NationStates Jolt Archive

outdated version, please see other version below.

Illegal, contradiction

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7680070&postcount=83

Also, there are nations in NS that are populated entirely by clones, and thus you'll be eradicating them according to your proposal, and therefore be in contravention of numerous anti-genocide and other nasty things conventions.

Please, think if the clones

If your proposal addressed the issue raised at the end of the first paragraph, it would indeed have laudible aims. However, we cannot see how this gross infringment of the rights of the individual would achieve that, since it has nothing to say about the sale of humans on the open market. Such would in any case be tantamount to slavery, and thus illegal under resolution #6.

In an age when scientific advancements come by the day, there are occasions when lines must be drawn to protect the sanctity and dignity of human life.

Right away this is going to cause a problem. Not only does Krioval not subscribe to foreign moralizations being thrust upon her citizens, but enshrining platitudes in UN resolutions is especially grating. The little essay at the beginning of this proposal, therefore, is not going to help gain support except by those representatives who already agree with your views.

With the adoption of this resolution, the United Nations, and all member states and regions, shall adopt and affirm the following:

-1- No reproductive materials, which are naturally used to create new life inside the human body, shall be harvested for the sole purpose of medical research.

Technically, my cells count as "used to create new life inside the human body" - they divide. While a stretch, a reasonable person might come to the conclusion that the UN is attempting to ban all medical research should this proposal become a passed resolution. Not good.

-2- No scientist, nor any scientific lab or research facility, shall be allowed to accept donations of genetic materials for the explicit purpose of embryo creation for use in stem cell research.

I don't agree with it, but the clause is fine from a technical standpoint.

-3- All U.N. nations shall ban sale, transportation, or purchase of human reproductive materials for any purpose other than fertility treatment.

Same as above, though I would wonder why it is fine to create an embryo that *may* be used to later "create" human life - the spirit of this resolution seems to be that any use of "reproductive materials" or "genetic materials" should be for a purpose that is directly linked to "creating new life" - not potentially doing so.

Ambassador Jevo Telovar-kan
Free Lands of Krioval

OOC EDIT: Does this proposal contradict "Stem Cell Research Funding"?

OOC EDIT-to-the-second-power: Cobdenia beat me to it.

a, a couple quick remarks, firstly, it is not a contradiction, becuase #82 only encourages funding, not require it. In either case, this does not ban funding for stem cell research, or the research itself.

The other two remarks, I am more than willing to consider changes in the language, so please post your suggestions, no promises, but I will try to make it work.

I'm sorry, but we won't be supporting any legislation that is anti-scientific in it's wording. This entire proposal is one huge rant about religious application of science, and we'll fight against it. Religion is to be kept seperate from scientific research- that is our staunch opinion.

If you want to outlaw it in your own nation, feel free. Just keep your moralistic preaching away from our borders.

Rang Erman
Advisor
Ambassador Pro Tempore

You will need to keep this resolution in mind and make sure yours doesn't contradict or duplicate it.

Freedom of Scientific Research (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11421331&postcount=167)

As I read your proposal now, it may have trouble with clause 5 of FOSR. Perhaps if you changed yours from a mandating to an urging document, it would both get around that without any problems, and make the overall proposal more palatable to the majority of voters. As written, I can see you having problems getting this past the soverignty supporters, scientific freedom supporters, and the civil rights supporters (if people want to sell their eggs or sperm for whatever, that is their business). Just to mention a few.

I must agree with Mr. Erman. This is, for some, a delicate issue, but there is nothing preventing Enrir from applying such legislation within its own borders. Do not attempt to force your highly controversial views onto the rest of us.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Ironically it's very much in the news these days. Stem Cell Research Scientists' Group Drafts New Ethics Guidelines. (http://www.nysrighttolife.org/news/02022007/stem_cell_research_scientists.htm)

"They also require explicit consent from anyone who donates human eggs for research but didn't reach a consensus on whether women should be paid. Critics say that paying women leads to exploitation, especially of poor women."

Personally I would pick and choose which fights to fight and which might be winnable. Banning donation might be an impossible task, banning paying for donation under the basis that it promotes the exploitation of poor women is sure to please the general fluffy; after all who wants to exploit poor women?

Personally I would pick and choose which fights to fight and which might be winnable. Banning donation might be an impossible task, banning paying for donation under the basis that it promotes the exploitation of poor women is sure to please the general fluffy; after all who wants to exploit poor women?See, now what's exactly the difference between the exploitation of women for embryos (consential or not), and the exploitation of women for prostitution (again, consential or not)?

They can both be painted with the same broad brush of bodily self-determination. Both involve a donation (of varying amounts, but meh). Why should one entitle to payment, whereas the other does not?

I don't especially want to go off on a tangent about prostitution, it was just the obvious example I could think of when you brought up exploitation of women.

Why would it be exploitation of only women?

You need genetic material from each of the sexes to make embryos. So why would only poor women who sell their eggs be tagged as exploited, and not poor men who sell their semen? That reeks of double standards to me.

Personally, I feel if a male or female wants to be paid in return for giving up their genetic material, then that is up to them.

"Genetic Harvesting Ban" -- Second Draft 02/02/07

In an age when scientific advancements come by the day, there are occasions when lines must be drawn to protect the dignity of human life. The promises and expectations of scientists should not be allowed to infringe upon the rights of humans to be treated as living beings. In times where ethical questions must be asked, and decisions made, the nations of our world must decide to favor life, and to oppose practices which take life in the name of science.

In the quest to protect the dignity of life, the United Nations shall adopt this resolution to henceforth prohibit the process of harvesting reproductive materials for the purposes of stem cell research. It is one thing, perhaps, to allow the use of embryos destined for destruction to be used for scientific research, it is another entirely to harvest materials from the human body to create embryos for the sole purposes of such research.

With the adoption of this resolution, the United Nations, and all member states and regions, shall adopt and affirm the following:

-1- No reproductive materials, which are naturally used to create new life inside the human body, shall be harvested for the sole purpose of medical research.

a. For the purposes of this resolution, “reproductive materials” shall be defined as human egg and sperm cells.

-2- No scientist, nor any scientific lab or research facility, shall be allowed to accept donations of genetic materials for the explicit purpose of embryo creation for use in stem cell research.

a. The above article shall not apply to any current or future forms of stem cell research that do not involve the destruction of human embryos.

-3- All U.N. nations shall ban sale, transportation, or purchase of human reproductive materials for any purpose other than fertility treatment.

a. The above article shall not apply to any current or future forms of stem cell research that do not involve the destruction of human embryos.

-4- This resolution shall place no limitations on embryonic stem cell research that uses leftover embryos from fertility treatment.

-5- In accordance with this resolution, all member U.N. nations shall reaffirm their commitment to the following:

a. The support of stem cell research that does not involve destruction of human embryos.

b. The development of a process that allows scientists to retrieve embryonic stem cells without destruction of the embryo.

c. The adoption of stored embryos by willing parents.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
let me know if there are still problems, and if so, what I can dod to fix them.

I don't normally engage in cut-and-critique, but since you didn't really listen to anyone else, I'm going to right ahead and do it.

I'll tell you what you can cut and what you can keep.

"Genetic Harvesting Ban" -- Second Draft 02/02/07

In an age when scientific advancements come by the day, there are occasions when lines must be drawn to protect the dignity of human life. The promises and expectations of scientists should not be allowed to infringe upon the rights of humans to be treated as living beings. In times where ethical questions must be asked, and decisions made, the nations of our world must decide to favor life, and to oppose practices which take life in the name of science.

Cut this whole part. Why? Because it's completely unnecessary moralistic tripe and has no place in the scientific world.

In the quest to protect the dignity of life, the United Nations shall adopt this resolution to henceforth prohibit the process of harvesting reproductive materials for the purposes of stem cell research. It is one thing, perhaps, to allow the use of embryos destined for destruction to be used for scientific research, it is another entirely to harvest materials from the human body to create embryos for the sole purposes of such research.

No. It should not be the job of the UN to tell nations what they can and cannot do in regard to scientific experimentation when life in not endagered by it. This is not the case with your proposal.

With the adoption of this resolution, the United Nations, and all member states and regions, shall adopt and affirm the following:

-1- No reproductive materials, which are naturally used to create new life inside the human body, shall be harvested for the sole purpose of medical research.

No. cut this part.

a. For the purposes of this resolution, “reproductive materials” shall be defined as human egg and sperm cells.

-2- No scientist, nor any scientific lab or research facility, shall be allowed to accept donations of genetic materials for the explicit purpose of embryo creation for use in stem cell research.

Cut this part, too.

a. The above article shall not apply to any current or future forms of stem cell research that do not involve the destruction of human embryos.

Pointless. Nations and religious authorities need to decide for themselves how to treat human embryos, not have the UN put a heavy hand down on behalf of some radical nations.

-3- All U.N. nations shall ban sale, transportation, or purchase of human reproductive materials for any purpose other than fertility treatment.


a. The above article shall not apply to any current or future forms of stem cell research that do not involve the destruction of human embryos.

Snip these two clauses.

-4- This resolution shall place no limitations on embryonic stem cell research that uses leftover embryos from fertility treatment.

I call bullshit. So, it's not okay to use human embryos for stem cell research, unless noone uses them? Right.

-5- In accordance with this resolution, all member U.N. nations shall reaffirm their commitment to the following:

a. The support of stem cell research that does not involve destruction of human embryos.

b. The development of a process that allows scientists to retrieve embryonic stem cells without destruction of the embryo.

c. The adoption of stored embryos by willing parents.

No. My nation does not "reaffirm" anything by the UN's whim. We follow the enlightened rule of the Emperor, and we don't answer to your morality.


I would suggest, one ambassador to another, that you drop this entire endeavor before you get piled on further.

[b]Rang Erman
Advisor
Ambassador Pro Tempore[/i]

Why would it be exploitation of only women?
True.

with all due respect, you did not engage in cut and critique - you engaged in cut and swear.

btw, we have had resolutions on here (both that have passed and failed) that deal with gay marriage, abortion, and prostitution, so don't tell me it it not the place for discussions about morals.

now that that rant is over, allow me to explain the clause about left over embryos from fertility treatment. This allows use to come of embryos that would otherwise be thrown out, while forbidding the creation of new embryos that would just be destroyed for their stem cells, as you noticed, I have included parts that will exclude forms of embrotic stem cell research that do not destroy the embryos. I can't see what is unreasonable about that, perhaps you could elaborate.

Is there anyone here who can honestly tell me that they see no problem with taking two types of genetic material, that would naturally join inside the female body to produce a fetus, that would later become a living, breathing, thinking human with its own unique DNA and personality, and instead taking the said material, mixing it in a lab to produce an embryo, letting it grow for five days, and then destroying it for its stem cells? AND, can that person provide a decent explanation of their view?

There are alternatives to Embryonic Stem cell research, including (but not limited to) andipose stem cells and olfactory stem cells, the later of which shows a good deal of promise, particularly beacuse, not only do they appear to have the same qualities as embryonic stem cells, but they can be taken directly from the patient, resulting in a much lower risk of rejection. Better yet, you don't have to destroy anything to get them.

with all due respect, you did not engage in cut and critique - you engaged in cut and swear.

btw, we have had resolutions on here (both that have passed and failed) that deal with gay marriage, abortion, and prostitution, so don't tell me it it not the place for discussions about morals.

now that that rant is over, allow me to explain the clause about left over embryos from fertility treatment. This allows use to come of embryos that would otherwise be thrown out, while forbidding the creation of new embryos that would just be destroyed for their stem cells, as you noticed, I have included parts that will exclude forms of embrotic stem cell research that do not destroy the embryos. I can't see what is unreasonable about that, perhaps you could elaborate.

Is there anyone here who can honestly tell me that they see no problem with taking two types of genetic material, that would naturally join inside the female body to produce a fetus, that would later become a living, breathing, thinking human with its own unique DNA and personality, and instead taking the said material, mixing it in a lab to produce an embryo, letting it grow for five days, and then destroying it for its stem cells? AND, can that person provide a decent explanation of their view?

There are alternatives to Embryonic Stem cell research, including (but not limited to) andipose stem cells and olfactory stem cells, the later of which shows a good deal of promise, particularly beacuse, not only do they appear to have the same qualities as embryonic stem cells, but they can be taken directly from the patient, resulting in a much lower risk of rejection. Better yet, you don't have to destroy anything to get them.


This is most definitely about morality. I don't care that the UN has passed other human rights proposals- what I do care about is that this proposal is morality masquerading as science. You are simply disguising a moral objection to embryonic stem cell research with scientific terminology. It's interesting that you would bring up other morality issues- the Abortion Legality Convention actually left it up to member states to decide the legality of abortion in their own nation. "Gay Rights" was repealed. Out of the three moral situations you listed, only prostitution is unequivocally legal, per "Sex Industry Worker Act."

My nation is a member of the National Sovereignty Organization, a group of UN nations that supports national sovereignty in UN affairs. We strongly support the right of individual nations to decide for themselves how they run their country- especially in terms of morality. What is correct for Enrir is not correct for Allech-Atreus. That is the basis of our objection.

Rang Erman
Advisor
Ambassador Pro Tempore

No reproductive materials, which are naturally used to create new life inside the human body, shall be harvested for the sole purpose of medical research.

Fine. They will be harvested for the dual purposes of medical research and making shiploads of money. Moving right along...

No scientist, nor any scientific lab or research facility, shall be allowed to accept donations of genetic materials for the explicit purpose of embryo creation for use in stem cell research.

Fine. We'll just be all hush-hush about it. That's really the point, is it not? To demonize research based on your personal morality and that of your government?

This resolution shall place no limitations on embryonic stem cell research that uses leftover embryos from fertility treatment.

I call hypocrisy. As was asked earlier, why is it acceptable to create "extra" embryos in the first place? I feel that a better argument might be to ban fertility treatments that create more than one embryo per fertilization attempt, if the goal is to protect those precious, precious embryos. But that's not really the main point, now is it?

...shall reaffirm their commitment to the following...

It's not easy to reaffirm something that was never affirmed to begin with.

let me know if there are still problems, and if so, what I can dod to fix them.

You can delete this abomination and never try to push it forward again. Not only is it filled with the most irritating levels of sanctimony and hypocrisy, but it contradicts several earlier resolutions that guarantee the very freedoms your proposal assails.

Scientific Director Teresa Vartek-kari
Free Lands of Krioval

ok, well lets start with the moraility comment.

Yes, it does have something to do with morality, but that does not dismiss the point that there are alternatives to embryonic stem cell research. There may even soon be ways to get embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo, hence some of the changes to the draft.

and Krioval, about those resolutions you talk about, please present evidenc.

now I have a question for both of you, where do you personally stand on this issue, anyway? And perhaps an explanation of where you stand too. This thread is for discussion about the draft, and it is for those who have something to CONTRIBUTE to the discussion, complaining about how this proposal has morality is not doing that. If you want to oppose this resolution, fine, do so once/if it becomes a resolution. If you want to present arguements as to why scientists should be allowed to grow embryos and harvest their stem cells like corn, then please, present facts and evidence like I have.

oh, btw, yes, resolutions involving morality have failed, or been repealed, but there has been discussion about moral issues on this board, and a resolution about this type of scientific research is perfectly acceptable.

one last thing, Allech-Atreus - I see you also voted against the Nuclear Responsibility resolution, which I can agree with you on. I also support soverienty on many issues, but there are some issues where I beleive there must be action by the U.N. - that includes keeping up the dignity and respect for life. Embryos are not corn, nor should they be treated as such.

Ironically it's very much in the news these days. Stem Cell Research Scientists' Group Drafts New Ethics Guidelines. (http://www.nysrighttolife.org/news/02022007/stem_cell_research_scientists.htm)

"They also require explicit consent from anyone who donates human eggs for research but didn't reach a consensus on whether women should be paid. Critics say that paying women leads to exploitation, especially of poor women."

Personally I would pick and choose which fights to fight and which might be winnable. Banning donation might be an impossible task, banning paying for donation under the basis that it promotes the exploitation of poor women is sure to please the general fluffy; after all who wants to exploit poor women?

a respectable view, but I will choose to fight which battle need to be fought, win or loose.

ok, well lets start with the moraility comment.

Yes, it does have something to do with morality, but that does not dismiss the point that there are alternatives to embryonic stem cell research. There may even soon be ways to get embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo, hence some of the changes to the draft.

and Krioval, about those resolutions you talk about, please present evidenc.

now I have a question for both of you, where do you personally stand on this issue, anyway? And perhaps an explanation of where you stand too. This thread is for discussion about the draft, and it is for those who have something to CONTRIBUTE to the discussion, complaining about how this proposal has morality is not doing that. If you want to oppose this resolution, fine, do so once/if it becomes a resolution. If you want to present arguements as to why scientists should be allowed to grow embryos and harvest their stem cells like corn, then please, present facts and evidence like I have.

oh, btw, yes, resolutions involving morality have failed, or been repealed, but there has been discussion about moral issues on this board, and a resolution about this type of scientific research is perfectly acceptable.

one last thing, Allech-Atreus - I see you also voted against the Nuclear Responsibility resolution, which I can agree with you on. I also support soverienty on many issues, but there are some issues where I beleive there must be action by the U.N. - that includes keeping up the dignity and respect for life. Embryos are not corn, nor should they be treated as such.

It doesn't matter where I stand on this issue, my personal morals are not at debate here. Even though I am serving pro tempore, I represent the will of my government, and that will is that moral issues do not have any right to intrude into science.

To that end, I am voicing the objection of an entire nation to injecting such personal issues into science, which we regard as something to benefit the greater human race. That's our stance.

True, this thread is for discussion about the draft- which is exacty what myself and representative Vartek are doing. We are opposing this resolution, as it is currently written. Should you submit it, we will not endorse it, and we gather that many others will not either. You should take this hint and drop it.

There are certainly issues of morality which the UN has legislated on in the past, and we have made it practice to oppose them when they seek to impose their views upon our nation. We wholeheartedly oppose any attempt to infringe upon the national character of our people through the imposition of heathen morals.

Rang Erman
Advisor
Ambassador Pro Tempore

As I said in an earlier post, if this was changed from mandating with a hammer what nations will and won't do with their scientific research (and I still think this may be illegal for contradicting the Freedom of Scientific Research reso), and was instead changed to urges and encourages to get your point across, you may be getting a better reception for the idea.

Not all of us believe 5 day old microscopic blastocysts, which at that age are nothing more than multi celled blobs, that have never seen the inside of a womb, and never will, are human lives needing UN protection. Neither have eggs and/or sperm enough value in themselves to deserve the same. You yourself have stated that embryos (wrong word, they are blastocysts) which are destined for destruction can be used. That alone seems to be contradicting the entire reason your proposal was written in the first place. Which if I am recalling correctly, was something about the dignity of human life.

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l88/SilverSerph/WHITECIT.gif
Seal of the White City of Valak
The Free Lands of Krioval


It greatly disturbs us that our morals are being called into question by an unruly newcomer to the United Nations, though we hope this is an isolated incident. We are moved to address the criticisms of the delegation of Enrir and in doing so, to demonstrate that our comments are representative not only of the Lord Ambassador Telovar or the Lady Director Vartek, but include the Royal Family of Krioval, the Senate of Krioval, the Directorate, the Holy Guild of Paladins, and His Grace the Lord High Priest Koro Vartek. We hope that this will dissuade further queries as to personal versus national morality. What follows is written with the consent and approval of all previously named parties.

ok, well lets start with the moraility comment.

Yes, it does have something to do with morality, but that does not dismiss the point that there are alternatives to embryonic stem cell research. There may even soon be ways to get embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo, hence some of the changes to the draft.

Has it occurred to Your Excellency that some nations, Krioval notable among them, do not value an embryo as highly as does your nation? We urge Your Excellency to consider this when making illogical appeals to emotion. Not all cultures revere the same aspects of the universe.

and Krioval, about those resolutions you talk about, please present evidenc.

As requested, we direct Your Excellency to Freedom of Scientific Research (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Freedom_of_Scientific_Research), the one hundred sixty-sixth resolution to be passed by the United Nations on the fourteenth day of July, in the two thousand sixth year of the common era. Inquires as to the applicability of this resolution to Your Excellency's proposal can be directed to the Lord Ambassador Telovar.

now I have a question for both of you, where do you personally stand on this issue, anyway?

We stand in favor of the value of life, and as such, we are bound by the dictates of the universe to sustain, nurture, and otherwise promote the enhancement of life through scientific endeavor.

This thread is for discussion about the draft, and it is for those who have something to CONTRIBUTE to the discussion, complaining about how this proposal has morality is not doing that. If you want to oppose this resolution, fine, do so once/if it becomes a resolution. If you want to present arguements as to why scientists should be allowed to grow embryos and harvest their stem cells like corn, then please, present facts and evidence like I have.

With all due respect, Your Excellency, facts and evidence have been wanting from your side of the metaphorical table. With regard to our stance on pointless moralizing in United Nations proposals, we feel that it is pointless. With regard to Your Excellency's unusual comparison of embryos and corn, we are puzzled, as cannibalism has not been in vogue in the region now called Krioval for some centuries.

oh, btw, yes, resolutions involving morality have failed, or been repealed, but there has been discussion about moral issues on this board, and a resolution about this type of scientific research is perfectly acceptable.

It is perfectly acceptable - this point has not been disputed. We feel, however, that moral arguments often fail simply because they alienate cultures whose mores differ significantly from those of the proposing nation.

Embryos are not corn, nor should they be treated as such.

We most stridently and vigorously oppose any implication, however subtle, that a Kriovaller would consider consuming a human embryo, and we demand an immediate retraction of this statement.

His Royal Majesty,
Serph-Kaiyos, the Light

I read the freedom of scientific research resolution, and I didn't see anything there that would contradict this proposal, although, if you can find something, feel free to show it.

Now, about the use of the fertility treatment left-overs. If it were completely up to me, I would ban that as well, however, that is not my main concern right now. My main concern is the creation of, we will use your word, blastocysts, specifically for destruction for their stem cells. The use of the word "person" or "human" may be debateable, but what is not is the fact that it is what you started out as, it is what I strated out as, it is what those opposing this proposal started out as, it is what every living, breathing, thinking, contributing person started out as. it has its own unique DNA, and I would add personality (although it won't be appearant in the womb or a test tube.)

You are correct in your statement that the goal of this resolution is dignity of life, but I believe you are wrong in stating that allowing remaining blastocysts from fertility treatment is contradictory, becuase this would still be progress in the right direction.

With due respect to the Kriovalian delagation, we dispute your use of the term "unruly" and believe that the newness of our nation should have no impact on the decisions being made here today. New or not, we are here for the same reasons as you, to attempt to help further the human race and make our world a better place.

You say that you support life, which is commendable, so do we. You say you support scientific research, which is also commendable, so do we. If you honestly support both life and science, why not infringe upon either? This resolution does not infringe upon scientific research, indeed, it contains articles to promote research. However, we are fully opposed to creation of blastocysts (as we will agree to call them) specifically to be destroyed and have their stem cells harvested. We believe our delagation has produced adequate evidence to show that their are alternatives to embryonic stem cells, which not only appear to hold the same properties, but also have a much lower risk of rejection (which can cause cancer), and lack any ethical controversy. However, we will more than happily provide more evidence if you so request it.

I would also like to remind all nations that this resolution does not prohibit the use of embryonic stem cells, it merely prohibits creation of new blastocysts specifically for use in practices which destroy them for their stem cells. We would request that the nation of Krioval carefully consider this proposal and choose to support it, and with it, the practices that do not infringe upon either life or science.

I would also like to clarify the metaphore I used earlier this evening, comparing embryos to corn. In no way was I refering to consumption of embryos, instead I was refering to the practice of growing embryos specifically for destruction. I was comparing this practice to the growing and selling of a crop.

However, we are fully opposed to creation of blastocysts (as we will agree to call them) specifically to be destroyed and have their stem cells harvested. We believe our delagation has produced adequate evidence to show that their are alternatives to embryonic stem cells, which not only appear to hold the same properties, but also have a much lower risk of rejection (which can cause cancer), and lack any ethical controversy. However, we will more than happily provide more evidence if you so request it.

Taam In Phar religion holds that life begins when the embryo is viable- and I use the term embryo specifically. A blastocyst is not an embryo, it is not huma life, both according to our most respected scientists and many of our venerated theologians. Therefore, there is no ethical controversy with our nation's use of said stem cells. Ergo, there is no reason not to use said stem cells.

I would also like to remind all nations that this resolution does not prohibit the use of embryonic stem cells, it merely prohibits creation of new blastocysts specifically for use in practices which destroy them for their stem cells. We would request that the nation of Krioval carefully consider this proposal and choose to support it, and with it, the practices that do not infringe upon either life or science.



Hypocrisy! Your own first clause makes it illegal to harvest repoductive tissues/etc for scientific research! Furthermore, it restricts said research to other embryos that people won't use!

You've stated your position, and it is unconcionably marred with your own morals.

Rang Erman
Advisor
Ambassador Pro Tempore

I would also like to remind all nations that this resolution does not prohibit the use of embryonic stem cells, it merely prohibits creation of new blastocysts specifically for use in practices which destroy them for their stem cells. We would request that the nation of Krioval carefully consider this proposal and choose to support it, and with it, the practices that do not infringe upon either life or science.

We consider this to be a contradiction in terms. On the one hand, you are saying that your draft does not infringe upon science. On the other hand, you are demanding that "creation of new blastocysts specifically for use in practices which destroy them for their stem cells" - a line of scientific inquiry which would be perfectly valid in some nations, including Altanar - be prohibited. How is blocking an entire line of research not infringing on science?

This is nothing more than one nation attempting to use the UN to impose its unique morality on other nations - a tactic we've seen before. Altanar is opposed.

- Jinella Agaranth, Acting Ambassador

Upon conversation with a supporter of this proposal, I have decided to delay its introduction to help focus my efforts on other proposals in the works. I will no longer be replying to comments in this thread.

-1- No reproductive materials, which are naturally used to create new life inside the human body, shall be harvested for the sole purpose of medical research.

Your first clause ban therapeutic human cloning, even when the development last no more than 2 weeks. This is one of the main genetic therapeutic directions, along with stem cells and cell reprogramming.