States of Glory

[DEFEATED] The Cloning Conventions

Recommended Posts

Quote

The Cloning Conventions

A resolution to modify universal standards of healthcare.

Category: Health

Area of Effect: Bioethics

Proposed by: la_navasse__106803t2.pngLa Navasse

The General Assembly,

Defines a clone for any organism as a genetically identical or a genetically altered, artificially produced copy of a single naturally born individual, the originator;

Defines organ cloning as artificially creating a genetically identical or a genetically altered organ from an originator’s genetic information;

Excludes, for the purposes of this resolution, any artificially produced but genetically identical or genetically altered copy of any originator that can asexually reproduce for the intentions of having offspring, the naturally reproduced descendant of an originator, due to an inability to realistically naturally reproduce asexually or sexually, from being defined as a clone, and defines them as an offspring instead;

Grants all clones the same rights as their originator’s species, regardless of any disabilities resulting from a failed cloning;

Restricts all cloning to only be done by qualified biomedical personnel, or qualified veterinary personnel in collaboration with qualified biomedical personnel;

Restricts the cloning of sapient organisms only to originators who fully consent to being cloned;

Permits the cloning of unconscious, unfeeling organisms from sapient originators, where the clones themselves do not have any sapience and have been proven to not be in locked-in syndrome, for biomedical experimentation and use;

Bans the cloning of conscious, feeling organisms from sapient originators for biomedical experimentation and use, and of any cloning of any sapient originator if the medical professionals who clone cannot reliably confirm, with a high degree of confidence, that the clone is not suffering from locked-in syndrome or any related disability;

Reserves for all sapient clones the right to know the origin of their genetic material at their national legal age of consent;

Allows the cloning of any organism that is not sapient;

Authorizes and actively encourages nations to share cloning technology;

Reserves for all WA member-states the right to legislate on the legal methods of cloning as laid out by this resolution and on anything regarding organ cloning;

Assigns the World Assembly Scientific Programme the duties of overlooking cloning for biomedical research and use to ensure their accordance with this resolution and the promotion of the sharing of cloning technology.

 

Oh, man, La Navasse has decided to try to break into the GA. Oh, boy.

'Excludes, for the purposes of this resolution, any artificially produced but genetically identical or genetically altered copy of any originator that can asexually reproduce for the intentions of having offspring, the naturally reproduced descendant of an originator, due to an inability to realistically naturally reproduce asexually or sexually, from being defined as a clone, and defines them as an offspring instead;'

What does this actually mean? I can't comprehend this at all.

'Restricts all cloning to only be done by qualified biomedical personnel, or qualified veterinary personnel in collaboration with qualified biomedical personnel;'

The second half of this clause is redundant. Not a dealbreaker on its own, but it adds up.

'Bans the cloning of conscious, feeling organisms from sapient originators for biomedical experimentation and use, and of any cloning of any sapient originator if the medical professionals who clone cannot reliably confirm, with a high degree of confidence, that the clone is not suffering from locked-in syndrome or any related disability;'

Wait, how on Earth are scientists supposed to know with high confidence whether an organism has locked-in syndrome before they attempt to clone it? It's not a genetic condition; this clause basically imposes a stealth ban on all cloning of sapient organisms.

'Allows the cloning of any organism that is not sapient;

I don't see why this is an international issue, mainly because there's no preamble.

'Reserves for all WA member-states the right to legislate on the legal methods of cloning as laid out by this resolution and on anything regarding organ cloning;'

This proposal has so much micromanagement that this clause is meaningless.

Against.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, States of Glory said:

'Excludes, for the purposes of this resolution, any artificially produced but genetically identical or genetically altered copy of any originator that can asexually reproduce for the intentions of having offspring, the naturally reproduced descendant of an originator, due to an inability to realistically naturally reproduce asexually or sexually, from being defined as a clone, and defines them as an offspring instead;'

What does this actually mean? I can't comprehend this at all.

I think this is meant as an enumeration. An 'as well as' between the red and blue part could have made that much clearer. The red clauses seems to be aimed at bacteria etc. The blue part still is a bit unclear on its own. I think it might have stuff like cultivated bananas in mind that normally reproduce sexually in their wild form but lost their seeds during cultivation and therefore are reproduced via cloning nowadays. But one shouldn't need critical text analysis to decipher what a resolution intends to say.

Overall this proposal is in dire need of some structure. While I find the general content more or less agreeable, it being obfuscated by bad presentation is a strong strike against.

Coupled with who the author is, I am in sum against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Arotania said:

I think this is meant as an enumeration. An 'as well as' between the red and blue part could have made that much clearer. The red clauses seems to be aimed at bacteria etc. The blue part still is a bit unclear on its own. I think it might have stuff like cultivated bananas in mind that normally reproduce sexually in their wild form but lost their seeds during cultivation and therefore are reproduced via cloning nowadays. But one shouldn't need critical text analysis to decipher what a resolution intends to say.

I had no trouble with the bit in red per se. Clearly, the author wants to ensure that they don't accidentally ban asexual reproduction. It's the blue bit, especially when combined with the red bit, that reads like complete gobbledegook. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the blue part is mostly incomprehensible. I was trying to make at least some sense of it.

But the way the voting is going we thankfully won't have to play augurs in search for meaning any longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.