Replies

Unix Geek: To your question: How many women are killed by this?
We don't know, since it is information protected by “privacy” rules, and because the drugs have not been well studied, especially in the long term. However, at least 25 documented deaths from Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome (OHS), mostly reported in England where they actually keep count. Again, there are uncounted cancer deaths and organ failures in long term. But which woman's life do you feel entitled to throw away for the sake of junk science when ethical alternatives are light years ahead of the unethical, and much more cost effective? There are over 700 FDA-approved adult stem cell trials in progress right now. Nearly a quarter of a million Americans have received stem cell treatments using donated bone marrow, their own cells, or cord blood cells, for over 60 different diseases.
On your second question: Why do you assume the only reason to clone a child would be to destroy...?
Answer: 1)Cloning a child to bring it to birth is called reproductive cloning. It's a felony, and even the Lefties reject it. That's why Obama reiterates that “cloning” won't be allowed, when he means only reproductive cloning. Furthermore, it's even less plausible than “therapeutic” cloning (clone and kill) because the odds of getting a healthy cloned human to live to birth are vanishingly small and prohibitively expensive, removing any practical reason on earth to want it. Unless there is some vast change of technology, which overcomes the apparent inherent barriers to human cloning, it will not be possible. The more people try, the more it looks like God has built an insurmountable barrier. However, it's possible that God might give the ungodly what they want, as a punishment.

1)Cloning a child to bring it to birth is called reproductive cloning. It's a felony, and even the Lefties reject it. That's why Obama reiterates that “cloning” won't be allowed, when he means only reproductive cloning.

Yes, I know. What I don't know is why. What possible business is it of Obama's if people choose to reproduce in this way?

Furthermore, it's even less plausible than “therapeutic” cloning (clone and kill) because the odds of getting a healthy cloned human to live to birth are vanishingly small and prohibitively expensive, removing any practical reason on earth to want it.

Dogs and cats are being cloned right now. There are technological problems to be overcome - health risks for the clones. But these problems will be solved.

Unless there is some vast change of technology, which overcomes the apparent inherent barriers to human cloning, it will not be possible.

Vast changes in technology occur with breathtaking rapidity these days. Human cloning will be a practical reality well within our lifetimes.

The more people try, the more it looks like God has built an insurmountable barrier. However, it's possible that God might give the ungodly what they want, as a punishment.

There's a great deal of presumption in this statement, and I question your role as God's spokesman. I've yet to hear God state his views on cloning, and I know of no reason why either your opinion or Obama's opinion should have any effect on the decision of a person to clone themselves.