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."
My own personal opposition to cloning comes not from moral reasons, but because we have a population problem, and the last thing we need to do is make it worse.
#define DRM chmod 000
He may be an idiot but he supposedly has a pretty good team of advisers. But in many cases he overrules them based on his chrishtian beliefs. "Even the ones that contradict each other" --- Simpsons. So we can all see what probably happened here.
Vote for new mod!!! Score:-2,Imbecile
so don't flame me
:\
i think one shouldn't prohibit cloning of humans. progress cannot be stopped, even though it is sometimes questionable whether progress in knowledge helps humans a step forward.
i personally think the the ethics are too human-centric in this debate. as if we are a more special breed of mammals or something. factors enter this debate that should be separate from science IMHO, and definetely from governmental decisions (religious arguments for example - don't mess with God's creation...).
the benefits can be many, and cloned humans will be a rare phenomenon, even if it happens. just like genetic engineering in general, cloning human cells or tissues can be a good thing if applied under very strong restricions. think of the (now very sci-fi) idea of growing new organs, or tissues from a patient. no more rejection of transplanted organs by the patient's immune system because they (the organs) are made up by his/her own cells.
regulations should be strict though, to prevent some mad scientist from running ahead of the facts and doing things that have unpredictable effects. although i doubt that regulations will stop a mad man anyway, but that's a different discussion alltogether, so i will not touch that subject
Hello, 1978 called, they want their religous zealots back.
You HAVE heard of "test tube babies" or "in vitro fertilization" or "taking a sperm and then injecting that bad boy inside an egg and then putting that fetilized egg in a womb"...right? You're just pulling our leg with this bit about not knowing about this stuff huh? We've been doin this stuff for 25 years now!
Too much of the objection over stem cell use is concerned with the origin of some stem cell cultures in aborted fetuses.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
i agree completely with you. period.
funny thing is that religion does have a *huge* influence on the way things are decided in the usa (and they are not the only government, let me add, but by far the biggest).
in a true democracy there should be an absolute separation between church and state. in real life, true democracy doesn't exist, unfortunately. like any political ideology, we will never find out if it is the 'best way'. just because the implementation of democracy (or any political system) is miles away from what the original idea was. just like communism as it is and was applied was not communism, but just a dictatorship.
i know this rant is slightly OT, but i think it matters in this discussion. it is essentially about ethics, moral, religion and not about facts. which is a shame in my opinion.
Senator Tom Harkin (D - Iowa) is a proponent of human cloning (not just stem cell research, mind you, but human cloning). He was in a public discussion a while ago with Doctor Ian Wilmut (the guy in charge of the Dolly sheep-cloning experiment). Wilmut said "it would be quite inhumane" to clone people. Harkin blasted him:
... It holds untold benefits for humankind in the future."
"Human cloning will take place and it will take place within my lifetime. I think it is right and proper.
Article about it
The current US administration acts as if they believe that the UN is an organization somewhere between the Three Stooges and the Devil Incarnate, and they usually ignore the UN's resolutions and dismiss its statements.
So, why are they taking this issue to the UN? Because they have been unable to get the Senate to agree to this ban. They hope that by using the UN, they can force through something that wouldn't be palatable to even US politicians.
Correct! Although stem cells can be derived from aborted fetuses and, by all means, ought to be if it can help even a single human being.
"In the most controversial method, scientists can also pull stem cells from aborted fetuses, first asking for signed consent from a patient who'd previously (and independently) decided to terminate her pregnancy. This is the procedure most often highlighted by pro-life activists who oppose supporting stem cell research."
-Old Time article
Most conservatives though, including Bush if I'm not mistaken, are opposed even to using excess embryos for stem-cell research, which is even more outlandish than refusing to collect stem cells from fetuses that have already been aborted.
---
All your old jokes are belong to sigs.
Cloning of complete human beings is experimentation on humans who didn't consent. Cloning has a very high failure rate, with the failed cases resulting in miscarriages or life-ending deformities. I can't see how anyone can claim that human cloning is ethical if it results in 200 or more severely deformed babies for every healthy birth.
Maybe the failure rate could eventually drop to being close to the rate experienced by normal conceptions. But how would we get there? It is almost certain they would have to refine the cloning techniques by repeatedly failing on humans, because the differences between species indicates that you can't automatically make a jump from one species to an equal or better success rate with another. For example, years after the cloning of Dolly the sheep which took 297 attempts, it took 800 attempts to clone a horse despite the advantage of all the knowledge gained since Dolly.
Cloning of isolated organs or stem cells is a different matter which I don't have a problem with.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
- The issues with regard to cloning cannot be brought down to a single yes/no answer, they are legion and complex.
- The religious issues around cloning are for the most part also moral and ethical issues which would be of interest even to an atheist.
- Your suggestion that facts are somehow independant of ethical, moral and religous matters is ludicrous. Facts alone, without some kind of value context, cannot lead to a decision.
- The fact that there is an issue that is encouraging a debate about ethics, morals, and religion is actually an increadibly healthy thing for society. Science is a tool, and they [ethics, morals, and religion] are the hand that guides the tool. The more powerful the tool is, the more important that it be handled with skill.
Honestly, I'd argue that the problem in the USA is that most of the ethical, moral and religious thinking that guides our policy is not driven by very thorough thinking. If the populace as a whole spends more time grappling with these issues, perhaps they'll get past the rather shallow analysis that tends to drive policy.sigs are a waste of space
Genetically, they [eggs, and embryos] are human beings. The big picture: they are the equivalent of brain-dead humans [until they are proven to be sentient]. They should have about the same rights as those.
Ethical or not - it will be greatly beneficial to be able to do research using cloning and stem cells. With cloning, you can do nature-nurture experiments more easily. With stem cells, you can eventually figure out how to grow organs instead of transplanting them.
The first country that legalises cloning and stem cell harvesting for research will have many medical researchers flocking to it. And get lots of insults along the line of 'unethical' and 'immoral'... I wonder, if that will ever happen?
Besides, the bill was sponsered by Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). (Incase you didn't know, the 'D' equals "Democrat").
What you are proposing is a totalitarian system which is much worse then anything Stalin or Hitler could have come up with. The same social system that
keeps this women alive is the system that makes it possible for the rest of us to earn a decent living. Nowadays, poor people are collateral damage of our modern society, but since you reap the benefits of that same society, it is your responsibility to help them.
Genetically, they [eggs, and embryos] are human beings. The big picture: they are the equivalent of brain-dead humans [until they are proven to be sentient]. They should have about the same rights as those.
So does that mean the "mother" can choose to "pull the plug" at any time, and then "donate" the eggs to this kind of research? Remember, the egg is braindead, it can't make decisions for itself...
IANAL(||geneticist||politician) but doesn't cloning humans really screw up the ability of DNA to prove certain crimes? The White House motivation is more likely Orwellian though, in that if you cannot positively identify and track every person, you lose power and control over them.
Don't forget that the Bush administration has a great reputation for telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
> ...they are the equivalent of brain-dead humans
/. right?).
> [until they are proven to be sentient].
So, about those brain-dead humans...not to mention eggs, embryos, fetuses, (oh, my) etc.
I'm so curious why there has been so little discussion about when life/death happens. There's all sorts of funny stuff going on out there.
"Life happens at conception." - Ok...when the sperm goes in the egg. But a lot of eggs that this happens to gets flushed during a women's menstrual cycle (I can say menstruation on
"Death happens when your EEG shows no brain activity." - But...this is rooted entirely in the notion that your brain is the only place where thought comes from. Think of it as the modern soul. Your brain makes your "self."
There is all sorts of research out there about how our notions about life/death are all wrapped up in western philosophical notions, not to mention judeo-christian belief systems. Read up about cryonics and you get a very different notion of life/death than you do from other places.
So the question becomes, where is it most productive for life/death to happen? Because either way we're making it up. So lets make it up in a way that does the least amount of harm.
-CKO
- Sighuh?
The problem with all of that is that it flies in the face of Leon Kass. A lot of bioethics hate Leon Kass, though he is a university professor, philosopher, founding member of the Hastings Center, fellow at the American Enterprise Institute ... you name it. The main problem all those bioethicists despise about Kass is that he eloquently and forcefully believes that human life has intrinsic moral value simply because it is human. This flies in the face of the predominate ideology of contemporary bioethics that disdains human exceptionalism as arbitrary, irrational, human-centric, and indeed, an act of discrimination against animals known as "speciesism."
BTW, everyone dismisses Kass a "Southern Baptist" neo-con right-wing whacko, yet he's Jewish.
Neither Kass nor Bush has advocated outlawing embryonic-stem-cell research. (Both do wish to ban all human cloning, including for biomedical research. But cloning is not the same thing as embryonic-stem-cell research, although many cloning advocates strive mightily to blur the distinction.)
Also, a lot of those issues you cite are banned in a lot of Europe, so it's not like it's unique to the "evil Bush administration".
While some scientists say that the life of the universe is growing and collapsing all the time, but that doesn't explain the very first beginning.
So you are left with a simple question:
Should you take the pragmatic approach, and resign yourself to the knowledge that there are things human beings cannot comprehend? Or will you take the other road, and assume if you can't explain it then God must have created it?
Can a termite comprehend that it is eating a thing called a "house"? No. Does that mean God built the house?
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
Yes, of course embryos produced by human mothers are human. Just like my skin cells are human. Yet I feel no remorse when I slaughter my HUMAN skin cells by the thousands by taking a bath.
Why do I feel no sympathy for the billions of embryos and skin cells that are being murdered as I type this?
It's not because they are inhuman. Hell, my skin cells have my DNA. They're part of my family. They're part of me.
I have no sympathy for them because they lack a cerebral cortex, and there is no reason to belive that anything can suffer unless it has a cerebral cortex. If you don't believe me, you can try a little experiment: First anaesthetize your cerebral cortex then have your lab partner make an incision or insert a hot needle into your flesh (preferably somewhere with an abundance of nerve endings). You'll feel the same thing that embryos feel: nothing.
Interestingly, based on our current understanding of space, time, and matter/energy being interdependent, we can conclude that the cause of the universe:
a) Exists outside of time.
b) Exists outside of space.
c) Is not composed of matter or energy (at least in the forms that we understand).
d) (From a, b & c) Is unlikely to be based upon any of the known laws of physics/reality.
This is an argument that, at minimum, makes it reasonably likely that some supernatural something exists (ie. something that cannot be figured out by science, since it is outside of space/time, and not composed of matter/energy). Whether you believe this supernatural something to be God or not should be something decided by examining the evidence.
Alphanos
While at the same time saying that human beings in fetal form have NO rights and are useless
I rather think that we are saying that they are in fact, usefull.
disregarding the fact that they WILL become adults if allowed to.
No, they MIGHT become adults if allowed to be birthed. Don't discount murder, accident, and illness.
All the contradictions only serve to confirm one fact: Human's will do what they want to do in any given circumstance because we believe we have the right to what we want.
Not all humans will do _anything_ though. I'm not really sure what contradictions you're pointing to, they seem to be more differences of opinions.
When we needed land, we decided that the native inhabitants were only savages and killed them, moved them.
Yeah well tough, that's human nature. When your family/group needs something, or it is percieved that they need something, you aquire it. Is that right to our Western ideals? No. Is that how it works? Sure is.
When we needed manual labor for agricultural work, we went and got slaves because we had conveniently deemed them non-human.
Not all slave owners believed Africans to be non-human but viewed them as cheap labor and treated them fairly well. When it's to their own advantage humans _will_ go along with the group.
When we (humanity) decided that our woes were jew-induced, we decided they were not human and killed them.
I think you're a little bit off your fucking rocker on this one. One group of humans decided this; they lied, cheated, stole, betrayed, and played on basic human fears to accomplish this. The one thing that does bug me is that some of the businesses that enabled Nazi Germany to kill Jews so efficiently weren't punished for their crimes. *cough*IBM*cough*
Don't kid yourselves.
Americans were born to kid themselves. We're different, we're better but it's not our fault that we're fat and stupid. We've got guns! WEeeE!
I once asked my ex-wife: "How many dead babies does it take to achieve clinical imortality?"
Her reply? "As many as necessary".
Let me point some of you "youngsters" to a SF story called "Bug Jack Barron", by Norman Spinrad. In it a 5 year old child had to die for every adult made imortal. The twist to the story is the Bad Guys make Our Hero imortal instead of killing him. It's quite chiling to see the co-opting process go to work when Our Hero finds out he now is one of the lucky few, and how easy it is to rationalize the procedure (now that it's been done).
My point? Don't underestimate human greed and the will to survive. I also believe, along with another poster, that this move by the US is 1) a sop to the religious right at election time, and 2) a somokescreen for the US Pharma industry.
Just call me cynical, I guess ("Well, sure, Mr. Senator, we continued with our research dispite the ban. We only experimented on non-Americans, outside of America. So, do you want us to extend your life so you can run for another term, or not? Remember, you made this an illegal procedure..."). More Life. More seductive than more money.
Until there is a more reliable technique it's irresponsible to clone humans.
In my opinion, cloning should still be illegal even if it does become reliable and "safe". Because anyone arrogant enough to think "what this world really needs is an exact genetic duplicate of me" is someone I really don't want to see duplicate him or herself.
(This coming from someone who gave his firstborn the same name as himself (and his grandfather), so maybe I fit my own critique.)
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
XML Tools for Mac OS X
"Embryo" is an evocative word. Everyone's seen pictures of them, distinctly human with little arms and little legs and no ability to survive outside their mother's wombs. However, stem cells are not harvested from these embryos, but from far simpler creatures:
http://www.visembryo.com/baby/stage4.html
That's it, that's what we're talking about. And here's a secret! Women abort these little guys all the time, naturally. Sometimes they aren't viable from the start, and everyone involved knows it, sometimes there's an accident. We don't generally weep for these little unborn people, because they aren't people yet, there's no stillborn baby to bury. You can't even really see them.
So, is it good to harvest these bouncing little, um, collections of half a dozen cells? Well, maybe, maybe not. If useful stem cells can be grown and cultured without involving embryos, that's just swell. If not, well, we're not talking about robbing the maternity ward, folks. The Bush Administration, however, is talking about the wholesale and complete ban on a technology as a prelude, likely, to banning all forms of genetic research that isn't directly applicable to commercial products by agricultural companies.
I see in this a downright diabolical urge to take a hand in the lives and deaths of every single human being on the planet. George Bush wants you to die, basically. He wants you to die from Alzheimer's, or Parkinson's, or from organ failure or any number of the conditions that kill older folks. He wants to be there at your bedside and laugh in your face as everything goes dark. He can say that you're with Jesus or something, that he's fulfilled God's wish to see everyone dead, but-- isn't that creepy? Isn't that just a little freakish? Man, I wouldn't let this guy anywhere near my genes.
This UN document has only one purpose and one purpose only. To swing the balance of power in favour of the US and other sly world governments. If anyone thinks for one moment that such a treaty will stop the US military from carrying out secret cloning experiments, they are completely misguided. This treaty will only apply to non-government entities, and will be fought for in an attempt to give the US governemnt the upper-hand in the technology war with other countries. An agreement in the duplicitous world of world politics means absolutely nothing.
Genetically, they [eggs, and embryos] are human beings. The big picture: they are the equivalent of brain-dead humans [until they are proven to be sentient]. They should have about the same rights as those.
And people with Down's syndrome, or Turner's, or Klinefelter's, or any other severe chromosomal abnormality, do NOT genetically match a human (and interestingly enough, that includes a good number of people you'd consider "normal", unlike the above-mentioned disease conditions... XXY, as an example, where you get a reasonably normal female with a tendancy toward masculine traits). So, should we consider them as animals, and have the right to treat them the same as we would with a dog or horse?
No, I don't mean this as a troll. I just think we need to fundamentally change the way we view our legal and moral definition of "human". Personally, I favor "anything capable of supporting itself and successfully interacting with society", with a modifier for age. Outside that, no rights beyond basic cruelty-to-animals style rights (though I suspect I count as something of an extremist in that regard). However, whichever way you look at this, we can't just say "genetic humans have all the rights of a full living adult human", without having a VERY glaring grey area.