NationStates Jolt Archive

How do we repeal the Stem Cell Resolution? I believe we could have a strong case because the UN 1. not decide what countries do in issues like stem cell research and 2. stem cell research is just wrong. i have read other treads about this and i believe this is a topic that needs to be brought up... what do you guys think?

How do we repeal the Stem Cell Resolution? I believe we could have a strong case because the UN 1. not decide what countries do in issues like stem cell research and 2. stem cell research is just wrong. i have read other treads about this and i believe this is a topic that needs to be brought up... what do you guys think?
Stem cell research is a tricky one and has its down sides. But we must not be blind to the technology as the upsides of the research can be tremendious to improve the quality of life for a great number of People.

As for your arguement that we should repeal simply because 1. the resolution has a strong case for repealing, yet you do not state what that is?
And 2, Because its "JUST WRONG"? That is a statement of pure idiocy and is up there with the following arguements against......

1, Because i say so....
2, Because My daddy is bigger than yours.....
3, Because jesus is crying......

If you have a valid arguement to repeal i suggest you make it and be sure to flesh out the reasons.

Perhaps the esteemed representative of Mexincanino's argument could be better summarized in two points:

Except in the case of international commerce or areas of global impact such as environmental concerns, the NSUN has no business regulating industries within an individual NationState.
Some nations regard stem-cell research as ethically wrong and seek to ban or at least seriously regulate and limit it.


Thus, the Stem Cell Resolution should be repealed, as it is an assult upon national sovereignity and the ethical principles of individual NationStates.

No need to berate him, VL. He's only been playing for a few hours at most.

Mexincanino: As VL said, saying something is 'just wrong' isn't considered a strong argument. Logical examples are usually considered stronger than appeals to emotion. I would suggest you take a bit of time to think about exactly why you think Stem Cell Research is wrong.

No need to berate him, VL. He's only been playing for a few hours at most.

Mexincanino: As VL said, saying something is 'just wrong' isn't considered a strong argument. Logical examples are usually considered stronger than appeals to emotion. I would suggest you take a bit of time to think about exactly why you think Stem Cell Research is wrong.
Apologies if my comments appear harsh. However, I stand by the point i was making. kudos to you for having a more subtle style.

OOC. Just coz reasons really get on my nerves. :D

Technology might be another argument against, as Cobdenia hasn't even discovered DNA yet. However, it is only an Urging Resolution; so it's not a major concern

I drafted a much better resolution sometime ago for the treatment of the human genome which would probably suffice....

After a bit of gravedigging here it is - http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=311899

I was always rather proud of that draft - it was my first :)

Stem cell research is a tricky one and has its down sides. But we must not be blind to the technology as the upsides of the research can be tremendious to improve the quality of life for a great number of People.

As for your arguement that we should repeal simply because 1. the resolution has a strong case for repealing, yet you do not state what that is?
And 2, Because its "JUST WRONG"? That is a statement of pure idiocy and is up there with the following arguements against......

1, Because i say so....
2, Because My daddy is bigger than yours.....
3, Because jesus is crying......

If you have a valid arguement to repeal i suggest you make it and be sure to flesh out the reasons.

Just because wasnt my reason...i was rushed when i wrote that so if/when i wrote a repeal proposal i would tell why it was wrong. i was gonna work on the ideas of it but i was just asking if anyone thought i would have a legitimate case...

Just because wasnt my reason...i was rushed when i wrote that so if/when i wrote a repeal proposal i would tell why it was wrong. i was gonna work on the ideas of it but i was just asking if anyone thought i would have a legitimate case...
It's hard to tell without looking at your draft although I doubt we would support it.

Rose,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Just to put this in a solid framework:

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong

The use of Stem Cells is an amazing new breakthrough in the fields of science and medicine. Scientists know that these cells, harvested from human embryos, could eradicate many diseases, including Cancer, Type 1 Diabetes, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's. But while the list of diseases that Stem Cells could cure gets longer and longer, the amount of what little funding is present continues to dwindle. I admit, some people do insist that harvesting something from a human as if it was an experiment is immoral, but allowing millions of people to die each day is much worse. This is the best chance we have at beating these diseases. The one thing standing in the way of this is funding. Stem Cell Research is very costly, and without proper funding, this plane will never take off the ground. In this proposal, I ask that funding be provided to the scientists of all UN member nations, if they so desire to research Stem Cells and their benefits. I urge my fellow UN members to stand up to these diseases, and fund Stem Cell Research.

My observations:
I personally think this is the wrong category. Although I accept there is no basic science category, and I understand freedom of research as a human right, I'm not sure that making governments allocate funds towards specific scientific research is really HR material. That said, I don't think there's really anything for a repeal in that.
Stealing someone else's argument from another thread, if all scientists in your nation believe that stem cell research is murder, then you need not worry about them doing anything, because they obviously it is only 'if they so desire to research'. If, however, some scientists in your nation do want to, then not allowing them is a suppression of their right to research.
However, I accept that there are times we do suppress their right to research: on biological weaponry, for example.
All you're asked to do is provide funding. You don't have to do anything else, such as allow them to use government facilities. In fact, it might even be legal, although I doubt it, to outlaw stem cell research. You can still fund it.
No amount is set, so I'm not sure who chooses how much you pay. Maybe a few coppers you find down the back of the couch would suffice?

This is one of those resolutions that I can understand objections to, but which doesn't really do much. I'd support a repeal, but I'd also be willing to support a replacement. Until I see a draft of either, I'm thinking there are more pressing concerns.

You could use mine as a starting point for a replacement if you want.

You could use mine as a starting point for a replacement if you want.

My problem is I don't see enough meat in the original resolution. That, and it's not an issue I feel strongly about it.

I think someone should make that an issue for every individual country to decide. Its not right to make a religous statement in a world with many beliefs.

I think someone should make that an issue for every individual country to decide. Its not right to make a religous statement in a world with many beliefs.

This isn't a religious statement. If a scientist opposes Stem Cell research for religious reasons, then they won't do it, will they?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Freedom of Science actually render this rather redundant?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Freedom of Science actually render this rather redundant?
Freedom of Science lets scientists research what they want. Stem cell research urges governments to fund a specific part of science. Different effects.

I will gladly support a repeal of the resolution in question with the proviso that the reasoning is not based on spiritual angst. Stem cell research is a good thing, but it's not a viable avenue of research for all nations. Ecopoeia, for instance, cannot afford to waste time on semi-speculative science when we have far more pressing issues to deal with.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN