It Is Time To Ban All Human Cloning

FreeRepublic ^ | 2/27/2003 | MHGinTN

[Remedy]

About time!

[MHGinTN]

Sadly, too many Americans have already made it known that even if harvesting the body parts of embryonic individual human beings is cannibalism, they will endorse it as a means to cure a malady. THAT is how far down the slippery slope our culture, our society, our collective morality has slinked. I am praying that cannibalism is still repugnant to the majority of my fellow Americans, thus I'm trying my darndest to get the message out loud and clear and right away that embryonic stem cell exploitation and therapeutic cloning ARE CANNIBALISM! If that message deosn't egt out soon, those desiring this form of cannibalism will have accomplished their goal of our tacit acceptance because once they are doing these heinous exploitations without the law going after them, the use of individual human beings will be a reality and our people are weak to not repudiate that which has some nebulous stamp of legality to it ... witness the heinous slide to tacit acceptance of partial birth infanticide based on the lack of awareness until the reality is with us to the tune of 5,000 to 15,000 partial birth killings per year now.

[cpforlife.org]

From: A NEW LANGUAGE FOR THE CULTURE OF LIFE: Re-Humanizing the VERY YOUNG CITIZEN

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.

[Ms. AntiFeminazi]

Thanks for the link.

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 :)

[Remedy]

THE HUMAN LIFE REVIEW "Semanticide"

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 mother’s 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 occupant’s 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.

* * *

 

 

[MHGinTN]

Ugh, it is so repugnant when aligned in words and their 'new-age' enlightened definitions.

[hocndoc]

The cloning of embryos (humans) and organs and tissues using adult or umbilical chord stem cells are - or should be - two separate subjects.

There is hope, and good evidence, that the cloning of organs and tissues is possible without the creation of embryonic humans.

[hocndoc]

Actually, "cloning" can mean the duplication of cells, tissues, organs, and organisms.
The current bills concerning human cloning in the House and Senate deal with the cloning of organisms (which happen to be human beings)

The ideal would be to have vats of organs and tissues (or matrices that will develop into organs and tissues when the donor/recipient's own stem cells are introduced), without the need for an embryo or fetus or whole-body support system needed. There is great work going on along these lines.

[hocndoc]

Did you see this - you're a Town Hall reference, look under February 27th:
http://www.townhall.com/issueslibrary/healthcare/

[MHGinTN]

Actually, "cloning" can mean the duplication of cells, tissues, organs, and organisms. Somatic cell nuclear transfer is, technically, not cloning by the definition below. If the nuclear transfer is made into a denucleated ovum, then it is cloning, reproductive of an individual being, for birth or for harvesting exploitation. It is theoretically possible to take bone cells or brain cells from a donor and denucleate them then insert the chromosomal material of your cell into that denucleated cell after 'stimulating' the telomeres of your genes using telomerase, to entice growth/proliferation of the bone or brain cell into many copies having your genetic imprint. Such replication would not be cloning by definition. The problems so far encountered involve the mitochondria of the denucleated cell ... the genetic material within that denucleated cell's mitochondria is foreign to your body/proteins/immune system. [The case of Henrietta Flack's cancerous cervical cells and the endless proliferation of those cells is instructive. The proliferation is not cloning, merely endless replication. Were you to take her cells and denucleate them to insert your genetic imprint, that wouldn't be cloning, per se.] clone \klon\ n [Gk klon twig, slip] 1 : the offspring produced asexually from an individual (as a plant increased by grafting); also : a group of replicas of all or part of a large biological molecule (as DNA) 2 : an individual grown from a single body cell of its parent and genetically identical to the parent 3 : one that appears to be a copy of an original form clonal \klon-el\ adj clone vb (C) 1995 Zane Publishing, Inc. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (C) 1994 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

[hocndoc]

OK, but, we already have the technology to grow clones of certain tissues and cells, without human embronic cloning (the term chosen by the President's Bioethics Council for the results of Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer.). This is also called "cloning," but it wouldn't be "human cloning. Then it would be tissue cloning or organ cloning.
http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/cloningreport/terminology.html


The goal is to grow organs, without needing to go through the research or manipulation of embryos or organisms. The latter, clone and kill or "therapeutic" or "reproductive" cloning is the focus of Weldon's bill.

[MHGinTN]

From your terminology reference, Doctor:Cloning of higher organisms is more complex: all cloning of vertebrate organisms must begin at the embryonic stages. Contrary to what some people imagine, cloning of amphibians or mammals (including human beings) is not the direct duplication ("photocopying") of an adult organism. The effort to obfuscate in the reference is likely unintentional, but it is there nevertheless. To say cloning is not necessarily the direct duplication of an adult organism begs the issue of cloning the embryonic age of the organism.

[MHGinTN]

Here is the essence of why I make these niggling distinctions (again, from your referenced gov't monograph) : Some object to the term "reproductive cloning" used as a term of distinction, because they argue that all cloning is reproductive. Their reason: all human cloning intends and issues in the production of a cloned human embryo, a being distinct from the components used to generate it, a new human being in the earliest stage of development or "reproduction." (This claim, we would suggest, is at this stage a descriptive point, not yet a normative one; it does not necessarily imply that such a being is fully human or "one of us," hence deserving of the moral and social protection accorded "persons.") That is the point of holding these people to ethical and moral standards, and it is exactly why they twist the terminology, to give their efforts at cannibalism some sort of wiggle room. I won't let it pass. Cloning produces an embryonic individual human life, whether for harvesting or for eventually being born!

[MHGinTN]

Ping to #s 51 - 53

[hocndoc]

You are talking about "organisms."
goldstategop and I are talking about cloning tissues, cells, and organs.
Each are subgroups of the huge definition of "cloning."
That is how those cell cultures are grown (such as HeLa cells, and the fetal cell cultures), the cultures of adult stem cells, and all of our hair, skin, Gastrointestinal cells in our bodies: "cloning." To make a copy - or multiple copies of.
These are all outside the scope of and not at all affected by Weldon bill.

There is no attempt to obfuscate, there was qualification of the terms and of the scenario.

Wouldn't it be better to make sure that we're all on the same page than to assume that we're not and to use words like "obfuscate"?

(Now, be good! Mom)

[MHGinTN]

From the glossary in the monograph to which you referred, hocndoc:

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.

[Calpernia]

Don't get this comment WRONG. The whole human cloning idea does scare me. BUT, if we ban cloning...Will that keep our knowledge behind other countries that will/are experimenting with it? For example, we stopped bioweapons programs. However, other countries experimented with it. So we were behind with the stock piled vaccines and defense of it. Opinions?

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!

[MHGinTN]

A very good question, Calpernia! May I respond by asking, "If a thing is wrong, immoral, or unethical, should we pursue it anyway because others are doing so?"

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 it’s done.

To clone human organs like the heart, liner, and skin, etc. A sample of a person’s 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 embryo’s 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 embryo’s 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 Tauzin’s committee, March 28, 2001: http://energycommerce.house.gov/107/hearings/03282001Hearing141/Terry213.htm

[MHGinTN]

You will note the term 'pre-embryo' at the end of the above post. Don't be confused into thinking 'no embryo' has been conceived. In fact there is a cloned embryo of the single cell age and this is indeed what evidences 'alive' by having cellular division once electrically stimulated, 'in vitro' and the cell mass is in fact an embryo not a 'pre-embryo'.