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: The End of Human Cloning Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Partisans And Artisans League
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: November 2082
Description[?]:
| We believe that the cloning of human beings is not only immoral, it is also dangerous and distructive to the natural cycle of life. The discovery that cloning can lead to premature ageing is just one of many reasons why it should not be allowed. To 'create' a human being just because science can is not a reason to do so. You can't take chances with lifes and and throw away those that don't work, or worse leave someone to suffer a life of pain and deformaty just to see if something can be done or not. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy towards the cloning of human beings.
Old value:: Research in cloning technologies is legal, but regulated.
Current: The cloning of human beings is illegal.
Proposed: The cloning of human beings is illegal.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 08:47:10, July 14, 2005 CET | From | Free Beluzians | To | Debating the The End of Human Cloning Act |
| Message | To rule out the possibilities that cloning can give us by making all research in this field illegal would be to deprive us of the benefits that research along these lines can give. We already regulate cloning, thats as far as the Free Beluzian Party feels we have to go. |
| Date | 11:46:41, July 14, 2005 CET | From | Social-Liberal Party | To | Debating the The End of Human Cloning Act |
| Message | We agree with the Free Beluzians on this issue. |
| Date | 16:10:21, July 14, 2005 CET | From | Partisans And Artisans League | To | Debating the The End of Human Cloning Act |
| Message | The benefits, the benefits, the benefits - thats all you ever hear about this issue. But what of the responsibility that you have to other human beings. What happens if you subject someone to a life of suffering just in the name of science. You can't continue to claim that if there are benefits to something that it always a good thing to do. Sometimes your responsibility to maintain morals and the right to call yourself a human being are more important than 'advances' in science. Now that it is legal the oppurtunities to do horrendous acts with it are heightened. Before this was legalised the ability to exploit this 'technology' were minimal because it did not have the funding, credibility or legality. But now the research has the ability to go beyond what could previously have been believed. All it takes is a few free-willed scientists with no grasp of their human responsibilities (like many of the politicians in this parliament) that with a simple cover-up could 'grow' humans for their own sickening and exploitative reasons. What happens if (or rather WHEN) the research goes wrong? How many attempts were ther to create Dolly?! (sorry for the real-world example) What happens if a 'being' is formed that is infact a hideously mutated human being? If it is 'alive' but unable to function in 'normal' human ways can it be destroyed (or rather murdered)? It is all very well for you to say that you would never let this happen, but what of the politicians to come? Where will this stop? They could grow humans for testing, or even grow Y-Y chromosomed super troopers (thi isn't sci-fi - there really is disussion about this). Without a moral cap-stone on more and more dangerous and exploitative experimentation, the future generations (or even this one) could lose all sense of proportion and decency and take this to extremes. This is what I like to call 'snowballing liberalism'. (yeah I just came up with that but it sounds pretty good eh?) |
| Date | 20:18:41, July 14, 2005 CET | From | Neo-Marxist revolutionary Party | To | Debating the The End of Human Cloning Act |
| Message | We support the FBP and SLP on this issue. Moreover PAL we already have a 'cap-stone' why do you think it is strictly regulated? Also a person who is born with a growth defect such as a shriveled arm (as an example) should by your own admission not be allowed to exist because they cannot function in 'normal' human ways. |
| Date | 21:32:18, July 14, 2005 CET | From | Social-Liberal Party | To | Debating the The End of Human Cloning Act |
| Message | It is sad that the Right has to resort to scaremongering to make its point. In fact, the remarks by the Partisans And Artisans League are completely irrelevant to the topic. Your example of an evil scientist growing humans for body parts in a secret lab is, under the current legislation, already prohibited and your mad evil scientist would be violating the law in both cases. Research in cloning technologies is legal, but regulated. This means that this House has set decent standards for viable cloning research, which has the potential to save thousands of Beluzian lives! |
| Date | 00:29:09, July 15, 2005 CET | From | Partisans And Artisans League | To | Debating the The End of Human Cloning Act |
| Message | NMRP that was a satirical comment in which I was trying to paly the part of a pinko-commie liberal, not myself. SLP you may laugh and scoff but now that it is legal only the levels of regulation have to be moved NOT the law so it is much easier. You also don't get my point about the scientist - I know what hewould be doing is illegal but because there is funding in the practice of cloning and technology advances, he would only have to cover-up what he really intended to do and he would have at his disposal the ABILITY and funding to do as he pleases. "Mad scientist" should not be said as though it is a created image - there have been plenty of people in history willing to push the bounds of decency for their own end. |
| Date | 17:54:35, July 15, 2005 CET | From | Social-Liberal Party | To | Debating the The End of Human Cloning Act |
| Message | The SLP leadership finds it interesting lwarn how you do not apply your "ban the potential tools" argument to, say, guns which are only explicitly designed to kill while you *do* apply the "potential tools of harm" argument to regulated scientific laboratories. I stand with my comments that the PAL is on a campaign of fearmongering against some of our most intelligent and productive citizens. |
| Date | 14:42:53, July 16, 2005 CET | From | Partisans And Artisans League | To | Debating the The End of Human Cloning Act |
| Message | Guns are not specifically designed to kill; they are designed to fire a small metal object at an exceptionally high velocity. What you chose to do with the gun can be to kill but that is a question up to you. |
| Date | 01:07:02, July 17, 2005 CET | From | Neo-Marxist revolutionary Party | To | Debating the The End of Human Cloning Act |
| Message | And that small metal object is designed as a replacement to an arrow which was designed to be used as a weapon and thus to kill. Just because it can be used for other uses does not change the fact that a gun was designed to replace the bow and arrow as an instrument of war thus it was designed to kill. Saying guns are not specifically designed to kill is like saying a car is not designed to travel; you don't have to do it but it's function is specifically that. |
| Date | 17:40:15, July 17, 2005 CET | From | Partisans And Artisans League | To | Debating the The End of Human Cloning Act |
| Message | But killing is a necessary evil in this world as nations fight and they always will because it's human nature. Guns are legalised in this country primarily for the sport of hunting and for using at firing ranges and it is illegal to kill someone with it. |
| Date | 17:40:42, July 17, 2005 CET | From | Partisans And Artisans League | To | Debating the The End of Human Cloning Act |
| Message | Can we get back to human cloning though?... |
| Date | 01:34:14, July 19, 2005 CET | From | Social-Liberal Party | To | Debating the The End of Human Cloning Act |
| Message | Yes. My party would argue that, likewise, government-regulated cloning research facilities were not designed to be used by evil madmen in the pursuit of world power through the cloning of an army of evil. Hence the PAL is inconsistent in its argument either with regards to the debate on gun control, or with the debate on human cloning. Not that the PAL has ever claimed to be consistent, or principled, or fair in its use of arguments. The SLP thinks that Beluzians deserve better. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 90 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 146 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 38 |
| Random fact: If your "Bills under debate" section is cluttered up with old bills created by inactive parties, report them for deletion on the Bill Clearouts Requests thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4363 |
| Random quote: "If God had wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates." - Jay Leno |