It Is Time To Ban All Human Cloning

For the vast majority of Americans, the acceptance quotient regarding nascent life falls somewhere between ‘legal protection for all conceived individual human life’ and ‘legal protection for partial birth abortion.’ With acceptance of in vitro fertilization, followed eventually by the apparent necessity for some legal abortion, our society too quickly arrived at acceptance of, no, defense of, infanticide. Our society can degenerate further.

A straight-line course from our current reality will have us embracing the notion that ‘exploitation of embryonic life is needed to bolster unencumbered lives of worthy pursuit.’ Those forces pushing for therapeutic cloning and exploitation of embryonic stem cells assume (in New Jersey, at least, and now democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives are trying the same tactics) that the American people will accept conception of individual human lives and then killing those individuals for their body parts (embryonic stem cell exploitation). Folks, that’s cannibalism as surely as if you were directed to eat embryonic individual humans for medical treatment.

To legally exploit individual embryonic life, someone must arrange our agreement that killing and harvesting embryos is not the same as killing an individual. Scientists who would carry out these medical marvels know this is a lie but they do not correct the lie because it serves their purposes. Here's the key to the deception: the science of Embryology holds as axiomatic that individual life is a continuum with a beginning at conception (an unbroken chain of events hallmarked by form and function at each age of an individual life; if the chain is broken, death of an individual life occurs); those seeking legalization for embryonic exploitation must promote the blatant lie that ‘embryos are not individual human life’ ... or worse, have the nation agree that these are individual human lives, exploited in earliest stage of their ‘less worthy life’, defining a higher purpose for the body parts of these embryonic individuals, to sustain others.

The first level of agreement those promoting therapeutic cloning seek from us is based on a calculated lie; the second descending level of agreement is acceptance of cannibalism based on that same lie that embryos are not human individuals existing at a normal age in a human lifetime.

Many people warned of a slippery slope back when outrage over in vitro fertilization was squelched. Our nation is already far down that slope, gaining speed in our decline.

Exploitation of nascent life is now a reality: the fetal tissue harvesting industry, with more than a billion dollars in business receipts, already influences when some women ought to have the abortions they seek, because fetal tissue differentiation makes later rather than earlier killing and harvesting of the preborn more desirable to those who will profit from the killing. But things can get worse: 1) embryonic stem cell exploitation now demands the conception and killing of untold numbers of embryos; 2) therapeutic cloning is based on the in vitro fertilization / conception of individual human life, with killing and harvesting as the goal when the embryo has differentiated sufficiently to make specific target-cell identification reliable. Both of these 'scientific advances', if they are not to be outlawed, require our nation to accept the specious notion that an individual human life doesn't begin with at least first cell division (onset of mitosis).

Having read this far, some will assert, "But an embryo in a petri dish is not the same as an implanted embryo, not the same as a fetus, not the same as a born child, not the same as a toddler, not the same as …" That’s using the continuum concept to define the life of an individual human being. Using a continuum argument to arbitrarily eliminate earlier ages along the continuum glares paradoxically and perniciously, for the very science now hurrying to exploit embryonic life is convinced an embryo IS an individual human lifetime begun. "Outrageous assertion,” some will say. Okay, let the goals of the scientific pursuits speak for the scientists covering for the lies.

With in vitro fertilization, a female gamete is fertilized by a male gamete (gametes are the ‘sex cells’ of the adult male or female). Once cell division is evidenced and the embryo reaches a desired number of body parts (the embryo’s stem cells), the individual embryo is placed into the uterus of the target woman. [In most cases, several individual embryos are implanted at the same time; if too many achieve life support, the attending medical personnel will advise aborting one or more, to improve the odds for the escaping survivor].

The technician watching the product of fertilization in the ‘petri dish’ is looking for cell division, to assure that an individual human life has begun to express itself, to grow.

The technicians must achieve transfer from petri dish to human uterus at a specific stage in cell division; if they try implanting too early, the embryo will not have the sticky coating it creates which allows for attachment to the uterine wall. The individual life, after it implants in the uterine lining, forms its own protective barrier, to prevent the woman’s body from identifying it as a separate life from her body. The attached individual life sends out chemical signals, to induce the woman’s body to send nutrients for life support. The individual life builds its own protective capsule while building its own individual body, incorporating portions of the capsule into the developing body to be part of the later gut and ligaments (for example) of the later aged body of the preborn. Timing is crucial along this life continuum as the embryo seeks to survive. [If you’re still wondering, this continuum concept of individual human existence is the same reasoning regarding the onset of puberty, for example, as a normal stage in a human lifetime. Note again that the life continuum is hallmarked by form and function; even the embryo is defined by form and function of its body parts, its stem cells.]

The methodology of technicians seeking embryonic stem cells or technicians seeking to clone life have much in common with the in vitro fertilization process. All cloning, whether therapeutic or reproductive, begins with reproduction, conceiving a unique individual human being for exploitative harvesting or birth.

The clone is a close genetic duplicate of a parent DNA donor. With the goal of a conceptus in mind, the clone technician seeks to use a mature female gamete only, from which the chromosomal nuclear ball has been removed and the 46 chromosome nuclear material of the ‘adult donor’ is inserted (called somatic cell nuclear transfer). [‘Adult donor’ refers to an organism with a normal compliment of 46 chromosomes, not to the age of the donor.] In some cloning procedures, the product of male/female conception (sexual reproduction) is stripped of 46 resulting chromosomes prior to first cell division, and the 46 chromosomes of the donor are inserted.

If the cloning technician seeks to fully reproduce the genetic donor, the conceptus is observed for evidence of cell division (proving it is expressing its individual life), then, just as with typical in vitro reproduction, the embryo is inserted into a woman’s uterus (for continued life support of a proven individual human organism that is a close genetic duplicate of the DNA donor).

If the technician desires ‘therapeutic cloning’, instead of reproduction for a fully expressed parent donor, the embryo is not always implanted in a woman’s body (but in some procedures it is); before too many months, this individual is ‘harvested’, killing a being conceived for a ‘tissue specific’ cloning purpose. [To be sure, the current arguments cite the embryonic clones being allowed to live for only fourteen days, to allow sufficient stem cell division for differentiation, killing, and harvesting, but not to reach the fetal stage through implantation. Science will eventually figure out how to produce an artificial womb, and then these ‘non-human individuals’ will be raised into the fetal stages before killing and harvesting, you can be sure of that because tissues and organs of these cloned individuals will be more desirably differentiated!] Both types of cloning reproduce the donor; the chosen destiny for the newly conceived clone defines the procedure … a short lifetime for a harvesting target (so called therapeutic cloning), or a long lifetime as an individual identical twin (so called reproductive cloning).

Why is it important to realize that an embryo is a human being at an early age along a continuum of individual life? Because therapeutic cloning coupled with embryonic stem cell harvesting aim to cannibalize individual human life.

Defenders of therapeutic cloning are seeking to characterize that ‘type’ of human cloning as non-reproductive, but the truth is, ALL cloning is reproductive, all cloning conceives an individual human life. Defenders and promoters of therapeutic cloning deny that the embryonic individual life is a human being at that age of a lifetime begun at conception. Democrat elected representatives stand before the U.S. House of Representatives and purposely mischaracterize therapeutic cloning as merely the creation of stem cells, purposely omitting the truth that these stem cells are the body parts of an individual human life conceived for the purpose of harvesting the stem cells, the body parts, thus they support killing the newly conceived individual human being before further ages can be reached along the continuum of life begun at a designer, cloning, conception.

The science of Embryology holds as fundamental truth that even an embryo no bigger than a grain of sugar is an individual human life. Is it acceptable to kill that individual for body parts? If it is, that's cannibalism as surely as eating body parts or whole embryos for medical cures. That's why this President has called for a ban on all human cloning. It’s time to expose the lies and dissembling now moving this nation into acceptance of cannibalism as enlightened medical advance.

No doubt the comment that 'reasonable people can disagree' will arise if extended debate over this essay occurs. Please note that such a comment is akin to the democrat's definition of bi-partisan, 'only if you agree with the democrats can you be bi-partisan' for no other perspective will be tolerated. Only if lies are allowed to be considered as reasonable can one accept that embryonic human life is not a foundational age, not part of the life continuum of an individual human being. 'Reasonable people can disagree on democrat terms' only if truth can be rejected and that rejection accepted as reasonable.

Jeremiah 1:5
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Psalm 139:13
For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
14 :
I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
15 :
My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 :
Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

Galatians 1:15
But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,…

Isaiah 49:1 :
Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name.

Matthew 18:5
And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.

Deuteronomy 30:19
"I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and
death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live."

BTTT! and note to self to bookmark/profile this one once FR gets back up.

I ask you to protect infants at the very hour of their birth and end the practice of partial-birth abortion. And 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.
President George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003.

I agree human cloning should be banned. On the other hand, I think organ cloning is acceptable - think of how our lives could be saved if an organ in our body was failing and we needed a transplant. No more risk of rejection or being put on a waiting list only to die cause a matching donor wasn't available. There's a difference between making carbon copies of us as human beings and making carbon copies of our body parts for the purpose of saving our lives should the need arise for it. We can and should establish conditions under which organ cloning can be facilitated without opening the door to human cloning in the future.

You assert that 'organ cloning' is acceptable. Can science take stem cells from your body and grow a replacement organ for your body without conceiving an individual clone of you from whom (the clone) they would take the cells to grow the organ? Either you have misunderstood the term 'clone' or you are being purposely deceptive. The term clone is defined as conceiving a unique close copy of the INDIVIDUAL from whom the nuclear material is taken. Be honest, are you asserting that somatic nuclear transfer is okay as long as the tissues/organs of the individual so conceived are taken from that embryonic individual human life not allowing that individual human clone to age to the point of birth? Are you relying on obfuscation to achieve tacit acceptance of conceiving new individual humans from whom you feel it is okay to harvest organs and tissues as long as the individual life is not allowed to be life supported to birth?

You opened your yapper to defend this cannibalism, now be honest. If you think taking cells from your body and growing a replacement organ for you, without cloning a reproduction copy of you, is cloning organs, you are sadly uninformed. Such an action is not cloning because by definition cloning is reproduction of you, creating an identical twin, for killing and harvesting or to be life supported to birth. You either need to get your science facts straight or be honest with readers.

I'm NOT defending the cloning of human beings. Go back and read my post. I am in favor of allowing the cloning of spare parts from our own bodies to save our lives if the need should arise. Too many people today are on waiting lists only to die cause they can't get a donor match and the lucky few who do get a replacement body organ have to live on anti-rejection drugs for the rest of their lives. I'm sure we'd able to discover how to grow a stem cell into a specialized organ without creating a whole new human being in the process. The fact cloning has a dark side we don't want or need is no reason to deprive ourselves of a legitimate benefit that could save people alive today. And since life is a precious gift from God I think that if there was even a remote chance cloning spare parts from us was a possibility that could save our lives at some point in the future, it definitely ought to be pursued. All of which should have nothing to do with bringing about the cloning of human beings themselves.

ALL cloning is reproductive. ALL cloning starts with nuclear transfer of the chromosomal mass from a cell donate, into the denucleated ovum. That is reproductive by definition, the donor of the genetic material is duplicated at the embryonic age, then the individual embryonic human being is killed to harvest stem cells.

If, on the other hand, you are trying to convey the idea that it is okay to take your stem cells and grow a replacement organ, without going through the nuclear transfer of your chromosomal data into a denucleated ovum, then you are not talking about cloning. Again, cloning is the nuclear transfer of your genetic data into a denucleated ovum, thus conceiving a close copy of you at your age of embryo. If you aren't stealth defending this creation then killing for harvest, don't use the term 'cloning' with the term organ. If you are defending this conceiving of duplicates (embryonic individual humans) from whom to harvest organs and tissues, then be honest.

I'm trying to convey the latter idea. Sorry for my clumsy terminology but there doesn't seem to be a suitable shorthand for making replacement organs that comes close. Again no one I know of is defending the exact cloning of human beings. Most people including you would like to have a copy of your vital organs made so they can be transplanted into you if one of the ones you have should fail. If that technology where available today, a dear friend of mine who recently passed away might be alive today. We have the obligation and the duty to preserve and extend our lives with every means including untried medical therapies that don't yet exist.

I agree with growing replacement organs for our maladies. I don't like the way the word cloning has been used in a stealth mode. The democrats trying to get protection for medical cloning are despicable. They are trying to achieve tacit acceptance of the cloning of embryos under the sneaky lie that conceiving embryos then harvesting those individual lives for the stem cells is not 'reproductive cloning'. ALL CLONING IS REPRODUCTIVE. Taking a cell from your body and inserting the nuclear material from your cell into a denucleated ovum creates/conceives a close duplicate of you at your age of embryo. The evil of the stealthy effort lies in trying to sneak past the public the truth that an individual human being is conceived in ALL cloning, else it wouldn't be cloning. If organs can be grown without nuclear transefer and conceiving embryos, I'm all for it. Sadly, that is not what these lairs have been trying to get tacit support for. They have been trying to skirt the truth that cloning conceives individual human embryonic beings from whom the stem cells are to be extracted, killing the embryos for thier body parts.

I agree with growing replacement organs for our maladies. I don't like the way the word cloning has been used in a stealth mode. The democrats trying to get protection for medical cloning are despicable. They are trying to achieve tacit acceptance of the cloning of embryos under the sneaky lie that conceiving embryos then harvesting those individual lives for the stem cells is not 'reproductive cloning'. ALL CLONING IS REPRODUCTIVE. Taking a cell from your body and inserting the nuclear material from your cell into a denucleated ovum creates/conceives a close duplicate of you at your age of embryo. The evil of the stealthy effort lies in trying to sneak past the public the truth that an individual human being is conceived in ALL cloning, else it wouldn't be cloning. If organs can be grown without nuclear transefer and conceiving embryos, I'm all for it. Sadly, that is not what these liars have been trying to get tacit support for. They have been trying to skirt the truth that cloning conceives individual human embryonic beings from whom the stem cells are to be extracted, killing the embryos for their body parts. That is cannibalism and they want this nation to accept it because of the possible medical treatments the scientists might achieve through the cannibalism.

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.