Resolution, Equal Rights for Clones

[Discoraversalism]

IC: (Which means IN CHARACTER {Which should be assumed by default for all posts})

Resolution:

The NSUN decalares that if 2 organisms have the same DNA, and age, they have the same legal rights.

Originally Posted by Discoraversalism

IC: (Which means IN CHARACTER {Which should be assumed by default for all posts})

Resolution:

The NSUN decalares that if 2 organisms have the same DNA, and age, they have the same legal rights.

This would mean that a pair of monozygotic twins, where each live in a different country, would have exactly the same rights, whereas dizygotic twins might not necessarily.

Also, a cloned organism need not have the same age as the organism of which it is a clone.

[Frisbeeteria]

Originally Posted by Discoraversalism

The NSUN decalares that if 2 organisms have the same DNA, and age, they have the same legal rights.

It's a nineteen word resolution. Could you not at least spell all nineteen correctly?

[St Edmundan Antarctic]

*Ahem*
May I draw your attention to this?

Fascinating. Stupid but fascinating. The BioRights Declaration simply states that the "the inherent rights of cloned and genetically engineered persons as being the equal of those of naturally born and unmodified persons."

This resolution addresses the relations between multiple beings born or created at the same time (according to the term "age") among each other. It sort of invalidates the Spock fallicy.

Spock (to robotic clone #1): I like you.
Spock (to robotic clone #2): I do not like you.
Robotic clone #2: But I am identicial to Clone #1.
Spock (to robotic clone #2): That is why I do not like you, because you are identical.
Robotic clone #2:
Robotic clone #1:

[Shazbotdom]

Originally Posted by Retired WerePenguins

Spock (to robotic clone #1): I like you.
Spock (to robotic clone #2): I do not like you.
Robotic clone #2: But I am identicial to Clone #1.
Spock (to robotic clone #2): That is why I do not like you, because you are identical.
Robotic clone #2:
Robotic clone #1:

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Laststandb]

What happends when the age of the clone is different?

Originally Posted by Laststandb

What happends when the age of the clone is different?

If the suggestion was adopted as a resolution, then that situation would correspond to the organisms not being clones at all.

As pointed out, however, such a resolution would be redundant since the issue is covered in another resolution.

[Gobbannium]

Actually this proposal is much further reaching than the BioRights Declaration if it is to be regarded as meaningfully distinct. If I'm reading it right, it is declaring identical twins and clones created at the same time as being legally the same person.

So either it's illegal, or it's very, very silly.

[Cavirra]

All things are created equal and under certain laws policies and other things have rights based on what they do once they pass the creation point. Any two humans or whatever created equal have rights based on where they live. It is how they act beyond the creation that let them keep or cause them to loose those rights. They, even twins and clones become individuals able to think for themselves and take actions that effect their rights. To say they have equal rights simply because they as equal to another person is taking away their individuality and thus effecting their rights to be an individual.

Are we to assume that if one clone of twelve is a serial killer they all will be thus treat all twelve equally... and hang them...

Judge Hangman,
Cavirra Court of Justice

[Discoraversalism]

Originally Posted by Temurdia

This would mean that a pair of monozygotic twins, where each live in a different country, would have exactly the same rights, whereas dizygotic twins might not necessarily.

Also, a cloned organism need not have the same age as the organism of which it is a clone.

Of course. Do you see any problem with that?

Yes clones may be of different age. I did not want to assert that 2 organisms of different ages must have the same status. I wanted to deliberately avoid any debate of prenatal clones.

[Discoraversalism]

Originally Posted by Gobbannium

Actually this proposal is much further reaching than the BioRights Declaration if it is to be regarded as meaningfully distinct. If I'm reading it right, it is declaring identical twins and clones created at the same time as being legally the same person.

So either it's illegal, or it's very, very silly.

That is deliberate.

Perhaps I need an addendum, asserting that despite the above, one organism is not reponsible for its clones rights?

And defining "clone" to be any 2 organisms with the same DNA.

I think a good, legal, resolution can be 1 paragraph. I want to have as small a scope as possible, while guaranteeing my legal rights, as a clone.

The glorious nation of Tyler Cooper and its even more Glorious King, Tyler Cooper, hereby reject your resolution.

The glorious nation of Tyler Cooper does not accept human cloning as an acceptable medical practice.

As such, a bill giving rights to clones must be considered an endorsement of cloning in general.

Ergo, Tyler Cooper must reject your resolution.

Originally Posted by Discoraversalism

Of course. Do you see any problem with that?

I most certainly do. It is discrimination between human beings based on genetic traits for which the individual cannot in any way be held responsible. As such I find that it cannot be accepted under any circumstances.

[Discoraversalism]

Originally Posted by Temurdia

I most certainly do. It is discrimination between human beings based on genetic traits for which the individual cannot in any way be held responsible. As such I find that it cannot be accepted under any circumstances.

Huh? Let's start over. How can guaranteeing equal rights ever be construed as discrimination? After your prove that's possible we can get back to this particular attempt to guarantee my rights as a clone.