NationStates Jolt Archive

This proposal hereby calls for the repeal of United Nation Resolution #56, BioRights Declaration, passed on Thursday, 6th of May, 2004.

NOTING that cloned and genetically engineered persons, in this definition, cannot be proved as human, for animal cloning and mutation exists in the scientific world as well as human altering.

REALIZING that the writer obviously had good intensions, however, the question of whether or not they should be granted rights is based on whether or not they are genetically engineered, NOT, if they are sentient.

IF these beings are not sentient creatures, we are only crippling ourselves useful tools. If they are, who is to say a mass produced product may recieve the rights of a citizen. It is the nation's responsibility, not the United Nations', to guard and protect the welfare of it's citizens, and to define who is a citizen of that nation.

This proposal calls for the repeal of the BioRights Declaration.

Resolution #56 is probably my favorite one-line resolution. I would be quite saddened if it were repealed

For reference:

Bio Rights Declaration
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

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.

This proposal hereby calls for the repeal of United Nation Resolution #56, BioRights Declaration, passed on Thursday, 6th of May, 2004.

Seriously, longer does not necessarily equal better. You can do more with less in this sentence. Stating "This proposal hereby calls for the repeal of Resolution #56: BioRights Declaration" is enough.

NOTING that cloned and genetically engineered persons, in this definition, cannot be proved as human,

Why not? They have the DNA of a homosapient and show all the signs of life. I fail to see how that means they should have any less rights.

for animal cloning and mutation exists in the scientific world as well as human altering.

Are cloned animals any less worthy than the original animals?

Further, let's just say that the cloning process mutates the person. Is he still sentient? Probably. So why shouldn't he be treated as an equal?

REALIZING that the writer obviously had good intensions,

Damn good intentions

however, the question of whether or not they should be granted rights is based on whether or not they are genetically engineered, NOT, if they are sentient.

POINT at the line where it says genetic engineered. C'mon, you can do this...no you can't because it ISN'T THERE. It talks about cloning. It talks about HUMAN clones. It doesn't say genetically engineered humans, it says clones.

IF these beings are not sentient creatures, we are only crippling ourselves useful tools.

Whatever

If they are, who is to say a mass produced product may recieve the rights of a citizen.

WE DO! Because a mass produced product that's a human being is STILL a human being. It deserves every single right that a human being does.

It is the nation's responsibility, not the United Nations', to guard and protect the welfare of it's citizens,

Nay

and to define who is a citizen of that nation.

Bull

This proposal calls for the repeal of the BioRights Declaration.

You repeated yourself?

Oh - and mixing essay form with proposal form is not a good idea.

Rewrite:

CALLING for the repeal of Resolution #56: BioRights Declaration

NOTING that cloned and genetically engineered persons, in this definition, cannot be proved as human, for animal cloning and mutation exists in the scientific world as well as human altering.

REALIZING that the writer obviously had good intensions

NOTING that this resolution makes the decision of whether or not they should be granted rights is based on whether or not they are genetically engineered, NOT, if they are sentient.

STATING that if these beings are not sentient creatures, we are only crippling ourselves useful tools.

BELIEVING that if they are sentient, who is to say a mass produced product may recieve the rights of a citizen.

CLAIMING that it is the nation's responsibility, not the United Nations', to guard and protect the welfare of it's citizens, and to define who is a citizen of that nation.

The resolution does mention genetically engineered, FL.

Well ain't I losing it

Krioval stands against this repeal effort. Eugenics programs have never met with approval in Krioval. The variety of genomic differences between individuals of the same species is sufficient to create worry if this repeal were to pass. How would one determine whether an individual is genetically modified due to nature or science? Further, should this repeal pass, it is undoubtedly the case that some members of the United Nations will attempt to restrict rights of those determined to be genetically "incorrect". Such a development would make it difficult for even genetically unmodified Kriovalians to travel abroad to United Nations member states, if only because our rate of genetic modification is so high, relative to most other nations. Please think of the innocent lives that would be put at risk by such a repeal.

Serph Dekker
Chief Paladin
Republic of Krioval

IF these beings are not sentient creatures, we are only crippling ourselves useful tools. If they are, who is to say a mass produced product may recieve the rights of a citizen. It is the nation's responsibility, not the United Nations', to guard and protect the welfare of it's citizens, and to define who is a citizen of that nation.

Have you by any chance watched The Island recently? (I did, good movie). All this talk of "tools" and "mass produced product" sounds like it.

Normal breeding is just as much mass production as cloning. Have you looked at the world birth rate lately. I won't support a repeal of this resolution because it's obvious clones need protection just by what you have said in your repeal text.

The government of St Edmund opposes this repeal: Although we disagree with certain other active members of the UN about just which 'Human Rights' are fundamental enough to be any of the UN's business, rather than that of the separate national governments, we do think that whatever rights are recognised at either of those levels should generally* be applied to all of the sapient beings who are within the relevant jurisdiction...

__________________________________________________________
(* unless something about the actual nature of those beings makes a particular right obviously inappropriate for biological or psychological reasons...)

Have you by any chance watched The Island recently? (I did, good movie). All this talk of "tools" and "mass produced product" sounds like it.

Normal breeding is just as much mass production as cloning. Have you looked at the world birth rate lately. I won't support a repeal of this resolution because it's obvious clones need protection just by what you have said in your repeal text.
Ditto, including the stuff about The Island.

The only circumstance I can see where such a restriction on the definition of human would apply is where one creates a person who never really lived... especially without a brain. But then they aren't really a full human.

And besides, why wouldn't you include "genetically engineered" people? Removing this or clones gets dangerously close to reinstating slavery... slippery slope, but you don't want to start classifying humans again.

NOTING that cloned and genetically engineered persons, in this definition, cannot be proved as human, for animal cloning and mutation exists in the scientific world as well as human altering..


As a 14th generation human clone I would like to know how you are going to prove that I am not equal to you... or that my ancestors also clones were not equal to you...

Thus we will never support this repeal and let you open the door to discrimination against our citizens as well as the citizens of other nations who are themselves like us cloned.


Zarta Warden
Ambassador UN Zeldon
14th Generation Clone
House of Warden

OCC: There are some 8,000,000 clones living in the real world today. As TWINS are considered clones of each other.. Trying to find the article found some time back when this issue of clones came up before which gave this out.. but can never find things when one needs them.... I hate computers...