the proposer has changed deplored to now...

Thanks for expressing your fears
We don't intend any genocides, as we have said nothing will prevent these clones to preproduce in the same manners as non-cloned humans

You posted on the mod forum to ask if our proposition violate the UN resolution 56 "BioRights Declaration" and we want to thank you for it.
We responded on the same thread to say that we, also, woul like a mod decision about it.

So, we prefer to not discuss anymore on this point, we prefer to wait for the mod decision.

Thanks for expressing your fears
We don't intend any genocides, as we have said nothing will prevent these clones to preproduce in the same manners as non-cloned humans

So, we prefer to not discuss anymore on this point, we prefer to wait for the mod decision.


I have said but it may not be clear to you yet... The only method for cloned produced by this method to reproduce is they same way they were reproduced, thus mass reproductive cloning is there sexual reproduction process.... As you believe that normal humans can reproduce by a sexual act you are now expecting clones to do that also.... and THEY CAN"T THAT IS NOT HOW CLONES REPRODUCE... Thus if normals have a right to reproduce as they do then so do clones have a right to reproduce as they do... regardless of the genetic conditions coming out of that reproduction... thus a systematic genocide of clones because they can't reproduce because your proposal makes it a crime against humanity for some abratrary reason... It will possibly produce more than one clone that may have the same genetic ID.... Read what I put up on 83.. GENETIC Condition is it not common to GENETIC ID...

If a group, clones can't reproduce because they may perform a crime against humanity to do so then it's genocide... systamaticly.... Would be the same as clones passing a resolution that sexual reproduction should be banned or restricted in some manner.

I'm sorry, but if these are true clones then they must be able to reproduce sexually, unless at some point in their production this ability has been intentionally removed from them.

This may well be true still it is multiple births regardless they are by terms if born twins.... even if not identical they are still mass births from a single action of reproduction IVF.... To say a multiple clones can't be produces to select the best is the same as banning IVF for that same reson... as only certain fetus are kept those having the so call best chance so why not same for a clone...

The case against multiple clones is not applicable to IVF. The point is not that several embryos are produced - that's fine, there's no objection to that. The objection is that if significant numbers of genetically identical humans are born, diversity in the gene pool is reduced, which is dangerous for the human race as a whole. Personally, I feel that a total ban is excessive, as the impact of 3,4,5 or even 20 identical clones on the gene pool is negligible. I would make the limit a larger number.

The case against multiple clones is not applicable to IVF. The point is not that several embryos are produced - that's fine, there's no objection to that. The objection is that if significant numbers of genetically identical humans are born, diversity in the gene pool is reduced, which is dangerous for the human race as a whole. Personally, I feel that a total ban is excessive, as the impact of 3,4,5 or even 20 identical clones on the gene pool is negligible. I would make the limit a larger number.
They will not be geneticly identical as a number of factors prevent that form ever happening just as it prevents identical twins from sexual reproduction from all being identical so do the same elemental concerns effect a clone... form the second it's created, concieved, or formed (whatever term you might use) every time the original single cell splits their is a chance for change in the split.... Thus with each split the chance increases in a clone just as it would in the development of a fetus from a single cell that divides by 'powers or two' around 30 divisions you will have over 26 billion cells any number may be changed from the original due to elementals around it... In normal sexual reproduction if the mother say walks to near an xray device or other energy source they splitting single cell in her can be altered at any time in the division process and any number of new cells changed.... the same is true in clone cell division stages..

Sexual Reproduction produces unwanted fetus for one reason or other that must be aborted to keep a single fetus...
Reproductive cloneing produces unwanted clones for one reason or other that must be aborted to keep a single fetus....

only difference in these statements is the word fetus or clone and how you get them, under resolution 56 since they would be equal... fetus/human clone/human all it leaves is the issue of Sexual and Cloneing as the process of reproduction.. both do the same thing.... so why ban or say one is a crime against humanity if both do same thing.. Would it not be proper to do it to both.. to single one out stops one from reproduction as their procedure becomes evil.. a crime.. thus they either must commit this crime or allow themselves to die off... a systematic genocide based on ones method of reproduction which is based on a genetic condition to reproduce or not reproduce a certain way..

-B- DEFINING
“Therapeutic Human Cloning” as: the creation of day-old embryo, by transfer of a cell nucleus into an enucleated egg, with the aim of harvesting the cells for subsequent culture amplification and injection into a Human for therapeutic purposes.
“Scientific Human Cloning” as: the scientific researches on “Therapeutic Human Cloning”.

-C- CONVINCED that “Therapeutic Human Cloning”, in the same manner as “Stem Cells” is a very promising way to improve health and happiness of Humans Beings and is a promising booming economic activity

-1- MANDATES all Nations to allow and support “Scientific & Therapeutic Human Cloning” and to control them very seriously

According to HOCEK teachings, this sort of procedure is known by a much more succinct name: "cannibalism".

It is an abomination in the eyes of the Eternal Kawaii (may the Cute One be praised) to create human life for the purpose of "harvesting" it for the purposes of other humans. Rest assured that Our nation controls such behavior very seriously--it is a capital crime on Our books.

This proposal is an offense against humanity--indeed, it degrades the very nature of what it means to be a human being. Human beings are Divine creations, not "spare parts" to be created and destroyed by human whim. We therefore condemn this proposal in the strongest terms, and urge that it be withdrawn from consideration.

Personally, I feel that a total ban is excessive, as the impact of 3,4,5 or even 20 identical clones on the gene pool is negligible. I would make the limit a larger number.


We agree with you that the declaration of crime against humanity is excessive, as the impact of 3,4,5 or even 20 identical clones on the gene pool is negligible.

We are trying to find a way to express a graduation. But we will keep the ban

According to HOCEK teachings, this sort of procedure is known by a much more succinct name: "cannibalism".

It is an abomination in the eyes of the Eternal Kawaii (may the Cute One be praised) to create human life for the purpose of "harvesting" it for the purposes of other humans. Rest assured that Our nation controls such behavior very seriously--it is a capital crime on Our books.

This proposal is an offense against humanity--indeed, it degrades the very nature of what it means to be a human being. Human beings are Divine creations, not "spare parts" to be created and destroyed by human whim. We therefore condemn this proposal in the strongest terms, and urge that it be withdrawn from consideration.

Nice people of Eternal Kawaii, we understand your point of view and we respect your desire to follow the HOCEK Teaching.

The difference between your and our point of view, is we don't have the same definition of "human"

We think that in the early period an embryon has not the status of Human, you may say that our definition is arbitrary.

You think, that an embryon is a Human, as soon as there is a fertilization. But as Human clones exist in the Nation of Zeldon 6229 Nodlez. These clones are human even if, there was no fertilization. => your definition of Human is not unique and then arbritrary

We hope you will understand our point of view

They will not be geneticly identical as a number of factors prevent that form ever happening just as it prevents identical twins from sexual reproduction from all being identical so do the same elemental concerns effect a clone...

ok, thanks for this precision, we must admit they will not be absolutly geneticly identical, but they will be amost geneticly identical, and this is, in the same manner, a great danger for humanity, it will threaten its diversity.

Nice people of Eternal Kawaii, we understand your point of view and we respect your desire to follow the HOCEK Teaching.

The difference between your and our point of view, is we don't have the same definition of "human"

We think that in the early period an embryon has not the status of Human, you may say that our definition is arbitrary.

You think, that an embryon is a Human, as soon as there is a fertilization. But as Human clones exist in the Nation of Zeldon 6229 Nodlez. These clones are human even if, there was no fertilization. => your definition of Human is not unique and then arbritrary

We hope you will understand our point of view

The esteemed delegate from Love and esterel misses the essential point of Our position, which is that human beings are Divine creation. The mechanics of that creation, whether by an act of nature or of human artifice, are of lesser importance to the fact that it is not Man which creates Man, but the Divine acting through Man. Otherwise, a human being is no different than a pair of shoes, to be cobbled together when needed and thrown away when they are of no further use.

Our objection is to the hubris of LAE's position, which asserts human beings have the right to use human flesh--in any stage of development, without the consent of that flesh--for its own selfish purposes. This denies the Divine creation, the offense against humanity We speak of.

Zeldon 6229 Nodlez, there is no good reason why clones should be unable to reproduce through normal sexual methods. They are, after all, normal human beings, precisely because they are genetic copies of normal human beings.

And whilst we are all agreed that cloning does not produce 100% identical genomes, and that there is potential for mutation to create further variation, you must recognise that clones, just like identical twins, have ALMOST 100% identical genomes, and therefore pose a greater risk than most siblings to the diversity of the human gene pool.

Love and esterel, if you agree that the impact of 20 clones on the gene pool is negligible, why persist in attempting a total ban of multiple cloning? Surely it would make more sense to ban the creation of more than, say, 100 identical clones - this would clear up the disagreements with Zeldon 6229 Nodlez without sacrificing anything meaningful (don't forget, there are hundreds of billions of humans and other sentients in the NS universe, so 99 clones aren't really going to pose any threat to the gene pools).

Whilst I am For the continuing genitic stem cell research i am against the cloning of a Human Being.
If you clone a human Being you in fact have manifactured a Human, that must be afforded the same rights as all Humanity, regardless of their inception.
Cultivation of sentient clones of a Human being with the intent to use as a spare body or parts for an existing Human will never be accepted by my nation.
That said we are not against the use of stem cells to build replacement organs where the need applies.

Zeldon 6229 Nodlez, you can read the GM post here, our proposition is not a violation of any past resolution
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9536048&postcount=5

With this GM post it's seems a single proposal is legal, we will wait another GM advice, we think a single proposal is better, but it's ok if must split it

Love and esterel, if you agree that the impact of 20 clones on the gene pool is negligible, why persist in attempting a total ban of multiple cloning? Surely it would make more sense to ban the creation of more than, say, 100 identical clones - this would clear up the disagreements with Zeldon 6229 Nodlez without sacrificing anything meaningful (don't forget, there are hundreds of billions of humans and other sentients in the NS universe, so 99 clones aren't really going to pose any threat to the gene pools).

In the last few weeks we had many disagrements with the teaching of HOCEK (on sex ed, therapeutic cloning and it seems also on abortion, Adoption and IVF)
But we are proud to say that we fully agree with the teaching of HOCEK on the following fondamental philosophical statement:
"a human being is different than a pair of shoes"
We will always refuse the taylorisation or the fordism of human reproduction.

About Zeldon 6229 Nodlez, we had very good diplomatic ties recently and we don't want to broke them at all, but we want to say their statement that some clones can't reproduce with sex or IVF is not credible at all, we fully regret that his ambassador have lost a part of his credibility.

_Myopia_, you have proposed us some help to improve the poor style and grammar of our proposition, we had thank you and appreciated your nice offer.
however, as we find diversity is essential not only for Humanity but also for every human, and as the representant of the people of Love and esterel who cheer diversity, we will not modify the substance of Part III.
So, you are free to help us or not, we prefer you follow your conscience, but we prefer to keep the ban even without your precious help. We don't care.

Cultivation of sentient clones of a Human being with the intent to use as a spare body or parts for an existing Human will never be accepted by my nation.

We fully agree, we think our proposition doesn't allow it, if not please let us know. If our proposition allow it, then we have made a big mistake, this was not intended and we will apologize.

I as ambassador to the UN from Zeldon have given all of what is being done consideration and have consulted with my family and friends from all around. We feel that this proposal is an assault on the very process by which we came to be as clones. It is equal to saying that because we were born as a result of the sexual union of say a Zeldonian and an Esyerian we are products of crimes of humanity... as it has condemed the process of our union that created a child, a living human, one that is suppose to have the same rights as same formed in a sexural union between Zeldonian and Zeldonian or Esyerian and Esyerian.. but here this proposal says that if you were born by mass reproductive cloning the process you were born by is a crime against humanity..... we must limit it or restrict it or even ban it because it causes identical individuals or what is equal to if they were born of sexual intercourse, twins.. The arguments have been that having 'twins' means that all of them are going to be alike in all physical and mental manners..... This is not true as clones born in multiple projects from the same genetic material, may come out looking like all those formed in that single process but are never perfectly equal individuals nor are they mentely equal. I was one of nine formed in the process that gave me life.... Eight were male and one was female as the process started with a single cell from the ass mass of a person I don't know.. I suppose you will next say that since I was born of ass mass that I no more may be concevied from that area as ony those from the brain, or heart, or a more proper mass should be allowed to grow and become normal productive people. I have a genetic misfunction that prevents me from producing children in a sexual union with others of my own natural order, those also created as clones. Those who have studied the process and those of us who were produced from it have found no reason for this genetic defect but are working to find one in hopes that one day we might have children by sexual intercourse as normal birth humans might.

As I was one of nine there are millions more of my kind living in the Nation of Zeldon as well as nations we are allied with in peace and considerations. We are in nature a large family holding common values and ideals from the day we were cloned and until today. Now we are being condemed to be products of a process that this proposal will make a crime against humanity and either restrict it or ban it fully in many nations of the UN. To do so will reduce the numbers of future clones concieved in this manner and thus in time mean they will be no more or endangered.... The UN can prevent Whales, Dolphins, and may other animals from becoming extenct when they are endanger but now will venture into making yet just another animal, clones, endanger and in time extinct.... This is a systamatic genocide of those animals, clones...

I have had little sleep over this issue as it has those of my family concerned that they will be assaulted by members of the UN who hate them as clones.. Our history goes back that we were created as slaves to serve when normal humans feared going, thus we have struggled hard to reach our place as human and be at peace with all.. Thus my mind lingers beyond as question who I am, and what is going to happen to me tommorrow if this proposal is passed and there will be no more tommorrows for the children I might have and raise as I was concieved then raised. My family has intrusted me to end this issue and protect the process by which we were concieved in this life, this world.. thus I must do so for them, for myself, and most of all for our future generations...

I think all who hear me and hope you will not allow this proposal...

Zarta Warden,
UN Ambassador Zeldon
Clone #R2000Z129A


OOC: Folks I'm still here been working long nights last three days had little sleep so bed time for me. Some of the group may be in to check as all six are against this one.. Because we feel this is like condeming White Black marriages simply because of a process that created a mixed child. Where here the process creates a clone... You condemn the process you also condemn the product of that process.. As it because some consider mixed unions race, religion, nationality wrong,,, a number of contries today do not see the products of such unions a having any rights.. Clones may in the real world not be, in NS they do exist, we are in role Clones, we have a histroy, we have lives with a family.. So good night... until later as hope to get some sleep..

The difference between your and our point of view, is we don't have the same definition of "human"


WHAT KIND OF STATEMENT IS THIS.. How many of us here do you see as HUMAN and how many do you not see as HUMAN.... Do I, a clone, offend you, who else in here offends you and what will you propose next to assault them and lead to their genocide...


I DEMAND that the UN santion the nation of Love and esterel and investigate fully thier government to see if they are holding to follow any and all UN Resolutions.... This very statement indicates the nature of the government of this nation... They separate HUMANS into classes and disriminate against them based on whatever they see as right or wroung.. They allow clones and say they have the same rights as they might but want to condemn the process that made them clones..... They respect a persons religion but do not respect what that relegion teaches. They have in this debate shown bias toward many based on their own beliefs. Here they say they have their own definition of HUMAN.. I believe the UN is all it's wisdom and throug all it debates in eah issue has defined human and many different species of HUMANS sit as members of the UN...... How can this individual look at any one member and say they are not HUMAN then turn to another and hug them as HUMAN.. simply because they may define one as such and not the other. A HUMAN is just that HUMAN... They live, work, play, mate, live in NS.... The UN is suppose to help bring them together in peace as one sharing our small world not divide them into Green, Gray, Brown, Dwarf, Clone, Bible Thumpers, Dolhin Lovers, but what is happening here....

Zarta Warden,
UN Ambassador Zeldon
Clone #R2000Z129A

"a human being is different than a pair of shoes"

About Zeldon 6229 Nodlez, we had very good diplomatic ties recently and we don't want to broke them at all, but we want to say their statement that some clones can't reproduce with sex or IVF is not credible at all, we fully regret that his ambassador have lost a part of his credibility.




I'm glad that you know the difference between humans and a pair of shoes..


On the issue and later remark... I believe that was over the issue of IVF in your earlies proposal... My standing on that as it would be on cloning... Is that as long as the process is not abused and done simply for an abusive cause... Creating a fetus or clone to be used as experimental matter to find a cure for say horse bite virus or green river fever or blind tumor, all very serious evils, it would be okay to use IVF in this case mass clonig..

I was there, in IVF, concerned with the process giving multiple fetus... and what would become of those that were not wanted. Would they simply be aborted and disposed of or used for other things. Thus resulting it abuse because humans learn an easy process to make unwanted fetus and in their greed trade in them.. As a clone I can see this concern with the very process you call mass reproduction of clones.. As I was mass produced to be a servent of my people because I was expendable.. Fate has brough me and others to where we are and we are no longer servents or slaves... we are free clones. We don't believe in abusing the process that created us... we believe it needs improving as we believe IVF needs improving... both need controls on them but they should not be placed by the UN whos most of its membership is not educated on the issue and only have input from a few who fear it due to false rumors and religious ideals. We honor and respect all religions but would hope that those in turn who don't believe as we do might come to honor and respect our faith in the process that gave us life.


I have spoken with others on this and tried to convey what we feel on this matter... We just want the rights that all humans have to reproduce as our ancestors did, just as they did for 14 generations of clones. Normal humans have reproduced their way for hundreds of generations and many faults are known in the process.... Cloning has only had 14 generations by this process, and has it's problems but now you have come to comdemn it after just 14 generations.... I can only wonder what might prove out for clones in generation 100 and if normal humans will be here then..

I ramble because I'm tired and troubled by this matter as I'm being urged to leave the UN by my allies who feel this is an assualt on them as clones.. I have worked hard to bring them into UN but each time I get near they see actions such as this come up and we are back to issue.. Between debates them and here I've lost a lot of sleep.. trying to work with both sides.... as I must think first of my nation as we live with these peope everyday and trade with them... Many of the UN membership we have never meet until this debate... So it's hard for me to be in the middle....

Zarta Warden,
UN Ambassador Zeldon,
Clone #R2000Z129A

Whilst I am For the continuing genitic stem cell research i am against the cloning of a Human Being.
If you clone a human Being you in fact have manifactured a Human, that must be afforded the same rights as all Humanity, regardless of their inception.
Cultivation of sentient clones of a Human being with the intent to use as a spare body or parts for an existing Human will never be accepted by my nation.

The legalisation of cloning would not mean that you must allow these clones to be harvested for organs - you could (and in fact would have to) afford the clones equal rights to any other human.

We will always refuse the taylorisation or the fordism of human reproduction.

We agree that objectification of human beings must be avoided. But it is perfectly possible to have 10 identical clones and not to detract from their worth as human beings. Admittedly we might be worried if they remained in the care of one family, because it is common for parents of identical siblings to enforce a degree of undue similarity on their children, but what if the clones were adopted by several different couples who were unable to reproduce? It is perfectly possible to treat these clones with the respect due to human beings, and we'd prefer to err on the side of freedom and allow the local child protection services to deal with cases where clones are being treated without the respect due to any human being.

Perhaps 100 is too large a number, but I think it would be best to allow at least 10. A total ban is excessive because it is not inevitable that anyone's rights will be infringed by having a small number of clones. What if a couple wanted to have identical twins or triplets via cloning? This would be no different to having them naturally.

I was one of nine formed in the process that gave me life.... Eight were male and one was female as the process started with a single cell from the ass mass of a person I don't know.. I suppose you will next say that since I was born of ass mass that I no more may be concevied from that area as ony those from the brain, or heart, or a more proper mass should be allowed to grow and become normal productive people. I have a genetic misfunction that prevents me from producing children in a sexual union with others of my own natural order, those also created as clones. Those who have studied the process and those of us who were produced from it have found no reason for this genetic defect but are working to find one in hopes that one day we might have children by sexual intercourse as normal birth humans might.

If all 9 of you were clones produced from the same individual, it is impossible that some should be male and some female. Additionally, if all your "clones" have this genetic disorder which was not inherited from their DNA donors, then they are in fact not clones but genetically engineered persons.

OOC: It looks like you've misunderstood the process of cloning.

OOC: It looks like you've misunderstood the process of cloning.


I may have but in my efforts I hope to make people aware of it and at least take time to find out what it is.. As there is a lot I'm still learning about this issue.. Also on the subject of DNA as a means of tracing ancestors.. Which in some ways deals with this... in that they use Genetic Idenity or markers to track them.. The fear that mass producing an army of super human clones by taking the material from a single super human to me is not possible... as nature would prevent it.. As you noted about twins gaining their views from parents... independent of thier genetic material that played on their physical while parents play on the mental and thus have as much input on how a child comes to be an adult as the act of cloning one might.. I do know that clones come from a single cell forced to divide just as a single cell is induced to divide in natural reproduction.. Induced may be the wrong medical term but makes sense to me.. Thus the single cell is induced also to create a fetus that grows like normal... Clones like normal Fetus have defects in them..

As for the process of multiple fetus.. clone... nature again will take care of that then common sense... I don't think many family would want ten kids at one time.. as to some one is a problem thus we see abortions...

As Love and esterel recently made a proposal for IVF which is here and produces large numbers of fetus... I don't understand their proposing and restriction on the number of clones.. As they made no such restrictions on numbers produce in the IVF proposal.. and I did bring it up to question how they would deal with unwanted fetus as a result of IVF... I forget where that went... This to me is simply not knowing all the issues of cloning... or listening to rumors on an unproven medical procedure... as so far only animals have been cloned.. and we can't use the results on them to say this is how it will be with humans... We have no way of testing the mental forces at work in animal or human to know what happens their,, in those uncharted parts of our unused brain..


OOC: Writing this in for ZELDON as he has been called out of town so I will be trying to keep up here for him...

if we are to allow human cloning we have to garauntee these clones rights. has anyone ever read The house of the scorpion? there, clones were produced to provide replacement parts for adult individuals could afford it. ok, to clarify, the clones grown for replacement parts were required to mature into at least adolescence before the parts could be harvested. that involved them being allowed to grow up, and then, as the parts were needed the clones were surgically executed (depending on the part) and the organs were removed. if human reproductive cloning or even mass production cloning are going to be allowed we need to very clear about the rights of these clones. may socities see clones as inferior, or even have them brain damaged at "birth" to make them easier to control and manipulate. some cultures have even used to clones as the brunt of their manual labor force. this is uncalled for, and are in reality, horrible violations of human rights. clones need to be garaunteed the same rights as the rest of the intelligent races.

and as for gentic engineering to mainuplate the genes of a clone in order to produce, say, a superhuman, well always consider the mess-ups. what happens if you produce a flawed clone who doesn't want to be your super-soldier? or, what do you do with failed test experiments? for example, let's say you were trying to create a specific result in the lab, and got a horribly (and painfully) deformed individual with the capacity to lift a car over his head. in places with very lenient, or no laws about this stuff you get a lot of rogue super-humans running around trying to dodge the governenment. its a big deal, and i think this resolution should deal with it.

If all 9 of you were clones produced from the same individual, it is impossible that some should be male and some female. Additionally, if all your "clones" have this genetic disorder which was not inherited from their DNA donors, then they are in fact not clones but genetically engineered persons.

OOC: It looks like you've misunderstood the process of cloning.

The idea Zeldon used to show his role character as they relate to clones is based on a role.... created by his uncle some years ago in a story he was trying to write.. Thus has been applied to the formation of our group of nations as new members of the family come in with one... So will not always be fact.. As the proposal is part of a game.. Thus is role play... We are trying to work between real and role here... prefer to leave if this is against some game rules alone... We want to address this as a proposal period making a statement... to change something... or end it.. Thus we have tried to keep to the issue of it violating Resolution 56 which... First says clones are in NS and members of the UN... otherwise why would they have a single resolution all to their own making them equal to humans born of normal means. Next it says they have all rights that these normal humans have.. We assume that one such would be the right to reproduce in a way that works for them and is how they do it... be it IVF or SEX or CLONE or Looking at each other and saying chid three times. It is a right they have..

On Genocide... many think of it as killing off an entire group of people for one reason or other by dropping bombs on them or sending troops in and by days end all are dead. Genocide can be banning them from reproducing thus in time there are no more of them around.. This for us is like baning mixed marriages because it results in mixed children.. You don't want mixed children around so you ban the process that created them..

Zedlon will be our a while as he got called to work... so we Vilevilla and I will be trying to fill in for him... also posting anything from him... Not sure when he will be back as depends on current weather in LA area.....

if we are to allow human cloning we have to garauntee these clones rights.

and as for gentic engineering to mainuplate the genes of a clone in order to produce, say, a superhuman, well always consider the mess-ups. .


First part... Resolution 56 already does this in NSUN..

Second part.. Consider the mess-ups with natural sexual reproduction.... Also IVF..... all have their down sides end up with defective products.. but do we condeme the products simply because they were a mess-up.. From say a marriage between a white and black, jew and pagan, Sysmonian an Annwfyn, as this proposal has... also it is by banning the very process trying to end them as living beings.. as they will no longer be able to reproduce in the manner they came to be...

The Story noted shows how views on clones and other issues come about.. One person reads a fable on clones then passes it on somebody hears him talking and believes what they hear them passes it on... Ending up in time as real.. fact on clones when was just something made up in some fable.. Look at the fear of wolves, spiders, snakes, and sharks most have it is based on movies and such.. not actual facts.. The same holds true for clones... most of what we do know comes from fiction.. not fact as most have not taken any time to go look for the facts they do watch movies and may even read a SiFi book or two.. thus forms their ideas of clones...

we made some changed to the proposition, they will not pleased some nations who posted in this thread.
and we deleted the "executive summary", to shorten the proposition

here is the new draft:


________________________________________________________________________
Human Cloning: Rights & Ban

Category: “Human Rights” and “Moral Decency”?
Strength: Strong

The United Nations,

-A- FULLY AWARE that there are different kinds of Human cloning and that they must be dealt separately

-------------------- Part I: “Scientific & Therapeutic Human Cloning” --------------------

-B- DEFINING
“Therapeutic Human Cloning” as: the creation of day-old embryo, by transfer of a cell nucleus into an enucleated egg, with the aim of harvesting the cells for subsequent culture amplification and injection into a Human for therapeutic purposes.
“Scientific Human Cloning” as: the scientific researches on “Therapeutic Human Cloning”.

-C- CONVINCED that “Therapeutic Human Cloning”, in the same manner as “Stem Cells” is a very promising way to improve health and happiness of Humans Beings and is a promising booming economic activity

-1- MANDATES all Nations to allow and support “Scientific & Therapeutic Human Cloning” when technologies don’t pose an undue risk for the patient, and to control them very seriously

-------------------- Part II: “Reproductive Human Cloning” --------------------

-D- DEFINING “Reproductive Human Cloning” as: the creation of an embryo, by transfer of a cell nucleus into an enucleated egg, with the aim of creating a new individual with the same genetic ID (as an identical twin). In this resolution this definition is extended to "reproductive cloning with altered genome"

-E- REAFFIRMING STRONGLY that cloned and genetically engineered persons have the very same rights as other persons as stated in the UN RESOLUTION #56 BioRights Declaration

-F- HAVING OBSERVED the deformities and diseases suffered by many cloned animals, apparently due to shortcomings in current cloning technologies in many nations where the technologies are relatively new,

-2- DON’T ENCOURAGES Nations to allow “Reproductive Human cloning”, as any human has to right to be sufficiently genetically different from his parents or his nucleus donor.

-3- STONGLY DISCOURAGES “Reproductive Human cloning” without the use of more advanced technologies that do not pose an undue risk to the health of the clone(s),

-4- RECOMMENDS that member nations regulate research into cloning to prevent “reproductive Human Cloning” except where technologies which are deemed not to pose an undue risk to the clone(s) health can be used,"

-5- REQUIRES all the Nations where “Reproductive Human Cloning” is legal, to allow it only for sterile couples expressing, to a competent national authority, their desire to be the parents of the future child.

-------------------- Part III: “Mass Reproductive Human Cloning” --------------------

-G- DEFINING “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning” as an action of “Reproductive Human Cloning” in the aim to give birth intentionally to multiple cloned persons with the same genetic ID

-H- ALARMED BY the fact that “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning” is a great danger to Human Diversity

-6- BAN “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning”

-7- DECLARES “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning” of an important number of clones, as a crime against Humanity.
___________________________________________________________________________

-------------------- Part I: “Scientific & Therapeutic Human Cloning” --------------------

-B- DEFINING
“Therapeutic Human Cloning” as: the creation of day-old embryo, by transfer of a cell nucleus into an enucleated egg, with the aim of harvesting the cells for subsequent culture amplification and injection into a Human for therapeutic purposes.
“Scientific Human Cloning” as: the scientific researches on “Therapeutic Human Cloning”.

-C- CONVINCED that “Therapeutic Human Cloning”, in the same manner as “Stem Cells” is a very promising way to improve health and happiness of Humans Beings and is a promising booming economic activity

What about the clone that was used to provide the matrials here do they get a say in this? Do you support also using aborted fetus for the same cause?

Also in line of MASS Reproduction Cloning... what part of this do you oppose... MASS Reproduction or Cloning... As you allow Reproductive Cloning so that leaves the MASS.... You in the past have supported IVF which produces multiple fetus... thus one might see it as MASS Reproductive IVF... where you supported all off it... The only new word here is Cloning..

What about the clone that was used to provide the matrials here do they get a say in this?

we don't understand what do you mean

Also in line of MASS Reproduction Cloning... what part of this do you oppose... MASS Reproduction or Cloning... As you allow Reproductive Cloning so that leaves the MASS....

We really think diversity if something fondamental for humanity, even genetically diversity, MASS Reproduction Cloning is a threat diversity
If you think it's not important we respect your point of view


You in the past have supported IVF which produces multiple fetus... thus one might see it as MASS Reproductive IVF

no, IVF doesn't reduce diversity

Ok - to the comments about manipulating the genes of clones - if you genetically engineer it, it's no longer a clone and so this proposal would not apply.

OOC:As to Zeldon's role-play of the origins of his people, I'm not disputing his right to RP his citizens' biology however he likes - all I'm saying is that, scientifically, what he appears to be describing does not appear to be just cloning, but something else as well. Again, I suspect that this this proposal's prohibition of mass reproductive cloning would not apply to Zeldon's citizens' reproduction, although I'd be interested to hear a full explanation of the procedure.

Back IC: Love and Esterel - your latest draft appears to be returning to the principles which we originally opposed. We still don't understand the basis for your insistence on a right to genetic uniqueness in the matter of cloning when identical twins have that supposed right infringed more thoroughly than clones do.

we don't understand what do you mean
There are debates over stem cell research based on the idea that the material comes from a fetus aborted.. Thus one might consider a clone a fetus as it ends in a human being.... I ask have you considered when a clone/fetus is a life.. once the single cell is split.. as both are from a single cell and all that differers is how they are motivated to spilt..


We really think diversity if something fondamental for humanity, even genetically diversity, MASS Reproduction Cloning is a threat diversity. If you think it's not important we respect your point of view


Diversity... Just because you see a person looks like another does not mean he is equal to the other... Even identical twins formed from a common cell after is has divided have differences... thus clones have differences... but are no more than twins... Diversity covers a wide range of things not just ones looks... I may kneel to pray while you stand thats a diversity.. and has nothing to do with the fact that we were reproduced by a sexual act.. It has to do with how we were raised by whomever raised us..

no, IVF doesn't reduce diversity

but it does produce unwanted fetus... that because they are defects are not used thus end up where being used for what.. after they are aborted.....
I believe this was covered in Zeldon's comments on your prosal for IVF... do not have his notes.. on that... but I would say so does cloning create defects or mutations in the genetic material.....

If an clones are raised like nomal children are raised they will have diversity.. grow up be doctors lawyers crooks golfers boxers whatever thus diverse,,, just educate them like you do normal children... even twins...

Ok - to the comments about manipulating the genes of clones - if you genetically engineer it, it's no longer a clone and so this proposal would not apply.
We would agree that any gentic engineering is wrong.. and is an abuse of the process...... of reproductive cloning... and will not debate the 'no longer a clone' as this might be seen as an issue equal to one on sex change... and what the end result is.. thus for another forum.. Banning the process will not end mass reproductive cloning nor stop genetic engineering... Education on the dangers of abusing the process will help more than banning it.. As then it will not be an action done insecret but in the open.. Thus advancing education on the process rather than hiding the process... thus making people aware of both the good and bad points of the process.. and how to use process and not abuse the process.

OOC:As to Zeldon's role-play of the origins of his people, I'm not disputing his right to RP his citizens' biology however he likes - all I'm saying is that, scientifically, what he appears to be describing does not appear to be just cloning, but something else as well. Again, I suspect that this this proposal's prohibition of mass reproductive cloning would not apply to Zeldon's citizens' reproduction, although I'd be interested to hear a full explanation of the procedure.

Again here we get into what is a clone and how did they come to be.. Reproductive cloning involves the forced/induced splitting of a single cell.. the cell is taken form a human, bone marrow is the prefered material.. Thats all I know of the process.. Will let him tell you more... when he returns..


Back IC: Love and Esterel - your latest draft appears to be returning to the principles which we originally opposed. We still don't understand the basis for your insistence on a right to genetic uniqueness in the matter of cloning when identical twins have that supposed right infringed more thoroughly than clones do.

I'd like to here this one myself as they have strongly support IVF which produces as many as seven twins... in one birth, on average two.. so what makes MASS Reproduction..

-E- REAFFIRMING STRONGLY that cloned and genetically engineered persons have the very same rights as other persons as stated in the UN RESOLUTION #56 BioRights Declaration

-F- HAVING OBSERVED the deformities and diseases suffered by many cloned animals, apparently due to shortcomings in current cloning technologies in many nations where the technologies are relatively new,




1) Resolution 56 shows that clones exist within the UN member nations..

2) You understand that they exist in the UN by E above

3) So you see defects in cloned animals and assume that humans need protection from this based on this idea...
:: apparently due to shortcomings in current cloning technologies in many nations where the technologies are relatively new,

4) If UN nations need to advance their cloning technologies to prevent defects why don't they just ask one of the many nations that have advance this technology; or write up a proposal to establish a Committee on Cloning to collect current technologies from members that will be availabe to all members so that they may advance is... not have to stop their own cloning due to defective Gruels or Shepins being cloned. It is cleat enough that the technology is present in the UN to a level that it has made a resolution to riase clones to equal with normal humans..
5) This would allow those nation who want to use cloning to do so and have the most advanced technology to use...

My nation has no problem with sharing our process with any nation that wants it. We shall send copies of all our procedures to the UN Education Committe, who can use them to make proper documents to disperse among all members. As we have 14 generations of clones that have shown no more defects among them than one might find among those reproduced by normal sexual intercourse.. and far less than by IVF..

Ok - to the comments about manipulating the genes of clones - if you genetically engineer it, it's no longer a clone and so this proposal would not apply.

yes it would apply:

"""""In this resolution this definition is extended to "reproductive cloning with altered genome""""""

OOC:As to Zeldon's role-play of the origins of his people, I'm not disputing his right to RP his citizens' biology however he likes - all I'm saying is that, scientifically, what he appears to be describing does not appear to be just cloning, but something else as well. Again, I suspect that this this proposal's prohibition of mass reproductive cloning would not apply to Zeldon's citizens' reproduction, although I'd be interested to hear a full explanation of the procedure.


you right, with all the incredible stuff Zeldon write, we didn't take time to read correctly all his posts. its seems it looks like more to the "Bokanovsky method" in the famous novel "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley. it seems to me there is a name to this method, i don't remember.
maybe we will extand our definition with it.


Back IC: Love and Esterel - your latest draft appears to be returning to the principles which we originally opposed. We still don't understand the basis for your insistence on a right to genetic uniqueness in the matter of cloning when identical twins have that supposed right infringed more thoroughly than clones do.

Our new draft don't mention genetically uniqueness, but right to be sufficiently genetically different from his parents or his nucleus donor, not from twins

-E- REAFFIRMING STRONGLY that cloned and genetically engineered persons have the very same rights as other persons as stated in the UN RESOLUTION #56 BioRights Declaration


1) Resolution 56 shows that clones exist within the UN member nations..

2) You understand that they exist in the UN by E above


of course not, the resolution 56, and our paragraph [E] give them the same rights as humans, either clones exist or not yet.



4) If UN nations need to advance their cloning technologies to prevent defects why don't they just ask one of the many nations that have advance this technology; or write up a proposal to establish a Committee on Cloning to collect current technologies from members that will be availabe to all members so that they may advance is... not have to stop their own cloning due to defective Gruels or Shepins being cloned. It is cleat enough that the technology is present in the UN to a level that it has made a resolution to riase clones to equal with normal humans..
5) This would allow those nation who want to use cloning to do so and have the most advanced technology to use...

My nation has no problem with sharing our process with any nation that wants it. We shall send copies of all our procedures to the UN Education Committe, who can use them to make proper documents to disperse among all members. As we have 14 generations of clones that have shown no more defects among them than one might find among those reproduced by normal sexual intercourse.. and far less than by IVF..

we like your idea, but it will not be easy to write it, as Human clones doesnt yet exist in the real world

we like your idea, but it will not be easy to write it, as Human clones doesnt yet exist in the real world


This is NS not the real world. In NS they do and by Resolution 56 have every right to be as you do..

Here the REAL WORLD does not exist.. it is a dream world we might all like to be in but we are here in NS,,,, were clones do exist...Just because they don't exist in your nation or world.. doesn't mean they don't exist; because Resolution 56 says they do.. in NS and they have every right you do.. Thus claiming they do not exist anywhere goes against Resolution 56... as they have to exist to be equal to you..

Found an interesting link to something on clones

http://allfreeessays.com/student/Cloning_Technology.html

Like this part but you can read the full item above..
Even if clones don't have genetic variation they would closely resemble identical twins and more than likely would be accepted by the world as twins would. After all, there are some eight million identical twins alive today, so it is safe to say that about eight million, human clones? are alive today. Plus, who is to differentiate between a clone and an identical twin? The world isn't going to be able to distinguish between the two anyway.

OOC: Zeldon is in real world my nephew... He and several of his cousins have come into NS to play the game... They base their role play on a story I started writing years ago.. but have never come to finish it..

In this world they are faced with a super nova about to fail... Thus they produce clones to serve as scouts to search space for a new world.. Nine such end up sent to earth.. where they crash... One survives and thus goes on to produce more of his own self. Through the very process he was produced.. This advances the story line to nine family one per clone.. and later an additional 20 total 29... this number comes from 9 primary family confirmed in my family tree and 20 related but not fully comfirmed.
This story line is one I've been working on for several years and have allowed my family to read.. They have provided my with a lot of the real world info that forms the base of the story.. So please don't think any of us are crazy.. We're playing a game... all willing to learn from others, and in turn help them learn...

Zeldon has gone called in due to Katrina so he will be back when he gets back...

We would agree that any gentic engineering is wrong.. and is an abuse of the process...... of reproductive cloning

Well actually, we'd argue that as long as its implementation is not restricted by financial ability or other similar factors, genetic engineering of humans is not only not wrong, but eventually will become necessary. Modern civilisation removes the selection pressure which normally prevents the survival of deleterious mutations, and so unless we resort to barbaric Nazi social Darwinism, we will need to use genetic engineering to counter the accumulation of damaging mutations in the human gene pool. But that's not an immediate issue.

Again here we get into what is a clone and how did they come to be.. Reproductive cloning involves the forced/induced splitting of a single cell.. the cell is taken form a human, bone marrow is the prefered material.. Thats all I know of the process.. Will let him tell you more... when he returns..

If Zeldon is obtaining totipotent stem cells from adult humans and causing them to develop into new embryos, it's not cloning [EDIT:well, not cloning as practised in reality, and not as defined by this proposal I don't think] but true asexual reproduction - and pretty amazing too.

Artificial cloning usually refers to where an ovum is obtained, its haploid nucleus removed and replaced with the diploid nucleus from a cell from the donor and then the egg is allowed to develop as if its diploid nucleus was a result of fertilisation rather than artificial transfer.

Our new draft don't mention genetically uniqueness, but right to be sufficiently genetically different from his parents or his nucleus donor, not from twins

But my question is why do you consider it a right to be different from your parent, but don't consider it a right to be different from your sibling?

OOC: Many of us nations that RP as real-world tech prefer to maintain that status. Accepting future tech (such as cloning technologies) from nations RPing as more advanced would mess with the way many of us like to play the game. Additionally, many future tech nations have a policy of not handing out technologies to those not advanced enough to have developed them independently, because of the danger of granting civilisations powers they are not ready to handle responsibly.

(such as cloning technologies) .



This is the problem here as most don't understand the cloning process.. I still don't.. I have ideas based on what I read about it... Thus I use that as a base for a story line.. We had consider sperm and ovum materials used to force/induce say a cell from bone marrow to split. I have no idea how it would be done all I know is that under my role play it works and results in a clone.. There is not way to select certain features just sex.. as if it from a male and sperm used then male.. if from female and ovum used then female.. to avoid mixed genders must not mix.. that's just my own thoughts.. Built into a role play story line..

I looked into DNA as far as tracing family history and still don't understand all about it.. Do know about marker mutations due to what some consider new generation mutation... where one marker changes say every two generations something along this.. Thus can see in clones that even if they say take my cell split it and later take a cell from my clone that there is going to be natural mutations every so many generations of a clone.. thus all this about genetic diversity is wrong as there will be mutations.

Heck even to much of one solution where the clone cell is spliting can cause a mutation, or using normal or flourscent light in the room may by chance efffect the cell during splitting and cause a mutation... Now we hear cell phones can cause brain damage so what if a cell phone rings while a new clone is forming.. As nobody has enough on the process to say what causes mutations... Those I have read even dispute each other over why there is a mutation and when they happen and what mutation mean.

OOC: I intentionally left that up to UN Committee to distribute the information.. We all know how effective they are at doing their duties... in NSUN.. as they also can translate the material in the many languages...

, we will need to use genetic engineering



Why do we need this does it not exist here...? In this world.. and what rights would you and Love and esterel like to take away from them or keep from them that you might have.. as normal humans. Please list them for me... and tell me why they should not have those rights as humans who have been genetic engineered.. I'd like to hear it so I will know... where you stand on humans who have be produced by genetic engineering....

Also tell me what you would do to stop genetic engineering here in this world.. I'd like to know that also.. and why you want to stop it...

Sorry - what?

For starters, I am in DISAGREEMENT with Love and Esterel over the proposal, and have pushed for getting rid of attempts to ban or condemn cloning. I do not think there is anything wrong with cloning (as long as it is safe for the clone and the DNA donor consents), and I agree that clones should not be treated any differently to other humans.

My only objection is to producing very large numbers of clones of the same individual, because reducing the gene pool's diversity in the long term is not good for the species. (Most people are aware of the problems associated with inbreeding - they arise because genetically similar individuals mate. Now imagine if a quarter of the population of a region was closely related - within a couple of generations inbreeding would be inevitable. Now imagine that that quarter was not just closely related but genetically almost identical - the inbreeding would have even worse results.)

I believe that genetic engineering of humans to improve their lives is not a bad thing, as long as it does not lead to social injustice, and that in the far future it will probably be necessary to implement genetic engineering to prevent the decline of the species. Assuming that the engineering produces a creature that is sentient and sapient in the same sense as a human, I agree that the creature should be granted the same rights as other humans.

I believe that genetic engineering of humans to improve their lives is not a bad thing, as long as it does not lead to social injustice, and that in the far future it will probably be necessary to implement genetic engineering to prevent the decline of the species. Assuming that the engineering produces a creature that is sentient and sapient in the same sense as a human, I agree that the creature should be granted the same rights as other humans.

An interesting aside to this...

Would you be in favor of a resolution extending greater rights to an individual endowed with capacities far beyond those of a baseline human (through the use of genetic engineering, of course)?

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

An interesting aside to this...

Would you be in favor of a resolution extending greater rights to an individual endowed with capacities far beyond those of a baseline human (through the use of genetic engineering, of course)?

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

personnaly i would be in favor of a resolution giving the same rights to an individual endowed with capacities far beyond those of a baseline human

maybe, it was also why i was again the dolphin repeal, if one day we encounter individual endowed with capacities far beyond those of a baseline human, i don't want they consider us as sub-sentient or anything

I believe that genetic engineering of humans to improve their lives is not a bad thing, as long as it does not lead to social injustice, and that in the far future it will probably be necessary to implement genetic engineering to prevent the decline of the species. Assuming that the engineering produces a creature that is sentient and sapient in the same sense as a human, I agree that the creature should be granted the same rights as other humans.

i believe also that genetic engineering of humans to improve their lives is a good thing, as long as it does not lead to social injustice and it doesn’t pose undue health risks.

Sorry - what?

For starters, I am in DISAGREEMENT with Love and Esterel over the proposal, and have pushed for getting rid of attempts to ban or condemn cloning.

I believe that genetic engineering of humans to improve their lives is not a bad thing, as long as it does not lead to social injustice,


Thank YOU! Thus, I'm truly sorry if I misunderstood your stand on these issues.. My intent was to see Love and Esterel stand on the issue... to see if they feel the same about those who have been geneticly engineered as they do about clones..

Again thank you for your reply as it cleared up where you stand now will wait for Love and Esterel to reply.........

OOC: Zeldon is in real world my nephew... He and several of his cousins have come into NS to play the game... They base their role play on a story I started writing years ago.. but have never come to finish it..


Zeldon, Garnilorn, i have been quite pushy with you in 2 post, i apologize, and hope you will forgive me.

as you, i like SF, even hard SF, i like very much the ideas described in Vernor Vinge's novels and novellas, for example.

But, even if NS is not a real world, it's not a hard SF world either, or then we will begin to write resolutions about trolls reproduction, asexued inhabitants of vega reproduction, cloning of inhabitants of Deneb, who divide in 3 differents sex, and can only reproduce by mating by 3 (1 of each sex) ....

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #56
BioRights Declaration
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: The free carolinas
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.
Votes For: 12,135
Votes Against: 4,726


Our point is 12,135 NS users support Clones and Genetically Engineered persons enough to approve a resolution that gives them equal rights to all normal members of any NS nation.. Thus when you ban and restrict a process that process that 12,135 could see as removing human rights from these that they gave them then... You go against a majority.. the fact that they didn't list those rights is one thing..... but one would assume that among those rights would be reproduction... by any process that works or they trust..

Zeldon is not here and Garnilorn has probably gone to work.. We have as a group been trying to follow this and provide opposition to the proposal as it is written and we feel removes certains rights from clones that nomal humans have... to choose their method of reproduction...


Also the thought of giving special considerations to clones or genetic engineer humans over normal humans would not be right just as banning and ristricting a clone or genetic engineer person rights would also not be.

Resolution 56 says they have the sames right as nomal humans also if you note here it also includes unmodified persons..... Since the resolution has not defined any of these it leaves it up to each player to do that for their own nation...

As I see this if this proposal comes to vote it will lose as 12,135 to 4,726 votes for 56 indicate to me that it should.. As to repeal resolution 56 would to me be opening the door to all kinds of bans against a large part of NS.. such as we feel this is just a start of..

-B- DEFINING
“Therapeutic Human Cloning” as: the creation of day-old embryo, by transfer of a cell nucleus into an enucleated egg, with the aim of harvesting the cells for subsequent culture amplification and injection into a Human for therapeutic purposes.
“Scientific Human Cloning” as: the scientific researches on “Therapeutic Human Cloning”.


Please explain how this is different from Therapeutic abortion: as taking an embryo and using it for other than procuce a life; would be aborting that embryo before it reaches.. term... where it becomes a full human..or is the embryo not a life until it is born.. thus from conception or creation (when that single cell starts to divide) it's just something one can use for Therapeutic purposes...

An interesting aside to this...

Would you be in favor of a resolution extending greater rights to an individual endowed with capacities far beyond those of a baseline human (through the use of genetic engineering, of course)?

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones


i think if you're going to talk about that, you also have to consider those who came about their "capacities far beyond those of a baseline human" naturally.

An interesting aside to this...

Would you be in favor of a resolution extending greater rights to an individual endowed with capacities far beyond those of a baseline human (through the use of genetic engineering, of course)?

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

OOC: I'd say not - I'd like to think there's a binary thing here. Either you're a conscious, sentient, sapient being, or you're not. The problem is that scientifically, I have zero basis for this assertion or for determining whether anything else is conscious. Heck, every single human being on Earth except me could be essentially a complex computer with no conscious, aware mind connected for all I know. In reality, this problem is a lot simpler, as I can't see anything which appears to be on anything like a human level so the safest bet is to protect human right first.

This whole region of determining whether various beings have free will or consciousness does trouble me. I have no good reason to believe that the choices I and other humans make are anything more than the results of deterministic physics and chemistry - and yet, if I follow Occam's razor and assume we have no free will, there really isn't any way to justify most of the stuff I'd like society and government to be doing.

Basically, I realise that the entire basis of all my ideology is based on the scientifically shaky presumption that all humans, including myself, are conscious and have free will. And that's just for real life. Once we get into this hypothetical stuff, I don't think it's possible to make a credible argument at all.

we changed several sentences in our proposition (in bold)
we also deleted the former:
"-2- DON’T ENCOURAGES Nations to allow “Reproductive Human cloning”, as any human has to right to be sufficiently genetically different from his parents or his nucleus donor."
and
"-7- DECLARES “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning” of an important number of clones, as a crime against Humanity. "

we would like to thanks the nations of "_Myopia_" and "Zeldon 6229 Nodlez" for all their posts.

here is the new draft:

________________________________________________________________________
Human Cloning: Rights & Ban

Category: “Human Rights” and “Moral Decency”?
Strength: Strong

The United Nations,

-A- FULLY AWARE that there are different kinds of Human cloning and that they must be dealt separately

-------------------- Part I: “Scientific & Therapeutic Human Cloning” --------------------

-B- DEFINING
“Therapeutic Human Cloning” as: the creation of week-old embryo, by transfer of a cell nucleus into an enucleated egg, with the aim of harvesting the cells for subsequent culture amplification and injection into a Human for therapeutic purposes.
“Scientific Human Cloning” as: the scientific researches on “Therapeutic Human Cloning”.

-C- CONVINCED that “Therapeutic Human Cloning”, in the same manner as “Stem Cells” is a very promising way to improve health and happiness of Humans Beings

-1- MANDATES all Nations to allow and support “Scientific & Therapeutic Human Cloning” when technologies don’t pose an undue risk for the patient, and to control them very tightly, especially on nerve cells culture amplification

-------------------- Part II: “Reproductive Human Cloning” --------------------

-D- DEFINING “Reproductive Human Cloning” as: the creation of an embryo, with the intention of allowing it to develop for more than 2 weeks, by transfer of a cell nucleus into an enucleated egg, with the aim of creating a new individual with an almost similar genetic ID. In this resolution this definition is extended to the creation of an embryo, with an almost similar genetic ID, harvested from a stem cell or a cell and to "reproductive cloning with altered genome".

-E- REAFFIRMING STRONGLY that cloned and genetically engineered persons have the very same rights as other persons as stated in the UN RESOLUTION #56 BioRights Declaration

-F- HAVING OBSERVED the deformities and diseases suffered by many cloned animals, apparently due to shortcomings in current cloning technologies in many nations where the technologies are relatively new,

-2- STRONGLY DISCOURAGES “Reproductive Human cloning” without the use of more advanced technologies that do not pose an undue risk to the health of the clone(s),

-3- RECOMMENDS that member nations regulate research into cloning to prevent “reproductive Human Cloning” except where technologies which are deemed not to pose an undue risk to the clone(s) health can be used,"

-4- REQUIRES all the Nations where “Reproductive Human Cloning” is legal, to allow it only for couples or persons expressing, to a competent national authority, their desire to be the parent(s) of the future child.

-------------------- Part III: “Mass Reproductive Human Cloning” --------------------

-G- DEFINING “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning” as an action of “Reproductive Human Cloning” in the aim to give birth intentionally to multiple cloned persons with almost similar genetic IDs. In this resolution this definition is extended to the creation of multiples embryos, with almost similar genetic IDs, harvested from an embryo, a stem cell or a cell.

-H- ALARMED BY the fact that “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning” is a great danger to Human Diversity

-5- BAN “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning”
___________________________________________________________________________

OOC: I'd say not - I'd like to think there's a binary thing here. Either you're a conscious, sentient, sapient being, or you're not. The problem is that scientifically, I have zero basis for this assertion or for determining whether anything else is conscious. Heck, every single human being on Earth except me could be essentially a complex computer with no conscious, aware mind connected for all I know. In reality, this problem is a lot simpler, as I can't see anything which appears to be on anything like a human level so the safest bet is to protect human right first.

This whole region of determining whether various beings have free will or consciousness does trouble me. I have no good reason to believe that the choices I and other humans make are anything more than the results of deterministic physics and chemistry - and yet, if I follow Occam's razor and assume we have no free will, there really isn't any way to justify most of the stuff I'd like society and government to be doing.

Basically, I realise that the entire basis of all my ideology is based on the scientifically shaky presumption that all humans, including myself, are conscious and have free will. And that's just for real life. Once we get into this hypothetical stuff, I don't think it's possible to make a credible argument at all.

maybe we should be garaunteeing sentient algorithms rights as well *no sarcasm*. i have seen situations where this has become a problem. certain governments see these algorithms as property of the state and have even removed them from their homes and families in order to have them serve as giant calculators for governemnt use. others feel this is inhumane and that anything capable of independant and original thought, even if it is a construct, should be granted rights. i feel the same way. we should allow artificially created constructs of any kind, biological or otherwise to have rights.

we would like also to include a strong limitation on nerve cells culture amplification, but we dont know yet how to write it

we added the following to paragraph [1]:
"and to control them very [B]tightly, especially on nerve cells culture amplification""

maybe, there is a better way to deal with it

i feel the same way. we should allow artificially created constructs of any kind, biological or otherwise to have rights.

a propostion was submitted few weeks ago about sentient beings, we aproved it but the proposal didn't get enough approvals

what were the reasons that it wasn't approved, arguments agains't it etc.?

a propostion was submitted few weeks ago about sentient beings, we aproved it but the proposal didn't get enough approvals

i guess basically i want to know if it would be feasable to try again. i don't think i'd be capable of writing the document myself, but ig uess i'd like to contribute my ideas (i guess i think if i help it'll turn out better). pretty arrogant, huh?

i guess basically i want to know if it would be feasable to try again. i don't think i'd be capable of writing the document myself, but ig uess i'd like to contribute my ideas (i guess i think if i help it'll turn out better). pretty arrogant, huh?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=436268&highlight=sentient

ok, i take the problem was defining "sentient," then?

ok, i take the problem was defining "sentient," then?

exactly

Found an interesting link on clones that might interest folks...

http://www.humancloning.org/myths.php

This one is off the above..

http://www.bioethics.com/?source=google

Thanks for re-thinking part II. I'll deal with that for now as I don't have time go into parts I and III right now.

-D- DEFINING “Reproductive Human Cloning” as: the creation of an embryo, by transfer of a cell nucleus into an enucleated egg, with the aim of creating a new individual with an almost similar genetic ID. In this resolution this definition is extended to the creation of an embryo, with an almost similar genetic ID, harvested from a stem cell or a cell and to "reproductive cloning with altered genome".

This is a little unclear. Can I suggest minor edits to phrasing please (I've bolded the bits I've edited)?:

DEFINING “Reproductive Human Cloning” as: the creation of a human embryo with the intention of allowing it to develop for more than 2 weeks, by transfer of a cell nucleus into a denucleated egg, with the aim of creating a new individual with an identical genome to an existing human (excepting mDNA). In this resolution "reproductive human cloning" also includes artificial human asexual reproduction achieved by stimulating (a) totipotent cell(s) from an existing human to develop into a new embryo, and to cloning procedures where the genome is altered.

I added the bit in red because I realised there was nothing to separate this definition from therapeutic cloning. Do you think 2 weeks is reasonable?

-4- REQUIRES all the Nations where “Reproductive Human Cloning” is legal, to allow it only for couples expressing, to a competent national authority, their desire to be the parents of the future child.

Can we change "couples" to "persons", please? If single parents are deemed competent to raise a child, or if groups larger than 2 are deemed competent, we'd rather not discriminate. There are some cultures in this world which do not follow the nuclear family model.

with the intention of allowing it to develop for more than 2 weeks

I added the bit in red because I realised there was nothing to separate this definition from therapeutic cloning. Do you think 2 weeks is reasonable?

thanks, good idea



Can we change "couples" to "persons", please?

ok to go back with "persons" as in the previous draft, and then "parent(s)
thanks again

we changed the last draft up, with these 2 modifications

Sorry to be really picky about this, but can "parent(s)" become "guardian(s)"?

For my nation to even consider supporting this proposal we would need most of the 'mandates' and 'strongly' sections watered down. There is little justification that I can see for forcing poor nations such as Ecopoeia to actively support technologies that they are currently unable to even conceive of financing. We have far more pressing concerns than the encouraging the growth of the therapeutic cloning industry.

Any resolution on this issue should stop at simply allowing therapeuting cloning, stem cell research etc. None of this mandating or requiring, please; it should be strictly optional.

As for reproductive cloning, Ecopoeia has little stake in the issue and I offer no analysis. We're not really concerned.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

OOC: Maybe I should found an equivalent of the National Sovereignty Organization for developing/poor nations in order to get proposal authors considering that not all nations are able to comply with legislation like this? Coalition of the Economically Bereft, perhaps...

For emphasis: Really, with regards to stem cell research, I don't think there is any justification for forcing all nations to allow and promote the activity. If they choose not to take advantage of the potential benefits of the science then that's their problem. The UN need not be concerned.

Any resolution on this issue should stop at simply allowing therapeuting cloning, stem cell research etc. None of this mandating or requiring, please; it should be strictly optional.

ok, you right we will modify our proposition, to respect your request
thanks a lot, our proposition was indeed too strong on this point

ok, you right we will modify our proposition, to respect your request
thanks a lot, our proposition was indeed too strong on this point
Thank you.

Sorry to be really picky about this, but can "parent(s)" become "guardian(s)"?

from: http://www.hyperdictionary.com (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=guardian)

______________________
Meaning of GUARDIAN

WordNet Dictionary

Definition:

1. [n] a person who cares for persons or property
2. [adj] providing protective supervision; watching over or safeguarding; "daycare that is educational and not just custodial"; "a guardian angel"; "tutelary gods"


Legal Dictionary

Definition: A person appointed by will or by law to assume responsibility for incompetent adults or minor children. If a parent dies, this will usually be the other parent. If both die, it probably will be a close relative.
___________________________________

i can't answer you yet about it, as i don't really understand the meaning of "guardian", but we like very much the use of ""parent(s)"" in the proposition

A legal guardian is someone legally charged with the care of a child. I felt this was more applicable than "parent" because it's tricky to talk about biological parentage of a clone (is it the DNA donor? or, from the point of view of genetic inheritance, it makes sense to see the clone as a delayed twin sibling of the donor, and the donor's parents as the clone's parents).

A legal guardian is someone legally charged with the care of a child. I felt this was more applicable than "parent" because it's tricky to talk about biological parentage of a clone (is it the DNA donor? or, from the point of view of genetic inheritance, it makes sense to see the clone as a delayed twin sibling of the donor, and the donor's parents as the clone's parents).

sorry, we want to keep "parent", the aim of this proposition is that there must be a parental project for a "reproductive human cloning" action to be allowed.

When an orphan child is adopted, for example, the persons who adopt him/her are his parents, exactly in the same manner as he/her was a biological child.

sorry, we want to keep "parent", the aim of this proposition is that there must be a parental project for a "reproductive human cloning" action to be allowed.

When an orphan child is adopted, for example, the persons who adopt him/her are his parents, exactly in the same manner as he/her was a biological child.

Oh I understand that - AFAIK a legal guardian is just like a parent in terms of legal obligations to take care of a child. It just removes confusions over biological parenthood.

we changed paragraph [1], Ecopoeia, will it be ok for your nation?

here is the new draft:

________________________________________________________________________
Human Cloning: Rights & Ban

Category: “Human Rights” and “Moral Decency”?
Strength: Strong

The United Nations,

-A- FULLY AWARE that there are different kinds of Human cloning and that they must be dealt separately

-------------------- Part I: “Scientific & Therapeutic Human Cloning” --------------------

-B- DEFINING
“Therapeutic Human Cloning” as: the creation of a blastocyte (a less than week-old undifferentiated embryo), by transfer of a cell nucleus into an enucleated egg, with the aim of harvesting the cells for subsequent culture amplification and injection into a Human for therapeutic purposes. This definition is extended to the creation of a blastocyte, from a stem cell or a cell
“Scientific Human Cloning” as: the scientific researches on “Therapeutic Human Cloning”.

-C- CONVINCED that “Therapeutic Human Cloning”, in the same manner as “Stem Cells” is a very promising way to improve health and happiness of Humans Beings

-1- ENCOURAGES all Nations to allow “Scientific & Therapeutic Human Cloning” when technologies don’t pose an undue risk for the patient, and to control them very tightly, especially on nerve cells culture amplification

-------------------- Part II: “Reproductive Human Cloning” --------------------

-D- DEFINING “Reproductive Human Cloning” as: the creation of an embryo, with the intention of allowing it to develop for more than 2 weeks, by transfer of a cell nucleus into an enucleated egg, with the aim of creating a new individual with an almost similar genetic ID. This definition is extended to the creation of an embryo, with an almost similar genetic ID, from a stem cell or a cell and to "reproductive cloning with altered genome".

-E- REAFFIRMING STRONGLY that cloned and genetically engineered persons have the very same rights as other persons as stated in the UN RESOLUTION #56 BioRights Declaration

-F- HAVING OBSERVED the deformities and diseases suffered by many cloned animals, apparently due to shortcomings in current cloning technologies in many nations where the technologies are relatively new,

-2- STRONGLY DISCOURAGES “Reproductive Human cloning” without the use of more advanced technologies that do not pose an undue risk to the health of the clone(s),

-3- RECOMMENDS that member nations regulate research into cloning to prevent “reproductive Human Cloning” except where technologies which are deemed not to pose an undue risk to the clone(s) health can be used,"

-4- REQUIRES all the Nations where “Reproductive Human Cloning” is legal, to allow it only for couples or persons expressing, to a competent national authority, their desire to be the parent(s) of the future child.

-------------------- Part III: “Mass Reproductive Human Cloning” --------------------

-G- DEFINING “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning” as an action of “Reproductive Human Cloning” in the aim to give birth intentionally to multiple cloned persons with almost similar genetic IDs. This definition is extended to the creation of multiples embryos, with almost similar genetic IDs, from (an) embryo(s), (a) stem cell(s) or (a) cell(s).

-H- ALARMED BY the fact that “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning” is a great danger to Human Diversity

-5- BAN “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning”
___________________________________________________________________________

Oh I understand that - AFAIK a legal guardian is just like a parent in terms of legal obligations to take care of a child. It just removes confusions over biological parenthood.

thanks for the precision, i also understand better now the confusion you are talking about

thanks for your understanding about "parent"

Thank you, that's a much more acceptale draft for us. I'll be honest and state that we're not yet likely to support, though this is more to do with internal debate over the desirability of having a resolution on this issue at all. [OOC: plus consideration of the varying tech levels etc of the NS world]

Human Cloning: Rights & Ban


Part I: “Scientific & Therapeutic Human Cloning” --------------------

-B- DEFINING
“Therapeutic Human Cloning” as: the creation of a blastocyte (a less than week-old undifferentiated embryo), by transfer of a cell nucleus into an enucleated egg, with the aim of harvesting the cells for subsequent culture amplification and injection into a Human for therapeutic purposes. This definition is extended to the creation of a blastocyte, from a stem cell or a cell
“Scientific Human Cloning” as: the scientific researches on “Therapeutic Human Cloning”.
Part III: “Mass Reproductive Human Cloning” --------------------

-G- DEFINING “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning” as an action of “Reproductive Human Cloning” in the aim to give birth intentionally to multiple cloned persons with almost similar genetic IDs. This definition is extended to the creation of multiples embryos, with almost similar genetic IDs, from (an) embryo(s), (a) stem cell(s) or (a) cell(s).

-H- ALARMED BY the fact that “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning” is a great danger to Human Diversity

-5- BAN “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning”
___________________________________________________________________________


Call it what you want you have just banned what you gave in the first place within your own proposal........ An embryo one or two weeks old is just that. an embryo. It will become a human if allowed to advance beyong the perior of one or two weeks.... This to me is the murder of a future human, by killing off the embryo that it came from... Call the process what you want the action here is the same. You in the earlier drafts said it was a crime against humanity, well it still is a crime against humanity to kill a human at any point in it's life... Why not say take clones and use them until they are age one? I believe you used the word harvest to describe the process of getting your material for the first part are embryo's nothing more than a crop to you.... something you grow to serve you... Why not take you own embryo's from the mother's that carry them and use them?

George Warden,
Minister of Health Garne
Clone #R1949Z222G
Adivisor to Zeldon 6229 Nodlez
UN Ambassador

Call it what you want you have just banned what you gave in the first place within your own proposal........ An embryo one or two weeks old is just that. an embryo. It will become a human if allowed to advance beyong the perior of one or two weeks.... This to me is the murder of a future human, by killing off the embryo that it came from... Call the process what you want the action here is the same. You in the earlier drafts said it was a crime against humanity, well it still is a crime against humanity to kill a human at any point in it's life... Why not say take clones and use them until they are age one? I believe you used the word harvest to describe the process of getting your material for the first part are embryo's nothing more than a crop to you.... something you grow to serve you... Why not take you own embryo's from the mother's that carry them and use them?

George Warden,
Minister of Health Garne
Adivisor to Zeldon 6229 Nodlez
UN Ambassador

Thank you uncle for this. I could not have said it better myself. The very tought of killing any human be they born of the womb or a test tube is in deed a crime against humantiy.... The embryo is the first stage to a new life be it called a fetus or a clone it has the protential of becomeing a living productive human.. To harvast them as crops for any purpose if wrong and this proposal wants to do that. We have observed the changes and attitude of the proposer and feel that they have become victums of a society filled with greed who want an easy way to get what they may want around the current laws of this land.... We can only hope that others see this and come to join us in stopping such actions as this, for the future of all humans not just clones... as we all have one right to life.... that must never be taken from us at any state in our growth...

Zarta Warden,
UN Ambassador Zeldon
Clone #R2000Z129A

We offer Our voice in assent to the esteemed delegates from Zeldon. The mechanics of human creation, no matter their many possible forms, should not be perverted for selfish human purposes.

"He who creates a thing, owns that thing". This principle is the basis of all commerce and trade, and a fundamental right of humans as creative individuals. Yet We note that under NSUN Resolution #6, the ownership of one human being by another is forbidden. Clearly then, the UN understands the principle that human beings are not human creations, otherwise why outlaw slavery?

We appeal to the assembled delegates here: Recognizing then, that every human being has a right not to have its creation interfered with for the selfish benefit of another, why turn our backs upon that sound principle and legalize the "harvesting" of that flesh which will, in time, become human? How can we claim our right to be considered human if we deny that right to others?

thanks to Garnilorn, Zeldon 6229 Nodlez and The Eternal Kawaii for expressing their concern.

Abortion is legal in UN nations by UN resolution #61 "Abortion Rights". That imply a foetus is not recognized as a full human being. Maybe the UN legislation is lacking about the rights of an embryon/foetus, we will agree with you.

“Scientific & Therapeutic Human Cloning” are not forbidden in the UN, so to allow it only for blastocyte (a less than week-old undifferentiated embryo) is also a restriction in the UN legislation.

you may think “Scientific & Therapeutic Human Cloning” must be forbidden, it's why we now "ENCOURAGES". We want also to publicly apologize for our previous "MANDATES" on this matter, it was stupid.

But we don't want to ban “Scientific & Therapeutic Human Cloning” because:
1- the UN don't recognize a blastocyte as a Human being
2- we don't think either that a blastocyte is a Human being

We offer Our voice in assent to the esteemed delegates from Zeldon. The mechanics of human creation, no matter their many possible forms, should not be perverted for selfish human purposes.

"He who creates a thing, owns that thing". This principle is the basis of all commerce and trade, and a fundamental right of humans as creative individuals. Yet We note that under NSUN Resolution #6, the ownership of one human being by another is forbidden. Clearly then, the UN understands the principle that human beings are not human creations, otherwise why outlaw slavery?

We appeal to the assembled delegates here: Recognizing then, that every human being has a right not to have its creation interfered with for the selfish benefit of another, why turn our backs upon that sound principle and legalize the "harvesting" of that flesh which will, in time, become human? How can we claim our right to be considered human if we deny that right to others?

We praise the greart people of Kaiwii for thier support here and reminding us of Resolution #6 Banning Slavery as we were created as clones to be slaves/servants to normal humans to do the tasks they could not do.. Fate saved us and set us free to become active productive members of a society who we hope will welcome us as you the people of Kaiwii have, by this show of support. We again thank you... and hope more come forward to show their support in stopping this crime against ALL humanity...

Zarta Warden
UN Ambassador Zeldon
Clone #R2000Z129A
And all the peoples of the TriKara SysTame

We want to say that our draft is far from perfect and far from ready.

So we invites every nations in this thread to dispassionate the debate and to be constructive. We will try, in the same manner, to be more constructive, please let us know each time we fail. We made some errors in this topic, we have recognized them.

We want to listen every positions, every critics, and try to improve the draft, in order we get a proposition acceptable by most nations, balanced, reasonable and responsible.

Thank You

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #6
End slavery
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Monocerous
Description: The scourge of slavery yet remains in these progressive times. People are bought and sold like cattle, unable to determine their destiny. Their families are split apart; they are allowed no possessions of their own. They are beaten, chained, and tortured.

Therefore, I propose that the following human rights be given to every peoples of this great world:

- The right to leave her or his job, given two weeks' notice.
- The right to own possessions.
- The right to travel freely throughout their country.
- The right to bodily safety from one's employer.
- The outlawing of the selling or purchasing of people.


With Resolution #6 posted for all to see... I wish to question the proposer on how they plan to finance their “Therapeutic Human Cloning” are they just going to do it for nothing? Who and how will that get the materials from individuals, take it from them or even take the individuals and use them over and over to get the materials they want... I believe back around 60 or so years past (Nazi Germany real) they wanted to experiment on humans so they took them and what they didn't use they sent to the 'showers'.. Are we headed for another Great Rebellion of this nature....

Zarta Warden
UN Ambassador Zeldon
Clone #R2000Z129A

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #6
End slavery
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Monocerous
Description: The scourge of slavery yet remains in these progressive times. People are bought and sold like cattle, unable to determine their destiny. Their families are split apart; they are allowed no possessions of their own. They are beaten, chained, and tortured.

Therefore, I propose that the following human rights be given to every peoples of this great world:

- The right to leave her or his job, given two weeks' notice.
- The right to own possessions.
- The right to travel freely throughout their country.
- The right to bodily safety from one's employer.
- The outlawing of the selling or purchasing of people.


With Resolution #6 posted for all to see... I wish to question the proposer on how they plan to finance their “Therapeutic Human Cloning” are they just going to do it for nothing? Who and how will that get the materials from individuals, take it from them or even take the individuals and use them over and over to get the materials they want... I believe back around 60 or so years past (Nazi Germany real) they wanted to experiment on humans so they took them and what they didn't use they sent to the 'showers'.. Are we headed for another Great Rebellion of this nature....

Zarta Warden
UN Ambassador Zeldon
Clone #R2000Z129A


please, may you dispassionate the debate and try to be more constructive, thank you very much

please, may you dispassionate the debate and try to be more constructive, thank you very much


Im trying to be just that.... We want to know how you plan to finance this process and how and where will the materials come from.. A simple question it should have a simple answer.. Reminding you of the final part of Resolution #6 and the intent of the full Resolution..

Also we see nothing to indicte in any Resolutions that set a date when a life is a life... The one on Abortion does not it only gives a woman a right to have an abortion there is nothing in it to say at what stage in the pregnancy she can have that Abortion... If a nation deems that it's not safe for her to have one after six weeks due to her health risks going up they can rule she can't have one after that time.. The resolution only says she can have one.... doesn't define the terms of what an Abortion is nor when, where, or how an Abortion is conducted. Therefore individual nations have all rights to define Abortion.. to cover where, when, how, or any other aspect of them.. All they have to do is let a woman have one... If the woman doesn't like it then she can go find a place to get and Abortion that meets her needs.... No nation can stop her from doing this nor her from having it done some place else her way.

In another debate on Abortion we gave as an example.... A woman defines Abortion as: 'Kill the bastard that got me knocked up', do we let her have her Abortion.. If we do then we get her for murder.. So does the nation not have some duty to prevent crimes... in it's own borders... Thus protect it's citizens from harm even that which might be self inflicted.. if it's possilbe.

Zarta Warden
UN Ambassador Zeldon
Clone #R2000Z129A

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #6
End slavery
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Monocerous
Description: The scourge of slavery yet remains in these progressive times. People are bought and sold like cattle, unable to determine their destiny. Their families are split apart; they are allowed no possessions of their own. They are beaten, chained, and tortured.

Therefore, I propose that the following human rights be given to every peoples of this great world:

- The right to leave her or his job, given two weeks' notice.
- The right to own possessions.
- The right to travel freely throughout their country.
- The right to bodily safety from one's employer.
- The outlawing of the selling or purchasing of people.


With Resolution #6 posted for all to see... I wish to question the proposer on how they plan to finance their “Therapeutic Human Cloning” are they just going to do it for nothing? Who and how will that get the materials from individuals, take it from them or even take the individuals and use them over and over to get the materials they want... I believe back around 60 or so years past (Nazi Germany real) they wanted to experiment on humans so they took them and what they didn't use they sent to the 'showers'.. Are we headed for another Great Rebellion of this nature....

Zarta Warden
UN Ambassador Zeldon
Clone #R2000Z129A




if some nations, in this thread, continue to passionate the debate and continue to write hot-blooded post we will ask mods to close this thread

if some nations, in this thread, continue to passionate the debate and continue to write hot-blooded post we will ask mods to close this thread

Is it the intent of the esteemed delegate of LAE to muzzle this debate, rather than defend their position? If so, what does this say of the merits of their proposal?

to muzzle this debate, rather than defend their position? If so, what does this say of the merits of their proposal?

Definition: Debate
Debate
Noun
1. A discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal; "the argument over foreign aid goes on and on".

2. The formal presentation of and opposition to a stated proposition (usually followed by a vote).

Verb
1. Argue with one another; "We debated the question of abortion"; "John debated Mary".

2. Think about carefully; weigh; "They considered the possibility of a strike"; "Turn the proposal over in your mind".

3. Discuss the pros and cons of an issue.

4. Have an argument about something.


I say no more for now......Zarta

We do not see why a week-old embryo, artificial clone or natural, is any more deserving of human rights than is an ovum. Both have the potential to become a conscious human being given the appropriate events and conditions.

"He who creates a thing, owns that thing". This principle is the basis of all commerce and trade, and a fundamental right of humans as creative individuals. Yet We note that under NSUN Resolution #6, the ownership of one human being by another is forbidden. Clearly then, the UN understands the principle that human beings are not human creations, otherwise why outlaw slavery?

Maybe because the UN does not recognise "He who creates a thing, owns that thing" as a universal principle?

Naturally-born humans are just as much human creations as are clones. It's just that when we make clones, less of the process is automated by our bodies and our brains need to be involved more.

With Resolution #6 posted for all to see... I wish to question the proposer on how they plan to finance their “Therapeutic Human Cloning” are they just going to do it for nothing? Who and how will that get the materials from individuals, take it from them or even take the individuals and use them over and over to get the materials they want

-B- DEFINING
“Therapeutic Human Cloning” as: the creation of a blastocyte (a less than week-old undifferentiated embryo), by transfer of a cell nucleus into an enucleated egg, with the aim of harvesting the cells for subsequent culture amplification and injection into a Human for therapeutic purposes. This definition is extended to the creation of a blastocyte, from a stem cell or a cell
“Scientific Human Cloning” as: the scientific researches on “Therapeutic Human Cloning”.

-C- CONVINCED that “Therapeutic Human Cloning”, in the same manner as “Stem Cells” is a very promising way to improve health and happiness of Humans Beings

-1- ENCOURAGES all Nations to allow “Scientific & Therapeutic Human Cloning” when technologies don’t pose an undue risk for the patient, and to control them very tightly, especially on nerve cells culture amplification

It is completely unnecessary to specify methods of funding and procedures, because this is merely encouraging nations to legalise the research. If interested groups want to do research, they will get their own funding, or governments may choose to fund it themselves.

Also we see nothing to indicte in any Resolutions that set a date when a life is a life... The one on Abortion does not it only gives a woman a right to have an abortion there is nothing in it to say at what stage in the pregnancy she can have that Abortion... If a nation deems that it's not safe for her to have one after six weeks due to her health risks going up they can rule she can't have one after that time.. The resolution only says she can have one.... doesn't define the terms of what an Abortion is nor when, where, or how an Abortion is conducted. Therefore individual nations have all rights to define Abortion.. to cover where, when, how, or any other aspect of them

Incorrect. In fact, by offering blanket protection to the right to an abortion, the resolution actually requires nations to make abortion legal at any time druing pregnancy. We oppose this and would like to see a repeal and replacement allowing for term limits, but at present that is the state of affairs.

In another debate on Abortion we gave as an example.... A woman defines Abortion as: 'Kill the bastard that got me knocked up'

"Abortion" has a clear and universally accepted definition, therefore it is completely unnecessary to define it in the resolution. In _Myopia_, the law might say "Marijuana may be purchased by citizens over the age of 16" - marijuana is not an ambiguous term, so you can't say "oh but someone might define 'marijuana' as 'nuclear warhead'".

Having protected what the proposal is attempting to do, I am going to suggest some edits to clarify it and fix some errors. Here is the proposal with the improvements I would recommend. I have done my best to maintain the actions of the proposal as I think LAE intended. I have removed the lettered clauses as I think they only serve to confuse. The active clauses remain numbered, and their verbs have been changed to the plural form (because it's the United Nations). Bits in italics are my commentary explaining my thoughts where I thought this necessary.


The United Nations,

FULLY AWARE that there are different kinds of human cloning and that they must be dealt with separately

Part I: Therapeutic Human Cloning

DEFINING "Therapeutic Human Cloning" as the transfer of a diploid cell nucleus into a denucleated egg, with the aim of creating an embryo with an identical genome to an existing human (excepting mDNA), so that the resulting stem cells may be harvested (before the embryo surpasses the blastocyte stage) for subsequent culture amplification and use in medical procedures. This definition is extended to the creation of an embryo from a totipotent diploid cell from an existing human, and to similar procedures where the genome is intentionally altered

It's unnecessary to define scientific human cloning when you can just say "research into therapeutic human cloning" as I have done below

CONVINCED that therapeutic human cloning's potential for use in stem cell therapies opens up major opportunities to improve the health of human beings

-1- ENCOURAGE all Nations to allow therapeutic human cloning and research into it, and to regulate it carefully to ensure that biological materials are not used without the consent of the donors and that responsible and ethical standards are adhered to, particularly regarding the well-being of patients and regarding culture amplification of nerve cells

I thought we needed to protect the rights of the original owner of the DNA

Part II: Reproductive Human Cloning

DEFINING "Reproductive Human Cloning" as: the creation of a human embryo with the intention of allowing it to develop for more than 2 weeks, by transfer of a cell nucleus into a denucleated egg, with the aim of creating a new individual with an identical genome to an existing human (excepting mDNA). In this resolution "reproductive human cloning" also includes stimulating (a) totipotent cell(s) from an existing human to develop into a new embryo, and to similar cloning procedures where the genome is altered

RECALLING that resolution 56 "BioRights Declaration" grants cloned and genetically engineered persons the same rights as other persons

I reworded this to avoid a possible house of cards violation

HAVING OBSERVED the deformities and diseases suffered by many cloned animals, apparently due to shortcomings in current cloning technologies in many nations where the technologies are relatively new

-2- STRONGLY DISCOURAGE reproductive human cloning without the use of more advanced technologies that do not pose an undue risk to the health of the clone(s)

-3- RECOMMEND that member nations regulate research into cloning to prevent “reproductive human cloning” except where technologies which are deemed not to pose an undue risk to the clone(s) health can be used

-4- REQUIRE all the Nations where “Reproductive Human Cloning” is legal, to allow it only where the individual to be cloned gives their consent and where a person or persons have expressed to a competent governmental authority their desire to be the parent(s)/guardian(s) of the future child

Part III: Mass Reproductive Human Cloning

DEFINING "Mass Reproductive Human Cloning" as an action of reproductive human cloning performed with the intent to give birth to 20 or more persons cloned from the same individual

You don't need to extend the definition here because it's already covered by the extensions to "reproductive human cloning". I also changed "almost similar genetic IDs, which makes little sense, to "cloned from the same individual" which I hope is easier to understand and much less open to interpretation. As you can see, I have replaced "multiple" with "20 or more" - I really feel this would clear up most of the arguments over this resolution whilst adequately protecting human diversity (and preventing maniacs from producing armies of their clones, however implausible such a prospect might seem). Nations would still be free to be more restrictive and implement total bans regardless of number locally.

ALARMED by the fact that mass reproductive human cloning is a danger to human genetic diversity

-5- BAN mass reproductive human cloning

Having protected what the proposal is attempting to do, I am going to suggest some edits to clarify it and fix some errors. Here is the proposal with the improvements I would recommend. I have done my best to maintain the actions of the proposal as I think LAE intended.

The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel is very grateful for the help given by the nation of _Myopia_. We are working on it and wil be back soon.
thanks a lot

Thanks to _Myopia_

Here is a the new draft (not a proposition yet):
- we prefer to keep “letters”, it’s our style
- we suppose “The United Nations” is singular, but we are not sure at all,
- we add a definition of ”blastocyte”
- as the issue is already very technical, we prefer to use the least possible technical words, so we removed diploid and totipotent
- in the same manner, we try to replace mDNA, by using “identical nucleus genome”, if it’s not correct we will use back mDNA
- we use “biological materials donors’ in order to include egg donors
- sorry again we prefer to keep “parent(s)
- instead of “multiple” or “20” we propose “5”
____________________________________________________________
The United Nations,

-A- FULLY AWARE that there are different kinds of human cloning and that they must be dealt with separately

Part I: Therapeutic Human Cloning

-B- DEFINING
- ”blastocyte” as: a less than week-old undifferentiated embryo
- "Therapeutic Human Cloning" as: the transfer of a human cell nucleus into a denucleated egg, with the aim of creating a blastocyte with an identical nucleus genome to an existing human, so that the resulting stem cells may be harvested (before it surpasses the blastocyte stage) for subsequent culture amplification and use in medical procedures. This definition is extended to the creation of a blastocyte from any cell from an existing human, and to similar procedures where the genome is intentionally altered.

-C- CONVINCED that therapeutic human cloning's potential for use in stem cell therapies opens up major opportunities to improve the health and happiness of human beings

-1- ENCOURAGES all Nations to allow therapeutic human cloning and research into it, and to regulate it carefully to ensure that biological materials are not used without donors’ consent and that responsible and ethical standards are adhered to, particularly regarding the well-being of patients and regarding culture amplification of nerve cells


Part II: Reproductive Human Cloning

-D- DEFINING "Reproductive Human Cloning" as: the creation of a human embryo with the intention of allowing it to develop for more than 2 weeks, by transfer of a Human cell nucleus into a denucleated egg, with the aim of creating a new individual with an identical nucleus genome to an existing human. In this resolution "reproductive human cloning" also includes stimulating cell(s) from an existing human to develop into a new embryo, and to similar cloning procedures where the genome is altered.

-E- RECALLING that resolution 56 "BioRights Declaration" grants cloned and genetically engineered persons the same rights as other persons

-F- HAVING OBSERVED the deformities and diseases suffered by many cloned animals, apparently due to shortcomings in current cloning technologies in many nations where the technologies are relatively new

-2- STRONGLY DISCOURAGES reproductive human cloning without the use of more advanced technologies that do not pose an undue risk to the health of the clone(s)

-3- RECOMMENDS that member nations regulate research into cloning to prevent “reproductive human cloning” except where technologies which are deemed not to pose an undue risk to the clone(s) health can be used

-4- REQUIRES all the Nations where “Reproductive Human Cloning” is legal, to allow it only where biological materials donors’ give their consent and where a person or persons have expressed to a competent governmental authority their desire to be the parent(s) of the future child


Part III: Mass Reproductive Human Cloning

-G- DEFINING "Mass Reproductive Human Cloning" as an action of reproductive human cloning performed with the intent to give birth to 5 or more persons cloned from the same individual

-H- ALARMED by the fact that mass reproductive human cloning is a danger to human genetic diversity

-5- BANS mass reproductive human cloning
________________________________________________________

Part III: Mass Reproductive Human Cloning

DEFINING "Mass Reproductive Human Cloning" as an action of reproductive human cloning performed with the intent to give birth to 20 or more persons cloned from the same individual


We have no problem with this figure and think it wise not to do more than that from a single individual as to do more would mean overpopulation due to a high success rate of surviving clones to full function and this will keep diversity in the process.. as you have to use new individuals more often..

-4- REQUIRES all the Nations where “Reproductive Human Cloning” is legal, to allow it only where biological materials donors’ give their consent and where a person or persons have expressed to a competent governmental authority their desire to be the parent(s) of the future child


Part III: Mass Reproductive Human Cloning


-5- BANS mass reproductive human cloning
________________________________________________________


What if -5- was done like this...
-5- Bans mass reproductive human cloning when:
A) The numbers of clones produced exceeds the parents to support and care for them.
B) When any or all of the results are to be used for other than a child for a suitable parent.
C) When more than 5 clones are produced from a single individual.

----------------------------------------------------
This would leave the numbr produced to fit the demand.. also section C will mean they come from diverse donor population..

Thus if no parents then no need to make clones.. going back to intent established in 4...

we prefer to keep “letters”, it’s our style

Ok, it's your call, I just think that this particular format will not find favour with many UN members.

we suppose “The United Nations” is singular, but we are not sure at all

Ok, I don't think it really matters so if you prefer singular that's fine.

we add a definition of ”blastocyte”

”blastocyte” as: a less than week-old undifferentiated embryo

Unfortunately, this is incorrect. The embryo does not become a blastocyte until some point during the first week, so to use it for the whole week is wrong. How about sticking to references to time instead?

as the issue is already very technical, we prefer to use the least possible technical words, so we removed diploid and totipotent

Ok, totipotent can be removed without much problem but diploid is kind of important. It's worth defining it in the proposal.

- in the same manner, we try to replace mDNA, by using “identical nucleus genome”, if it’s not correct we will use back mDNA

You could say "identical nuclear genome" I think, but not nucleus.

- we use “biological materials donors’ in order to include egg donors

Good idea

- sorry again we prefer to keep “parent(s)

Ok - one final suggestion. We could refer to them being willing to adopt the clone - if you don't like that "parent(s)" will do.

- instead of “multiple” or “20” we propose “5”

I don't believe this is enough to facilitate Zeldon's reproduction. How about 10 as a compromise?

By the way, "human" doesn't need to be capitalised.

So from your latest draft I'd suggest these changes:

-B- DEFINING
- "Diploid" as: the state of a cell or nucleus in which there are two of each type of chromosome present (human body cells are normally diploid, with 46 chromosomes)
- "Therapeutic Human Cloning" as: the transfer of a diploid human cell nucleus into a denucleated egg, with the aim of creating an embryo with an identical nuclear genome to an existing human, so that the resulting stem cells may be harvested during the first 14 days of development for subsequent culture amplification and use in medical procedures. This definition is extended to the creation of [b]an embryo[b] from any diploid cell from an existing human for the same purpose, and to similar procedures where the genome is intentionally altered.



-D- DEFINING "Reproductive Human Cloning" as: the creation of a human embryo with the intention of allowing it to develop for more than 2 weeks, by transfer of a human cell nucleus into a denucleated egg, with the aim of creating a new individual with an identical nuclear genome to an existing human. In this resolution "reproductive human cloning" also includes stimulating cell(s) from an existing human to develop into a new embryo for the same purpose, and to similar cloning procedures where the genome is altered.



-4- REQUIRES all the Nations where reproductive human cloning is legal, to allow it only where the donors of the biological materials used give their consent and where a person or persons have expressed to a competent governmental authority their desire to adopt the future child



-G- DEFINING "Mass Reproductive Human Cloning" as an action of reproductive human cloning performed with the intent to give birth to 10 or more persons cloned from the same individual


One last thing. Since the proposal's stance on cloning has changed, the title no longer seems to be quite appropriate and may give some nations the impression that this is an anti-cloning proposal. How about either just "The Human Cloning Act" or "Regulation of Human Cloning"?

What if -5- was done like this...
-5- Bans mass reproductive human cloning when:
A) The numbers of clones produced exceeds the parents to support and care for them.
B) When any or all of the results are to be used for other than a child for a suitable parent.
C) When more than 5 clones are produced from a single individual.

----------------------------------------------------
This would leave the numbr produced to fit the demand.. also section C will mean they come from diverse donor population..

Thus if no parents then no need to make clones.. going back to intent established in 4...

These are good ideas, but I would incorporate them into the proposal differently. How about this:

-4- REQUIRES all the Nations where reproductive human cloning is legal, to allow it only where the donors of the biological materials used give their consent and where a person or persons have expressed to a competent governmental authority their desire to adopt any and all children that are to be created

Zeldon 6229 Nodlez, _Myopia_ thanks for your good posts

The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel want also to give a special thanks to The Theocracy of Zeldon 6229 Nodlez for its constructive attitude. We really appreciate it.

we are working on these good suggestions and will be back soon

As you define it here:
DEFINING "Mass Reproductive Human Cloning" as an action of reproductive human cloning performed with the intent to give birth to 20 or more persons cloned from the same individual

As the above only defines it to producing clones from one individual it still allows me to get say 1000 different individuals and clone each 20 times.. To limit the total to available parents would end that problem. Also reestablish the process as for providing children to parents as set prior.. Thus if you use 5,10, or 20 from one this will stop over population/production of clones..

As one of the fears is using mass numbers of clones as a large army.. It does not require them all to be from the same source... just produce a lot of them..

"The Human Cloning Act" or "Regulation of Human Cloning"?



I would not go for REGULATION... remember I'm in role a clone.. so this to me would sound like you're after me.. Thus anyone else who might be in role also a clone.. would object to it just on that..

The other one sound better... don't go REGULATION..

------------------------------\/
I just thought of something here... What is the word limit on proposals? Does this one go too long.. It just hit me as know there is a limit..

i need few hours more for real life and to think about it all.

sorry for your time i will be back in several hours

ok, i'm back in NS world

- _Myopia_, thanks a lot i like "Regulation of Human Cloning",
Zeldon, we were thinking you will prefer it than "Limitation of Human cloning", but if it's a problem for you, we are OK with "Limitation of Human cloning" or something better with limit.

- we are sorry, but we will not modify the "5" limit, we will not submit a proposition with a limit superior to "5"
maybe, then we can use "multiple reproductive human cloning" instead of mass

=> _Myopia_, we understand your point of view on this matter; and then we will understand you will not approve this proposition in these terms. so, as several ideas and sentences in this draft are yours, i want to respect your work, so i will not submit a proposition unless you give me your consent to use it, feel free not to give it to me
i wanted to propose something which seems balanced for me about cloning, but it's not that much important for me if i don't submit it.

-
As the above only defines it to producing clones from one individual it still allows me to get say 1000 different individuals and clone each 20 times..

Zeldon, you right, thanks a lot, i'm working about it

-
You could say "identical nuclear genome" I think, but not nucleus.
very good thank you

- i was totally wrong about blastocyte, indeed, thank you, i like the way you write it. but i will try to write it again without the word "diploid", maybe i'm wrong, but it seems to me it's not a usual world, and i prefer when it's possible avoid to use not usual words.

- ok for human and not Human

- about paragraph [4], i'm ok for adopt, but please, _Myopia_, if you don't mind, may you explain me before i make changes, why you are not Ok with parent(s)?


NS is not our real world, so i understand my following remark will not prevail:

in the real world, even countries at the cutting edge of the therapeutic human cloning technology: South-Korea followed by China and UK don't allow reproductive cloning. So i'm fully aware it's not an argument, but i just want to say one of my aim about this draft is also not to drift too much from the real world.
If in NS it was not possible to repeal resolution, i would never had proposed a ban on mass reproductive human cloning, but i hope NS will exist again in 20, 50, 100 years, and then if needed the draft will be easily repealed and then replaced with a better adapted to the situation resolution.

maybe this draft need to also to prevent
- the selling of biological materials
- the use of older than 2 weeks embryon, for therapeutic purposes

i'm thinking about it

- we are sorry, but we will not modify the "5" limit, we will not submit a proposition with a limit superior to "5" maybe, then we can use "multiple reproductive human cloning" instead of mass

- about paragraph [4], i'm ok for adopt, but please, _Myopia_, if you don't mind, may you explain me before i make changes, why you are not Ok with parent(s)? .

Myopia: On the rate of 5.. In looking at that number with a failure rate of say 1/3 this would mean an outcome of 1/5 or 2/5 for ten 3/10 or 4/10. Thus I can see proposers concerns.. as twins 2 most family are able to support but beyond that number not so ready to support.... Since we have no failure rates to go on it's hard to set a number here. Higher failure rates would make ten better 1/3 five would be. Also what if all 5 survive.. or all 10.. I think again rather have 5 to find family for than 10.



To me parents means a man and a woman not two men, or two women, or just one... So many in real feel this way... thus you are restricting children only to parents as most see them and not allowing others to have children because they don't fit parents.

Might go 'caring family' meaning a group of people sharing shelter, food, land, and other needs for the survival of the group. Again an implied meaning that you would end up having to explain.. Dictionary defines family as anyone having common interest such as: go to same church, school, live same town, born same place, work same job... Members of Nations States all are a family as they share and interest in NS... and thus this family is mixed... and diverse..

Maybe because the UN does not recognise "He who creates a thing, owns that thing" as a universal principle?

Naturally-born humans are just as much human creations as are clones. It's just that when we make clones, less of the process is automated by our bodies and our brains need to be involved more.

May We draw the esteemed delegate of Myopia's attention to NSUN Resolution #60, "Public Domain (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030168&postcount=61)"? The resolution clearly implies the existence of copyright, a clear recognition of the right to the ownership of created property.

We argue that, since according to NSUN Resolution #6 the ownership of human beings is illegal, and according to Resolution #60 individuals have the right to the ownership of their creations, this implies that human beings are NOT, in the view of the NSUN, human creations.

We further argue that, should this proposal be accepted, the principle above will be voided, and the moral basis against slavery will be undermined.

Resolution #60
Public Domain
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.
Category: Free Trade Strength: Strong Proposed by: Our own laziness
Description: UN nations resolve to establish a public domain. If something is "in the public domain" then anyone can copy it or use it in any way they wish. The author has none of the exclusive rights that apply to a copyrighted work. Works pass into the public domain when:
1) the term of copyright for the work has expired
2) the author failed to satisfy statutory formalities to perfect the copyright
3) it is a work of a UN Government
4) it is deemed "freeware" or "shareware"

We can agree that DNA is considered 'Freeware' or 'Shareware' thus can be used in the public domain by anyone in any way they wish.. We do however feel that a nation has a right to control it's use to prevent abuse of that DNA but not to promote it as an item to be used beyond the fact that it's the base for all human life that developes into a living concious human.. To use it for anything other than intended is abuse of the DNA..

This would be like uranium, as it was not created by man but comes natural in nature, thus man can put restrictions on how it's used... DNA was not created by man but in nature... Thus must not be abused by man.. Man = (any concious human regardless of gender).

We also feel that our DNA belongs only to us and shall not be taken from us without our consent. As we have full copyrights on it.. as self made men.. thus all people should have the same rights with their own DNA.

i'm ok with "adopt" and ok to not use "parent "anymore
=> there is a relation with adoption, i think it's very good
_Myopia_, thanks for this proposition

_Myopia_, as several ideas and sentences in this draft are yours, i will not submit a proposition if you don't agree with the "5" limit, in any case.

so even with no proposition issued from this debate, i would like to thank you for your very good work and your technical knowledge on this matter, and also thanks Zeldon 6229 Nodlez for his good ideas and his roleplay and thanks all the others nations for their participation

As you define it here:
DEFINING "Mass Reproductive Human Cloning" as an action of reproductive human cloning performed with the intent to give birth to 20 or more persons cloned from the same individual

As the above only defines it to producing clones from one individual it still allows me to get say 1000 different individuals and clone each 20 times.. To limit the total to available parents would end that problem. Also reestablish the process as for providing children to parents as set prior.. Thus if you use 5,10, or 20 from one this will stop over population/production of clones..

As I suggested earlier, clause 4 could be re-written to ensure that cloning is not allowed unless persons can be found to adopt any and all children produced. Like this:

-4- REQUIRES all the Nations where reproductive human cloning is legal, to allow it only where the donors of the biological materials used give their consent and where a person or persons have expressed to a competent governmental authority their desire to adopt any and all children that are to be created

As one of the fears is using mass numbers of clones as a large army.. It does not require them all to be from the same source... just produce a lot of them..

Using clones to make an army is fairly implausible. If you aren't bothered by them all being the same, it would be easier for this nefarious military government to simply force all its citizens to have lots of sex and give up their children to the military (clones still require gestation like other humans, so it's just extra hassle to do the nuclear transfer and IVF). This only changes if you have developed technology to gestate embryos outside of a human - in which case this technology is the dangerous one, not the cloning itself.

I would not go for REGULATION... remember I'm in role a clone.. so this to me would sound like you're after me.. Thus anyone else who might be in role also a clone.. would object to it just on that..

I don't understand why "regulation" has negative connotations, but if you feel this way, ok. I definitely would not go for "limitation" as LAE suggested, so how about just leaving it at "The Human Cloning Act" as a compromise?

but i will try to write it again without the word "diploid", maybe i'm wrong, but it seems to me it's not a usual world, and i prefer when it's possible avoid to use not usual words.

I think as long as "diploid" is defined within the proposal then it should be easy to understand for anyone who bothers to read the whole thing. It's a standard scientific term that ought to be familiar to anyone who paid attention in science lessons up to GCSE-level in the UK (sorry, don't know the equivalents elsewhere but GCSEs are our exams at 16), and with a simple definition it should not pose too much of a problem for anyone unfamiliar with the term.

If you don't say "diploid" you'll still need to say something that means diploid. It's simpler just to define the correct term then use it.

- about paragraph [4], i'm ok for adopt, but please, _Myopia_, if you don't mind, may you explain me before i make changes, why you are not Ok with parent(s)?

It just seems to me that because "parent" implies biological relations, and a clone might not be adopted by the DNA donor (e.g. maybe both members of a couple carry genes making them infertile, they don't want to clone themselves to make kids because the kids would then also have to deal with infertility, so they might adopt a clone of someone else), it's easier to use a word which makes it clear that you don't have to be the donor to adopt the clone.

maybe this draft need to also to prevent
- the selling of biological materials
- the use of older than 2 weeks embryon, for therapeutic purposes

i'm thinking about it

I wouldn't attempt either of these. The first is an entire separate issue which really needs its own proposal, and trying to deal with it within this one will mean that the issue is not covered fully. It will also split supporters.

The second is a bad idea because it raises many inconsistencies, and again needs to be dealt with separately. Right now, the UN guarantees the right to an abortion without restriction according to the stage of pregnancy. It would be inconsistent to then insist on greater protection for clone embryos. If you wish to deal with this issue, I'd write a separate proposal banning the abortion after whatever point of any embryo (clone or not) in order to use its tissues for therapeutic purposes.

May We draw the esteemed delegate of Myopia's attention to NSUN Resolution #60, "Public Domain"? The resolution clearly implies the existence of copyright, a clear recognition of the right to the ownership of created property.

We argue that, since according to NSUN Resolution #6 the ownership of human beings is illegal, and according to Resolution #60 individuals have the right to the ownership of their creations, this implies that human beings are NOT, in the view of the NSUN, human creations.

We further argue that, should this proposal be accepted, the principle above will be voided, and the moral basis against slavery will be undermined.

That resolution does not guarantee creators the right to own their creations. It merely lays down UN policy on situations where creators cannot claim ownership of their creations. It assumes that nations do offer creators these rights in other situations, but technically there is no legal reason why individual nations cannot hypothetically go further and simply declare all creations in their borders to be in the public domain, or at least be even stricter than Res. #60 as to when copyright rights can be claimed.

As far as we are concerned, this does not affect our ethical case against slavery, presumably because ours is based on different ethical principles to yours.

As to the mass reproductive limit. I would really rather have it at 10 than 5. Remember - it isn't necessary for all the clones to be adopted by the same family, so good homes could still be found for 10 clones.

However, I may be prepared to compromise and accept 5 as a limit. This is the text I would suggest for a limit of 5. If it is acceptable to Zeldon and the other similar nations, then I will agree to it. I have added a final clause about the possible objectification of mass clones to help justify making the limit so low, because relying only on the diversity argument isn't going to cut it when pushing a limit as low as 5.



The Human Cloning Act

Category: we need to ask a mod
Strength: ditto

The United Nations,

-A- FULLY AWARE that there are different kinds of human cloning and that they must be dealt with separately

Part I: Therapeutic Human Cloning

B- DEFINING
- "Diploid" as: the state of a cell or nucleus in which there are two of each type of chromosome present (human body cells are normally diploid, with 46 chromosomes)
- "Therapeutic Human Cloning" as: the transfer of a diploid human cell nucleus into a denucleated egg, with the aim of creating an embryo with an identical nuclear genome to an existing human, so that the resulting stem cells may be harvested during the first 14 days of development for subsequent culture amplification and use in medical procedures. This definition is extended to the creation of an embryo[b] from any [b]diploid cell from an existing human for the same purpose, and to similar procedures where the genome is intentionally altered.

-C- CONVINCED that therapeutic human cloning's potential for use in stem cell therapies opens up major opportunities to improve the health and happiness of human beings

-1- ENCOURAGES all Nations to allow therapeutic human cloning and research into it, and to regulate it carefully to ensure that biological materials are not used without donors’ consent and that responsible and ethical standards are adhered to, particularly regarding the well-being of patients and regarding culture amplification of nerve cells


Part II: Reproductive Human Cloning

-D- DEFINING "Reproductive Human Cloning" as: the creation of a human embryo with the intention of allowing it to develop for more than 2 weeks, by transfer of a human cell nucleus into a denucleated egg, with the aim of creating a new individual with an identical nuclear genome to an existing human. In this resolution "reproductive human cloning" also includes stimulating cell(s) from an existing human to develop into a new embryo for the same purpose, and to similar cloning procedures where the genome is altered.

-E- RECALLING that resolution 56 "BioRights Declaration" grants cloned and genetically engineered persons the same rights as other persons

-F- HAVING OBSERVED the deformities and diseases suffered by many cloned animals, apparently due to shortcomings in current cloning technologies in many nations where the technologies are relatively new

-2- STRONGLY DISCOURAGES reproductive human cloning without the use of more advanced technologies that do not pose an undue risk to the health of the clone(s)

-3- RECOMMENDS that member nations regulate research into cloning to prevent “reproductive human cloning” except where technologies which are deemed not to pose an undue risk to the clone(s) health can be used

-4- REQUIRES all the Nations where reproductive human cloning is legal, to allow it only where the donors of the biological materials used give their consent and where a person or persons have expressed to a competent governmental authority their desire to adopt any and all children that are to be created


Part III: Mass Reproductive Human Cloning

-G- DEFINING "Mass Reproductive Human Cloning" as an action of reproductive human cloning performed with the intent to give birth to 5 or more persons cloned from the same individual

-H- ALARMED by the fact that mass reproductive human cloning is a danger to human genetic diversity

-I- CONCERNED that mass production of genetically identical individuals could too easily lead to a failure to fully recognise each of these clones as a human being worthy of the same respect and consideration as any other human being

-5- BANS mass reproductive human cloning

The Human Cloning Act

Stay with this TITLE don't use words:

Limitation Noun
1. A principle that limits the extent of something; "I am willing to accept certain restrictions on my movements".
2. The quality of being limited or restricted; "it is a good plan but it has serious limitations".
3. The greatest amount of something that is possible or allowed; "there are limits on the amount you can bet"; "it is growing rapidly with no limitation in sight".
4. (in law) a time period after which suits cannot be brought; "statute of limitations".
5. An act of limiting or restricting (as by regulation).

Noting Item 5 above then definition below:

Regulation Adjective
1. Prescribed by or according to regulation; "regulation army equipment".
Noun
1. An authoritative rule.
2. A principle or condition that customarily governs behavior; "it was his rule to take a walk before breakfast"; "short haircuts were the regulation".
3. The act of regulating; "fiscal regulations are in the hands of politicians".

OOC: Do I need to draw a map to the final word in #3... and then explain my conerns to you.. We don't have enough time in my or your lifetime to cover them all.....;}



Part III: Mass Reproductive Human Cloning
-G- DEFINING "Mass Reproductive Human Cloning" as an action of reproductive human cloning performed with the intent to give birth to 5 or more persons cloned from the same individual
-H- ALARMED by the fact that mass reproductive human cloning is a danger to human genetic diversity
-I- CONCERNED that mass production of genetically identical individuals could too easily lead to a failure to fully recognise each of these clones as a human being worthy of the same respect and consideration as any other human being
-5- BANS mass reproductive human cloning

This is good as can work with the #s this way..

On item #4 see what is needed to be said to avoid idea of just man and woman having kids but not sure right words there.

The Human Cloning Act



_Myopia_, thanks a lot, i'm back in NS world and reading at it

I prefer « regulation « or “limitation“ or even “rights & ban” than “The Human Cloning Act” because:
- there is a reference to a balanced act
- remember that as for every proposition, we will have to do a TG campaign. The title of the resolution is of course the main argument of a TG campaign (and of the vote also, see the success of the proposition “promotion of solar panels”…) and “The Human Cloning Act” can seem to refer as one of, i suppose, the many banal propositions about cloning submitted so far.

Or maybe we can use “mitigation”! lol! ;)

Zeldon, please can you explain us, why you don’t like « regulation « , for me, it seems to stick with your ideas

Ok for diploid, you must know better than me if it’s an usual word in English or not.

Ok for:
“””-4- REQUIRES all the Nations where reproductive human cloning is legal, to allow it only where the donors of the biological materials used give their consent and where a person or persons have expressed to a competent governmental authority their desire to adopt any and all children that are to be created”””



I wouldn't attempt either of these. The first is an entire separate issue which really needs its own proposal, and trying to deal with it within this one will mean that the issue is not covered fully. It will also split supporters.

The second is a bad idea because it raises many inconsistencies, and again needs to be dealt with separately. Right now, the UN guarantees the right to an abortion without restriction according to the stage of pregnancy. It would be inconsistent to then insist on greater protection for clone embryos. If you wish to deal with this issue, I'd write a separate proposal banning the abortion after whatever point of any embryo (clone or not) in order to use its tissues for therapeutic purposes.

ok, what abour the following:

-1- ENCOURAGES all Nations to allow therapeutic human cloning and research into it, and to regulate it carefully to ensure that biological materials are not used without donors’ consent and that responsible and ethical standards are adhered to, particularly regarding the well-being of patients and regarding culture amplification of nerve cells. All actions with the same purpose after 1 month of development of the embryo are not encouraged.

-I- is great, thanks a lot


About –G-, i share the previous Zeldon concern, it opens the scenario of its roleplay, don’t your agree with the following?
-G- DEFINING "Mass Reproductive Human Cloning" as an action of reproductive human cloning performed with the intent to give birth to 5 or more persons cloned from the same individual. This definition is extended to the creation of multiples embryos, with (very/almost) similar nuclear genetic IDs, from (an) embryo(s), or (a) cell(s).

IZeldon, please can you explain us, why you don’t like « regulation « , for me, it seems to stick with your ideas

Regulation --- 2. A principle or condition that customarily governs behavior;

Behavior 1. Manner of acting or conducting yourself.

REGULATION in TITLE tells or suggests that CLONE/ing are the only humans effected by this and that normal humans or engneered persons don't have to follow it.. R56 says they are all equal so you can't regulate one without doing it to all of them.. as equals..

Also to limit something one writes a regulation to do so, thus bringing back to regulate. The Cloning Act is neutral Title.. does nothing leaves that to contents of proposal.. All the Title does is draw attention to it.... Word Regulate doesn't often draw it moves folks away.. Even if it's their reproductive process... as you would have to follow the same Regulation on all of them in regards to reproduction... If you limit having children for only forming a family; all family would need follow same general rules to get a child/baby/clone..

Zeldon, the regulation here is not at all, about regulationg clones rights, and its why:
-E- RECALLING that resolution 56 "BioRights Declaration" grants cloned and genetically engineered persons the same rights as other persons

we don't want to call it "regulation of human clones" at all,

it's about the process and implication of cloning, which is new and present some danger, so it need to be regulated. for example, it's important also to regulate economic freedom

it's about the process and implication of cloning, which is new and present some danger, so it need to be regulated. for example, it's important also to regulate economic freedom


Economic Freedom is not protected under Resolution 56 clones are... They are living concious humans equal to you... Economic Freedom is something normal humans and clones might have...... it's not them.. So you can REGULATE that not the living concious being.. When your REGULATION covers only one if both are equal. Here you imply you REGULATE Clones, and not those they are equal to.. genetically engineered persons, naturally born, and unmodified persons by R56.

We find this entire argument to be leading down blind alleys right and left. It is missing the true point of the issue, which is what rights people have to interfere in the human reproductive process. Unless this issue is addressed, the rest is meaningless distraction.

It is the teaching of the HOCEK that such inteference infringes on the rights of the people who are produced from that process, regardless of whether it is through Nature or Artifice. Other NationStates may disagree. But it not the place of the UN to impose the values of a single NationState upon the remainder, in defiance of their rights of sovereignity and religious freedom.

We find this entire argument to be leading down blind alleys right and left. It is missing the true point of the issue, which is what rights people have to interfere in the human reproductive process. Unless this issue is addressed, the rest is meaningless distraction.

It is the teaching of the HOCEK that such inteference infringes on the rights of the people who are produced from that process, regardless of whether it is through Nature or Artifice. Other NationStates may disagree. But it not the place of the UN to impose the values of a single NationState upon the remainder, in defiance of their rights of sovereignity and religious freedom.

We agree with this and suport you views as they match out own concerns that this is an assault on reproductive rights of an individual... In that all have a right to reproduce in a manner that words for them is safe and they trust.. Thus as we feel a complete ban on the process is wrong that any regulation of that process to prevent abuse.. 1) to use the process for imoral pruposes. 2) To cause undue harm to any party involved in the process 3) to cause the results of the process to be used or abused when it's a concious living human being.

We at this time must leave the debate as current events due to the Death of Lady Katrina a tyrinical but respected lady that traveled through our nation and has now died leaving and estate in turmoral and a nation in mourning... So I must leave to consol my people and my own family..
Zarta Warden
UN Ambassador Zeldon

OOC: Still praying for those that were in path of Katrina.. Have to go pick up some members of my family that got out so don't know how long will be out..

We find this entire argument to be leading down blind alleys right and left. It is missing the true point of the issue, which is what rights people have to interfere in the human reproductive process. Unless this issue is addressed, the rest is meaningless distraction.

It is the teaching of the HOCEK that such inteference infringes on the rights of the people who are produced from that process, regardless of whether it is through Nature or Artifice. Other NationStates may disagree. But it not the place of the UN to impose the values of a single NationState upon the remainder, in defiance of their rights of sovereignity and religious freedom.

Um........Cloning is discouraged by this resolution. How is the issue not addressed? Or are you asking for a full ban on cloning? Do that in your own nation, this resolution doesn't limit it, and your nation shouldn't be permitted to impose its beliefs that cloning is evil and should be banned upon other nations.

Um........Cloning is discouraged by this resolution. How is the issue not addressed? Or are you asking for a full ban on cloning? Do that in your own nation, this resolution doesn't limit it, and your nation shouldn't be permitted to impose its beliefs that cloning is evil and should be banned upon other nations.

Cloning is merely a tool. Like any tool, it can be put to productive use, or to destructive use. Our concern is not about the amoral mechanics being addressed here, but about the immoral spirit of this resolution. It seeks to assert human dominion over the reproductive process, declaring that embryonic human flesh is nothing more than property to be used and discarded according to human whim. This is an arrogant, dehumanizing philosophy that We call upon all NationStates to reject.

Though We urge the other NationStates to follow Our lead here, we recognize that a NationState may choose to disagree with Our assessment of the evils of this so-called "therapeutic cloning". It is their right to act on their beliefs. However, the proposed UN resolution mandates each UN state support this vile practice. It is Our nation's beliefs that are being imposed upon here, not the other way around.

Ah, the embryonic human flesh that, well, has no noticable rights within UN law (except the right to be aborted, which could quite nicely be used as a source of this embryonic material - hell, you could have it imported if you don't want the dirty work done yourself 'cause I'm sure there are plenty of labs around the world with all sorts of embryonic material that....well....is either used for the purposes of this resolution, used for research, or destroyed - so dead no matter how you cut it).

That said, I acknowledge your point, but I disagree and continue to support this resolution. I guess, yet again, we end up on opposing sides.

We have little to add, then. The esteemed delegate from the Forgotten Lands has said all anyone here would care to know about how much human life is valued in their nation. We urge the assembled delegates to keep this in mind when deciding whether to support this proposal.

Oh please. I am hardly endorsing the death of either human or fetus beyond what has already been legislated within the UN - not that I consider the fetus to be worthy of the rating "human being" or even considered worthy of being guaranteed a chance at life (as noted by my stance on abortion). Regardless, my position is in full regard of embryos - which are post-aborted fetuses. At that point, no matter how hard you try, THEY'RE ALREADY DEAD. There is literally nothing you can do for them. Heck, making them into clones is about the only way to give them life again.

Regardless, attack the argument, not the person.

I prefer « regulation « or “limitation“ or even “rights & ban” than “The Human Cloning Act” because:
- there is a reference to a balanced act
- remember that as for every proposition, we will have to do a TG campaign. The title of the resolution is of course the main argument of a TG campaign (and of the vote also, see the success of the proposition “promotion of solar panels”…) and “The Human Cloning Act” can seem to refer as one of, i suppose, the many banal propositions about cloning submitted so far.

I really don't think "limitation" is a good idea, because it will probably give people the wrong idea about what the proposal seeks to do. I prefer "regulation" and am unconvinced by Zeldon's argument against it - to me it just means laying down some rules that govern the use of cloning technology. It's not about making different rules for clones themselves, rather its making universal rules about how anyone is allowed to use cloning technology. Would "Human Cloning Regulations" make this clearer?

If Zeldon insists that the title carries this implication for him, then I will settle for "Human Cloning Act" and rely on that forcing people to read the text to understand the proposal. Maybe "regulation" carries negative connotations in the USA that are unfamiliar to me in the UK.

Ok for diploid, you must know better than me if it’s an usual word in English or not.

It's not exactly a widely used term in ordinary english, but in terms of scientific vocabulary it's fairly basic, and for those who don't know it the definition I have provided should convey sufficient meaning to allow anyone to understand the part of the proposal where the word is used.

ok, what abour the following:

-1- ENCOURAGES all Nations to allow therapeutic human cloning and research into it, and to regulate it carefully to ensure that biological materials are not used without donors’ consent and that responsible and ethical standards are adhered to, particularly regarding the well-being of patients and regarding culture amplification of nerve cells. All actions with the same purpose after 1 month of development of the embryo are not encouraged.

I don't think this is necessary. Since we've defined therapeutic cloning as involving harvesting in the first 14 days, when the proposal says "ENCOURAGES all Nations to allow therapeutic human cloning and research into it" it automatically only encourages in during the first 14 days.

By the way, what do you think of strengthening clause -1- by changing "ENCOURAGES" to "STRONGLY URGES"?

About –G-, i share the previous Zeldon concern, it opens the scenario of its roleplay, don’t your agree with the following?
-G- DEFINING "Mass Reproductive Human Cloning" as an action of reproductive human cloning performed with the intent to give birth to 5 or more persons cloned from the same individual. This definition is extended to the creation of multiples embryos, with (very/almost) similar nuclear genetic IDs, from (an) embryo(s), or (a) cell(s).

The bit you've added is very vague. "Very/almost similar" doesn't mean anything, and "genetic ID" isn't really a commonly accepted term either.

Are you worried that people will try to get round the ban by creating 4 clones, then immediately cloning some of them? It's an interesting loophole to try to close. I don't think your solution will work, because it's too vague. Any solution will need to be more flexible than a simple ban on cloning clones, because this is both a violation of clones' equality and a problem for nations like Zeldon.

I've just realised that trying to regulate mass reproductive cloning is going to be very difficult. Previously, the proposal has mainly been dealing with cloning of the type where a nucleus is transferred from a developed cell to an egg cell. But it is possible to take an embryo soon after fertilisation, before any differentiation has occured, and break the cells apart, then implant the cells in different surrogate mothers, and they will develop into separate identical embryos. To be honest, given the limits of our expertise and given the limits on the complexity and length of NSUN resolutions, I can't really see a way to deal with this entire field in just a third of one proposal short of a blanket ban, which I believe to be totally unjustifiable.

If you try to ban the creation of many embryos with identical nuclear genomes, this poses problems for nations like Zeldon, which may have generations of identical clones, but spread out over many years thus removing most of the problems, and anyway people with sufficient technology could easily get round it by making unimportant edits to the genomes of the clones (e.g. to junk DNA or changing bases in a gene but ensuring they still code for the same amino acid), so they were no longer genetically identical.

If you say "similar" or "almost identical" genomes, it's very ambiguous and too difficult to implement - because all human beings have near-identical genomes, and chimpanzee genomes aren't dissimilar either. When something is that open to interpretation, it may as well not be a requirement, because nations can effectively choose what they are required to do.

Since it's impossible to practically prevent circumvention of the regulation via cloning of clones, it's pointless to maintain the regulation in the first place. Therefore, I think it will be necessary to completely change Part III. Keep the arguments, but remove the definition and the ban and simply urge nations to pass appropriate legislation to prevent the intentional and artificial creation of unreasonable numbers of identical humans.

If you want to outright ban Mass Reproductive Cloning, I reckon it will need an entire separate proposal of its own. For now, I think the most effective method is to get nations to deal with the matter on a case-by-case basis, which is the best way to ensure that clones are not objectified. Some progress towards what you want is therefore made, but it is not rushed so that you can do it properly in a second proposal.

This is what I now suggest for Part III:

Part III: Mass Reproductive Human Cloning

-G- ALARMED by the fact that introducing a large number of cloned individuals originating from one individual's genome poses a danger to human genetic diversity

-H- CONCERNED that mass production of genetically identical individuals could too easily lead to a failure to fully recognise each of these clones as a human being worthy of the same respect and consideration as any other human being

-I- RECOGNISING that the limitations of NSUN resolutions would make it impractical and ineffective to attempt to prohibit such practices within this resolution, because of the diverse methods which could be used to achieve such a goal

-5- STRONGLY URGES member nations to establish appropriate regulatory measures to prevent the creation of unreasonable numbers of clones of common genetic origin in a short space of time, such that the fears expressed in clauses G and H might not be realised

LAE, as per our telegrams, if you want to acknowledge me as co-author that would be fine and I would be happy with it. The rules are quite strict about this, so you would just add something at the bottom like "Co-authored by _Myopia_"

Two further suggestions.

Clause -3- should talk about regulating cloning in general, not just research.

Should we add a clause in Part II saying that as long as the health of the clone is given sufficient consideration, all donors of biological material give full consent to the procedure, and the other principles stated in the resolution are followed, the UN does not condone the prohibition of cloning? Like this:

Part II: Reproductive Human Cloning

-D- DEFINING "Reproductive Human Cloning" as: the creation of a human embryo with the intention of allowing it to develop for more than 2 weeks, by transfer of a human cell nucleus into a denucleated egg, with the aim of creating a new individual with an identical nuclear genome to an existing human. In this resolution "reproductive human cloning" also includes stimulating cell(s) from an existing human to develop into a new embryo for the same purpose, and to similar cloning procedures where the genome is altered.

-E- RECALLING that resolution 56 "BioRights Declaration" grants cloned and genetically engineered persons the same rights as other persons

-F- HAVING OBSERVED the deformities and diseases suffered by many cloned animals, apparently due to shortcomings in current cloning technologies in many nations where the technologies are relatively new

-2- STRONGLY DISCOURAGES reproductive human cloning without the use of more advanced technologies that do not pose an undue risk to the health of the clone(s)

-3- RECOMMENDS that member nations regulate the use of cloning procedures to prevent reproductive human cloning except where technologies which are deemed not to pose an undue risk to the clone(s) health can be used

-4- REQUIRES all the Nations where reproductive human cloning is legal, to allow it only where the donors of the biological materials used give their consent and where a person or persons have expressed to a competent governmental authority their desire to adopt any and all children that are to be created

-5- AFFIRMS that the UN does not condone the actions of governments which prohibit human reproductive cloning where the procedure proposed would not violate the principles stated in this resolution protecting the rights of the clones, the rights the donors of biological materials, and the diversity of the human gene pool, or violate any other relevant legal principles.

This clause balances our concerns - it does not stop nations banning cloning and allows flexibility for situations we might not have considered, but it makes it clear that the UN is generally not behind such infringements of liberties.

I really don't think "limitation" is a good idea, because it will probably give people the wrong idea about what the proposal seeks to do. I prefer "regulation" and am unconvinced by Zeldon's argument against it - to me it just means laying down some rules that govern the use of cloning technology. It's not about making different rules for clones themselves, rather its making universal rules about how anyone is allowed to use cloning technology. Would "Human Cloning Regulations" make this clearer?

agree, i think regulation is really appropriated
zeldon, a campaign is never easy, i can't know if i'm right or wrong, but i don't think the title "Human Cloning Act" will help us

LAE, as per our telegrams, if you want to acknowledge me as co-author that would be fine and I would be happy with it. The rules are quite strict about this, so you would just add something at the bottom like "Co-authored by _Myopia_"

_Myopia_, i'm happy to acknowledge you as co-author
"Co-authored by _Myopia_" => perfect

i'm reading the others point of your post, thanks

However, the proposed UN resolution mandates each UN state support this vile practice. It is Our nation's beliefs that are being imposed upon here, not the other way around.

Cute people of HOCEK, we don't anymore use "mandates" on this matter.
it was a mistake and we have apologize in this thread about it.

the last draft use "encourages", and we are thinking about "Urges" or "Strongly Urges"


you may think “Scientific & Therapeutic Human Cloning” must be forbidden, it's why we now "ENCOURAGES". We want also to publicly apologize for our previous "MANDATES" on this matter, it was stupid.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9549854&postcount=120

diploid

It's not exactly a widely used term in ordinary english, but in terms of scientific vocabulary it's fairly basic, and for those who don't know it the definition I have provided should convey sufficient meaning to allow anyone to understand the part of the proposal where the word is used.


what about:
- "Therapeutic Human Cloning" as: "the transfer of a human cell nucleus (with 2 different sets of chromosome) into a denucleated egg", with the aim of creating an embryo with an identical nuclear genome to an existing human, so that the resulting stem cells may be harvested during the first 14 days of development for subsequent culture amplification and use in medical procedures....

it will be my last attempt to get rid of word which seems technical for me! lol! but if it doesn't work, then ok for diploid

Ok for URGES, and i'm not against STRONGLY URGES

"All actions with the same purpose after 1 month of development of the embryo are not encouraged."

i wil not be pushy about it; but i think it can be important, if you really don't like it, ok i will forget it





-G-
The bit you've added is very vague. "Very/almost similar" doesn't mean anything, and "genetic ID" isn't really a commonly accepted term either.

i agree it's vague, i didn't take the time to think about it recently, sorry, but we have hopefully some time ahead, i will try to find something

i prefer to keep part III, as it was, and try to improve it, sorry



Clause -3- should talk about regulating cloning in general, not just research.

agree, and maybe we can melt -2- and -3-, in a single sentence, i will come back with something

Should we add a clause in Part II saying that as long as the health of the clone is given sufficient consideration, all donors of biological material give full consent to the procedure, and the other principles stated in the resolution are followed, the UN does not condone the prohibition of cloning? Like this:

This clause balances our concerns - it does not stop nations banning cloning and allows flexibility for situations we might not have considered, but it makes it clear that the UN is generally not behind such infringements of liberties.


why not, even if don't really think it's necessary,

what about:
- "Therapeutic Human Cloning" as: "the transfer of a human cell nucleus (with 2 different sets of chromosome) into a denucleated egg", with the aim of creating an embryo with an identical nuclear genome to an existing human, so that the resulting stem cells may be harvested during the first 14 days of development for subsequent culture amplification and use in medical procedures....

it will be my last attempt to get rid of word which seems technical for me! lol! but if it doesn't work, then ok for diploid

To be honest, I don't think that including technical terminology, especially if it's well-defined, will harm the proposal. Mikitivity's HEP dam mitigation resolution contained several technical terms, didn't define them and it did fine. In fact, I'd say that saying "diploid" and inlcuding the definition is easier to understand than what you've suggested, because some may not be aware of the significance of a nucleus having 2 sets of chromosomes.

By the way, if diploid is to be defined in the proposal, we may as well use it to clarify Part II as well:

-D- DEFINING "Reproductive Human Cloning" as: the creation of a human embryo with the intention of allowing it to develop for more than 2 weeks, by transfer of a diploid human cell nucleus into a denucleated egg, with the aim of creating a new individual with an identical nuclear genome to an existing human. In this resolution "reproductive human cloning" also includes stimulating cell(s) from an existing human to develop into a new embryo for the same purpose, and to similar cloning procedures where the genome is altered.

"All actions with the same purpose after 1 month of development of the embryo are not encouraged."

i wil not be pushy about it; but i think it can be important, if you really don't like it, ok i will forget it

If you really want that kind of thing, it needs to be somewhat clearer, and additionally the time limit does need to match that expressed in the definition of therapeutic human cloning

-1- STRONGLY URGES all Nations to allow therapeutic human cloning and research into it, and to regulate it carefully to ensure that biological materials are not used without donors’ consent and that responsible and ethical standards are adhered to, particularly regarding the well-being of patients and regarding culture amplification of nerve cells - it shall be noted that this endorsement does not extend to procedures similar to therapeutic human cloning where the stem cells are harvested after more than 14 days development

i agree it's vague, i didn't take the time to think about it recently, sorry, but we have hopefully some time ahead, i will try to find something

i prefer to keep part III, as it was, and try to improve it, sorry

Well the way the rest of the proposal is going, there probably won't be space for a comprehensive treatment of the issue within the confines of this proposal. If you want to maintain your stance and do it justice, I seriously recommend cutting part III and making it into its own proposal to work on after the rest of this is passed.

agree, and maybe we can melt -2- and -3-, in a single sentence, i will come back with something

Good idea. It probably isn't necessary to discourage it as well as recommending that member nations stop it. If we ask for it to be stopped, it's probably pretty clear that we don't like it. How's this for -2- and just cut -3- out?

-2- STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that member nations regulate cloning procedures to prevent the use of reproductive human cloning procedures which pose an undue risk to the clone(s) health

ok for diploid in -B-! lol! you right about "Mikitivity's mitigation"
but i think it's useless in -D-

__________________
-1- STRONGLY URGES all Nations to allow therapeutic human cloning and research into it, and to regulate it carefully to ensure that biological materials are not used without donors’ consent and that responsible and ethical standards are adhered to, particularly regarding the well-being of patients and regarding culture amplification of nerve cells - it shall be noted that this endorsement does not extend to procedures similar to therapeutic human cloning where the stem cells are harvested after more than 14 days development
________________

i like it, thanks, well done


________________
-2- STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that member nations regulate cloning procedures to prevent the use of reproductive human cloning procedures which pose an undue risk to the clone(s) health
______________

very good to replace the former -2- and -3-, but there is 2 times "cloning procedures", is it Ok?


about part III, i'm not 100% sure yet, but i think the following will include the zeldon situation, and be short:
_______________
Part III: Mass Reproductive Human Cloning

-G- DEFINING "Mass Reproductive Human Cloning" as an action of reproductive human cloning performed with the intent to give birth to 5 or more persons cloned from the same individual or from persons already cloned from the same individual

-H- ALARMED by the fact that mass reproductive human cloning is a danger to human genetic diversity

-I- CONCERNED that mass production of genetically identical individuals could too easily lead to a failure to fully recognise each of these clones as a human being worthy of the same respect and consideration as any other human being

-4- BANS mass reproductive human cloning
________________________

i didn't find in the forum, what is the exact character count limit, but i think it's gonna be ok for us

from microsoft word, the longest "UN resolution" is:
#25 The Child Protection Act
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=24

characters (without spaces)= 2938
characters (with spaces)= 3513

but i think it's useless in -D-

It's just as important in D as in B.

very good to replace the former -2- and -3-, but there is 2 times "cloning procedures", is it Ok?

Hmm. Try this:

-2- STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that member nations implement regulations to prevent the use of reproductive human cloning procedures which pose an undue risk to the clone(s) health


about part III, i'm not 100% sure yet, but i think the following will include the zeldon situation, and be short:
_______________
Part III: Mass Reproductive Human Cloning

-G- DEFINING "Mass Reproductive Human Cloning" as an action of reproductive human cloning performed with the intent to give birth to 5 or more persons cloned from the same individual or from persons already cloned from the same individual

-H- ALARMED by the fact that mass reproductive human cloning is a danger to human genetic diversity

-I- CONCERNED that mass production of genetically identical individuals could too easily lead to a failure to fully recognise each of these clones as a human being worthy of the same respect and consideration as any other human being

-4- BANS mass reproductive human cloning

I don't think this will work. What you've added is not crystal clear, and the most obvious interpretation would cause problems for Zeldon in that it limits the ability to clone clones.

Basically, I really think you'd be better off if you cut part III from this text and made it into it's own proposal. I have reservations about how feasible it would be to implement fairly on a global scale, and there's definitely no way to do the issue justice within what space is left in this proposal.

-2- STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that member nations implement regulations to prevent the use of reproductive human cloning procedures which pose an undue risk to the clone(s) health

ok, great, thanks


diploid:
even if i tryed to get rid many times of "diploid", i agree with you now for -B-
but, it add nothing to -D-, as Reproductive Human Cloning aim is to create a human: better to be large



I don't think this will work. What you've added is not crystal clear, and the most obvious interpretation would cause problems for Zeldon in that it limits the ability to clone clones.

Basically, I really think you'd be better off if you cut part III from this text and made it into it's own proposal. I have reservations about how feasible it would be to implement fairly on a global scale, and there's definitely no way to do the issue justice within what space is left in this proposal.

"with the intent to give birth to 5 or more persons cloned from the same individual"
=> this is ok, not vague, as reproductive human cloning refer to an individual

"or from persons already cloned from the same individual"
=> you right it doesn't prevent zeldon, to do anything, but it's not the aim of the resolution, because no resolution can prevent zeldon to do anything about it

the aim is just to be sure it will not happen again.

maybe one day, humanity will approach a sort of "thechnological singularity".
or another radical event:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_Singularity
then maybe diversity will not be important for us anymore, then, at that time in the future, if this proposition had passed, it will not be difficult to repeal it

diploid:
even if i tryed to get rid many times of "diploid", i agree with you now for -B-
but, it add nothing to -D-, as Reproductive Human Cloning aim is to create a human: better to be large

I really don't understand your argument.

"or from persons already cloned from the same individual"
=> you right it doesn't prevent zeldon, to do anything, but it's not the aim of the resolution, because no resolution can prevent zeldon to do anything about it

No my problem is that is DOES pose a barrier to what Zeldon does, and I don't think it should. This sentence is vague, unclear and appears to be attempting to go too far for my liking.

Please understand that what you are trying to do requires a lot more careful definition to be workable, and that's why I am urging you to move part III to a new resolution.

I really don't understand your argument.


ok, sorry, maybe i was confuse about diploid
i think it's better to use technical words only when it's necessary, and i doesn't seems necessary to me in -D-.


No my problem is that is DOES pose a barrier to what Zeldon does, and I don't think it should. This sentence is vague, unclear and appears to be attempting to go too far for my liking.



You have said you were OK with the "5" limit but not less, the new sentence doesn't raise it.
You, Zeldon and me were all concerned that this limit could be easily countourned:

if a cloned Human is cloned as soon as he is born
=> this could lead to an important number of cloned Human indirectly from the same person

so, maybe this sentence is not well written, maybe style is lacking, and i will try to find something better
but it's understandeable, and it achieves to avoid -G- being easily countourned

maybe another idea, if you prefer:
- we keep -G-, without the part i added

- we state in -4- that donors must be over 18

are you ok?
for me it's ok

-4- REQUIRES all the Nations where reproductive human cloning is legal, to allow it only where the donors of the biological materials used are over 18 yers old and give their consent and where a person or persons have expressed to a competent governmental authority their desire to adopt any and all children that are to be created

Say a person in Zeldon gives their DNA to make 5 clones in the standard process which Zeldon appears to use. Since the limit of 5 has been reached, it is now not possible for any of those 5 to clone themselves according to the bit you added.

Say a person in Zeldon gives their DNA to make 5 clones in the standard process which Zeldon appears to use. Since the limit of 5 has been reached, it is now not possible for any of those 5 to clone themselves according to the bit you added.

ok i forget about the added clause to -G-
just read my previous post up

Say a person in Zeldon gives their DNA to make 5 clones in the standard process which Zeldon appears to use. Since the limit of 5 has been reached, it is now not possible for any of those 5 to clone themselves according to the bit you added.


On this issue.. The way it means if a father has five clones of himself then his son can't have any from himself since it's assumed they same as the father's.. Section four by cutting off producing more clones if no parents prevents mass production of them.


Science indicates even in nomal sexual reproduction that some of the DNA from father to son is and will always be the same.... Current ancestory tracking by use of DNA uses this to track ancestors and determine if say you and I had a common ancestor and by certain passed on markers determine just how far back that was. About every 13-14 generations or 333 years the common DNA materials in nature will mutate so one might find that this will happen in cloning also and maybe even at a higher rate due to the very process used to clone the next generation..... As one of the factors that cause a mutation is changes in procedures and where they might be done.


Also on the age set at 18 perfer you not set an age as our males at 10 and females at 12 are considered citizens with full honors titles and rights so they would not be allowed to donate.. their DNA to produce another generation... Use citizen... this allows for each nation to decide an age when they can donate as they set the terms to become a citizen of their nation.

Zarta (Zeldon) should be back after weekend he is still out of the area dealing with Lady Katrina's passing, but is expected back then.. Last report all was going well still had some details to work out..

George Warden
Advisor Zeldon
UN Ambassador

Also on the age set at 18 perfer you not set an age as our males at 10 and females at 12 are considered citizens with full honors titles and rights so they would not be allowed to donate.. their DNA to produce another generation... Use citizen... this allows for each nation to decide an age when they can donate as they set the terms to become a citizen of their nation.

this proposition is all and only about humans, i don't know much about your species, it's why i will never think to legislate about it

I don't like the use of an age limit, because societies and cultures vary so widely. Honestly, you do this much better if you gave it more space in a separate resolution. I doubt that you'll be able to find any way to make this satisfactory within this proposal.

I don't like the use of an age limit, because societies and cultures vary so widely. Honestly, you do this much better if you gave it more space in a separate resolution. I doubt that you'll be able to find any way to make this satisfactory within this proposal.


18 is very reasonable, so if someone find a better option about the concern the 3 of us have (you zeldon and me), then i'm open about it,

but this is reasonable, this is the best we have so far, and even without thinking about mass reproductive cloning, i think it's good and not restricting;

i'm sorry but obviously as this proposition is about regulation => part II and III need to be in the same proposition

-4- REQUIRES all the Nations where reproductive human cloning is legal, ""to allow it only where the donors of the biological materials used are over 18 yers old and give their consent"" and where a person or persons have expressed to a competent governmental authority their desire to adopt any and all children that are to be created


Here there are two ways to set this with no age..

legal, "only when a citizen gives their consent as donor of the biological material for it to be used," and where......

legal, "only from donors who have reached majority, given their consent to use their biological material," and where.....

Only those items in ""-"" need changing.. rest can stay as you have it.. Think got it worded okay here..

Majority defined as:
3. The age at which a person is considered competent to manage their own affairs.

Believe the best is majority here.. as it leaves each nation to decide that age.

Also on the -- "where a person or persons" -- to save on word count it may be okay to simply "where person(s) have expressed".. Think this is okay in actual legal papers.

Here there are two ways to set this with no age..

"to allow it only when a citizen gives their consent to a competent government....." so on..

or this way:
"to be allowed only from donors who have reached majority and where..." so on..

Majority defined as:
3. The age at which a person is considered competent to manage their own affairs.

Believe the best is majority here.. as it leaves each nation to decide that age.

tell me if i'm wrong, but i didn't find any voted resolution dealing with majority,

=> 18 years old is 100% common sense for humans

tell me if i'm wrong, but i didn't find any voted resolution dealing with majority,

=> 18 years old is 100% common sense for humans


The thing is not all see majority at that age.. In US the draft age is 18 also one can vote at 18 but for some things they can do it younger 16 to drive 17 up to smoke, then can't drink at all until 21. So the age is an issue not your intent to have them at a majority be it 10 or 16 or 18 or 21.. as a nation might deem it. Here you set it at 18.. taking that from the individual nations to decide when their citizens are adults.. Thus have those rights to be citizens as adults..

Also Child Labor Resolution
UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #14
CHILD LABOR
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights Strength: Strong Proposed by: Santa Barbara
Description: GIVEN that many nation states see fit to employ children under age 12 in manual labor and industry,

Says they can work at 12 on up.. So why can't they become donors if they are working? It would seem only right to give them a chance to be one as early as possible while they have good health... Also to insure their DNA is passed on before it goes bad due to health changes from working.

at a majority be it 10

Garnilorn, we are dealing with humans here, not one of the various species of your hard SF nation

UN resolution #28 Free education

""Description: To give every person under the age of 18 the right to a free education""

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=27

Garnilorn, thanks, i read definitions of majority, i understand it better now, as you have said to me: it's a common legal word
i'm ok with it


_________________________
-4- REQUIRES all the Nations where reproductive human cloning is legal, to allow it only where the donors of the biological materials used have reached majority and give their consent and where a person or persons have expressed to a competent governmental authority their desire to adopt any and all children that are to be created
_________________________

I'm not happy with this as an approach. Many objectifications of clones won't be prevented, while illegalising many acts which are fairly harmless. I've come to believe that the best way to deal with the issue of mass reproductive cloning is locally and case-by-case. A local ethics committee following appropriate principles looking at requests individually is going to be far more effective and fair in protecting the rights of everybody involved than a blanket law handed down by the UN which fails utterly to take into account specific circumstances and thus will be ineffective in many cases and overly restrictive in many others.

Sorry, but I don't think I'll be able to support this proposal while part III remains anything like its current form.

Human Cloning: Rights & Ban

Category: “Human Rights” and “Moral Decency”?
Strength: Strong


You're making it difficult for yourself here. Rights is human rights, banning is moral decency. It's best to split that up.

The United Nations,

-A- FULLY AWARE that there are different kinds of Human cloning and that they must be dealt separately


Cloning is cloning. There are no different kinds, just different uses.

Furthermore, I always appreciate a good first part of the resolution, where the author explains why the resolution is necessary, what legislation there is, what kind of problem we're dealing with, and why this is a UN matter. Right now, it's more or less hidden in the rest of the text.


-------------------- Part I: “Scientific & Therapeutic Human Cloning” --------------------

-B- DEFINING
“Therapeutic Human Cloning” as: the creation of a blastocyte (a less than week-old undifferentiated embryo), by transfer of a cell nucleus into an enucleated egg, with the aim of harvesting the cells for subsequent culture amplification and injection into a Human for therapeutic purposes. This definition is extended to the creation of a blastocyte, from a stem cell or a cell
“Scientific Human Cloning” as: the scientific researches on “Therapeutic Human Cloning”.

-C- CONVINCED that “Therapeutic Human Cloning”, in the same manner as “Stem Cells” is a very promising way to improve health and happiness of Humans Beings

-1- ENCOURAGES all Nations to allow “Scientific & Therapeutic Human Cloning” when technologies don’t pose an undue risk for the patient, and to control them very tightly, especially on nerve cells culture amplification


Right. So a lot of text just to say "this is nice, try it". I don't see why we should say this at UN level. Sure, one goal of any resolution should be awareness, encouragement and discussion on an issue, but there should also be an action.


-------------------- Part II: “Reproductive Human Cloning” --------------------

-D- DEFINING “Reproductive Human Cloning” as: the creation of an embryo, with the intention of allowing it to develop for more than 2 weeks, by transfer of a cell nucleus into an enucleated egg, with the aim of creating a new individual with an almost similar genetic ID. This definition is extended to the creation of an embryo, with an almost similar genetic ID, from a stem cell or a cell and to "reproductive cloning with altered genome".

-E- REAFFIRMING STRONGLY that cloned and genetically engineered persons have the very same rights as other persons as stated in the UN RESOLUTION #56 BioRights Declaration

-F- HAVING OBSERVED the deformities and diseases suffered by many cloned animals, apparently due to shortcomings in current cloning technologies in many nations where the technologies are relatively new,


The first two points are nice, but with F, you're taking a wrong direction. In the NationStates world, apparently some nations are quite capable of doing cloning properly. Also, the technology will not stay new forever, while your resolution might be here for a long time.


-2- STRONGLY DISCOURAGES “Reproductive Human cloning” without the use of more advanced technologies that do not pose an undue risk to the health of the clone(s),


But you're not forbidding it. And what about researching reproductive cloning scientifically? Would that fall under part I or part II?


-3- RECOMMENDS that member nations regulate research into cloning to prevent “reproductive Human Cloning” except where technologies which are deemed not to pose an undue risk to the clone(s) health can be used,"


Research does pose an undue risk, because the technology is unproven.


-4- REQUIRES all the Nations where “Reproductive Human Cloning” is legal, to allow it only for couples or persons expressing, to a competent national authority, their desire to be the parent(s) of the future child.


This is so patronising, please remove it. I mean, people going through all the hassle to get a child and you want to put them before a commission to say they really desire to be a parent? It's discriminating, too, because biological parents have no such requirement.

-------------------- Part III: “Mass Reproductive Human Cloning” --------------------

-G- DEFINING “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning” as an action of “Reproductive Human Cloning” in the aim to give birth intentionally to multiple cloned persons with almost similar genetic IDs. This definition is extended to the creation of multiples embryos, with almost similar genetic IDs, from (an) embryo(s), (a) stem cell(s) or (a) cell(s).
[/quote]

What effect does this have on cloned twins?

-H- ALARMED BY the fact that “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning” is a great danger to Human Diversity


Yep. So why do you think that this is a real danger? No nation would want to weaken their people by excessive cloning.

-5- BAN “Mass Reproduction Human Cloning”

Ah, action! But, unfortunately, on a point that is irrelevant (or becomes irrelevant by natural selection).

In short, I think this resolution needs a lot of rethinking, and rewriting. What do you want, and why should the whole UN do it? What are the advantages and disadvantages? What should be the really mandated action, and how does it fit in a proper category?

You're making it difficult for yourself here. Rights is human rights, banning is moral decency. It's best to split that up.


thanks a lot for all your comments

about "human rights" or "moral decency"
pesonnaly i don't care which one. i really think these categories are obsolete and silly as regulation can be obviously both about:
-human rights and moral decency
-global disarmamant and international security
-human rights and recreational drugs use and moral decency
-free trade and social justice
and so on

But i want to respect the rules, it's why i posted on the mods forum, and it appears it maybe "human rights" or "moral decency", but i will wait for more mods advice to know if i can keep it all in one, as i stated earlier in this thread

Cloning is cloning. There are no different kinds, just different uses.

thanks, i think you are right with "different uses"




Furthermore, I always appreciate a good first part of the resolution, where the author explains why the resolution is necessary, what legislation there is, what kind of problem we're dealing with, and why this is a UN matter. Right now, it's more or less hidden in the rest of the text.

i understand what you mean, but my objective was to divide the proposition into 3 parts to be more organized, more understandable and visually more easier to read


Right. So a lot of text just to say "this is nice, try it". I don't see why we should say this at UN level. Sure, one goal of any resolution should be awareness, encouragement and discussion on an issue, but there should also be an action.

ok, maybe we should encourages teams from differents Nations to publish their scientific works and to improve scientific exchange

but i don't really want to create a new UN administration


The first two points are nice, but with F, you're taking a wrong direction. In the NationStates world, apparently some nations are quite capable of doing cloning properly. Also, the technology will not stay new forever, while your resolution might be here for a long time.



But you're not forbidding it. And what about researching reproductive cloning scientifically? Would that fall under part I or part II?



Research does pose an undue risk, because the technology is unproven.

we have changed these by the following sentence proposed by _Myopia_, i like it:
"-2- STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that member nations implement regulations to prevent the use of reproductive human cloning procedures which pose an undue risk to the clone(s) health"


This is so patronising, please remove it. I mean, people going through all the hassle to get a child and you want to put them before a commission to say they really desire to be a parent? It's discriminating, too, because biological parents have no such requirement.

the paragraph only state they must desire", nothing else, it's not a commission, just an administration

but maybe you right, maybe "accredited medical center" is better

natural things are sometimes good, sometimes bad
=> it's not an argument
many nations used the same arguments than you to say that same-sex relashionship, IVf or stem cells are not natural, and then are bad
i really don't like this argument

This definition is extended to the creation of multiples embryos, with almost similar genetic IDs, from (an) embryo(s), (a) stem cell(s) or (a) cell(s).


What effect does this have on cloned twins?

we don't use anymore this sentence

Yep. So why do you think that this is a real danger? No nation would want to weaken their people by excessive cloning.

Ah, action! But, unfortunately, on a point that is irrelevant (or becomes irrelevant by natural selection).

yes, we want to prevent that, here are the preliminary clauses we uses in part III

-H- ALARMED by the fact that mass reproductive human cloning is a danger to human genetic diversity

-I- CONCERNED that mass production of genetically identical individuals could too easily lead to a failure to fully recognise each of these clones as a human being worthy of the same respect and consideration as any other human being



In short, I think this resolution needs a lot of rethinking, and rewriting. What do you want, and why should the whole UN do it? What are the advantages and disadvantages? What should be the really mandated action, and how does it fit in a proper category?

I'm kind of in the middle on this argument. While I find stem cell research exciting, I am drawn more to the argument that we should not mess in this arena. Can it help many people??? Yes, I do not dispute that. I do not even dispute that it would be a humoring argument to say "Governments could create CLONE armies!!!!!!" :p No, my reasons lie with my morals, which are somewhat unexpainable... so I will not even try. I think to be fair, if this topic comes to vote, I will abstain. Best of luck.
Spoon Savers

Groot Gouda, the point of requiring that there must be people who want to adopt the clones as kids is to make sure that clones aren't created without there being a home to take them in. Maybe it should be worded differently to clarify that the idea is to ensure that unwanted kids aren't created then abandoned rather than some kind of test of the parents' commitment.

You do bring up a further good point against part III. I'm thoroughly convinced this is not the appropriate way to try and tackle the issue.

Groot Gouda, the point of requiring that there must be people who want to adopt the clones as kids is to make sure that clones aren't created without there being a home to take them in. Maybe it should be worded differently to clarify that the idea is to ensure that unwanted kids aren't created then abandoned rather than some kind of test of the parents' commitment.

It shouldn't be there anyway. Including such a thing would force UN nations to do it for biological parents as well, because otherwise it's discrimination. If parents want a clone, that's enough to test whether they want a child. Whatever laws apply in the country are good enough, there's no need to regulate this as UN level.

It shouldn't be there anyway. Including such a thing would force UN nations to do it for biological parents as well, because otherwise it's discrimination. If parents want a clone, that's enough to test whether they want a child. Whatever laws apply in the country are good enough, there's no need to regulate this as UN level.

_Myopia_, Groot Gouda, are ok to use instead:

"accredited medical center" or something similar

about "human rights" or "moral decency"
pesonnaly i don't care which one. i really think these categories are obsolete and silly as regulation can be obviously both about:
-human rights and moral decency
-global disarmamant and international security
-human rights and recreational drugs use and moral decency
-free trade and social justice
and so on

But i want to respect the rules, it's why i posted on the mods forum, and it appears it maybe "human rights" or "moral decency", but i will wait for more mods advice to know if i can keep it all in one, as i stated earlier in this thread

It looks like you don't understand the categories and what they are about. That should be basic knowledge of any resolution writer. While going on the name, it might look similar, the differences have been stated clearly. Human rights increase civil liberties, moral decency decreases them. It can't be both, or you resolution wouldn't have any effect. Same kind of thing for other countries. That really ought not to be a discussion point. Rather, I'd expect a resolution author to come up with one or two categories and ask the people here where it'd fit best, preferably with arguments for and against each case.

I really don't know why you feel it should be held together if it's better to take it apart. Better two good resolutions than one disappointing one, surely?

i understand what you mean, but my objective was to divide the proposition into 3 parts to be more organized, more understandable and visually more easier to read

I suspected you did, but speaking for myself here, it isn't clear. Rather, it makes it difficult to see what the effect of the resolution are, and it also make it look a bit as if you put three resolutions together (which also explains the category problem)

ok, maybe we should encourages teams from differents Nations to publish their scientific works and to improve scientific exchange

but i don't really want to create a new UN administration

Good, because it'd be a forth part in this resolution ;) . But you do realise that on this point alone, it's possible to write a resolution? And that's what's going wrong with this resolution, because each part could be a resolution.

we have changed these by the following sentence proposed by _Myopia_, i like it:
"-2- STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that member nations implement regulations to prevent the use of reproductive human cloning procedures which pose an undue risk to the clone(s) health"

Nice. Not something specific for cloning of course; any medical treatment should not pose undue risk to a patient's health.

the paragraph only state they must desire", nothing else, it's not a commission, just an administration

but maybe you right, maybe "accredited medical center" is better

Nononono, you don't understand. Here's what I quoted (I was going from your draft on page one, assuming that was the latest)

-4- REQUIRES all the Nations where “Reproductive Human Cloning” is legal, to allow it only for couples or persons expressing, to a competent national authority, their desire to be the parent(s) of the future child.

It requires that a nation must check whether the parent(s) really want to have that child. That is not up to a government to decide. Why can't you simply assume that people who want to have a cloned baby want to be the parents of the child, just as you assume that two people having sex to have a baby want to be a parent? If you don't, you're discriminating and that is not allowed.

natural things are sometimes good, sometimes bad
=> it's not an argument
many nations used the same arguments than you to say that same-sex relashionship, IVf or stem cells are not natural, and then are bad
i really don't like this argument

Good, since I never made that argument. In fact, I think that my nation is more liberal on this issue than yours, not checking parents whether they desire to be a parent enough to allow them to have a child.

yes, we want to prevent that, here are the preliminary clauses we uses in part III

-H- ALARMED by the fact that mass reproductive human cloning is a danger to human genetic diversity

-I- CONCERNED that mass production of genetically identical individuals could too easily lead to a failure to fully recognise each of these clones as a human being worthy of the same respect and consideration as any other human being

yes, but why is it so dangerous that you want it outlawed throughout the UN knowing that is doesn't effect non-UN nations? It's a paper tiger, but it doesn't have the effect you want it to have. Besides, again my question: why should the UN bother? What validates the fact that you want this forced onto the whole UN, rather than let this whole issue be decided on a national level?

It shouldn't be there anyway. Including such a thing would force UN nations to do it for biological parents as well, because otherwise it's discrimination. If parents want a clone, that's enough to test whether they want a child. Whatever laws apply in the country are good enough, there's no need to regulate this as UN level.

No you misunderstand. It's a protection against people creating clones with intentions other than to raise them as their child.

There's no reason in theory why a clone shouldn't be adopted by someone other than their DNA donor (in fact, psychologically, there might be a case for saying they'd be better off not being raised by what is in effect a twin born many years earlier, because of the fallacies about genetic determinism which are commonly believed, at least in RL). Therefore, it must be made possible to create a clone without the source of the DNA automatically becoming the guardian of the child - this clause attempts to ensure that if the DNA donor isn't going to be the parent, someone else will be.

The clause has been edited, as has most of the text, since the version you critiqued, and is probably slightly clearer now:

-4- REQUIRES all the Nations where reproductive human cloning is legal, to allow it only where the donors of the biological materials used give their consent and where a person or persons have expressed to a competent governmental authority their desire to adopt any and all children that are to be created

It looks like you don't understand the categories and what they are about. That should be basic knowledge of any resolution writer. While going on the name, it might look similar, the differences have been stated clearly. Human rights increase civil liberties, moral decency decreases them. It can't be both, or you resolution wouldn't have any effect. Same kind of thing for other countries. That really ought not to be a discussion point. Rather, I'd expect a resolution author to come up with one or two categories and ask the people here where it'd fit best, preferably with arguments for and against each case.

this draft is all about "regulation", it means:
- declaring some rights
- encouraging some actions
- preventing from some risks, dangers, excess and side effects
- establishing some limits

i'm pretty sure that more and more serious NSUN propositions, exactly as in real life, will be about regulation

i didn't update the draft for long, sorry

as Groot Gouda suggered, maybe it's a good idea to delete -F- (but not a big deal for me)

________________________________
Regulation of Human Cloning

Category:
Strength:

The United Nations,

-A- FULLY AWARE that there are different kinds of human cloning and that they must be dealt with separately

Part I: “Therapeutic Human Cloning”

-B- DEFINING
- "Diploid" as: the state of a cell or nucleus in which there are two of each type of chromosome present (human body cells are normally diploid, with 46 chromosomes)
- "Therapeutic Human Cloning" as: the transfer of a diploid human cell nucleus into a denucleated egg, with the aim of creating an embryo with an identical nuclear genome to an existing human, so that the resulting stem cells may be harvested during the first 14 days of development for subsequent culture amplification and use in medical procedures. This definition is extended to the creation of an embryo from any diploid cell from an existing human for the same purpose and to similar procedures where the genome is intentionally altered.

-C- CONVINCED that therapeutic human cloning's potential for use in stem cell therapies opens up major opportunities to improve the health and happiness of human beings

-1- STRONGLY URGES all Nations to allow therapeutic human cloning and research into it, and to regulate it carefully to ensure that biological materials are not used without donors’ consent and that responsible and ethical standards are adhered to, particularly regarding the well-being of patients and regarding culture amplification of nerve cells - it shall be noted that this endorsement does not extend to procedures similar to therapeutic human cloning where the stem cells are harvested after more than 14 days development

Part II: “Reproductive Human Cloning”

-D- DEFINING "Reproductive Human Cloning" as: the creation of a human embryo with the intention of allowing it to develop for more than 2 weeks, by transfer of a human cell nucleus into a denucleated egg, with the aim of creating a new individual with an identical nuclear genome to an existing human. In this resolution "reproductive human cloning" also includes stimulating cell(s) from an existing human to develop into a new embryo for the same purpose, and to similar cloning procedures where the genome is altered

-E- RECALLING that resolution 56 "BioRights Declaration" grants cloned and genetically engineered persons the same rights as other persons

-F- HAVING OBSERVED the deformities and diseases suffered by many cloned animals, apparently due to shortcomings in current cloning technologies in many nations where the technologies are relatively new

-2- STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that member nations implement regulations to prevent the use of reproductive human cloning procedures which pose an undue risk to the clone(s) health

-3- REQUIRES all the Nations where reproductive human cloning is legal, to allow it only where the donors of the biological materials used give their consent and where a person or persons have expressed to a competent governmental authority their desire to adopt any and all children that are to be created

Part III: “Mass Reproductive Human Cloning”

-G- DEFINING "Mass Reproductive Human Cloning" as an action of reproductive human cloning performed with the intent to give birth to 5 or more persons cloned from the same individual

-H- ALARMED by the fact that mass reproductive human cloning is a danger to human genetic diversity

-I- CONCERNED that mass production of genetically identical individuals could too easily lead to a failure to fully recognise each of these clones as a human being worthy of the same respect and consideration as any other human being

-4- BANS mass reproductive human cloning
___________________________________

-I- CONCERNED that mass production of genetically identical individuals could too easily lead to a failure to fully recognise each of these clones as a human being worthy of the same respect and consideration as any other human being


We are concerned about this part as IVF can mass produce fetus from a single cell thus geneticly identical individuals are being produced by this today.. So why be concerned here of the process simply if it done as cloning when you are not concerned with it in IVF.. Which again has proven to be as negative as possibly human cloning might be and it's already being done and proven to have defects in the process yet you are not banning it.

We have found this link that was of interest on the subject of cloning...

http://author.senescence.info/thoughts/cloning.html

Also this site may show that cloning may not be as bad as we think it is due to all the real world ideas on it... As this one shows that identical twins in one test out lived fraternal twins...

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/001357.html

We are concerned about this part as IVF can mass produce fetus from a single cell thus geneticly identical individuals are being produced by this today.. So why be concerned here of the process simply if it done as cloning when you are not concerned with it in IVF.. Which again has proven to be as negative as possibly human cloning might be and it's already being done and proven to have defects in the process yet you are not banning it.


you are right it's why -G- should be "from the same individual or the same embryo"
=>that will cover mass production from IVF