Posted on 01/30/2003 10:24:04 PM PST by MHGinTN
The President called for a ban on cloning in his State of the Union Address. So, what's wrong with cloning?
Every individual life is a continuum hallmarked by growth and development. We are invited, through the media, to differentiate reproductive cloning from therapeutic cloning, but both conceive a cloned individual human being, in vitro. Scientists seeking to exploit therapeutic cloning would have us believe that, because their goal doesn't include life support to the birth stage, their 'form' of cloning is okay. Far from it; it's a worse application of the technology. Therapeutic cloning seeks to conceive 'designer' individual human beings, give them life support either in a growth medium or a woman's body, then kill and harvest from these individuals the target tissues for which the cloned being was conceived.
It is important to realize that an embryo IS an individual human being: goals of cloning scientists bear witness to the hidden truth that they are conceiving a unique human being, whether for reproductive or therapeutic aims. Giving tacit acceptance to a proven lie --that the embryo is not an individual human life-- is bad enough, we’ve done this for more than thirty years, but to embrace cannibalism founded on such a lie is far more degenerate.
Tacit acceptance for manipulating individual human life has lead from in vitro fertilization to partial birth infanticide, proving the bankruptcy of continuing moderate acceptance. We are now staring at cannibalism in the name of whatever you care to call it. Even an embryo no bigger than a grain of sugar is an individual human life. Is it acceptable to kill that individual for their body parts? If you think that it is, at least know that it is cannibalism.
Why not? That makes as much sense as claiming a 1 second mix of sperm and egg is a human. The cat is clearly brighter than this new "human",and is probably more rational than most adult fundies.
So rights should be based upon brightness and rationality?
Of course if it is human sperm and eggs then it is human even at zero seconds.
No,I was just commenting on your probable social circle.
BTW,with a choice of two,you picked the wrong screen name.
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
Cute. I knew that spin and comparison was coming,although I expected the usual "Nazi" allusion. I am anti-abortion in most instances,but people like you tend to make me see the other side as being more rational,as you try to cram your blind propoganda down my throat.
1. If a MACROPHAGE is human and it is life, it is human life.
2. No one can prove that a human spirit does not exist along with within a PIZZA, simply by saying that the PEPPARONIS do not seem to support sentience.
in our natural law theory of law this is not recognized as a decision that man is capable of making.
Actually, the laws of physics determine what "man is capable of making".
genetically choose what should become life
What does this mean?
Uh okay. So if not brightness and rationality (which your previous post suggested), then what should rights be based upon?
Okay. It's not that you are saying self-awareness isn't sufficient, you're saying that it isn't even necessary? Rights exist in the absence of any self-awareness?
So how can we tell if a thing has rights?
2. No one can prove that a human spirit does not exist along with within a PIZZA, simply by saying that the PEPPARONIS do not seem to support sentience. It was my intention to keep this discussion on the science and scientific definitions/modes of definition (as in form and function determining the age of the individual in existence). I like pepperoni and pizza, but whether such pig has a spirit before becoming pepperoni is irrelevant to this thread. The designation of individual human is the topic at hand.
individual organism
So, how could rights have developed thousands of years ago when the concept of an organism had not yet even been formed? It seems to me there must have been some other observation that lead to the concept of human rights.
Even if that were not the case, surely you don't think that it is multicellularity that imparts rights? A snail is an organism. Should it have the same rights as you and me?
Prior to the ability to manipulate pre-implantation individual human life, the issue would have only been the figment of someone's imagination to ask about the rights of a pre-quickened human. The fetal stages prior to eight or nine months from last mensis were likely observed by someone since miscarriages have been around as long as humans, I suppose. But just waht was discovered in the menstral flow of a miscarrying woman still escaped understanding without deeper scientific knowledge.
When the procedure of in vitro fertilization was being debated, decades ago, even then the deeper understandings of the human embryo were not well grasped ... DNA and chromosomal investigations were in their infancy.
Embryology now holds as axiomatic that an individual human lifetime begins at conception (though most embryologists wouldn't make so clear a statement as that; only a few embryologists have stated clearly this axiom, I can cite a couple if you're interested) and is surety of an individual life with first cell division because the organism is 'doing' its growth and development --a process that continues for a lifetime.
We've been loosely discussing this subject (continuum of individual life) with the notion of form and function as the determinates for the ages of the individual human life as it follows a continuum of its individual lifetime. Absent a new understanding agreed upon regarding the embryo's right to continue its lifetime, our scientists will do therapeutic cloning under the assumption that society accepts it. That process is cannibalism in modern form. Do we wish to tacitly accept this further degeneration of the human family? I don't, that's why I write these essays and get involved in these discussions.
Freepers are thinkers, not just actors on the political stage. The time to discuss issues involving the right to life for the embryo, whether cloned or conceived through in vitro fertilization with sex cells, is NOW (actually, it passed a crcuial time for discussion further back, but that's the stuff of another thread).
When the President put restrictions on government funding for stem cell research, he was at a distinct political disadvantage. The 'opposition' to his administration was seeking a way to trap him prior to our national awareness rising to a better understanding of the issues involved. I hope we may be able to prevent that disadvantage where cloning of individual human life is concerned. I hope we can raise American awareness of the true nature the scientists already understand, before the scientists accomplish our tacit acceptance of an horrific degeneracy in science for the human species, with deadly preying upon the smallest of our species to 'improve' the existence of the larger among us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.