[GA - Failed] The Cloning Conventions

Disturbed by the lack of legislation concerning biological clones;

Aware that many nations with biological engineering have the ability to clone organisms and the increasing importance and potential biological cloning has to the future of biology, ecology, and society;

Seeking to prevent potential detriment and harm to future clones so that they are not mistreated nor misused, and in the case of sapient clones, ensure they have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;

Striving to clarify the ethical boundaries on cloning to prevent unethical experimentation and account for all possible mishaps that could occur within the cloning process, especially for sapient beings;

Resolute in the belief that comprehensive conventions must be created in regards to biological cloning to establish a reasonable set of moral principles on behavior towards both clones and cloning;

The World Assembly hereby:

1. Defines a clone for any organism as either a genetically identical, or not significantly genetically altered, artificially produced copy of a single individual, the originator;
   
   
2. 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, and/or a genetically identical or genetically altered copy of any plant originator created via traditional techniques (such as cuttings) derived from agriculture and/or horticulture, from being defined as a clone, and defines them as offspring instead;
   
   
3. Grants all clones the same rights as their originator’s species, regardless of any disabilities resulting from a failed cloning;
   
   
4. Restricts all cloning to only be done by qualified biomedical personnel, or qualified veterinary personnel in collaboration with qualified biomedical personnel, and qualified laboratory technicians who are appointed and under the responsibility of qualified biomedical/veterinary personnel;
   
   1. Restricts the cloning of sapient organisms only to originators who fully consent to being cloned;
      
5. Permits the cloning of unconscious, unfeeling organisms from sapient originators, where the clones themselves do not and will not possess any sapience and have been proven to not be in locked-in syndrome, for biomedical experimentation and use;
   
   
6. Bans the intentional 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;
   
   
7. Reserves for all sapient clones the right to know the origin of their genetic material at their national legal age of consent unless the clonal parent requests otherwise;
   
   
8. Authorizes and actively encourages nations to share cloning technology, provided that sharing does not violate extant resolutions;
   
   
9. 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;
   
   
10. 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!

IFV:
This resolution attempts to deal with the cloning of organisms and the legal landscape surrounding that process. Unfortunately, there are several concerning issues that arise from its mandates. The proposal attempts to limit the cloning of prenatal sapient organisms without a direct consent from the organism which couldn’t possibly be provided. Further, there is no allowance for a parent or legal guardian to give that consent on behalf of the organism, regardless of its viability. Given that these organisms lack the capacity for cognizance or feeling, due to low development, this prohibition places unnecessary limitations on medical research, and specifically in the creation of cloned organisms for the beneficial harvest of stem cells.

This resolution, in clause 5, permits the cloning of organs or like unfeeling organisms from people. It does not include a requirement making that cloning contingent on consent. Insofar as the proposal permits people to have their genetic material harvested without their consent, it may be in violation of previously passed resolutions.

In accordance with the reasoning above, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote Against this proposal.

Clause 4. Subclause 1. creates a legal gray area when addressing embryos without any parental/authoritative figure to speak for them. Doesn't constitute a ban but is fairly ambiguous.

Against

Against
- Also have problems around clause 4.1. Embryo cloning and research up to a point isn't problematic, since undeveloped embryos have no cognizance or ability to feel. An outright ban isn't necessary, and would place severe restrictions on medical research.
- Clause 5/6: Not entirely sure the technology exists to create 'unconscious, unfeeling' clones for experimentation (although embryos would fit in that category, so again, why that ban?). Locked-in syndrome is exceedingly rare and shouldn't be the only hurdle to clear if a clone is to be experimented on. It is possible that a clone could be 100% immobile, deemed to be without cognition, yet still aware of the experiments taking place, and still suffering. Not precisely sure how that 'reliable confirmation, with a high degree of confidence', as stated in 6, can occur. All of this is quite a long way outside of our understanding of the workings of the mind, so the lines between what is deemed acceptable, and what is banned, is pretty hazy and unreliable.
- Clause 7: If an originator agrees to be cloned, and doesn't wish the clone to know its origins, this clause makes that impossible. Not entirely sure why the clone needs to have a stronger right to know, over the originator's wishes to remain anonymous. Seems arbitrary.

TlomzKrano:

Clause 4. Subclause 1. creates a legal gray area when addressing embryos without any parental/authoritative figure to speak for them. Doesn't constitute a ban but is fairly ambiguous.

Click to expand...

I don't see it as a grey area at all:
'Restricts the cloning of sapient organisms only to originators who fully consent to being cloned' - 'sapient organism' must include human embryos. The 'originator' must give full consent - no mention of third party consent (parents, guardians). The full consent must come from the organism that is being cloned. If the sapient organism to be cloned can not give the consent - even if it doesn't have the capacity to consent, due to it having no brain - the cloning can't occur. The ability to clone these organisms to harvest stem cells, for example, goes with it.
I see that as a pretty clear ban on embryo cloning.

EDIT 03/14/19: My position on this has changed, see below.

Well it’s 0-1 so I guess I’m casting a vote Against

If you actually care, you know, let me know and the vote will change accordingly.

0-2 Against now

I vote For because it places regulations in place that are not there already and other proposals can always tackle unconsidered restrictions later. I would rather have human cloning banned all together, but I think this is the best option as of now.

Castle Federation

Obviously I'm not a voter. But the claim that "other proposals can always tackle unconsidered restrictions later" is untrue insofar as if this proposal is passed, legislation which contradicts the requirements of this proposal would not be allowed to be tabled before the Assembly (or, if tabled, would be removed).

1-2

Vote remains Against

And I might I add, we’re perhaps setting a new record for turnout.

I echo the considerations on clause 5, and the potentially disastrous effects on medical research.

Against
WA:Orven

Echoing what others have said above bc I don't have anything new to add to the conversation,
Against
(WA: ibiscaton)

For

2-4

Still Against

AGAINST due to clause 4 subclause 1, which effectively bans stem cell research. I concur with bowloftoast's reasoning.

WA: New Bremerton

Against

(WA: Wilkshire)

For.

WA Sanjurika

• Against, though I believe that the resolution has potential if clause 5 is reworded

to include a © for the 'donor.'

WA Isimud.

3-7

Against

Orven:

I echo the considerations on clause 5, and the potentially disastrous effects on medical research

Click to expand...

New Bremerton:

AGAINST due to clause 4 subclause 1, which effectively bans stem cell research. I concur with bowloftoast's reasoning.

Click to expand...

Wilkshire:

Against

Click to expand...

ibiscaton:

Echoing what others have said above bc I don't have anything new to add to the conversation

Click to expand...

Janus:

Against, though I believe that the resolution has potential if clause 5 is reworded

Click to expand...

In consideration to the author, and to those who may have picked up on my argument against this resolution, I believe that my initial interpretation was wrong.
Having dug more deeply into existing law, especially GA355 (Rights of Sapient Species), which provides a definition of 'sapient organisms' as ones that can form thought, I no longer think embryos count as 'sapient organisms'.
The specific clause in the resolution at vote, 4.1 says:"Restricts the cloning of sapient organisms only to originators who fully consent to being cloned" thus, embryos aren't a part of that restriction, and the consent I thought was required, isn't.
My understanding of 'sapient' was always as a part of the species of homo sapien, but given 355's definition, that has since been broadened by other legislation, and that definition needs to be considered when reading the resolution at vote.
With that said, I have spoken with both the Minister and the author, and section 5 still prevents the cloning of any organism that 'will become sapient'. This can still be viewed as a restricting power over the cloning of human embryos.
Same result, but for different reasons than I have previously stated.
I remain Against.

For