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."
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.
And besides it is unstoppable. Even if prohibited the kind of ``black-market'' shall develop, where some groups will make huge amount of money... Because there are people willing to pay that money for extending there life, replacing organs etc... And that is not strange. Prohibitting cloning may look ``nice'' but for sure it will not stop the cloning.
That were my 3 cents...
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.
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!
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
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
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
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