Slashdot Mirror
U.N. Delays Debate on Cloning
hedpe2003 writes "'The General Assembly on Tuesday ducked for a year a polarizing debate over human cloning that has set the Bush administration against some allies like Britain and much of the world's scientific community.
All 191 United Nations members agree on a treaty to prohibit cloning human beings, but they are divided over whether to extend such a ban to stem cell and other research known as therapeutic cloning.
Opponents say total prohibition would block research on cancer, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, diabetes, spinal cord injuries and other conditions. The White House says that enough stem cells from human embryos exist for research and that cloning an embryo for any reason is unethical.
United States was happy to go along with the one-year consensus but would not alter its stance. 'We will continue to work for a total ban,' he said.'
I was just wondering what everyone thought about this. To tell the truth, I didn't know that the US was pushing so hard to ban stem cell research all together."
The White House says that enough stem cells from human embryos exist for research...
Which stem cells? The ones that are gathered at the abortion clinics? The abortion clinics that preform the abortions that YOU'RE TOTALLY OPPOSED TO AND WANT TO SEE MADE ILLEGAL? Those abortion clinics?
Stupid fucking government.
In the defense of our idiot-in-chief president, he is Texan, so some leeway must be given.
A UN vote would not make any difference. It would only affect countries who sign up to the resolution. I do not think the UK would, the government is very keen on getting the biotech industry up and running.
There are a TON of anti-cloning supporters out there, but seriously, what is the big deal? If there is a path of technology that might allow us to grow spare body parts, rid the world of cancer, and anything else, then I'm all for it. I think a large percentage of people object to cloning because of the moral (read religious) ideas of a soul and other such nonsense. I wish people would just grow up already.
Why would the population problem matter?
What reason would there be for mass-cloning?
As I see it, cloning/stem cell/whatever research is a way to learn more about how we work.
And the more we know about how we work, the better we can work on small things like medicine. (genetic research seems very promising for a cure for cancer)
The path I walk alone is endlessly long.
30 minutes by bike, 15 by bus.
Surely you jest?
It's pretty tough to find any group that is impartial (theoretically the closest would be judges, but I doubt that would be reflected in reality).
sigs are a waste of space
As for me more important are possible benefits - that is finding cures for some diseases.
But we could discuss forever and neither of us would convince himself to change his mind. The future shall show which path was correct...
Nice troll, let me countertroll; so you condone murder?
Tell that to Superman, or my grandma who died of Alzheimers.
If I had a disease which could potentially be cured through some kind of research, but someone else wants to prohibit that research on religious grounds, they are as guilty of murder as "christian" "scientist" "parents" who withhold treatment from their sick children (won't someone please think of the children?) for religious reasons.
This is something I feel pretty strongly about--I find any religious argument against the reduction of suffering or extension of life to be anti-humanist, ignorant and intolerant. Live how you will, but don't deny me and others the fundamental right to live what we see as better lives through the advancement of medical science.
Now flame away.
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
bushy needs the religious right to keep the power and to hell with consequences. Just to keep the research alive for a cure for juvenile diabetes, the society had to fund their own research for 17 new stem cell lines of which none could be used in the US, the researcher has two kids with diabetes of his own and for the "SIN" of trying to keep his kids alives, has been hounded, threatened and abused. The research is moving overseas rapidly which is to be expected and in the end won't slow it down much. What doesn't get mentioned much, is that most of the approved stem cells are locked up in patents and too flawed for meanful research.
While I am morally opposed to cloning human beings, I see no real problem with experimenting with other sorts of animals. Even the Bible gives man the rights over the animals (Genesis 1:26). So, if it is limited to animals, then we can in essence "practice" on them and then use some of the benefits from the research.
Interesting to note also that Bush is pushing for complete ban, while the rest of the world seems to not care. Seems like the US isn't a bunch of heathens after all.
-Tukon
I think there would be allot to be learned from experimenting with cloning. We could even put it to good use with cloning organs and skin cells.
But I think this kind of thing should have the most stringent monitoring available, this is also the kind of thing which could do allot of damage to this world.
Imagine the repercussions if a world leader were cloned. Or worse yet what if we could speed up the process and steal other people's identities.
VENI, VIDI, VICI, DIXI
My own personal opposition to cloning comes not from moral reasons, but because we have a population problem
That's a strange argument. Cloning is not about creating a large number of individuals. You have been watching too much Star Wars. Creating individuals is far more cheaper if done the old-fashioned way, and I don't think cloning will ever be able to compete with that.
It might be able to help parents get a child if they are otherwise infertile, but I don't think that is a threat against population control.
Unless your argument is that we can control the population by not curing people with Alzheimers, parkinsson, etc. But I don't think you ment that.
)9TSS
The White House says that enough stem cells from human embryos exist for research and that cloning an embryo for any reason is unethical.
Ah yes, I forgot that the Bush administration is a world reknowned authority on ethics.
We have a chance to end some of the most horrible debilitating deseases know and it largely comes down to semantics. When life starts. The attitude is better to flush the tissue down the toliet than find a cure to these deseases. It shouldn't come down to a religious issue of when life starts. People should be given the option of donating the unused tissue. I have major reservations about genetically modifying plants and animals but have no issue with stem cell research. Few of the same people show the same enthusiasm about banning nuclear weapons that can kill millions but become irrational when it cames to a line of research that can save millions. Cloning itself simply produces a twin. Deal with it. I oppose cloning of humans strictly because of the crude nature of the current techniques. Few it any would survive and any survivors would have severe genetic problems. There's enough genetic desease without creating more. Until there is a more reliable technique it's irresponsible to clone humans. Reproducing stem cell tissue is a completely different issue. A three or four day old cluster of cells lacks conciousness. There are no brainwaves. In fact no brain. Stem cells by definition lack defining characteristics. They are a blank slate waiting to be told what to become. It's why they are such a promising option for replacing damaged tissue.
/RANT For the last time cloning will not replicate people! No duplication of people is possible.
/RANT
No more than identical twins are the same person!
Doh!
Even that statement implies it exists in some sense where it can want or not want something. It's a few cells. How is that different than taking a sample of cells from the inside of someone's cheek and asking if it minds being scraped off?
What if they clone stem cells in a way that doesn't prevent the fetus from developing, store it for 10 years while the person grows up, and then ask them if they mind their cells being used that way. If it had been done to me, I sure wouldn't mind.
Jason
ProfQuotes
The US wants to ban stem cell research internationally to ban competition for its pharma companies. They will do this research whether it is illegal or not, and the administration does not want to know about it, and it knows the competition won't break that rule.
When was the last time the US abided by a UN resolution it did not support, even if it was achieved by a 'vote'?
who is more bigotted, the scientist or the Christian zelot?
;-)
who is more bigotted, the Christian or the scientific zealot?
You are phrasing your questions, and your thinking in a very bigotted fashion. Kind of an existence proof of my point.
sigs are a waste of space
For all the people that don't take a religious stand on the issue I wouldn't be surprised if many of the people who object most of all don't know anything about stem cell research and cloning technology. I bet most of them have never had to take care of someone with Parkinsons or Alzeimers.
Most of these people just take 1 look at the idea and speak up about how abhorant this idea is, basically because their first instinct is to screw up their faces and say 'yuck'. It's the 'yuck' factor that stops people from looking further into an issue and understand the real issues.
This is just another example of people talking loudly without putting in any effort into understanding more.
As for people with religious objections, while have have respect for their views, there are a significant number who are making the debate very polarised. They will not allow any answers other than yes or no, leaving out all the important details in between. I don't like that style of argument, it generally sets my alarm bells ringing!
Exactly. Good Christians can also be neutral observers. They just have to avoid letting the facts threaten their faith (and therefore their judgement). Sadly, many scientists feel (correctly or otherwise) their careers can be threatened if word gets out their ideas are inviable. Something that is far less likely a risk for a Christian.
The real problem is that frequently the leaders of any given "interest group" having a stake in maintaining the party line. Ultimately, you need a disinterested third party to make a call after hearing the arguments from both sides. In theory, that's where politicians and judges come in. In practice....
sigs are a waste of space
"this helps maintain the sacredness of human life" And the sacredness of human death, disease, and suffering? While I respect your opinion, please realize its not only to "create life." It's to make life more bearable for many individuals: including Cancer , Alzheimers and Parkinson's patients and thier families. Openmindedness of everyone will help in curing many ills, and alleviating the suffering of millions of people.
Please do not equate moral viewpoints with religious viewpoints. It's quite possible to have morals without subscribing to any religion, and as has been seen over centuries it's equally possibly to subscribe to a religion without having any morals.
Cheers,
Ian
Exactly. Banning therapeutic cloning is denying everyone medical treatment just because one group of people has an ethical problem with it. If insert_religious_group_here thinks therapeutic cloning is wrong, they are free to not partake in it.
I am a Christian. Now before you start flaming me for believing in stuff, just hear me out. Another guy came off all rightous in response to this story, attracting some well-deserved flames for his views. I would like to offer the rational Christian view. I believe God created the universe, with all the physics that hold it together. However, I do not deem to tell God how He should do stuff. If He works through evolution, that's cool. It makes His design cooler for being self-modifying. If he works through subatomic particles that we haven't even discovered yet, that makes it evel cooler that He started it all.
Having said that, I think it's crazy how some fundamentalists still think they know that God is against science of any kind. They are OK with breeding dogs and horses to suit their needs -- even good with masturbating bulls to get their semen for artificial insemination. Some of them start to get squeemish when I mention these things, but we have been playing with genetics for the longest time, and have reaped the benifits. Now, I can't figure out how cloning or even forming living cells from nutrient-rich baths can be 'playing God' more than any other science.
In fact I can -- people use life as a 'proof' that God exists. Unfortunately, any proof of God's existance would negate the need for faith, so it is doubtful whether such will ever exist. In these people's lives, they need to be able to say: 'Look at that foal -- it is proof that God exists'. If we can create life, therefore, we will be like God. This is flawed, for God is so much more than just something that creates life.
Languages aren't inherently fast -- implementations are efficient
This is something I feel pretty strongly about--I find any religious argument against the reduction of suffering or extension of life to be anti-humanist, ignorant and intolerant. Live how you will, but don't deny me and others the fundamental right to live what we see as better lives through the advancement of medical science.
However, you're not in a morally superior position compared to them. You're calling them anti-humanist, in other words, you're accusing them of not following the same moral code as you do. The very same thing you blame them of. Your arguement depends on the assumption that the reader agrees with your values. Circular logic. See how you use the word "fundamental right". According to whom? Not according to them.
It's a very real problem, how to deal with people who have mutually incompatible moral systems and the solution you suggest (non-interference) just doesn't work. Why? Consider a situation of incompatible "fundamental rights". What if I consider it to be fundamental right that my property doesn't get violated (absolute no tresspassing) That doesn't sound so bad does it? Now what then if your house is in middle of my territory and you consider your right to travel freely to be the one that cant be violated by anyone. So, who has the stronger right? And more importantly, who decides it? How can we have judges and laws if everyone carries their own laws and personal codes which are absolute? If you'd like to argue that laws aren't really moral codes I'd to hear your arguements. Just remember that if you claim that they're made for the common good be prepared to answer how can we define "good" without making a moral decision.
I have to point out that the order in which he phrased his question has no bearing on if he is a bigot.
No, but his assigning the zealot modifier to "christian" but not "scientist" does.
If you take a reasonable person from either group and compare them to a zealot from the other, the zealot will always look like more of a bigot. The statement also suggests that there is no intersection of the two groups, which is kind of ludicrous.
sigs are a waste of space
Doesn't matter who is in the White House, they will always be unethical to someone. The only time anything can be done about it is when the election rolls around.
We have things all wrong and backwards. Cancer, Alzheimer's, and Diabetes will affect so many more Americans than terrorism ever could. Our funding needs to be diverted -- stem cells or not, our priorities here are all messed up.
I always though ending a human life was unethical. How can creating a new life be unethical?
Would you consider "normal" reproduction unethical if for whatever reason a certain couple had 200 to 1 odds of having a "healthy" (whatever that means) birth?
;-)
Do you realize that many forms of medically assisted reproduction done today use essentially the same methods and have essentially the same risks as the kind of cloning you are talking about (the key difference being that they don't use solely your own genetic data)?
BTW, folks don't tend to clone stem cells. They tend to want to clone from stem cells.
sigs are a waste of space
Personally my opposition to human cloning comes not so much from religious reasons as because I feel very very sorry for the clones. What would it be like knowing you are a clone? As stories I've read from people who were adopted show, people have very strong feelings about their origins eg. finding their birth parents. Where you come from is something that weighs heavily on people's minds. Think of how adopted children feel when they get told they aren't their parents' real kid. How would you feel being told you are a clone of your father? Or the clone of a dead brother or sister?
Also it is inevitable that clones will be stigmitised in human society. When they go to school they will be considered freaks of nature, their very existence deemed monstrous. They'd probably be turned down for jobs - essentially they will be marked from birth as societal outcasts. The only people likely to accept them will be the scientists who created them and even then only as experimental subjects.
But even that doesn't matter so much if they were loved, as guidance and acceptance and unconditional love from your parents can help people through the worse of things, but from what I read of the people who want clones as children, they don't seem to be entirely mentally stable. Many of the stories seem to involve a dead child who they literally want to bring back from the dead. Anyone grow up in a family and go to a school where you were continually expected to be as good as your older brother/sister? Same thing, except a million times worse. Your parents will be expecting you to *be* your dead brother or sister. Why else would they have spent tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars cloning them when they could just have had another child? Other reasons also seem bad - as an organ bank for someone. Human bodies put in storage to have organs taken out to be used for spares (I've actually read a manga about that where a doctor feeling sorry for the clone and hating the selfish brat who is the original secretly switches the two so the brat's organs are harvested and the clone 'becomes' the brat albeit with amnesia). And making the child the clone of one of the parents seems to be firstly somewhat egotistical and brings up all sorts of emotional complications and feelings. You'd also have to question the mentality and ego of someone who wants to spend a fortune on a clone of him/herself rather than using a sperm/egg bank or adoption. Essentially all of the people who want clones (with perhaps the exception of those who want a clone to harvest organs for a dying child though even that is morally dubious by any standards) seem to be some of the most selfish mentally unstable people who either seem to have an ego problem (too large) or are too obsessive about the past. There is no way any of them could guide a clone child through a hostile world where their very existence is seen as wrong.
It all comes down to that blastula having a "soul". Sort of hard to have a rational argument with someone once that meme imprints them. Hey, my cat is possessed by a consciousness from the third planet around Vega. _Prove_ that I'm wrong, dude!
And those who lament "the life that would have been" seem unconcerned about the countless life ended early in agonizing disease. Presumably by rationalizing that God's cancer is the tourist class seat to the good land.
All the permanent Security Council members (USA, UK, France, Russia and China) have broken or ignored UN resolutions over the years, as have many other countries for good reasons and bad.
I think the UN is generally a good thing, but it does come up with questionable policies from time to time. This is one of those times. There is no reason for the UN to get involved in the cloning debate at this stage. If individual countries want to encourage or ban cloning, then it should be up to them. This is not really a global matter.
You're calling them anti-humanist, in other words, you're accusing them of not following the same moral code as you do. The very same thing you blame them of. Your arguement depends on the assumption that the reader agrees with your values. Circular logic.
No, he's not. The vital point you're missing is that his views are not affecting those he is addressing directly. Their views ARE affecting him directly.
It's a very real problem, how to deal with people who have mutually incompatible moral systems and the solution you suggest (non-interference) just doesn't work. Why?
Because one of the sides believes their viewpoint should be able to impact the other side?
Consider a situation of incompatible "fundamental rights". What if I consider it to be fundamental right that my property doesn't get violated (absolute no tresspassing) That doesn't sound so bad does it? Now what then if your house is in middle of my territory and you consider your right to travel freely to be the one that cant be violated by anyone. So, who has the stronger right?
This is just a plain dumb analogy based on a false pretense. If it is your property, someone else's house would not be in the middle of it.
And more importantly, who decides it? How can we have judges and laws if everyone carries their own laws and personal codes which are absolute?
It is very simple: The right to swing your fist ends at another man's nose.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
People fear what they do not understand. Sadly, in this case, it is the leaders of our government who do not understand.
Any time I see debate over anything like this, I see the fear in the "eyes" of one side. For the many who are against this because they fear mankind will play god, I can only extend my deep sadness. They fear for the validity of thier faith by the actions of mankind. Mankind will always strive for perfection and it always seems to create the fear in some that we may succeed. What then of our faith? This is sad, for these people will never know true peace.
Perhaps what they should really fear is the loss of the scientists who do any of this research. If we have a ban in the United States that the rest of the UN does not support, then the research will move to other countries. This is good for the other countries, but bad for the US. How long before other industries and researches follow? If the ban is lifted later, do we really think the scientists will return to our country to continue the research?
Bans on anything have historically been bad ideas (prohibition springs immediately to mind but history is riddled with other, better examples). But bans on scientific research seems to be particularly bad. When that happens, we loose a resource more precious than any metal or gem - the human mind!
Seppuku: Your solution to my problems!
I think it's illogical to fault conservatives for standing by their guns on this. I mean if you believe that an embryo is human, and if you believe killing that human is wrong, then it is only logical to oppose abortion in all forms- even if there are potential benefits from it. Think about it- there are many potential benefits from say, killing all elderly and genetically inferior people. Less world hunger, better gene pool, etc. We could even do research on their bodies and learn alot that could save lives. But most people, for one reason or another, realize that this would be still be wrong.
So, any talk about weighing potential benefits is really a smokescreen for the only real issue: When does human life begin? I'm not saying that's an easy question, but I think it's really illogical and unfair for people to bash those of us who believe it begins at conception and stand by the logical conclusions of that belief.
When it comes down to it, you will never be able to prove or establish conclusively when "life" begins. Because "life" is a term and means whatever we want it to.
In all debates on this (and related) topics, we see many clever insights that play off of our linguistic tendencies and our gut reactions (these come from both sides of the debate: "Perhaps we have already killed the one who was to find the cure for Cancer", "The research that we could have done might have saved your dying grandma" etc.). Any progress in our understanding of opposing viewpoints that we can make through the mincing of terminology has already been long since exhausted -- we all more or less understand each others positions, we have all been subjected to the various explorations in the hypothetical on this topic. The next thing for us to do is to realize that we don't have to, and in truth never will, agree completely.
One of the natures of human interaction in community is that of compromise for the sake of pooling resources. We will always have disagreements about what is or is not moral -- it's a byproduct of freedom. Instead of repeating arguments, we eventually have to make what will ultimately be a largely arbitrary definition of what we are all trying to describe (I think that splitting the term "life"/"[a]live" into it's multiple understandings would be a good start, since it's been analyzed into ambiguity). After establishing a usable set of terminology, we can then proceed to establish policies (or choose not to establish policies) regarding these. Once the terminology is sufficiently well established to accurately describe the issue (read: once the bs is cleared away) the law making should become, in theory, largely just the of polling members of the community for what they want to do (or what freedoms they are willing to forfeit) and drafting policy to reflect this. If the outcome of this is disagreeable to you, perhaps you are, in fact, in the wrong community.
It is not unreasonable to look to other communities that may maintain a collective ethos that is more agreeable to yours. Often times, people will say something along the lines of "If you don't like the way this [community group] is, then LEAVE!"... Well the truth is, they may be right (it's usually more complicated than that -- the value of your community is often not swayed entirely by a single issue) -- and it doesn't need to be a dramatic or a violent, or even a particularly noteworthy occurrence for someone to choose to leave a community.
If you find yourself living in a nation that doesn't allow the scientific freedom (or lack thereof) that you desire, and if that is important enough to you, then of course you should explore alternate communities in which that would be allowed. But we really need to get past trying to "prove" that the law should be a certain way.
Morality has no place in community policy, except as a secondary influence. What the people in the community want and what they are willing to do/forfeit to that end is the only thing that is a valid explanation for law. For some (many?) people, morality might be the reason why they are willing to make a personal sacrifice for the community, but that is (or should be) secondary to the fact that they are willing to do so.
My point is that this debate has been exhaustively completed, and it seems like all that there is to do now is periodically poll public opinion and maintain the public policy to match that, and let those of us who are displeased with the outcome make our own choices on whether the community is one in which we want to participate. But at this point, the attempts at moral "proof" of the validity of community policy ends up just being ambiguous fluff that confuses the issues.
At least approach the debate with the understanding that your morality (or your purported lack thereof) does not give you any grounds for demanding a similar moral stance from anyone else in your community -- in pursu
The primitive superstitions of you and your kind cannot be permitted to force me and my kind away from the science which can liberate us from the limitations of our genes.
You don't want stem cell research, or genetic engineering? Fine, don't use it. Trust me, we won't try to force you to use our evil technology.
There's a non-argument. You can use "what if" to make anything look bad. "Oooh, what if your parents had used contraception, see, contraception is bad and should be outlawed to satisfy my superstitions, oooh."Eighty years ago your intellectual ancestors were claiming that flight was an offence to God, a few centuries earlier your kind claimed that Galileo's telescope was evil incarnate. Squat in a mud hut if it makes you feel better, the rest of us will be trying to improve things.
More importantly, who appointed you God's spokesman? If He/She/It doesn't like stem cell research let He/She/It speak for themselves. I haven't heard God tell me that stem cell research is wrong, and I'm sure not going to take your luddite word for it.
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
He didn't say Christianity. Way to speculate.
Browse at -1, because trolls are often the most creative part of