Related Information to Human Cloning?

Human Cloning? - Page 5

Seems like the Canadians are ready to stop it!

Used by Permission:

From:  The Pro-Life Infonet
Reply-To:  Steven Ertelt
Subject:   Canadian Parliament Votes on Human Cloning Ban
Source:   Lifesite; March 26, 2003

Canadian Parliament Votes on Human Cloning Ban

Ottawa, Canada -- During a chaotic 4 hour session from 3 to 7 p.m. today
Canada's Liberal government rammed through voting on all 60 remaining
proposed amendments to its deeply flawed Assisted Human Reproduction Act
Bill C-13.

Liberal Paul Szabo's Motion 13, which attempts to ensure that the bill
would in fact ban all forms of cloning, passed by a narrow 11 vote margin.
Alliance MP Jason Kenney's Motion 17, which would have banned all
destructive embryo experimentation, was defeated. This critical motion
defeat leaves the bill still allowing the killing of embryonic humans for
research purposes.

Campaign Life Coalition national coordinator Mary Ellen Douglas stated
that the organization will sadly have to work to defeat the bill since the
amendment voting results have still left it fatally flawed. The word is
that most pro-life MPs feel the same despite their valiant efforts that
made the voting far less of a cakewalk than the Prime Minster's office has
expected. MPs from different parties has special praise for the leading
efforts of pro-life MP Paul Szabo who managed to get three of his
amendments passed.

Justice Minister Anne McLellan distributed what many considered a very
biased critique of each amendment to all Liberal Members of Parliament
prior to the voting. The analysis stated that every one of the 14 pro-life
supported Group 2 amendments was "unnecessary".

The possibility of any restriction on abortions was obviously a factor for
the government on Motion 17. McLellan's critique stated Motion 17 'Would
prohibit all embryo research and could have the effect of prohibiting
abortion in Canada up until the 56th day of a pregnancy (due to the
definition of the embryo in Bill C-13). The phrase "harvest an embryo" is
unclear and could be interpreted as including an embryo inside a woman's
body (i.e., an in vivo embryo).

S. 10(2) provides a framework to tightly regulate research involving the
in vitro human embryo. A complete prohibition on embryo research would
deny progress toward treatments for debilitating diseases, and would
prevent research to ensure that AHR treatments are a safe and healthy
option. This motion is unnecessary."

Third reading and final voting on the bill is expected next week on the
third or fourth of April.

[offtopic]

QUOTE

Hey, let's clone JB!!

What are you trying to do, make everyone unhappy? *hehe*[/offtopic]

Cloning Human

Used by Permission

From:  The Pro-Life Infonet
Reply-To:  Steven Ertelt
Subject:   A License to Clone, a Requirement to Kill
Source:   Weekly Standard; April 7, 2003

A License to Clone, a Requirement to Kill
by Wesley Smith

[Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow for the Discovery Institute. He is the
author of "Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America."]

It is becoming increasingly clear that the bio-anarchists leading the
charge to Brave New World want a virtually unlimited license to engage in
human cloning. The proof is in the legislation they keep trying to pass.

It is bad enough that in Washington, senators Orin Hatch, Republican of
Utah, and Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, have introduced the
Human Cloning Ban and Stem Cell Research Protection Act of 2003 (S. 303),
which would permit the creation of human clone embryos for research,
requiring their destruction after the fourteenth day of development. But
the much more radical license that bio-anarchists seek is embodied in
state legislation introduced beneath the radar of the national media.

If these bills ever became law, researchers could create human embryos for
the purposes of experimentation, implant them, and allow them to gestate
through the ninth month of pregnancy, by which point they would have to be
exploited for research and killed.

New Jersey was the first state whose legislature attempted to create this
broad cloning license. The bill--S. 1909--was a sneaky piece of
legislation. Its ostensible purpose was to permit stem cell research on
embryos left over from in vitro fertilization. But lurking in the text,
clearly discernible upon careful reading, was a more sweeping agenda.

First, the legislation would have explicitly authorized the manufacture of
human embryos via the cloning procedure known as somatic cell nuclear
transfer (SCNT). Second, unlike the Hatch-Feinstein bill, the legislation
would not have proscribed the implantation of clone embryos into a woman's
womb. This is important, because if an act is not illegal, it is legal.
Finally, the legislation would have made the "cloning of a human being" a
"crime of the first degree."

The key to understanding the dangerous scope of this legislation is its
definition of the term "human being":

As used in this section, "cloning a human being" means the replication of
a human individual by cultivating a cell with genetic material through the
egg, embryo, fetal and newborn stages into a new human individual. (My
emphasis.)

Since, under S. 1909, implantation of a clone embryo would be legal, and
only the cloning of a "new human individual" all the way through the
"newborn" stage would be illegal, the bill would have authorized the
gestation of a human clone fetus for any period up through nine months. To
avoid criminality, presumably the fetus would have to be aborted, at
latest, just before birth.

This bill passed the New Jersey Senate without a dissenting vote. From
there, it went to the New Jersey Assembly (A. 2840), where despite
warnings about its implications the Health and Human Services Committee
passed it on to the Assembly floor. Only when the odious details began to
become publicly known did the sponsors withdraw it. And even then, the
governor and some state newspaper editorials criticized opponents as
standing against medical progress.

Perhaps it was all a big mistake. Perhaps the authors of the New Jersey
bill never really meant to authorize clone implantation and gestation
through the ninth month. If so, a significant number of New Jersey
legislators voted for legislation they did not understand.

But now, that lame excuse won't wash. A Democratic state senator from El
Paso named Eliot Shapleigh has just introduced S.B. 1034 into the Texas
senate. It's a bill with language almost identical to that of New Jersey's
discredited S. 1909.

Like the New Jersey bill, S.B. 1034 purports to be about embryonic stem
cell research. Like the New Jersey bill, it would authorize the creation
of embryos through SCNT without banning the implantation of clone embryos
into a woman's womb. Instead, just as in New Jersey, the bill would outlaw
only "the replication of a human individual by cultivating a cell with the
individual's genetic material through the egg, embryo, fetal, and newborn
stages into a new human individual."

One bill with this enabling language might be written off as an
aberration. But two?

It seems there is a method to this madness, but my call to Shapleigh's
office went unreturned. Obviously, the time has come for the media to show
a little skepticism about the supposedly benign human cloning agenda, and
find out who it is that wants such a breathtakingly radical cloning
license, and why.

Human Cloning? History & Civil Business Politics

Well now even the European Union is against it, will this kind of research die? Maybe it will be performed illegally somewhere?

USED BY PERMISSION:

From:  The Pro-Life Infonet
Reply-To:  Steven Ertelt
Subject:   European Union Votes Against Embryonic Stem Cell
Research
Source:   BBC; April 10, 2003

European Union Votes Against Embryonic Stem Cell Research

London, England -- European MPs have voted against allowing
scientists to carry out research on stem cells taken from human
embryos. The vote by members of the European Parliament (MEPs)
could now see this type of research outlawed across the EU.

At present, it is legal in the UK but is banned in other member
states, while others have no regulations at all.

MEPs will have to vote on the proposed new law again before it
can come into effect. It also needs the support of individual
member states.  However, if a majority of EU ministers back the
proposal this type of research could come to an end in the UK.

Pro-life groups oppose embryonic stem cell research because it
involves the destruction of a very young unborn child. They
support adul stem cell research which is more ethical and has
been more effective in clinical trials.

David Bowe, Labour's environment spokesman in the European
Parliament, criticised the result.

"I am quite annoyed about it. It is wrong for the religious right
to assert its own moral view on the rest of us. There is no moral
consensus in Europe on this and it really should be left up to
individual member states to decide."

Bowe said he was confident the proposed ban could be defeated
when the legislation is considered again by MEPs. "We are going
to start working very hard to ensure these amendments don't go
through," he told BBC News Online.

But Maria Louise Flemming, the Austrian Christian Democrat MEP
defended the result. "From the moment of the conception, you
create all the individual characteristics of a person," she said.

British pro-lifers are delighted by the vote.

Paul Tully, of the UK Society for the Protection of Unborn
Children said: "The UK's national laws on embryo research and
so-called therapeutic cloning are some of the most permissive in
the world. We applaud MEPs for their stand in support of the
dignity of the human embryo today, which is in marked contrast to
the morally bankrupt position of our own government."

According to Tully, the directive would ban all human cloning,
both for reproductive and so-called therapeutic purposes, and
restrict any research which involves the destruction of surplus
IVF embryos.

"This is the third time in as many years that MEPs have signaled
their rejection of cloning for experimental purposes, and again
today they have acted to isolate Tony Blair's government, whose
support for destructive research on cloned embryos is unique in
Europe and makes Britain a pariah state on the issue."

Page 5 Cloning Human

I haven't said much about this issue because I haven't made up my mind about it.
There are many ramifications I don't understand, and don't feel qualified to pontificate about.
I do not see it as a moral issue, so can't approach it from that angle.

Cloning Human

Used by Permission

From:  The Pro-Life Infonet
Reply-To:  Steven Ertelt
Subject:   Human Cloning May Never Be Possible, Scientists Say
Source:   BBC; April 10, 2003

Human Cloning May Never Be Possible, Scientists Say

London, England -- Human cloning may never be possible because of
a quirk of biology.  Something goes wrong as the cell divides
scientsis in the United States say as hundreds of their attempts
to clone monkeys have ended in failure.

They think the biological make-up of the eggs of primates,
including humans, makes cloning almost impossible.

Cloning has been successful in several mammals, including sheep,
mice and cattle, but there is increasing evidence that it does
not work in all species. The research, reported in the journal
Science, casts further doubt on efforts by a handful of mavericks
to clone humans.

Clonaid, a company created by a cult known as the Raelians,
claims to have already cloned several babies. It has produced no
evidence to substantiate these claims. Meanwhile, controversial
reproductive scientist Panayiotis Zavos has published a picture
of what he claims is "the first human cloned embryo for
reproductive purposes."

The majority of scientists agree that attempts to clone a human
baby are dangerous and misguided. Many cloned animals have been
born ill or deformed and successful births are few and far
between.

Researchers at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine
used the method pioneered on Dolly the sheep to try to clone
rhesus macaque monkeys. They were unable to establish a single
pregnancy after hundreds of attempts. Other groups have also
tried and failed to clone monkeys.

The obstacle appears to be something to do with the way genetic
material is parcelled up as a cell splits into two during
embryonic development. Cells end up with too much, or too little
DNA, and cannot survive.

It suggests that attempts to clone other primates, even humans,
may be doomed to failure.

"This reinforces the fact that the charlatans who claim to have
cloned humans have never understood enough cell or developmental
biology (to succeed)," team leader Dr. Gerald Schatten told the
journal Science.

Human Cloning?

Used by Permission

From:  The Pro-Life Infonet
Reply-To:  Steven Ertelt
Subject:   Dolly The Sheep Creator Wants to Clone Human Being
Source:   Wall St. Journal; April 11, 2003

Dolly The Sheep Creator Wants to Clone Human Being

London, England -- Dr. Ian Wilmut, who in 1997 led the team of
scientists that created the cloned sheep known as Dolly, has
announced that his next plan is to create a human clone for
research purposes.

Wilmut, who is joint head of the Department of Gene Expression
and Development at the Roslin Institute in Scotland, specifically
plans to create an embryonic clone of a patient with Lou Gehrig's
disease as part of a study aimed at finding a cure for the
motor-neuron disease. He claimed that the embryo would not be
implanted in a woman's uterus in order to produce an infant but
the cloned embryo's cells and genetic material would be studied
and compared with similar cells from healthy donors in an attempt
to understand what causes Lou Gehrig's disease, which affects
approximately 350,000 people worldwide and kills about 100,000
people annually.

In February, Dolly was euthanized after being diagnosed with
progressive lung disease.

The decision was taken to end her life at the age of 6 after a
veterinary examination confirmed the lung disease, a statement
from the institute said.

"Sheep can live to 11 or 12 years of age and lung infections are
common in older sheep, particularly those housed inside," said
Dr. Harry Griffin, head of the institute.

Many scientists and ethicists question whether Wilmut will be
able to successfully clone a human being in light of the Dolly
failure and the many failures in an attempt to clone monkeys.

In January 2002, Dolly was diagnosed as having arthritis, a
condition usually expected in older animals.

It was not clear whether the cloning process led to the
arthritis, but research in 1999 suggested that Dolly might be
susceptible to premature aging -- a possibility raised after a
study of her genetics.

Wilmut said he intends to seek permission for the cloning
experiment from the United Kingdom's Human Fertilisation and
Embryology Authority this summer.

Human Cloning - Page 5

Seems like this is gaining ground once again

Used by Permission:

From:  The Pro-Life Infonet
Reply-To:  Steven Ertelt
Subject:   American Medical Assn. Endorses Human Cloning for
Deadly Research
Source:   Associated Press, Pro-Life Infonet; June 17, 2003

American Medical Assn. Endorses Human Cloning for Deadly Research

Washington, DC -- The American Medical Association endorsed human
cloning for research purposes Tuesday, putting the nation's
largest organization of doctors officially at odds with pro-life
organziations and the Bush administration.

The President and pro-life groups oppose the practice because it
involves the destruiction of human life in an attempt to obtain
embryonic stem cells for research. Both favor the use of adult
stem cell research which, they say, has been more effective in
clinical trials in addition to being more ethical.

The policy, adopted without debate at the AMA's annual meeting,
says cloning for research purposes is ethical. But the policy
allows doctors who oppose the practice to refuse to perform it.
The measure does not support reproductive cloning and is calls
for proper oversight and informed consent for patients who may be
donating embryos for use in research.

In its press announcement concerning the resolution, the AMA
claimed adult stem cell research is not as effective as embryonic
stem cell research.

This is the first time the 260,000-member AMA has taken a
position on the controvercial issue and its new chairman clamed
the doctors group was not at odds with President Bush. "The AMA
is not bucking the president,'' said Dr. Michael Goldrich,
incoming chairman of the committee that drafted the cloning
report. ``The AMA is giving guidance to physicians.''

President Bush opposes all cloning, research or reproductive, and
the U.S. House earlier this year passed a White House-backed ban
on any form of the practice. The ban has languished in the
Senate. During a press conference Tuesday, Ari Fleisher
reiterated Bush's anti-cloning stance.

"The President's positions on this are well- known," Fleisher
explained. "The President is opposed to human cloning in all its
forms."

The proposal received wide support from doctors and medical
groups at the meeting, including the American Society for
Reproductive Medicine. A National Academy of Sciences panel last
year also said cloning for research should be allowed.

Pro-life advocates, however, said the research is unethical
because it involves killing unborn children.

Calling it medically ethical is ``totally inappropriate ... when
a number of us believe that human beings start with two cells,''
said Dr. John McMahon of Helena, Montana.

A spokesman for a national group of Christian doctors, said the
AMA's positions in favor of abortion and cloning are causing many
pro-life doctors to decline membership.

"AMA's penchant for putting medicine on a slippery slope of
unethical principles has led to a mass exodus of members for the
past several decades," noted Dr. David Stevens, Executive
Director of the Christian Medical Association. "Whether it's
advocating abortion on demand ... or now advocating the
deliberate creation and destruction of living human beings in the
name of research, the AMA's unethical positions have caused a
landslide membership fallout."

Meanwhile, Concerned Women for America President Sandy Rios
expressed disappointment that the American Medical Association
would break from the physician's creed to "do no harm" and
announce support for human cloning for experimental purposes.

"By choosing science devoid of ethics or concern for human
beings," said Rios, "these physicians have shown a lack of
sensitivity to patients' well-being, ethical standards and human
rights. This does not bode well for the public's trust in their
doctors who are represented by the American Medical Association."

Human Cloning Politics Business Civil & History - Page 5

I am against human cloning.  I believe it's just not in the 'natural order of things'.  How scary is it to live in a world where there is no natural pregnancies anymore?  Where you could go in to a facility and tell them ok, clone me, but make me better, take out all of my genetic flaws so there is nothing left but perfection.  (I mean there is only one perfect being and he's not human.  ;) )  I am afraid that human cloning will end up being used for wrong and/or evil things.  Yes, they say now it's just for stem cells, but who's to say it wouldn't end up being more later on down the road?  Going from stem cells to using it for blood research, organ analysis, etc.