S-T
08-12-2007, 11:59 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/10/us/10stemcell.html
Supporters of the amendment outspent opponents by a wide margin. Within hours of the vote, opponents said they would fight on, focusing their attention narrowly on one element of the research, known as therapeutic cloning or somatic cell nuclear transfer, in which the nucleus of a mature cell is transplanted into an egg cell, which would then produce stem cells.
The debate has come down to a fight over what constitutes “cloning.”
Supporters of the amendment say they banned human cloning, which they defined in the amendment as an act that could result in a woman’s pregnancy and the creation of a human fetus inside a woman’s uterus. Opponents say the replication of cells, regardless of implantation in the uterus, amounts to cloning.
“We think it’s a false distinction to say that a clone exists only based on geography,” said Pam Fichter, the president of Missouri Right to Life.
It is incredibly dishonest to claim that "therapeutic cloning" is not cloning. If an embryo is created from cells, then cloning has taken place. While pro-cloning forces attempt to pull a bait and switch by talking about pregnancy, the issue is not whether clones will be born, and they know it. The issue is experimentation on human beings.
I do not have nearly as much problem with cloning if it produces anything other than an embryo - for example, if stem cells are the only thing created. An embryo, however, should be treated as a human being.
But this isn't about scientific research, and it never has been. It is well documented that the use of adult stem cells has been far more productive than embryonic stem cells, and umbilical cord stem cells also show promise. If this was about scientific research, proponents of embryonic stem cell research would put their political energies into the research that has proven results. This is about abortion and ensuring that abortion remains legal.
If embryos are protected from destruction by "scientific research", then the the foundation of legal abortion is shaken. After all, of we're protecting human beings from being destroyed in a petri dish, why aren't we protecting much more developed human beings from being destroyed by an abortionist's tools?
Supporters of the amendment outspent opponents by a wide margin. Within hours of the vote, opponents said they would fight on, focusing their attention narrowly on one element of the research, known as therapeutic cloning or somatic cell nuclear transfer, in which the nucleus of a mature cell is transplanted into an egg cell, which would then produce stem cells.
The debate has come down to a fight over what constitutes “cloning.”
Supporters of the amendment say they banned human cloning, which they defined in the amendment as an act that could result in a woman’s pregnancy and the creation of a human fetus inside a woman’s uterus. Opponents say the replication of cells, regardless of implantation in the uterus, amounts to cloning.
“We think it’s a false distinction to say that a clone exists only based on geography,” said Pam Fichter, the president of Missouri Right to Life.
It is incredibly dishonest to claim that "therapeutic cloning" is not cloning. If an embryo is created from cells, then cloning has taken place. While pro-cloning forces attempt to pull a bait and switch by talking about pregnancy, the issue is not whether clones will be born, and they know it. The issue is experimentation on human beings.
I do not have nearly as much problem with cloning if it produces anything other than an embryo - for example, if stem cells are the only thing created. An embryo, however, should be treated as a human being.
But this isn't about scientific research, and it never has been. It is well documented that the use of adult stem cells has been far more productive than embryonic stem cells, and umbilical cord stem cells also show promise. If this was about scientific research, proponents of embryonic stem cell research would put their political energies into the research that has proven results. This is about abortion and ensuring that abortion remains legal.
If embryos are protected from destruction by "scientific research", then the the foundation of legal abortion is shaken. After all, of we're protecting human beings from being destroyed in a petri dish, why aren't we protecting much more developed human beings from being destroyed by an abortionist's tools?