[MHGinTN]

Something in the air, I suspect. The cloning bill is about to be debated in Congress, so the fecal material will begin to collect. I just wanted my fellow freepers to have a bit more background info whne the lies, dissembling and half truths start flying.

[MHGinTN]

Ping ... you might as well get it all.

[RS]

"A human clone is a human being ...

I don't understand why this is even needed, but why would anything after it be necessary ?

[Mr. Silverback]

ProLife Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[AndrewC]

There are many reasons cited by opponents, but it is wrong primarily because the manipulation of individual humans in their earliest age as individual embryonic beings is dehumanizing … dehumanizing for the individuals so conceived for their utility and dehumanizing for the society, which embraces such cannibalism.

Bears repeating.

[RS]

"Instead, the newly conceived individuals will be killed and their body parts--from cells to organs"

I always thought this was funny - like a peanut sized lung would help someone who smoked too much...

[MHGinTN]

FYI

[MHGinTN]

PING

[longtermmemmory]

This will become moot with the ability to clone individual organs.

[EternalHope]

Thanks for the article.

[snowstorm12]

I found this and I think it applies to the discussion.

“What happens when a skin cell turns into a totipotent stem cell [a cell capable of developing into a complete organism] is that a few of its genetic switches are turned on and others turned off," writes University of Melbourne bioethicist Julian Savulescu in the April 1999 issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics. "To say it doesn't have the potential to be a human being until its nucleus is placed in the egg cytoplasm [i.e., cloning] is like saying my car does not have the potential to get me from Melbourne to Sydney unless the key is turned in the ignition."

Like turning the key in the ignition to begin a journey, simply starting a human egg on a particular path, either through fertilization or cloning, is a necessary condition for developing a human being, but it isn't sufficient. A range of other conditions must also be present. Those conditions include the availability of a suitable environment such as a woman's womb.

"I cannot see any intrinsic morally significant difference between a mature skin cell, the totipotent stem cell derived from it, and a fertilised egg," writes Savulescu. "They are all cells which could give rise to a person if certain conditions obtained."

"If all our cells could be persons, then we cannot appeal to the fact that an embryo could be a person to justify the special treatment we give it," concludes Savulescu.

The DNA content of a skin cell, a stem cell, and a fertilized egg are exactly the same. The difference between what they are and what they could become is the environment in which their DNA is found. Thus, the mere existence of human DNA in a cell cannot be the source of a relevant moral difference. The differences among these cells are a result of how the genes in each are expressed, and that expression depends largely on which proteins suppress or promote which genes.

So people who oppose stem cell research must logically be committed to the notion that the only difference between your skin cell and your twin are the proteins that decorate their DNA strands. But can moral relevance really be reduced to the presence or absence of certain proteins in a cell?

[MHGinTN]

Ping