Obama calls cloning 'dangerous, profoundly wrong'

Breitbart ^ | 3/9/09

[Former Fetus]

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama says human cloning is "dangerous, profoundly wrong" and has no place in society. Obama made the comments as he was signing an executive order that will allow federal spending on embryonic stem cell research.

[DrC]

“I feel that this is a President and an Administration that...believes in making decisions based on facts and on science as opposed to what is politically expedient.” Barack Hussein Obama

Apparently you misunderstood this latest announcement. What BHO meant to say was that there would be no further cloning. All those statements you cite (and any other instances of flat-out lies you dredge up) were made by Obama CLONES, not BHO himself. He cannot and will not be responsible for the behavior of his clones (nor for any damage they might cause the stock market or economy).

Henceforth, it should be understood that any statements made by a person appearing to be BHO that retroactively turn out to be true were made by the true BHO. Any statements that turn out to be false (which include any decisions that turn out to be unpopular or wreak economic havoc) obviously were made by BHO clones.

[Servant of the Cross]

Exactly. He’s moving his lips; ergo he’s lying.

[swain_forkbeard]

Those pesky telomeres. Almost seems like the pre-programmed mortality for Roy and the others in Bladerunner.

I wasn’t suggesting that human cloning for reproduction is a well-developed tecnique or a useful one for the near future. Just that cloning doesn’t, in itself, imply death for anyone.

[ViLaLuz]

Why isn’t his judgment against cloning “above his paygrade?”

Who is he to judge?

[MeneMeneTekelUpharsin]

Obama, are YOU suddenly our moral compass? Bwa ha hahahaaaa. Just because YOU said so? This is bordering on absurdity.

[GloriaJane]

Oh I know that. I was just trying to point out what I see as craziness in obama’s thinking process.

The man see’s nothing wrong with the idea of killing born alive babies or destroying human embryos for research, but he is against cloning? You don’t have to end a life to clone.

Personally I think his moral compass is broken, or maybe he was just born without a soul.

[cookcounty]

And even if he were right in separating cloning from embryonic research, does "SCIENCE" say cloning is wrong? Science doesn't make moral judgements. In a society, there can be religious or personal moral judgements, but in the end, only POLITICS makes such judgements as it affects tax appropriation POLICY.

This guy got through Harvard?

[Missouri gal]

Unix Geek: To your question: How many women are killed by this?
We don't know, since it is information protected by “privacy” rules, and because the drugs have not been well studied, especially in the long term. However, at least 25 documented deaths from Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome (OHS), mostly reported in England where they actually keep count. Again, there are uncounted cancer deaths and organ failures in long term. But which woman's life do you feel entitled to throw away for the sake of junk science when ethical alternatives are light years ahead of the unethical, and much more cost effective? There are over 700 FDA-approved adult stem cell trials in progress right now. Nearly a quarter of a million Americans have received stem cell treatments using donated bone marrow, their own cells, or cord blood cells, for over 60 different diseases.
On your second question: Why do you assume the only reason to clone a child would be to destroy...?
Answer: 1)Cloning a child to bring it to birth is called reproductive cloning. It's a felony, and even the Lefties reject it. That's why Obama reiterates that “cloning” won't be allowed, when he means only reproductive cloning. Furthermore, it's even less plausible than “therapeutic” cloning (clone and kill) because the odds of getting a healthy cloned human to live to birth are vanishingly small and prohibitively expensive, removing any practical reason on earth to want it. Unless there is some vast change of technology, which overcomes the apparent inherent barriers to human cloning, it will not be possible. The more people try, the more it looks like God has built an insurmountable barrier. However, it's possible that God might give the ungodly what they want, as a punishment.

[Missouri gal]

Swain_forkbeard, I'm not sure I understand your question. Dolly the Sheep was the result of a cloning event, not an egg donor. My comment was about the injuries women get from egg donation; increased risk of ovarian hyperstimulation, organ failures and cancer. I forgot to mention loss of fertility. Likewise, the female sheep (they needed many) whose eggs were used to attempt to create Dolly, may also have been given the same drug that women take before egg donation, and would have had the same problems, unless perhaps the eggs were taken from livestock being slaughtered, in which case the scientists wouldn't have seen those problems. They made hundreds of clones before they got one to live to birth, so they needed thousands of sheep eggs. If we were going to try to cure, say, diabetes with cloned humans, and assuming human cloning could become as efficient as cloning Dolly, we would have to force almost every woman of reproductive age in the whole world to donate her eggs.

However, if your question was about Dolly the Sheep, the only one of hundreds of clones that lived more than a few days after birth, she was killed after a few years because she was suffering many ill effects from being a clone. It turns out that our cells are so different from those of livestock, mice, dogs and cats, that it's an entirely different thing to try to clone human beings at all. It really might not be possible, even with infinite dollars and skill. Results of cloning can be ghastly. I have seen cloned mice, for which there are practical reasons to create, and they are horrible. Very often bisexual, and very unhealthy.

[swain_forkbeard]

First, I remembered wrong. I thought Dolly was the donor animal used to create the clone. But instead Dolly was the resultant clone. So I agree with you; my question did not make sense.

Second, I am not suggesting that cloning humans is a mature and reliable technical achievement. And I am not presenting an ethical argument. I am not talking about stem-cell reseach or organ harvesting or destroying embryos. I am simply saying that cloning, using an cell from an adult animal and the process of nuclear transfer (as was done with Dolly), does not kill the cell donor.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

1)Cloning a child to bring it to birth is called reproductive cloning. It's a felony, and even the Lefties reject it. That's why Obama reiterates that “cloning” won't be allowed, when he means only reproductive cloning.

Yes, I know. What I don't know is why. What possible business is it of Obama's if people choose to reproduce in this way?

Furthermore, it's even less plausible than “therapeutic” cloning (clone and kill) because the odds of getting a healthy cloned human to live to birth are vanishingly small and prohibitively expensive, removing any practical reason on earth to want it.

Dogs and cats are being cloned right now. There are technological problems to be overcome - health risks for the clones. But these problems will be solved.

Unless there is some vast change of technology, which overcomes the apparent inherent barriers to human cloning, it will not be possible.

Vast changes in technology occur with breathtaking rapidity these days. Human cloning will be a practical reality well within our lifetimes.

The more people try, the more it looks like God has built an insurmountable barrier. However, it's possible that God might give the ungodly what they want, as a punishment.

There's a great deal of presumption in this statement, and I question your role as God's spokesman. I've yet to hear God state his views on cloning, and I know of no reason why either your opinion or Obama's opinion should have any effect on the decision of a person to clone themselves.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

“Unless the clones are aborted,” he added. /sarcasm

[Missouri gal]

Hello, again, Another UnixGeek. Thanks for your comments. I would be willing to let us “agree to disagree,” but since you are an inquisitive person, I would like to leave you with an important opportunity to learn more about WHY science cannot do just anything. Science has formally admitted that there are things which science CANNOT do. It’s called the Godel theorem, and it is accepted by science as proven. For example, science cannot write a formula that describes prime numbers, and this also a proven mathematical theorem. This is very important because so many people in the modern world, like yourself, think that science only needs more time or effort to achieve anything that can be conceived. Do we now know enough to determine whether human cloning may be one of those impossibles? We can only say that the workings of the cell are orders of magnitude more complex than we imagined a few decades ago, and those of the human cell are orders of magnitude more complex than those of any of the animals. We don’t know why, but the living cell seems to be more than the sum of parts and functions.
For more info on Godel theorem and a highly readable treatment of the subject of scientific capabilities, see the excellent book “Godel, Escher, Bach” by Douglas Hofstader.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

It’s called the Godel theorem, and it is accepted by science as proven. For example, science cannot write a formula that describes prime numbers, and this also a proven mathematical theorem. This is very important because so many people in the modern world, like yourself, think that science only needs more time or effort to achieve anything that can be conceived. Do we now know enough to determine whether human cloning may be one of those impossibles? We can only say that the workings of the cell are orders of magnitude more complex than we imagined a few decades ago, and those of the human cell are orders of magnitude more complex than those of any of the animals.

Thank you, in turn, for taking the time to read my response and responding yourself.

I'm familiar with Godel's incompleteness theorems, but I'm puzzled that you think they support your argument about the impossibility of human reproductive cloning.

I'm aware that mathematics and physics prove many things impossible, if that's the point you want to make - for instance, no particle with mass can accelerate to the speed of light. But your statement that the cells of the human body are more complicated than those of animals by several orders of magnitude is not true. If you're considering genes, many animals have as many or more. Many animals have more chromosomes as well. And some of these animals have already been cloned successfully.

The real issues with human cloning right now are preventing genetic damage from the cloning process and improving cloning techniques so no embryos are destroyed in the process. These are technical obstacles to overcome in a process that already works, and they will be resolved.

I think the issue of reproductive cloning has been unfairly caught up in the embryonic stem-cell and abortion issues. I'm firmly against abortion, and firmly in favor of respecting human life at all stages. But reproductive cloning could provide a very great good to many people who will never be able to have children biologically. In addition to giving them the joys and responsibilities of parenthood, cloning gives their genes another lifetime to reproduce through normal means and carry the genetic inheritance they received from their parents and grandparents into the future. I'd urge you, in turn, to think about it with an open mind.