[GA - Failed] The Cloning Conventions [Complete]

---

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.

Click to expand...

---

Voting Instructions:

• Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
• Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
• Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
• Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.

Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!

The Ministry of World Assembly Affairs, having reviewed the resolution currently at vote, has found that while it is undoubtedly well intended, has several serious flaws. Chiefly among these being that The Cloning Conventions would seem to outlaw cloning when used during IVF, as well as the cloning of embryos. Secondly, this resolution suffers from poor definitions and unclear language in some of its clauses. Finally, in its closing clause it again, using unclear language that leaves far too much room for interpretation, either strips the World Assembly Science Programme from any oversight over cloning or creates a bureaucratic competition between the Word Assembly Science Programme and the Biomedical Innovation Organization.

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote against the resolution.

Against. The author is La Navasse, a known badge hunter and subpar proposal author. Also, the resolution itself has several issues already outlined in the NS forum, mostly from awkward wording, outlandish formatting, and unclear definitions.

Strongly against

Poorly written. Have no idea what it even does, even after careful reading. very Against.

Darcania:

Against. The author is La Navasse, a known badge hunter and subpar proposal author. Also, the resolution itself has several issues already outlined in the NS forum, mostly from awkward wording, outlandish formatting, and unclear definitions.

Click to expand...

I disagree with a vote against just because of the author, which feels unprofessional because it's judging the writer rather than the content itself. I also don't see how exactly it's poorly written, he's done months of research and writing. I think when voting on GA resolutions, we need to treat resolutions as if the author could be anyone. The only time the author matters, at least to me, is in the Security Council, namely with things like self commendation/condemnations. And it could be written better, but I don't think poorly written is fair. It's better to not read the criticism in the thread at face value.

Disclaimer: I don't have any strong feelings about the proposal itself. It could certainly be better.

Against

Against.

For starters, "Restricts the cloning of sapient organisms only to originators who fully consent to being cloned," basically outlaws the cloning of sapient organisms that can't give proper informed consent. Essentially, the sadly ever essential lab mouse, and or potentially, a lemming.

Second, "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," literally no flipping organism meets this categorization. He's basically saying that you can experiment on what is essentially "molded flesh." At which point, I probably can't, because of some other obscure BS restriction I am not aware of.

Third, "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," I have no flipping idea what I am reading any more; is this a line straight out of a certain sapient orange's speech?

Fourth, "Reserves for all sapient clones the right to know the origin of their genetic material at their national legal age of consent," is redundant because he already gave them this right via this line, "Grants all clones the same rights as their originator’s species, regardless of any disabilities resulting from a failed cloning," unless I, myself, as a sapient thinking human, don't have the right to know my age nor who my parents are. If that is the case, I should be arrested right now on the basis that I know too much.

Fifth, he is literally rewriting sentences of his same clause stated earlier but because it's so obvious, I refuse to requote it, "Allows the cloning of any organism that is not sapient."

And lastly, he flipping contradicts himself yet again in consecutive clauses, "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." You can't just hand off self-governance in relation to a flipping resolution with no clear purpose and then turn a good 180 and say that the flipping WA will need to supervise the compliance thereof said resolution with no clear purpose.

This is a garbage proposal that needs to die a slow and painful death.

Against

Against.

Against

Against.

Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.