Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Here Come the NJ Clones
National Review Online ^ | 02.03.03 | Kathryn Jean Lopez

Posted on 02/03/2003 7:38:16 PM PST by Coleus

Here Come the Jersey Clones A devastating bill inches toward law.

The U.S. Congress remains practically agnostic on human cloning. Or so its inaction suggests. A bill sits in the House of Representatives waiting to face debate. A Senate bill sponsored by Senator Sam Brownback, too, waits in the wings. The president issued a challenge to the legislative branch to get moving during his State of the Union address last week, and to get moving toward a total prohibition on all human cloning — not some half-baked ban that would, in the end, let the clone creation march onward anyway; just so long as you kill them in the end.

Congress may not be acting at the moment, but New Jersey is. On Monday, the Garden State's assembly's health committee takes up a particularly bad bill. Worse than the bad federal laws being proposed, the New Jersey bill does not even prohibit the implantation of a "cloned" embryo. The New Jersey bill would allow for the development of a clone up to and past birth, so long as scientists do not plan on someone raising the child they've created. It's only okay to clone, in other words, so long as you plan to kill the clone, ultimately.

If S1909/A2840 becomes state law, New Jersey would have the disastrous distinction of being the first state to allow human cloning and fetal harvesting — the state would be allowing the manufacture of human beings to kill and use for their parts. As New Jersey Right to Life puts it, "This legislation opens a Pandora's box where human embryo and human fetal farms, human experimentation, and reproductive human cloning will be allowed to flourish."

All the while, however, the New Jersey bill, supported by "Superman," activist Christopher Reeve, claims to actually ban human cloning. This is possible because the bill defines cloning after birth.

The bill, in fact, reads like New Jersey lawmakers have taken on Princeton infanticide-defender Peter Singer as a consultant. The supposed ban reads: "A person who knowingly engages or assists, directly or indirectly, in the cloning of a human being is guilty of a crime of the first degree. As used in this act, 'cloning of a human being' means the replication of a human individual by cultivating a cell with genetic material through the egg, embryo, fetal and newborn stages into a new human individual" (emphasis added).

The New Jersey legislation "constitutes the moral madness of killing in the cause of healing — with a possible profit motive that would encourage the grisly practice," according to a letter sent to Governor Jim McGreevey by four members of the President's Council on Bioethics (Princeton's Robert P. George, Stanford's William Hurlbut, Georgetown's Alfonso Gomez-Lobo, and Gilbert C. Meilaender of Valparaiso University).

In their letter, the four bioethics-commission members explain:

The pending legislation expressly authorizes the creation of new human beings by cloning and, perhaps unintentionally, their cultivation from the zygote stage through the newborn stage for the purpose of harvesting what the bills themselves refer to as "cadaveric" fetal tissue. Please pause to consider whose cadaver the tissue is to be derived from. It is the cadaver of a distinct member of the species homo sapiens — a human being — who would be brought into being by cloning and, presumably, implanted and permitted to develop to the desired stage of physical maturation for the purpose of being killed for the harvesting of his or her tissues.

Gerard V. Bradley, a constitutional law professor at the University of Notre Dame has warned that the effects of the bill, if passed would be "breathtaking, unprecedented, and widely regarded as morally disastrous. These effects include, most notably, a commercial market in the body parts of fetuses, and the birth of an unlimited number of 'cloned' babies."

Wesley J. Smith, author of Culture of Death: The Assault of Medical Ethics in America tells NRO: "It is remarkable — and very telling — that in less then two years, we have gone from 'only' wanting to harvest the stem cells from embryos left over from IVF procedures, to a state senate passing legislation that would permit the implantation and gestation of cloned fetuses to the ninth month, before requiring their destruction. This is not just a slide down a slippery slope, it is a headfirst plunge into the abyss."

Someone in the New Jersey assembly ought to consider the consequences of their disingenuous, devastating dive before they get human life in too deep, too late for second thoughts. And Congress should take a message from the Garden State before the Brave New World renders Capitol Hill irrelevant.

TOPICS: Culture/Society; US: New Jersey
KEYWORDS: a2840; abortionlist; babyparts; clonaid; cloning; kathrynjeanlopez; newjersey; nj; njclones; njcloning; njrtl; prolife; s1909; scnt; sprint; weinberg
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last
the New Jersey bill does not even prohibit the implantation of a "cloned" embryo.>>>

How sick!

1 posted on 02/03/2003 7:38:16 PM PST by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All



Prepared by Marie Tasy

Director of Public & Legislative Affairs

New Jersey Right to Life


On February 3, 2003, The Assembly Health Committee released  A2840/S1909 out of committee on a party line vote with six Democrats voting for the bill and two abstaining.  The Committee heard 4 hours of testimony from witnesses, an overwhelming majority of whom were opposed to the legislation.  The testimony was transcribed and will be available at a later date through the NJ Legislature’s webpage.


NJRTL provided copies of a legal opinion addressed to NJRTL from Professor Gerard Bradley, et al. to Committee members as well as a letter written to Governor Jim McGreevey from four members of the President’s Council on Bioethics outlining some grave problems with the legislation.  After the committee was made aware that the bill would allow therapeutic cloning, forced abortions, reproductive cloning, and the commercial trafficking in baby body parts, the committee released the bill over the objections of NJRTL who asked that the bill not be released from committee, but rather held for further discussion.   Assemblywoman Loretta Weinberg, FR Links to Loretta Weinberg's Legislation   the Chair of the Committee indicated that the sponsor would review the bill, and, possibly add amendments on the floor when the bill comes up for a vote before the full Assembly.  The Senate bill was merged with the Assembly bill, which means they are now identical.


The bill can come up for a vote as early as Monday, February 10, 2003.


Action needed:

Continue to contact your two Assembly members and urge them to vote “NO” on A2840/S1909 and “NO” on any amendments that may be offered.   

See below article which reports on today’s hearing:


Assembly panel approves stem cell bill

The Associated Press
2/3/03 6:44 PM

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) -- A bill that would authorize stem cell research continued to raise objections from religious and anti-abortion groups Monday as it moved a step closer to becoming law.

After four hours of testimony, an Assembly committee approved the bill, praising it as a cutting edge tool that will allow research on cells to find cures for diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and multiple sclerosis.

But groups such as New Jersey Right to Life and New Jersey Catholic Conference argued the bill would permit cloning of humans and the trafficking of human body parts.

"We believe it is more important than ever to stand for the principle that government must not treat any living human being as research material as a mere means for benefit to others," according to a statement from New Jersey's Catholic bishops.

The bill must now go before the full Assembly, and the legislation already has passed the Senate. Gov. James E. McGreevey also said he supports stem cell research and urged lawmakers to pass the bill, saying it provides hope for those suffering from incurable illnesses.

If the bill becomes law, New Jersey would become the second state in the nation to allow stem cell research.

The law would require a doctor treating patients for infertility to provide enough information for them to make an educated choice regarding use of human embryos after infertility treatments. Most stem cell researchers get unwanted embryos donated by fertility clinics.

Stem cells are created in the first days of pregnancy and give rise to the human body. Scientists hope to someday direct stem cells to grow into replacement organs and tissues to treat a wide range of diseases.

To harvest stem cells, researchers must destroy days-old embryos -- a procedure condemned by the Roman Catholic Church, anti-abortion activists and others. Some were outraged that lawmakers advanced the bill.

"If this legislation passes, Raelians will feel perfectly comfortable calling New Jersey home and setting up their laboratories," said Marie Tasy, director of public and legislative affairs for New Jersey Right to Life.

In December, Clonaid, a group started by a religious sect called the Raelians, claimed to have produced the first human clone. But the group, which believes life on Earth was started by extraterrestrials, has failed to produce the child for independent DNA testing.

How One Clone Leads to Another

January 24, 2003

NY Times

WASHINGTON - The failure of the last Congress to enact a ban on human cloning casts grave doubt on our ability to govern the unethical uses of biotechnology, even when it threatens things we hold dear. The new Congress must work to break the legislative impasse.

Opposition to cloning to produce children is practically unanimous in America: The vast majority of Americans oppose it. Most research scientists agree that it should be banned. Nearly every member of Congress has condemned it.
Cloning not only carries high risks of bodily harm to the cloned child, but it also threatens the dignity of human procreation, giving one generation unprecedented genetic control over the next. It is the first step toward a eugenic world in which children become objects of manipulation and products of will.

Yet legislation that would have banned cloning failed to pass the Senate last year. Partisans on both sides of the cloning debate sought to entangle it with the larger debate about stem cell and embryo research. Disentangling the two debates is the key to passing responsible legislation that would prohibit this practice in the United States.

We first need to be clear about the facts. All human cloning begins with the same act: the production of a cloned human embryo. Cloning to produce children would involve the implantation of such embryos in a woman's body and their development to birth; cloning for biomedical research, in contrast, involves the dissection of these embryos to obtain stem cells (and, someday perhaps, the harvesting of fetal tissues and organs).

The political controversy is whether both or only the first of these uses of cloning should be prohibited - and whether, as a practical and moral matter, it is possible to stop cloning to produce children while allowing cloning for research.

The debate so far has been inadequate and wrongly focused. Supporters of cloning for research have often tried to confuse the issue by euphemistic distortion - claiming that the production of cloned embryos is not really cloning, that the embryos produced are not really embryos at all. At
the same time, they have falsely characterized a ban on cloning for research as a ban on all embryo and stem cell research.

Opponents of cloning research, meanwhile, have been preoccupied with putting a stop to the destruction of embryos and so have failed to focus on what is unique about all human cloning: the expanded power to manipulate nascent
human life and thus to master the very technique that will make cloning to produce children possible. Were this danger better understood, opposition to the practice would mount.

It is true that cloning research offers hope, however  speculative, for understanding and treating disease. Yet we should not deceive ourselves about the value and necessity of such research: there is virtually no precedent in animal work that demonstrates the unique benefits of creating and exploiting cloned embryos; we have only just begun to understand existing embryonic stem cells; and promising results with adult stem cells, if confirmed, may obviate altogether the putative need for cloned stem cells.

It is also true that the ethics of embryo research is relevant to the cloning debate. Cloning research would require the routine production of embryos solely as a source for experimentation. It would require large numbers of human eggs and invite the exploitation of egg donors. And legislation that allowed creating cloned embryos for research while criminalizing their implantation to create cloned children would mandate, by law, the destruction of nascent human life.

The central issue in the cloning debate, however, and the primary reason to support a ban or moratorium on all human cloning, is this: it threatens the dignity of human procreation. Concern about this threat should lead us to oppose all cloning, including cloning for research.

Human cloning must be seen in the context of our growing powers over human reproduction augmented by new knowledge of the human genome. Science already permits us to screen
human embryos in vitro for thousands of human genes. These include not only those that have markers for dread diseases, but also soon genes responsible for other human traits: not just sex, height or skin color but even intelligence, temperament or sexual orientation.

Genetic selection of embryos is today a growing industry. Some experts hail assisted reproduction as the route to genetically sound babies. While directed genetic change of human embryos (even for therapeutic purposes) may be a long way off, it has been accomplished in primates in the
laboratory. It would be naïve to believe that cloning children will be confined to infertile couples and that cloning research will be confined to studies of disease.
Viewed in this larger context, the production of cloned embryos for any purpose is a significant leap in transforming procreation into a form of manufacture. The embryo created by cloning would be the first human embryo to have its genetic identity selected in advance, the first embryo whose makeup is not the unpredictable result of uniting sperm and egg. It is precisely this genetic control that makes cloned embryos appealing and useful.

But we should not be deceived: saying yes to cloned embryos, even for research, means saying yes, at least in principle, to an ever-expanding genetic mastery of one generation over the next. Once cloned human embryos exist in laboratories, the eugenic revolution will have begun.

It is these concerns that have caused many countries to prohibit all human cloning, both for reproduction and research. Germany, Italy, France, Norway, Australia and other democracies, many of which support embryo research, have said no to this practice. The European Parliament,
hardly an arm of the religious right, has also called for the prohibition of all human cloning.

Our country should do the same. The United States should prohibit all human cloning, regardless of its aim - or, at the very least, ban it for several years.

Such a policy would allow time to consider the real significance of crossing this crucial moral boundary. It would allow time for other areas of stem cell research, both adult and embryonic, to proceed. It would provide the most effective safeguard against the production of cloned children by stopping cloning before it starts. And it would allow the national debate to continue. If we do nothing now, human cloning will happen here, and we will have acquiesced in its arrival. It is time for
Congress to act.

Leon R. Kass, a fellow at the American Enterprise  Institute, is chairman of the President's Council on  Bioethics.

2 posted on 02/03/2003 7:38:47 PM PST by Coleus (RU 486 Kills Babies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
3 posted on 02/03/2003 7:43:38 PM PST by Coleus (RU 486 Kills Babies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PaulNYC; tsomer; Mixer; MattinNJ; OceanKing; TomT in NJ; Coleus; agrace; Alberta's Child; ...
4 posted on 02/03/2003 7:47:09 PM PST by Coleus (RU 486 Kills Babies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
I hope they don't clone Lautenberg, or, worse yet, McGreevey.
5 posted on 02/03/2003 7:47:49 PM PST by TruthShallSetYouFree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
This article is just a cheap scare story, and beneath the usually high standards of the National Review. Human cloning is no more going to ruin the world than is genetically engineered corn. And New Jersey scientists aren't going start raising clones to toddlerhood and then knocking them off, regardless of what any loopy law says or doesn't say.
6 posted on 02/03/2003 7:50:56 PM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree
Yea, me too, one of them is enough!
7 posted on 02/03/2003 7:52:13 PM PST by Coleus (RU 486 Kills Babies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
This article is just a cheap scare story, and beneath the usually high standards of the National Review.>>

We shouldn't harvest babies for parts; that's the Devil's work.
8 posted on 02/03/2003 7:53:41 PM PST by Coleus (RU 486 Kills Babies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
Reguardless wheather or not cloneing is "OK".
A life is a life! (:)<<me.
9 posted on 02/03/2003 7:56:45 PM PST by stopsign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree
The President called for a ban on human cloning during his State of the Union address. So, what’s wrong with human 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.

If anyone would like more details, in layman's language, concerning in vitro fertilization, embryonic exploitation, and therapeutic cloning, click on my name and read the essay posted on my profile page.

Is it time to start a 'letters to the editor' campaign regarding these issues, like we conducted prior to the 2000 election? Perhaps it is. Cut and paste at will, fellow Freepers. The material is offered for your use in activist work.

10 posted on 02/03/2003 7:57:04 PM PST by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
We shouldn't harvest babies for parts; that's the Devil's work.

New Jersey and Devils. Perfect together. :)

11 posted on 02/03/2003 8:01:18 PM PST by TruthShallSetYouFree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
Therapeutic cloning is cannibalism. That you feel this cannibalism isn't an afront to human life is astonishing.
12 posted on 02/03/2003 8:04:56 PM PST by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Calm down. No one is talking about eating babies.
13 posted on 02/03/2003 8:09:46 PM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
No one is suggeting harvesting babies for parts.
14 posted on 02/03/2003 8:19:23 PM PST by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio; GovernmentShrinker
The goal of therapeutic cloning is to conceive a close genetic match for the parent genetic donor, give life support to the newly conceived individual human life until the tissues targeted for harvesting differentiate sufficiently for exact identification. The killing of the cloned individual human life is then done and the body parts are harvested and put to a 'higher use'. Boys, that's cannibalizing individual human life any way you cut it.
15 posted on 02/03/2003 8:25:33 PM PST by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Did you read the legislation?

And what do you call creating human life (cloning and using aborted babies) and then using that life for laboratory research?
16 posted on 02/03/2003 8:30:08 PM PST by Coleus (RU 486 Kills Babies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

1) I am not a boy. I am a 41 year old woman.

2) Therapeutic cloning research is in its earliest stages so your amateur pronouncements of what it will consist of are ridiculous. The obvious goal, which will likely be achieved, is to learn how to direct the undifferentiated blastocyst to produce ONLY the type of tissue which is needed for the therapeutic procedure at hand. Note that researchers have already managed to get some cells planted on the side of a mouse to grow into a human ear -- these cells were not from an embryonic source (as cartilage can be grown from samples taken from mature humans), but this is the type of approach which cloning research will almost certainly focus on.

While people like you are running around spreading alarmist misinformation, real scientists are doing real research, and many of us don't want the government throwing up obstacles to their research.
17 posted on 02/03/2003 8:40:11 PM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
The blastocyst is a lot of things, but 'undifferentiated' isn't one of them. But you probably knew that already and chose to use the term to support only the notion of totipotent to pluripotent cell differentiation. The very act of reaching the blastocyst age of the individual human life conceived shows some differentiation in order to polarize the cell structures for placental formation and body formation. Therapeutic cloning is the act of conceiving an individual close duplicate to the parent genetic donor, then raising that individual life toi the stage desired for harvesting. That is cannibalizing of individual human life.
18 posted on 02/03/2003 8:45:14 PM PST by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

... and many of us don't want the government throwing up obstacles to their research. Furtive plea of the modern cannibal.
19 posted on 02/03/2003 8:47:35 PM PST by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
20 posted on 02/03/2003 9:17:36 PM PST by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
So hordes of clones are going to be marching out of New Jersey to...let's see now...get jobs at airline counters?
21 posted on 02/03/2003 9:18:39 PM PST by BlazingArizona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree
McGreedy IS a Florio Clone. Tax me more. Government is starving. Teachers are starving. Laywers are starving.
The rest of you need to pony up some money, NOW!
22 posted on 02/03/2003 9:19:13 PM PST by kylaka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BlazingArizona
Your acerbic wit notwithstanding, therapeutic cloning has nothing to do with marching. But you knew that, you just thought you'd be cute and clever where your understanding faultered.
23 posted on 02/03/2003 9:34:00 PM PST by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: All
Here is the bill as it is written
24 posted on 02/03/2003 9:36:30 PM PST by Coleus (RU 486 Kills Babies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: All
Lies About "Fetal" Stem Cell Research

Wesley Smith on Cloning:
25 posted on 02/03/2003 9:48:53 PM PST by Coleus (RU 486 Kills Babies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Fetal Stem cells are not needed.


AP Science Writer

Thursday, December 13, 2001; 2:29 PM

WASHINGTON –– Researchers have cured laboratory mice of sickle cell anemia, the inherited blood disorder that affects more than 70,000 Americans, in an experiment using stem cells, genes and a modified HIV virus.

Although the treatment is years away from being tested on humans, experts called the experiment a milestone.

"It corrected the sickling problem throughout the bodies of these mice," said Philippe Leboulch, a Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts Institute of Technology scientist who led the research team. "All of the mice were cured permanently."

Leboulch said additional study is needed before the technique can be tried on humans and the first clinical trial could come in about two years. A report on the study appears Friday in the journal Science.

The disease causes intense pain. It damages the liver, lungs and kidneys and can trigger stroke or infections. There is no cure in humans, and treatment consists of combatting the symptoms with antibiotics, blood transfusions and surgery. A drug, called hydroxyurea, helps control some symptoms in adults, but it has not been approved for children.

About 1.2 million Americans carry one sickle cell gene. They are said to have the sickle cell trait and are not affected by the disease. A person must inherit two sickle cell genes – one from each parent – to have the disease. A child born to two parents with the sickle cell trait has one chance in four of inheriting the disease.

Sickle cell anemia is most common in people of African heritage. It also is found in people of Greek, Indian and Italian origin and can occur in any race.

"Although much more research is needed before human application, this is a significant achievement that brings us closer to human gene therapy for what is a very serious genetic blood disorder," said Dr. Claude Lenfant, director of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, one of the National Institutes of Health.

"This is an exciting result," said Dr. Michel Sadelain of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York. "It is an important milestone in gene therapy."

Sadelain earlier achieved a similar success in mice by correcting the genetic flaw that causes thalassemia, a blood disorder related to sickle cell anemia.

In the new study, researchers used two types of mice that are bred to have a blood disease closely resembling the sickle cell anemia disease in humans.

They removed from the mice samples of the bone marrow, which makes blood, and then irradiated the mice to kill the remaining abnormal bone marrow.

The researchers mixed with the removed bone marrow a fragment of the HIV virus that had been manipulated to contain a normal red blood cell gene. The virus infected the bone marrow, carrying into the blood-making cells the normal red blood cell gene. The bone marrow was then reinjected into the mice.

Once in the animals, the genetically altered bone marrow cells produced normal red blood cells and corrected the sickling disease.

After 10 months, the mice were killed and their organs and blood examined.

Leboulch said there was no evidence of abnormal blood nor of the organ damage that is common with sickle cell anemia.

The gene therapy technique will not be tried in humans, said Leboulch, until the researchers learn how to safely neutralize the abnormal blood-making gene in patients. Radiation was used in the mouse experiment to kill the animal's bone marrow, but this would not be appropriate for human sickle cell disease patients, said Leboulch.

Greg Evans of the NHLBI said that research is under way to find a safe way to partially destroy the abnormal bone marrow in patients. The technique would then make room for the genetically corrected bone marrow.

Sadelain said that earlier studies showed that the genetically corrected bone marrow is ineffective against the blood disorder unless most of the abnormal bone marrow is neutralized.

Both sickle cell anemia and thalassemia are caused by a failure of a gene that helps to make hemoglobin, the protein in red blood cells that carries oxygen.

In thalassemia, the gene fails to make enough hemoglobin.

In sickle cell disease, the gene makes an abnormal hemoglobin that is sticky and stiff. Instead of the soft, doughnut-shaped, normal hemoglobin, the abnormal protein often forms into a distinctive sickle shape with a sharp point. The abnormal hemoglobin tends to clog small vessels, blocking the flow of blood. This starves tissues of oxygen and can cause damage throughout the body.

National Institutes of Health:

Sickle Cell Disease Association of America:

26 posted on 02/03/2003 10:03:06 PM PST by Coleus (RU 486 Kills Babies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

The blastocyst is a lot of things, but 'undifferentiated' isn't one of them.

It contains two types of cells, but only one of those is destined to become part of the fetus -- the other will form the placenta. So at the blastocyst stage, all the cells which develop into the fetus are undifferentiated.

27 posted on 02/04/2003 5:43:59 AM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker; MHGinTN

"Moreover, because therapeutic cloning requires the creation and disaggregation ex utero of blastocyst stage embryos, this technique raises complex ethical questions.""CRNT [cell replacement through nuclear transfer, aka therapeutic cloning] requires the deliberate creation and disaggregation of a human embryo."Robert P. Lanza, Arthur L. Caplan, Lee M. Silver, Jose B. Cibelli, Michael D. West, Ronald M. Green; "The ethical validity of using nuclear transfer in human transplantation"; The Journal of the American Medical Association284, 3175-3179; Dec 27, 2000.

Testimony of Edmund Pellegrino

My name is Edmund D. Pellegrino. I serve currently as professor of medicine and medical ethics at Georgetown University. In my 55 years in medicine, I have worked as a practicing clinician, research scientist, teacher, scholar in ethics and administrator. On the basis of all these experiences, I wish to oppose any relaxation of the current congressional ban on the production and use of living human embryos as the source of embryonic stem cells.

My objection is not directed against research involving multi-potential stem cells per se. The possibilities such cells offer for the replacement or repair of dead or dying cells in a variety of diseased organs is very great. Such research should be vigorously pursued and generously supported by federal and private funds.

My objection is grounded in the ethical impropriety of the deliberate production and destruction of living human embryos for the purpose of harvesting embryonic stem cells from the inner cell mass at the blastocyst stage of their early development. This extraction of the inner cell mass invariably results in the death of the embryo.

Effectively, this method ends the life of a new human being at its most vulnerable stage of existence. The human embryo is a member of the human species, the living result of the fusion of two living human cells. It is imprinted genetically as a unique member of the human species from the moment of conception. At that moment, it is set on its way to becoming a fully developed human adult. To interrupt this process is to violate the moral claim of a human being for protection at its most vulnerable stage. It is laudable to seek better ways to treat human disease and suffering.

But we are not free to use any means we choose. Even the good of others cannot justify the use of human embryos as mere means. The embryo's moral worth is not determined by its instrumental value for others. This would be to absolutize utility and to devalue the lives of all other classes of vulnerable human beings. The societal consequences are grave indeed.

These ethical objections cannot be over-ridden by the claim that the embryo is entitled to a "special respect" but that this respect can be violated if there is sufficient benefit for others. Respect is inherent in the moral status of what the human embryo is in fact. Respect is neither conferred nor removed by arbitrary social convention or convenience.

Nor can the ethical issues be side-stepped by calling the blastocyst a "pre-embryo." This is a euphemism of convenience with no ethical or biological justification. There is no arbitrary point at which we can logically confer or withdraw the moral claim of the embryo for protection of its life.

Moreover, there is genuine and increasing likelihood that the destruction of embryos is not necessary to obtain plutipotential stem cells. Recent work from very respectable scientific laboratories demonstrates the value of plutipotential stem cells from such sources as adult bone marrow (Johns Hopkins); adult human brain (University of Tennessee); neural stem cells (Harvard); muscle, thymus, T-cells, Epithelium stem cells (Tokyo); and autologous bone marrow cells. Use of cells from those sources would be morally defensible, since no living embryos are sacrificed. The effectiveness of these cells appears to equal that of cells obtained by destruction of living human embryos.

Pluripotential stem cells have enormous potential for human benefit, but, like all scientific research, research with these cells must be governed by ethical constraint. Lifting the Congressional ban is not justified logically; it is scientifically premature and unnecessary, and it is morally indefensible. If ethical constraint has any meaning, experiments involving production and destruction of living human embryos must not be done. Indeed, to be ethically sound the Congressional ban should be extended permanently to include privately supported as well as federally supported research involving the production and destruction of living human embryos.

Edmund D. Pellegrino, M.D.- Dr. Pellegrino is the John Carroll Professor of Medicine and Medical Ethics at Georgetown University. He is the former director of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Center for the Advanced Study of Ethics, and is the current director of the Center for Clinical Bioethics at Georgetown. He is the author of over 450 published items in medical science, philosophy, and ethics and is a member of numerous editorial boards. Dr. Pellegrino is a Master of the American College of Physicians, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and Member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences.

28 posted on 02/04/2003 7:08:28 AM PST by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
It contains two types of cells ... The two types of cells have their origin in the first cell of fecundation. The 'division of labor' for the cells the conceptus itself creates is evidence of earliest differentiation. The cells destined to build the pacental sac are formed by the zygote, not by the woman's body. The sticky coating on the surface of the implanting zygote is created by the zygote. The chemical messages which marshall the woman's uterine tissues to support the implanting zygote are sent by the newly conceived individual human life that is the conceptus/zygote. The amazing neutral divide the blastocyst creates, integrated in the palcental barrier, is an act of the blastocyst, not the woman's body.

The newly conceived individual human being is the director of all the form and function which hallmarks the lifetime of that individual. You've chosen to ignore the actual start of the individual continuum of this individual human life, in favor of characterizing the start of individuality as the point of cell differentiation for the embryonic body, yet the scientific facts proclaim that the differentiation begins at an earlier stage.

29 posted on 02/04/2003 9:22:26 AM PST by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Actually, I would "characterize the start of individuality" at some point long after initial cell differentiation. Those chemical signals sent out by blastocysts are the same for all non-defective blastocysts, and certainly don't qualify as acts of concious will. It is akin to a seed in the ground sending up a sprout in response to dampness and warmth -- strictly a series of automated chemical reactions.
30 posted on 02/04/2003 10:54:14 AM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
The will to survive is precisely what the earliest differentiation of cells indicates with the zygote/ blastocyst. I believe we would agree, that's not the same as making 'conscious' choices. If I understand your post, you would start the 'worthy of continued existence' for the individual human life at some point when consciousness may be proven. Is that correct?
31 posted on 02/04/2003 10:59:11 AM PST by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

32 posted on 02/04/2003 8:33:35 PM PST by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
Physician -- DO NO HARM. Ever - and espcially to those who have no voice in the whole process.
33 posted on 02/04/2003 8:45:59 PM PST by victim soul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: victim soul
34 posted on 02/05/2003 2:22:32 PM PST by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: kylaka
I think he's worse than Florio.
35 posted on 02/05/2003 7:02:41 PM PST by Coleus (RU 486 Kills Babies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: victim soul
I just hope the Assemblymen in NJ know that the whole country is watching them. Many pro-life organizations have included a note on their websites of what they have done so far.
36 posted on 02/05/2003 7:04:34 PM PST by Coleus (RU 486 Kills Babies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
Of course he's worse than Florio. He's got the media spinning for him, which Florio never had. McPerfect
cut a billion dollars from the budget the headlines
scream, and a thousand employees... hhisss goes CWA,
and the Teachers unions. The math tells a different story.
It's business as usual in the "peoples republic" of
New Jersey. Soak the taxpayers, and private industry
to make up the difference.
37 posted on 02/05/2003 9:18:16 PM PST by kylaka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: All
Robert Novak
February 5, 2003

Christopher Reeve Republicans

WASHINGTON -- While President Bush's call for a federal ban on human cloning will bring no immediate congressional action, the New Jersey Legislature is moving at breakneck speed toward legalization. What's more, the state's Republican legislators are not impeding this rush toward passage, ignoring admonitions from the White House.

When the cloning bill passed the state Senate (evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans) late last year, not a single GOP senator voted no. A committee of the Democratic-controlled state Assembly unanimously approved the bill Monday, Republicans abstaining. With the GOP offering no opposition, the full Assembly is expected to pass the bill as early as next Monday and send it to Democratic Gov. James McGreevey. When he signs it, New Jersey would become the only state where human cloning is expressly legal.

"If New Jersey passes this legislation," said Marie Tasy of the state's Right to Life organization, which has led the opposition, "the Raelians should feel comfortable calling New Jersey home and setting up cloning labs in the Garden State." The bizarre is familiar in Trenton, where conflict-of-interest is common among state legislators, and Republicans are divided and leaderless. GOP legislators protest that the issue is too complicated to understand. They are clear, however, in not wanting to get on the wrong side of the bill's most visible advocate, paralyzed actor Christopher Reeve.

Republican lawmakers may be confused by claims from the bill's sponsors that it actually bans human cloning. They should read the Jan. 27 letter to Gov. McGreevey by four members of the President's Council on Bioethics (Robert George of Princeton, Alfonso Gomez-Lobo of Georgetown, William Hurlbut of Stanford and Gilbert Meilaender of Valparaiso University). They contend the bill "expressly authorizes the creation of new human beings by cloning" and "threatens to make New Jersey a haven for unethical medical practices, including the macabre practice of human fetal farming."

This measure would permit "somatic cell nuclear transfer" (SCNT) -- a process used in making a human clone. While supporters argue this is not cloning, the President's Council disagrees -- unanimously. It reported last summer that "the product of 'SCNT' is not only an embryo; it is also a clone, genetically virtually identical to the individual that was the source of the transferred nucleus, hence the embryonic clone of the donor." Even the minority of the council that does not oppose research cloning agrees that SCNT amounts to human cloning.

When the bill came before the Senate Dec. 16, the vote was 25 to 0 -- all 20 Democrats and five Republicans voting aye, the remaining 15 Republicans abstaining. The five GOP supporters included Sen. Joseph Kyrillos, who doubles as state party chairman. Kyrillos was reported by colleagues to have said in a party caucus: "We can't vote against Christopher Reeve." ("I don't remember saying that," he told me.) Kyrillos is pro-choice, as is another of the Republican five, Sen. Bill Gormley, a failed 2000 candidate for the U.S. Senate.

In Trenton, other Republican supporters did not worry about conflict with their day jobs. Sen. Robert Singer, co-majority leader of the Senate, works for the Community-Kimball Medical Center. Richard Bagger was talked about for governor before he resigned from the Senate Jan. 15 to take a promotion at the Pfizer pharmaceutical firm, where he was already employed at the time of the cloning vote.

Beyond the distinctive mores of Trenton, pro-choice sentiments pervade the money raisers and contributors of the Republican Party. Kyrillos is a close associate of the militantly pro-choice Lewis Eisenberg of Rumson, N.J., who last week was re-elected national finance chairman of the Republican Party. Kyrillos and Eisenberg both serve on the Republican Leadership Council, which pursues the election of socially liberal Republicans.

New Jersey's prospective status as a haven for human cloning may be short-lived. Republican Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, principal sponsor of legislation to ban human cloning nationally, received assurances Tuesday from Majority Leader Bill Frist that the measure will be considered once it comes over from the House (something that did not happen in the Democratic-controlled Senate the last two years). That may well happen by early autumn -- not enough time for New Jersey to become the breeding center for a brave new world.
38 posted on 02/05/2003 10:29:52 PM PST by Coleus (RU 486 Kills Babies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!; Salvation

FREEP the NJ Assembly, namely Speaker Sires, from around the country and let them know the country is watching, NJ is poised to be the baby-killing, frankenstein-making capital of the World, isn't that wonderful?

NJ Residents can contact their own assemblymen and Speaker Sires.
Assembly Speaker Re:Catholic
Albio Sires (D)
West New York, NJ 07093
PHONE NUMBER: (201) 854-0900 E mail not listed, I'm guessing it's this.

Sponsored by:
Assemblyman NEIL M. COHEN
District 20 (Union)

Assemblyman JOHN F. MCKEON
District 27 (Essex)

Assemblyman MIMS HACKETT, JR.
District 27 (Essex)

Assemblywoman JOAN M. QUIGLEY
District 32 (Bergen and Hudson)

Co-Sponsored by:
Assemblyman Guear

Here is the bill as it is written:

Lies About "Fetal" Stem Cell Research

Wesley Smith on Cloning:

39 posted on 02/07/2003 10:56:04 AM PST by Coleus (RU 486 Kills Babies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Will Congress Ban Human Cloning?

Serious Questions Remain Unanswered

            Growing tension between powerful forces over whether to enact a ban on all human cloning boils down to two ways of considering the status of the human embryo.  There are those like President Bush and the vast majority of Americans who believe that a human embryo is a human being created by God in His image, through the sexual union of the male sperm and female egg.  Others, represented in Congress by Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Ted Kennedy D-MA), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and others, plus the pharmaceutical and biotech industries and many scientific groups who support human cloning and embryonic stem cell research, consider the human embryo engendered through assisted or a-sexual reproduction, to be a man-made object to be used and ultimately killed in scientific experiments.

             In his State of the Union address on January 28, 2003, President Bush said, “Because no human life should be started or ended as the object of an experiment, I ask you to set a high standard for humanity, and pass a law against all human cloning.”  The Weldon/Stupak Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003 to ban human cloning (H.R. 234) which passed the House in July 2001 and was stopped in the Senate by Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD), has been reintroduced in the House with 103 co-sponsors.  Last week, the Brownback/Landrieu bill (S. 245), identical to the House version, was reintroduced in the Senate with 21 co-sponsors.   In contrast,  Senators Specter, Hatch, Feinstein and Kennedy have introduced a competing “clone and kill” bill (S. 303), which would allow the cloning of human embryos for experimentation, provided they are killed prior to 14 days of life.  Their bill would result in the immoral and unethical establishment of what President Bush called “human embryo farms.”

             In an opinion poll conducted by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) on his web site, the vast majority of respondents said they support a total ban on human embryo cloning.  92% support the Brownback-Weldon ban and 84% wish to ban the Specter-Hatch-Kennedy plan.  The fact that Senator Frist did a poll on an issue so fundamental has led some to speculate that his support for a total ban may be conditional, especially in light of his previously stated endorsement of human embryonic stem cell research.  The question arises: Does Senator Frist consider the human embryo to have an inviolable moral status?

     David Freddoso, in the 1/13/03 edition of Human Events pointed out that, according to the Dec. 24, 2002 Boston Globe, Senator Frist “met recently with officials from Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) – a Massachusetts-based research company that has already cloned human embryos.”  The meeting was, according to the Globe, arranged by wealthy ACT investors “friendly with Frist,” who were worried that the company’s cloning work would soon be outlawed.” 

             Mr. Fredosso’s report mentions the fact that last March, Frist expressed discomfort with a provision in the Weldon and Brownback bills that forbade importation into the United States of therapies produced from human clones.  Senator Brownback (R-KS) argued at that time that such a provision was necessary in order to prevent an easy end-run around the law, a reasonable assumption for someone who wants a cloning ban to stick.

However, the prohibition is missing from the new cloning ban bills, S. 245 and H.R. 234.  Its absence raises the concern that even if a ban were to be enacted, the U.S. biotech industry might still profit from the manufacture of human clones off-shore and the importation and sale of “products” made from them.  The importation provision should be restored to the bills immediately in order to discourage off-shore cloning efforts.

            In August of 2001, President Bush failed to stop stem cell experimentation on human embryos, instead allowing research to continue on cell lines derived from human embryos who had already been killed in privately funded research laboratories.  At the same time, he formed The President’s Council on Bioethics and appointed Dr. Leon Kass, M.D., Ph.D, a University of Chicago professor, as its chairman. Reportedly, it was Dr. Kass who advised the president to allow embryonic stem cell research to continue, albeit in a limited way.

            Linda K. Bevington, MA, Director of Research at The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, described a meeting she had with Dr. Kass and fellow bioethicist Dr. Kevin FitzGerald, Ph.D, S.J. in an article published in the Winter 2001 issue of Dignity.  She pointed out that Dr. Kass “stated in his Congressional testimony on June 20, 2001 that, “Anyone truly serious about preventing human reproductive cloning must seek to stop the process from the beginning, at the stage where the human somatic cell nucleus is introduced into the egg.”  In answer to her questions, Ms. Bevington says that, “Kass defended the necessity of a comprehensive ban by asserting that it would be the only ban that would effectively prevent ‘reproductive’ human cloning.” He also “asserted that a comprehensive cloning ban would place the burden of proof on cloning advocates to offer a convincing argument as to why we should endorse something that would transform humanity.”

             In October of 2002 at the American Enterprise Institute Book Forum featuring “Human Cloning and Human Dignity,” the report on human cloning by The President’s Council on Bioethics, Diana Schaub, associate professor of political science at Loyola College in Maryland and a participant in the forum made the following statement: “Cloning is an evil; and cloning for the purpose of research actually exacerbates the evil by countenancing the willful destruction of nascent human life.  Moreover, it proposes doing this on a mass scale, as an institutionalized and routinized undertaking to extract medical benefits for those who have greater power.  It is slavery plus abortion.”

             Dr. Kass, in his remarks, made this troubling comment:  “Yes, new lives would be created, and on a mass scale, purely to serve other people’s purposes.  And, yes, such innocent, nascent lives would be willfully exploited and destroyed.  But, I am not sufficiently confident about the ontological or moral status of a five-day-old embryo to speak in such abolitionist terms.”

             Today, even though the President and the vast majority of Americans demanding a ban on human cloning, Dr. Kass along with the majority on The President’s Council on Bioethics, is supporting a total ban on so-called “reproductive” cloning but only a four-year moratorium on “cloning for biomedical research.”  This is unacceptable.  All cloning is “reproductive.”  And it must be banned.

             Many European countries have already banned human cloning.  On February 3, 2003, the French Senate passed a comprehensive ban on human cloning as a “crime against the human species” and imposes a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison for transgressors.  It now goes to the Assembly and could become law by the end of June. 

         The United States must act, and quickly!  The state of New Jersey is poised to enact a law allowing the cloning of human embryos and their implantation as long as they are killed for bio-medical research prior to the “newborn” stage!  Stanford University announced in December that an anonymous donor had provided $12 million to establish a center devoted entirely to the study of human cloning and stem cell research.  California Governor Gray Davis recently signed a bill that encourages scientists to pursue methods that “generate” embryonic stem cells. (Washington Update, 12/13/02)

 The cloning ban bills with the importation prohibition restored should be passed and signed by the President without delay!  Please convey that message to your representatives in Congress. 202-224-3121.

Contact: Colleen Parro – Phone: 972/387-3830 – Fax: 972/387-3830 – E-Mail:
Please visit our web site at:

40 posted on 02/07/2003 11:00:19 AM PST by Coleus (RU 486 Kills Babies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
To find out the names of your two assembly members, call the Office of Legislative Services at 1-800-792-8630 or go to the legislature’s web page at

Loretta Weinberg (D)
Majority Conference Leader

545 Cedar Lane
Teaneck, NJ 07666

PHONE NUMBER: (201) 928-0100
41 posted on 04/07/2003 10:48:46 AM PDT by Coleus (RU-486 Kills Babies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
And New Jersey scientists aren't going start raising clones to toddlerhood and then knocking them off

What difference does it make how old they are when they're knocked off?


42 posted on 04/10/2005 8:32:21 PM PDT by Diamond (Qui liberatio scelestus trucido inculpatus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: firebrand

43 posted on 05/08/2006 6:35:58 PM PDT by Coleus (I Support Research using the Ethical, Effective and Moral use of stem cells: non-embryonic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus; abn11b; Afronaut; agrace; Alberta's Child; alephnull; alice_in_bubbaland; AM2000; ...
Thank you, Coleus. Just what I needed.

Hello, New Jersey. As most of you know, it's not about real estate tax rebates and car insurance. The current morally bankrupt bozos need to be voted out of office and this obscene law needs to be repealed.

Not that freepers need reminding about such things, but I was shocked last weekend that my family members (not the best-informed New Jersey-ites in the world, admittedly) were unaware of the reach of this law and its horrific implications. They remembered something about embryos without realizing that fetuses up to full term can be experimented on in any way the scientists choose.

Ramesh Ponnuru points out in his new book, The Party of Death, that the big donors in the Republican Party tend to be more pro-abortion than the rank and file. That makes sense, since they are rich, and therefore tend to be Republicans more for fiscal-restraint and tax reasons than for social-issue reasons. This fact had escaped me, for some reason, but it follows, of course, that donations to pro-life candidates are extremely important.

Thanks again, Coleus, for putting this thread together and for all your wonderful threads on the life issue.

44 posted on 05/09/2006 8:15:50 AM PDT by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

Comment #45 Removed by Moderator

To: firebrand; 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; al_c; american colleen; ...
There are a number of problems with this issue and getting the correct information out. The biased, left-wing press will not print the truth. The press makes somatic cell nuclear transfer aka "fetal farming" to be the greatest medical technique ever invented which will enable the medical profession to save the lives of millions. But what they don't tell you is that they are playing God, creating a life, growing the baby to a full term of 9 months, killing the baby and then using his organs for transplants, brain tissue, etc.

Our current government supports and funds the research of aborted babies and supports and funds abortions through the federal Medicaid system and from funding through Title X (a program started in 1969 by Geo. H.W. Bush) by funding Planned Parenthood (the USA's largest abortion provider).

Stem Cell Innovations Produces Human Stem Cells; for Use in Government Funded Laboratories (the National Institutes of Health, aka the US Federal Government, the moral-and-family-values congress and executive branch, funds research on the tissues of slaughtered, aborted babies).   Why waste good tissue, right?
NJ, Quinnipiac Poll on stem cell research misleading, Poll omitted important facts

Also, when writing their articles, the press appears to be touting non-embryonic stem cell research when reporting on new stem-cell research only to mention the word "embryonic" near the end of the article knowing that "most" people do NOT read an entire article. Or the press will use the term "fetal cells" or "fetal tissue" and not use the term "embryonic" at all.

Another problem is that most religions like reformed Judaism, mainstream protestantism don't come out against fetal farming and embryonic stem cell research and the Catholic Church while, although against it on paper, does not make sure that their flock completely understands the issue and does not come out against the catholic politicians who have pushed this since day ONE like governors McGreevey and Codey, Senate President Codey, Assembly Speaker Siries, etc. A number of catholics, some are in the K of C, in the legislature have voted YES to embryonic stem cell research, YES to cloning and fetal farming and YES to fund these initiatives. And fund it they do, all politically, there are 3 separate facilities one in the South, one in the Central and another one in the North part of the state all strategically located to keep everyone in the legislature happy.

FYI, "republican" Sen. Thomas H. Kean, Jr., candidate for US Senate, was the only republican senator in committee to vote YES to fund the Stem Cell Institute.

46 posted on 05/09/2006 12:58:39 PM PDT by Coleus (I Support Research using the Ethical, Effective and Moral use of stem cells: non-embryonic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

Presently, mind you at present, the plan isn't to grow a cloned baby to the full nine months then harvest the organs, etc. The plan is to clone an individual, give life support in vitro to the newly conceived human being, then harvest tissues to be used at cellular level for the planned 'experimental' procedures. It is cannibalism, shrinker's snide comments not withstanding. It is also an evil so pernicious and so well hidden from public perceptions that it hints of demonic influence.

47 posted on 05/09/2006 5:19:18 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: firebrand; Coleus

Thanks for the ping. I have to admit, I really don't know much about this issue, either. This is an informative thread. This is the first time I've heard of the NJ "ban" on cloning.

48 posted on 05/10/2006 9:10:18 PM PDT by Tired of Taxes (That's taxes, not Texas. I have no beef with TX. NJ has the highest property taxes in the nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

the NJ stem cell bill allows cloning a baby to term when the technology develops in the future. There are no limitations in the bill.

Stealth Cloning
49 posted on 05/10/2006 9:25:56 PM PDT by Coleus (RU-486 Kills babies and their mothers, Bush can stop this as Clinton started it through exec. order)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: firebrand
Ramesh Ponnuru points out in his new book, The Party of Death, that the big donors in the Republican Party tend to be more pro-abortion than the rank and file. ***

Sen. Frist wants ESCR
50 posted on 12/12/2006 9:56:59 AM PST by Cucumber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson