We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Human Cloning (Regulation) Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: United Liberal Alliance
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: June 2043
Description[?]:
| This Act would seek to provide a limited degree of government regulation over human cloning to prevent abuses of this science occuring whilst promoting legitimate scientific research in this area which is crucial. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy towards the cloning of human beings.
Old value:: Research in cloning technologies is not regulated.
Current: Research in cloning technologies is legal, but regulated.
Proposed: Research in cloning technologies is legal, but regulated.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | not recorded | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Human Cloning (Regulation) Act |
| Message | We personally believe that stem cell research and other research which can fall under the category of human cloning is essential to science and medicine in order to find treatment for a whole host of diseases such as cancer and parkinsons. To this end the government should allow research and stay out of science as much as possible. However, we do believe that some government regulation is necessary to prevent what we would regard as unethical research, such as the attempt to clone a whole human being in the style of dolly the sheep. This we feel is unnecessary and inappropriate and so we feel that recognising the sensitivity of this issue, some light government regulation should be introduced to ensure that these unnecessary practices are prevented whilst allowing scientists to continue with the necessary and exciting research into stem cells and other techniques. |
| Date | not recorded | From | To | Debating the Human Cloning (Regulation) Act |
| Message | We hardly need regulations, do we? Reproductive cloning of humans is not practically feasible, so there is no reason for makeing laws about it. So what we are talking about is therapeutic cloning, ie the "clones" are not human beings, but cells that maybe can be used for medical treatment. Do we wish to decrease the future possibilities of curing leucaemia, diabetes or Parkinson's disease? Otherwise we should leave the issue unregualted. |
| Date | not recorded | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Human Cloning (Regulation) Act |
| Message | The question is what consitutes a human being in our view. We perfectly support the need for basic thereputic cloning i.e. stem cell research which will provide possibilities for curing the diseases that you mention, in the future. However, whilst reproductive cloning may not be practical, we understand from news reports that something similar has been attempted in parts of the world and will be attempted. It is to this or attempts to do this that we personally are opposed and is why we seek to introduce regulation, not to prevent legitimate stem cell research. We are also talking about the possibility of 'growing body parts' to provide replacements and cosmetic surgery etc. At this present time we do not feel that that is appropriate. THis is why we would seek to introduce LIGHT regulation. Of course we also recognise that this is a very contraversial subject and so realise that many people will disagree with us one way or the other. However we do believe that light regulation is required for the reasons we have stated. but emphasise that this does not impact on basic stem cell research and so will not decrease the future possibilities of curing leucaemia, diabetes or Parkinson's. etc. |
| Date | not recorded | From | To | Debating the Human Cloning (Regulation) Act |
| Message | Heh, how do you know? But even so, if somebody wants to have a miscarriage trying to have a child with herself, how is that our problem? Let her, I say. And growing body parts is a far distant application of therapeutic cloning, but that I am actually rather excited about. It will (if it works, that is not obvious) solve the shortage and ethical problems of organ donations. An arm or a heart is not a man or woman, and if a person is made healthy instead of crippled or dead that is a good thing in my book. |
| Date | not recorded | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Human Cloning (Regulation) Act |
| Message | We feel that stem cell research is legitimate and necessary to try to find possibilities for curing many diseases. However, we feel that to attempt to clone human beings and grow organs is going too far and has the potential for abuse (for example the possiblity that in the future parents who lost a child may seek to develop and give birth to a clone of it etc. - given the example of dolly the sheep with the premature aging etc. that occured we believe that to attempt this is unethical and manifestly unfair to the cloned human being). Also we would say that the growth of organs does have ethical problems attatched not least the fact that the cells used DO have the potential to become a man or a woman. We are not saying that research in this area should not be carried out, just regulated. |
| Date | not recorded | From | To | Debating the Human Cloning (Regulation) Act |
| Message | Each human egg cell has the ability to become a human being. That is not different in the research that should still be allowed. After the cells have started to differentiate to become an organ they lose that ability, so there are no increased ethical problems in making organs compared to other stemcell research. As for Dolly type cloning of humans: Dolly was one out of several hundred clones in that experiment. all the others failed ("died") so there is no major risk that the same thing is done on humans is negligible. But entirely hypothetically: Which is more unfair, to let somebody live the life they can, or to not let them live at all? And a general question to the United Commonwealth Alliance: Why have you suddenly become so prone to regulate things? You and us used to be removing regulations, but lately you have been proposing new regulations on issue after issue. Is that a change of policy, or a trick for the election or what? |
| Date | not recorded | From | To | Debating the Human Cloning (Regulation) Act |
| Message | You did previously pass a bill to allow abortion during the first three months of the pregnancy. That is about 15 weeks, so you find it ethically acceptable to 'kill' a 15 weeks old fetus without government intervention. It will take decades before scientists can make a fetus develop artificially for 15 weeks, so we can wait some decades with the regulations without showing less respect for life than we already do. |
| Date | not recorded | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Human Cloning (Regulation) Act |
| Message | First of all, this is simply a debate the UCA is not committed to introducing legislation on this issue after the election Secondly, in answer to your general question, there is no change of policy or trick for the election, what has changed slightly is the nature of the issues being discussed. On economic measures we are in favour of market forces and we do generally favour deregulation. However on certain issues where there is controversy or a notable problem we advocate limited government action (this is the more centrist part of my party policy). So for example on STDs and sexual health we believe that there is such a problem that the government cannot afford not to do anything and so we believe the best way for the government to intervene is by promoting sexual education in schools. On legal aid issue, we are committed to the principle of fair trials which is why we introduced this limited measure for the poorest in society. On pollution and recycling, once again we believe there is such a problem that the government must act (though the advocation of recyling facilities provision was because there was no other option available - we would have prefered a government advertising campaign or similar). Finally, on the issue of human cloning, this is a very controversial issue and whilst we wish to see the research continue because of its obvious potential benefits we are concerned about the potential for abuse and do not want to see it going to far that is why we advocate limited government regulation. All these as you can see are specific issues within a general framework of deregulation and promotion of the market. We are after all a centrist party (OOC: for an idea of real world equivalents in the UK at least I would say we are a cross between the liberal wing of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party of the 19th century). We believe in the promotion of free trade and market forces whilst at the same time protecting human rights and so providing a safety net and limited help for the poorest in society and are prepared to countanence limited government involvement where we believe it is necessary and justified. |
| Date | not recorded | From | To | Debating the Human Cloning (Regulation) Act |
| Message | It is good to hear that you do not intend to go through with this proposal. However, bringing it up causes a considerable risk that we will see regulation after next election, if the majority shifts. To continue the general discussion, your bills surely adress specific issues, as do all proposals, but it felt as though I saw a pattern: You assert the government's right to intervene just in case you find a reason. The libertarians on the other hand believe that people are in general more or less reasonable and rational, which is why we oppose any regulations until we have seen that there is a real problem that can not be solved by voluntary actions. For example, education is what school crew is dedicated to. We don't need to legislate what it should contain to make them do their best to cover relevant subjects. Parents want their kids to have a good education, so we don't need to legislate what and when they should learn. People don't want their environment to be littered, so we don't need to legislate on garbage collection and recycling, and researchers don't want to make life worse but learn to improve people's quality of life, so we don't need to tell them to not make abominations that are not even possible at the moment. The above are just a few examples, but in principle there is no reason to force people to do what they would do in any case. On the contrary: If people are left to their own devices they can adjust their actions to specific situations in a way that static rules and regulations can not do. So not only does unnecessary regulations violate the liberty of those regulated (which is bad enough for us), it also makes them less flexible and effective which is bad for their society as a whole. We appreciate your committment to deregulation of the economy. But we wish that you would extend the same understanding to other issues as well. To come back to the issue at hand: We do not know what venues in stem cell research that will lead to future means of saving lives and improving people's quality of life, but the best way to make sure that we don't miss the right one is to leave the control of research to those who can see it most clearly: the researchers themselves. |
| Date | not recorded | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Human Cloning (Regulation) Act |
| Message | We understand you points and we believe in local action wherever possible we simply believe that occassionally the government should act i.e. to provide some regulation to remove the possibility of gross abuses and that occassionally people do look to the government for leadership. We are generally apart from the specific ones mentioned committed to deregulation on all issues to a greater or lesser extent. We simply do believe in limited government oversight in some areas. Anyway, congratulations on your election as Prime Minister!!! |
| Date | not recorded | From | To | Debating the Human Cloning (Regulation) Act |
| Message | Thanks. Please check the cabinet proposal. We seem to keep power. |
| Date | not recorded | From | Partiya Nacionalnogo Progressa | To | Debating the Human Cloning (Regulation) Act |
| Message | I completely agree with this bill. |
| Date | not recorded | From | Partiya Nacionalnogo Progressa | To | Debating the Human Cloning (Regulation) Act |
| Message | May be, move it to vote? |
| Date | not recorded | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Human Cloning (Regulation) Act |
| Message | Shall move it to a vote then |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 83 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: In Culturally Protected nations, it is the responsibility of players to ensure the candidate boxes on their Party Overview screens are filled in with appropriate names. If a player is allotted seats in a Cabinet bill and has not filled in names for the relevant candidate position, then the program will automatically fill in the positions with names which might not necessarily be appropriate for the Cultural Protocols. |
| Random quote: "The honest politician is one who, when he is bought, stays bought." - Simon Cameron |