UN: BioRights Declaration (Voting ends Thursday 6th May)

[ceroomaster]

BioRights Declaration
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

(This UN resolution can also be viewed by clicking here)

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: The free carolinas

Description: 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.

[ceroomaster]

Any thoughts?

Ceroo is undecided on whether or not human cloning should be allowed (or even if it's truly feasible), but should clones exist they should be granted the same basic rights.

[Basus]

The constitutional counsil of Basus has advised against the Biorights declaration. Basus does not recognise clones for we are against the cloning of lifeforms. We do recognise certain genetic enhancements but purely on a medical basis. For example removal of faulty DNA that can create cancer but we do not allow genetical improvements on embryo's only on full grown persons.

[joncha]

The Jonchastan Central Committee is strongly in favour of the resolution, although it shares Basus' misgivings regarding the improper use of genetic technology. We regard each individual as being distinct, regardless of their genetic make-up. Clones, while subject to increased health-risks due to the imprecise nature of today's medical science, are just as unique and different from one another as are naturally born twins.

Debate is ongoing in the National Congress, but it appears as though Jonchastan will be maintaining its position in favour of the motion, regardless of what the rest of the region's member-nations decide.

[GeneralTacticus]

Centralis is in favour. The only thing it requires is that cloned and genetically modified people be considered to have equal rights to 'normal' people. What problems could there be with this?

[Basus]

If we would recognise the rights of cloned individuals the way for cloning is open. Because all though cloning is forbidden a clone still could get rights so it would be like useless for us to ban cloning. It's a question of principle for us. The people of Basus are quite openminded but cloning of human beings is just a step to far. The cloning of animals is a very hot issue at the moment. A case is pending before the Constitutional counsil of State.

[GeneralTacticus]

If we would recognise the rights of cloned individuals the way for cloning is open. Because all though cloning is forbidden a clone still could get rights so it would be like useless for us to ban cloning.

Um... wtf? How does this follow? If you ban cloning, then, logically, if somebody is cloned, you punish the cloners, not the clone. If you ban robbery, then recognise robbery victims as having equal rights to non-robbery-victims, does this render the ban useless?

[Basus]

There you have a point but what i was trying to explain is that if a clone would have rights, people would be tempted to create them. You could punish the person that preformed the clone but that doesn't change the fact that there is a clone so cloning would become attractive. The difference with robbery is that when stealing you do not create a new entity with a conciousness. You breach the rights of an individual. But with cloning you create something or someone. By supporting our ban on cloning with not recognising the individual rights of clones we make a strong stand. I admit it would be wrong to deny someone their rights but because it is forbidden to make clones in Basus we do not cross the line of ethics. But your question has pointed out a fault in our system. Therefore a person that makes a clone will forfit a part of his own personal rights to the clone. He will have to share his rights the clone and sit out a 25 year jail punishment. Cloning oneself will mean losing all your personal rights to the clone making you a "persona non grata" punished with a jail punishment during the life of the clone. For in our conviction only one person can exsist. A artificialy crafted person consumes the rights of it's creator.

[Guardian]

Guardinia is supports the resolution.

[Pave]

NCC Pavesia is in favour, because every human, even those, who had borned by un-natural ways, have same equal rights.

[Urban Ranger]

While the Dominion of Noosland supports the bill in general, it is the concern of this country that this particular UN oversteps its authorities in attempts to force the member nations to accept resolutions passed by the General Assembly. This does not and cannot happen in real life.

[ceroomaster]

UN Members' Votes

FOR: (5)
Jonchastan
Centralis
Guardinia
Noosland
Ceroo

AGAINST: (4)
North Texas
Basus
Azure Dianoga
The Sacred Baster

[ceroomaster]

A FOR vote was recorded (just in time as well )
Didn't get a chance to post here, downloading firewall updates sort of limited my internet usage yesterday.