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: Stem Cell Research Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Conservative Monarchist Alliance
Status[?]: defeated
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: April 3725
Description[?]:
| Stem cell research has the potential to reap great medical advances, but we should be careful to put this research on an ethical footing. The dignity of human life must be respected. Anton Rietveld Chairman of the Conservative Monarchist Alliance |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Legality of stem cell research
Old value:: All stem cell research is legal.
Current: Only stem cell research with adult stem cells is legal, stem cell research with embryonic or fetal stem cells is forbidden.
Proposed: Only stem cell research with adult stem cells is legal, stem cell research with embryonic or fetal stem cells is forbidden.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 06:39:27, September 07, 2014 CET | From |  Great National Republican Guard | To | Debating the Stem Cell Research Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, I do not see what is unethical about this bill. -- Gordon Fertig, Chairman of the GNRG |
| Date | 06:58:13, September 07, 2014 CET | From | Social Libermuns Party | To | Debating the Stem Cell Research Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure what the GNRG are trying to say, but I do not see what is unethical about our current law. ~ Rowan Argall. |
| Date | 07:01:00, September 07, 2014 CET | From | Great National Republican Guard | To | Debating the Stem Cell Research Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, My apologies. I meant that I do not see what is unethical about this law, meaning our current law. I think the bill would be a regressive step for science. -- Gordon Fertig, Chairman of the GNRG |
| Date | 23:38:29, September 07, 2014 CET | From | Conservative Monarchist Alliance | To | Debating the Stem Cell Research Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, A human embryo is a life-in-waiting and deserves to be treated with dignity. It should not be subjected to scientific experiments. Anton Rietveld Chairman of the Conservative Monarchist Alliance |
| Date | 03:42:37, September 08, 2014 CET | From | Social Libermuns Party | To | Debating the Stem Cell Research Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, We are dealing with cells, and the research is valuable. There shouldn't be more to it, but for the sake of argument I will address the CMA. A swab from someone's mouth would have just as many cells and living organisms as the stem cells we are dealing with. Do you ban people from using mouthwash because it kills off these cells that are arguable part of the human body's ecosystem? Would you ban scientists from researching and testing new drugs on humans? That is the type of folly we're talking about. A human embryo is a collision of genetic material and nothing more. It cannot be ascribed more significance as it is something that has yet to realise itself. Without a full gestation period it cannot be assigned a live birth status, does not get a death certificate and therefore was never able to reach human status to begin with. So, what exactly is the problem with our current law? Because it isn't that we're disrespecting the sanctity of humanity. ~ Dorian Young Minister of Science and Technology |
| Date | 18:56:20, September 08, 2014 CET | From | Conservative Monarchist Alliance | To | Debating the Stem Cell Research Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, Dorian Young commits the most fundamental error in equating a human embryo to the contents of a mouth swab. We are talking here about human life itself and about the process by which a human being is created. This is an area where the scientists should tread very carefully indeed. Anton Rietveld Chairman of the Conservative Monarchist Alliance |
| Date | 02:03:19, September 10, 2014 CET | From | Social Libermuns Party | To | Debating the Stem Cell Research Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, We understand that your party is primarily religious, but we think a science lesson is in order. Embryos used in research for stem cells are very underdeveloped, far too much so to be quibbling about the sacred "human life itself". The embryos used for research are labelled blastocysts. Typically used at the 4 or 5 day old stage for research, but they rarely reach more than 9 days past conception. They haven't begun forming organs. They haven't got brains to think with, hearts that beat, or any sort of shape beyond that of a blob. They haven't gotten anywhere near that stage. They are a mass of undifferentiated, rapidly dividing cells. That's what makes them useful. They often come from the IVF industry, which only implants a fraction of the embryos that they create. Only one uterus per couple, but there can be multiple embryos made at a time. The other option would be to simply unfreeze them and let them die on their own. Lets talk about the benefits of embryonic stem cells. They can be divided indefinitely. They can turn into any cell that would be needed, from skin to muscle to neurons. This makes them useful for numerous possible treatments: Heart diseases, birth defects, spinal cord injuries, replacement or repair for damaged organs. The list goes on. Lastly, since Embryonic stem cells can grow indefinitely. It is possible in theory to re-assemble the embryo and continue it's growth into a human being. In that case, is the embryo really destroyed? Are we still wrong to wish to find ways to help other human beings and patients by tapping into the resources of embryonic stem cells? ~ Dorian Young Minister of Science and Technology |
| Date | 02:10:05, September 10, 2014 CET | From | Conservative Monarchist Alliance | To | Debating the Stem Cell Research Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, If I may, I would like to ask Dorian Young at what point he thinks it becomes unacceptable to perform destructive experiments upon a human being? Would he support experiments on new-born human babies, for example? After all, babies are incapable of surviving by themselves independently without assistance. Anton Rietveld Chairman of the Conservative Monarchist Alliance |
| Date | 12:31:01, September 10, 2014 CET | From | Social Libermuns Party | To | Debating the Stem Cell Research Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, Mr. Anton Rietveld is being a toss pot. I'd call him a wanker, but he's obviously too concerned about potentially destroying human life to do so. There is a rather large difference between neglecting a live-born baby, leaving it to die, and modifying the environment of a mass of cells. I'm sure everyone can seem that. To answer the question, I would support the use of experimental procedures being done on newborns. For example, if a newborn was born without skin, and the hospital had a surgeon working on a new grafting technique, there is a lot to gain by attempting the procedure, and little to lose. Worst case scenario, it doesn't work. Best case scenario, the child gets to live. And as there are no current procedures where that is a viable outcome for the unfortunate few that are born skinless, it would be a medical break-through indeed. Destructive experiments, tests, and treatments are performed on humans all the time. Whether we cut people open to perform surgery or intravenously inject chemotherapy ( a form of poison) to combat cancer. Even most vaccines will give a person symptoms for a day or so before anti-bodies kick in. The real question is whether there is more harm being done that good. In this case there is a vast amount of good being done and a questionable amount of actual harm. You're being puritanical and inflammatory, and I do not need to explain myself to some religious zealot who doesn't understand anything about the proposals he's promoting. ~ Dorian Young Minister of Science and Technology |
| Date | 17:31:15, September 10, 2014 CET | From | Conservative Monarchist Alliance | To | Debating the Stem Cell Research Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, The Science Minister still hasn't answered my question about at what point in development it becomes acceptable to conduct destructive experiments upon a human being. He is obviously fine with all manner of experiments being done at the embryo stage. What about after 20 weeks of pregnancy, or after the baby has been born? Anton Rietveld Chairman of the Conservative Monarchist Alliance |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 207 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 392 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Particracy does not allow role-play that seems to belong to the world of fantasy, science fiction and futuristic speculation. |
| Random quote: "A Bill of Rights that means what the majority wants it to mean is worthless." - Antonin Scalia |