Posted on 02/27/2003 12:02:54 PM PST by MHGinTN
Why did the President call for a ban on 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, thats 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 " Thats 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 embryos 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 womans body from identifying it as a separate life from her body. The attached individual life sends out chemical signals, to induce the womans 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 youre 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 womans 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 womans 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. Its time to expose the lies and dissembling now moving this nation into acceptance of cannibalism as enlightened medical advance.
The pro-abortion/Cloning forces have masterfully used language to promote and control their agenda. Words have power. Their "Semantic Gymnastics" have been used since the 60's, and earlier in the process of laying the groundwork for their industry of death.
The result is a "Language Barrier" of the worst kind. More than just a barrier, a "wall of separation" between the falsehood of "choice" and the truth that abortion is murder. It's origin is from the one who is the father of lies and a murderer from the beginning.
Through the manipulation of language, the culture of death has the majority of Americans thinking of their fellow citizens waiting to be born as anything and everything but citizens with equal rights. And the fact is most people don't concern themselves with others they can't see and never meet.
See Dr. William Brennan's excellent work Dehumanizing the Vulnerable: When Word Games Take Lives It explains how this whole system of deciet got started.
As for the length of your essay being too long to read, it depends on the audience you're trying to reach. Those of us who find this topic interesting and important will take the time to read it. I believe you write in plain English. We (freepers) have a very big advantage because we can always ask you to explain those things we don't understand. You are always available and patient to answer our questions. I appreciate that. Thank you.
One more BTTT! while I can get FR to work for me :)
abortion: a. constitutional right, under the penumbra and responsive to the emanations, of the right to privacy, as spelled out in Roe v. Wade and inhering in female citizens of the United States, to elect the termination of a pregnancy prior to natural term. b. (obsolete) Medical destruction, inside the mothers womb, of a child yet unborn, possessed of soul and human properties.
abortionist: (obsolete), pejorative term used to describe health providers assisting women in exercising anticipated right to terminate a pregnancy. (See "health provider.")
anti-choice: useful name for right-wing fanatics seeking to deprive American women of right to choose termination of a pregnancy. Often associated with narrow fundamentalist churches; also with Roman Catholics in sympathy with outlook and purposes of Vatican. (See "choice.")
abortion mill: (obsolete) Medical office where dirty, unsafe abortions were performed; pejorative term used before restoration of right to choose termination of a pregnancy, 1973, in Roe v. Wade.
baby: name for former occupant of womb. Not to be used during occupants stay in womb.
Bible: book formerly deemed authoritative by Christians and Jews; used to disparage exercise of right to choose termination of pregnancy. Passages affirming "right to life" widely regarded as strained in meaning and application. Widely discredited for failure to demonstrate understanding of quest for justice and equality.
Blackmun, Harry. Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, 1970-93. Author of Roe v. Wade. Hero of struggle for right to choose the termination of a pregnancy. (See "choice.")
clinic: (see "abortion mill"). Medical office where clean, safe, loving abortions are performed under direction of trained and compassionate health providers. Sites often become focal points for mob action by fundamentalist opponents of choice.
compassion: supreme virtue of late 20th century. Generally connotes acceptance of right to terminate pregnancy.
death with dignity: outcome desired by patients of Dr. Jack Kevorkian (q.v.).
embryo: golliwog-like organism in early stages of development, how early depending on stage at which abortion is performed. Preferred for reference to womb-occupants unless advanced age of same makes "fetus" (q.v.) more appropriate.
fetus (see also "product of conception"): alternative name for embryo. Technical name applied to womb-occupant where embryo may be deemed inappropriate, generally because of advanced age.
fundamentalist: member of narrow religious sect seeking to impose on American women anti-modern view of family, parenthood, and submission to Bible (q.v.) and its standards. Can refer to Roman Catholics as well as evangelicals. Adherents often take part in demonstrations intended to deprive women of constitutional right to termination of pregnancy.
health provider: doctor sensitive to constitutional rights of women, as established under Roe v. Wade. Terminates pregnancies on request, with few if any questions asked. Disclaims knowledge of Hippocratic Oath or at least of those sections frowning on abortion. Often risks life to bring health and hope. Is frequent target for redneck fundamentalist gunmen with grudge against women and/or misplaced patriarchal feelings of protection toward them.
Kevorkian, Jack. Medical pioneer noted for compassion to incurably ill and despondent. Victim of patriarchalist justice sytsem. Imprisoned (1998) for efforts to defend right of choice in extension or non-extension of life.
product of conception: term for fetus, especially in articles written for the New York Times Op-Ed page and similar venues.
right to die: American constitutional right, traceable to Magna Carta and Declaration of Independence, though not officially affirmed by U.S. Supreme Court. Strenuously affirmed by compassionate citizens.
termination: outcome of procedure accomplished in clinic (q.v.) by health provider (q.v.) despite opposition of fundamentalists (q.v.).
women: class historically discriminated against by males through assertion of brute strength and cruelty; caused, against their will, to carry embryos to term, prior to intervention of Harry Blackmun (q.v.) and U.S. Supreme Court. * * *
Cloning
· Cloning-to-produce-children-Production of a cloned human embryo, formed for the (proximate) purpose of initiating a pregnancy, with the (ultimate) goal of producing a child who will be genetically virtually identical to a currently existing or previously existing individual.
· Cloning-for-biomedical-research-Production of a cloned human embryo, formed for the (proximate) purpose of using it in research or for extracting its stem cells, with the (ultimate) goals of gaining scientific knowledge of normal and abnormal development and of developing cures for human diseases.
· Gene (molecular) cloning-Isolation and characterization of DNA segments coding for proteins (genes) using carrier pieces of DNA called vectors.
· Human cloning-The asexual reproduction of a new human organism that is, at all stages of development, genetically virtually identical to a currently existing, or previously existing, human being.
If someone is aware of specific tissues or organs being cloned without going through the stage of first cloning an embryo from whom stem cells have been extracted, I would appreciate being referred to that research so that I may pour over it for clarity. I am aware of PCR and replication of DNA material (see the bold print in the above definition form the President's Council monograph), and that 'cloning' process doesn't go through an embryonic cloning phase, but as far as I am aware, there has been no successful cloning of organ or specific tissue without first going through an embryo harvesting stage where stem cells are removed from a clone embryo.
Below is a compilation of but a few hits regarding 'organ' and 'tissue' cloning:
Human Cloning: http://www.bishopneumann.com/A&Pstudents/humancloning.html
There are a lot of questions about human organ cloning. Some of the questions are:
-Is human organ cloning ethical?
-Is it legal?
-Why is it being done?
-What are the benefits of it?
To answer the questions you must first know exactly what human organ cloning is and how its done.
To clone human organs like the heart, liner, and skin, etc. A sample of a persons DNA is the first thing needed. Then the sample would be put into a human embryo. This ensures that the organs will be a match for the patient. Then the embryo is given two weeks to grow. After that the embryos stem cells would be removed. The stem cells would be able to grow into any tissue or organ that is needed. Then the tissue or organ is transplanted into the patient. But removing the embryos stem cells kills the embryo. This type of cloning is known a therapeutic cloning.
It is unfortunate that the term "cloning" refers to three very different procedures with three very different goals. It is also unfortunate that the first thought many people have when they hear the term is of horror movies which have showed the creation of human monsters or of armies of superhuman soldiers. Reality of cloning is very different.
The three different types of "cloning" are: http://www.religioustolerance.org/cloning.htm
Embryo cloning: This is a medical technique which produces monozygotic (identical) twins or triplets. It duplicates the process that nature uses to produce twins or triplets. One or more cells are removed from a fertilized embryo and encouraged to develop into one or more duplicate embryos. Twins or triplets are thus formed, with identical DNA. This has been done for many years on various species of animals; only very limited experimentation has been done on humans.
Adult DNA cloning (a.k.a. reproductive cloning) This technique which is intended to produce a duplicate of an existing animal. It has been used to clone a sheep and other mammals. The DNA from an ovum is removed and replaced with the DNA from a cell removed from an adult animal. Then, the fertilized ovum, now called a pre-embryo, is implanted in a womb and allowed to develop into a new animal. As of 2002-JAN, It had not been tried on humans. It is specifically forbidden by law in many countries. There are rumors that Dr. Severino Aninori has successfully initiated a pregnancy through reproductive cloning. It has the potential of producing a twin of an existing person. Based on previous animal studies, it also has the potential of producing severe genetic defects. For the latter reason alone, many medical ethicists consider it to be a profoundly immoral procedure when done on humans.
Therapeutic cloning (a.k.a. biomedical cloning): This is a procedure whose initial stages are identical to adult DNA cloning. However, the stem cells are removed from the pre-embryo with the intent of producing tissue or a whole organ for transplant back into the person who supplied the DNA. The pre-embryo dies in the process. The goal of therapeutic cloning is to produce a healthy copy of a sick person's tissue or organ for transplant. This technique would be vastly superior to relying on organ transplants from other people. The supply would be unlimited, so there would be no waiting lists. The tissue or organ would have the sick person's original DNA; the patient would not have to take immunosuppressant drugs for the rest of their life, as is now required after transplants. There would not be any danger of organ rejection.
There are major ethical concerns about all three types of cloning, when applied to humans. If you think this is confusing, try reading some of the testimony before Tauzins committee, March 28, 2001: http://energycommerce.house.gov/107/hearings/03282001Hearing141/Terry213.htm
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.