Posted on 03/11/2003 1:52:04 AM PST by MHGinTN
The Senate will be considering soon the Human Cloning Prohibition Act, S245. Contact your senators!
What was once the stuff of science fiction now confronts us. Cloning, or somatic cell nuclear transfer, is among the most challenging innovations of biotechnology, for it could redefine what it means to be a member of the human family.
Cloning is the process of creating identical genetic replicas. Human cloning is the manufacture of a human being by extracting the nucleus from an egg, injecting a cell containing DNA from the donor, and then giving the egg a shock of electricity to stimulate cell division, thus the a new human is begun. Advocates for human cloning have been chipping away at the public revulsion of cloning people by misrepresenting the science and ignoring the very real consequences.
Some of the myths surrounding cloning are:
Myth #1: Reproductive cloning should be outlawed, but therapeutic cloning allowed.
The thought of people creating exact genetic replicas of themselves, or others—even unwilling people whose skin or hair cell could be used to produce a clone—is unacceptable, so cloning enthusiasts came up with the idea that there are two kinds of cloning. “Therapeutic cloning,” they say, would only produce material for experimentation. “Reproductive cloning” would create a human being.
But, there is only one process for human cloning, and one result—an embryo. Only the intention of the scientist changes—whether to use the newly created being for experiments or to implant it in a womb to produce a live birth. Therapeutic cloning creates humans in order to destroy them.
The Department of Justice has testified that a partial ban—outlawing only reproductive cloning—would be virtually unenforceable. Since implantation of embryos itself is not illegal (it happens all the time with in-vitro fertilization), rogue scientists could mix cloned embryos with fertilized embryos and implant both. The only way to enforce such a ban is to forcibly abort a woman carrying a clone, or to destroy a clone that is born. Neither option is acceptable.
Myth #2: Therapeutic cloning shows promise for curing many diseases and disabilities.
Proponents of cloning claim it is necessary to manufacture clones to obtain embryonic stem cells, and, since they would be genetically identical to the patient, rejection would be less likely. How-ever, if the patient’s disease is genetic, the stem cells carry the disease.
Dr. Tanja Dominko, a cloning researcher, said her work on cloning monkeys resulted in gross abnormalities in most embryos, which died within five days—too early for stem cells to appear. Though they look healthy, a high percentage of cloned monkey embryos are really a “gallery of horrors” within. Half of all clones of large mammals suffer severe problems, including defects in the heart, lungs and other organs. Others that survive die suddenly and mysteriously weeks or months after birth. These results indicate that the embryos’ cells would be dangerous to implant in patients.
Research on embryonic stem cells has produced no cures or treatments. It has, however, resulted in horrific consequences. While proponents say their ability to differentiate into a variety of cells is a benefit, the research shows they also can become tumors and cancers.
Myth #3: Therapeutic cloning is more promising than the use of adult stem cells.
Adult and umbilical-cord-blood stem cells are already producing cures and treatments for a variety of diseases and disabilities, and include the capacity to multiply and become varied cell types. Unlike embryonic stem cells, they do not become tumors or cancers. Adult stem cells are obtained without killing the person, while extracting embryonic stem cells destroys the embryo.
Cloning could divert necessary funding from research that is yielding results to research that violates human rights.
Myth #4: Clones are not human beings.
Like magicians that divert our attention to hide what they are doing, cloning proponents bring patients forward—for which there is no realistic hope of cure from cloning—to draw focus away from who is being experimented upon.
All of us began as a few cells. But cloning proponents claim these embryos are not distinct and individual humans. If one class of humans can be used for experimentation, others, who look different, can’t defend themselves, or lack a “quality of life,” will be next. A civilized society ensures the protection of its weakest members.
Myth #5: Therapeutic cloning will be allowed up to only 14 days.
Recent research suggests that the optimal time for obtaining embryonic stem cells is after the embryo has developed for six weeks. Clearly, when the arbitrary deadline of 14 days proves unworkable or unsuccessful, cloning proponents will demand that they need older, more-developed humans.
Myth #6: Banning human cloning would inhibit all cloning research.
Bans on human cloning do not prohibit cloning techniques to produce DNA molecules, organs, plants, tissues, cells other than human embryos, or animals other than humans.
A total ban on human cloning upholds respect for human rights and dignity. It reinforces that people will not be used as commodities, that we will not tolerate the abuse of the weak to benefit those more advantaged or deemed more deserving of respect.
Cloning supporters do not explain:
Where will they get the massive number of eggs they need for their experiments?
Cloning proponents claim that 100 million patients in America could find cures through the cloning of human embryos. What they don’t say is that it would take massive numbers of eggs to produce the human clones. And the only way to obtain the eggs is to endanger women’s health by injecting them with powerful drugs to cause hyper-ovulation, and then surgically removing the eggs.
Each patient would need his or her own clone. Based on animal experiments, it would take 50 to 100 eggs to produce one successful clone. Women who are IVF donors average 10 to 15 eggs per hyper-stimulation. There are not enough healthy or willing women in America to produce all these eggs. Surely this means that researchers would target millions of disadvantaged women, here and abroad, for their eggs—all in the name of “science.”
The drugs for hyper-stimulation can cause serious medical complications, including rapid accumulation of fluid in the abdominal cavity, chest cavity and around the heart; increased risk of injury to the ovary that may include rupture and bleeding, requiring surgery; strokes, and lung problems and clots that have resulted in death. Most often the problems occur after treatment has ended. It is likely that poor and vulnerable women will be the targets for supplying eggs—those least likely to be in good health or to have ready access to good medical care.
To whom does the clone belong?
Human cloning produces a human being, but some prefer that these developing girls and boys be treated as property, and even patented for the profit of researchers. Does the donor of the DNA, or of the eggs, or the researcher have the right to decide the fate of the clone? Who is the parent?
As a member of the human race with the DNA to prove it, a human created by cloning deserves rights and a family. But those who desire cloning for experimentation argue that this class of human should have no rights. This is eerily reminiscent of every ideology that commits atrocities – including slavery, genocide and Nazism.
Is cloning ethical?
“Concern for the interests of the subject must always prevail over the interest of science and society. … In research on man, the interest of science and society should never take precedence over considerations related to the well-being of the subject.”
—World Medical Association, Declaration of Helsinki, Sections I.5, III.4 (1975)
“No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.”
—Nuremberg Code, Principle 5 (1949)
“It is so easy for scientists to step over the edge and make science a god.”
—Susan Vigorito, a survivor of Dr. Josef Megele’s notorious “twin” experiments, speaking at Kent State University (1990)
In 2001, as the nation debated federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) claimed to be “extremely troubl[ed]” that researchers were creating human embryos for the express purpose of experimentation. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) agreed. Now they are enthusiastic supporters of creating human clones for this purpose. In fact, they are sponsoring a bill along with Sens. Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Dianne Feinstein (D-California) to allow human cloning for research. They wrongly call it a ban to criminalize so-called reproductive cloning.
They assert that cloning will produce numerous cures. In 2001, embryonic stem cells were the magic elixir. Ten years ago it was fetal tissue from aborted babies. These have two things in common: They view the small and defenseless human beings as material to be experimented upon, and none has produced any evidence of success.
However, the questionable promises steer scientists and funding away from truly favorable research. Publicity affects the fields scientists choose to pursue and the amount of funding they will get. Tragically, politics and publicity will cause people to suffer longer while science runs down unethical rabbit trails when more likely ethical cures are waiting to be found.
For the sake of humanity, science must be governed by ethics and by the law. However, some scientists and their lobbyists do not want boundaries. They are exploiting desperate patients to gain acceptance for their dangerous experiments. Ultimately, the powerful, the wealthy, or the more politically connected will benefit most at the expense of the most vulnerable, women (for their eggs) and children (in their earliest stage of development).
Which bill will ban human cloning?
The Hatch/Specter/Feinstein/Kennedy/Harkin bill is a fraud that claims to ban cloning while in fact allowing cloning to continue. It claims that therapeutic cloning does not produce a human embryo, yet the bill prohibits the implantation of this very cloned embryo. If it were not an embryo, implanting it would not result in a newborn baby. This bill would turn humans into commodities.
However, Sens. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) and Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana) have introduced the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003 (S.245), a fine alternative. This bill recognizes there are not two kinds of cloning and is the only bill to ban this process entirely. Its companion in the House of Representatives is H.R. 534, sponsored by Reps. Dave Weldon (R-Florida) and Bart Stupak (D-Michigan).
President Bush has repeatedly expressed his support for a genuine cloning ban. Thus, he is unlikely to sign the “clone and kill” bill promoted by Sens. Hatch, Specter, Feinstein, Kennedy and Harkin. Concerned Women for America urges you to support S. 245 and H.R. 534. These bills offer the clear choice from the ethical, scientific and political perspectives.
Concerned Women for America
1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20005
E-mail: mail@cwfa.org
Ethics and morality and science are at a major crossroads, how will we decide?
It is very difficult but I take comfort in knowing this president will consider all issues thoroughly and pray about them before making a decision.
Who tracked in something from the DUmpster?
Cloning proponents claim that 100 million patients in America could find cures through the cloning of human embryos. What they don't say is that it would take massive numbers of eggs to produce the human clones. And the only way to obtain the eggs is to endanger women's health by injecting them with powerful drugs to cause hyper-ovulation, and then surgically removing the eggs.Where will they get the massive number of eggs they need for their experiments?
I wonder too…. maybe there is a magical way to get them.
If you are serious about it you are either ignorant of both physics and biology or are being intellectually dishonest.
This was an excellent accurate article. I am continually impressed by CWA.
The above is key for anyone to consider and without question ends the issue.
We do not subject human beings to such scientific experimentation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.