BUSH CLONING BAN IS WRONG

Bob Lonsberry ^ | April 12, 2002 | Bob Lonsberry

[X-USAF]

For quite some time I have been questioning my own political beliefs on this subject. I can see both sides of this issue, and I agree with many points from each. Yet, I cannot decide which side is correct; if any.

[Linda Liberty]

What we are talking about here is emphatically not a baby, nor even a fetus. It is a few cells that do not think, see, feel, nor hear, that will never think, see, feel, nor hear, that may not even have ever have been inside a woman.

Yet exploring these options will lead to alleviating vast pain-- for example to curing cancer, to curing the blind, to curing heart disease.

President Bush has come squarely down on the side of inflicting pain on real human beings to protect cells in a test tube.

[chs68]

"And I don’t believe that life begins at conception. I believe that life begins at a time known only to God, a time when the growing fetus is infused with a heavenly spirit, the intelligence and personality of the person it will become. I believe that probably happens early in a pregnancy, but it does not occur at conception, or when there is just a tiny mass of undifferentiated cells.

And so it goes.

A belief that [human] life begins "at a time known only to God", but a belief that also says that we know that at a certain time [conception], human life has not yet begun.

It is my humble observation that part of this belief (namely, that human life does not begin at conception) may be driven by the hope that producing human clones wil lead to break-through cures for al sorts of diseases. In other words, if the only way in which "science" can find cures to certain diseases is to destroy "the products of conception", well, then, it MUST be the case that those "propducts of conception are not human life.

I would argue that this has it exactly backwards. Since we don't know when human life begins -- it is known only to God -- we should not presume to use what is arguably human life as a means to and end -- human life should not be sacrificed in order to cure a disease -- any more than we would take old people and slice them up if science were to tell us that doing so would bring about the cure for diseases.

[jwalsh07]

President Bush has come squarely down on the side of inflicting pain on real human beings to protect cells in a test tube.You and the author are wrong. The author is wrong because he states that only God knows when a life is a life but that he, the author, in his all knowing wisdom has decided that life begins when he thinks it does. In other words the author equates himself to God. His only honest position would be to say that since only God knows, then us mortals nust err on the side of caution and assume that life begins at conception.

As for your statement, it is simply wrong and arrogant. President Bush's guiding principle is that tp take a life to create or aid another life is morally wrong. His position is eminently supportable. Yours isn't.

Banning cloning does NOT, I repeat, does not, put an end to stem cell research. It simply puts down a marker saying we will not cross this line.

Science has a problem, some call it hubris, some call it arrogance. Because they can do something, they think they are entitled to do it. Well, I'm here to tell you that they are wrong.

[genefromjersey]

Sir: what would your position be if President Bush decided to have himself cloned-to ensure continuity of government.Howls of horrified rage, no doubt - and rightly so...but that's where cloning is headed, not far down the road.
Today's science fiction has a way of becoming tomorrow's fiat accompli .

[Rutherford]

It is not that complicated an issue. The questions are, is "it" human? and is it alive?

1. Of course it's human. It's DNA is identical to ours otherwise it wouldn't be useful. If allowed to grow up in the normal means it would become a functioning adult.

2. Of course it's alive. It grows, it consumes food, and produces waste. All of these are the tests of life as presented by the very science books people use as excuses to exploit this life.

That it would not "survive on its own" is only evidence that these most helpless of humans should not be destroyed of exploited but protected and defended.

[gridlock]

Some typos reveal more than others.

...the president of the United States inadvertently seeks to impede him.

I believe that the great breakthroughs have come when God has whispered to the minds of talented and hard-working people. Even people who didn’t believe in him.

If you want to be a snot-nosed whiney Demonrat and not captialize President, that's your own business. But you better use the capital "H" in "Him" when you are talking about God. Snot-nosed whiney Demonrats do not capitalize President Bush as a slight. I suspect this author feels the same about the Almighty, based on his usage.

[Ferris]

The government has absolutely no business being anywhere near the regulation or banning of cloning...

...

Bush could not have been more wrong...

[Lucas McCain]

And I don’t believe that life begins at conception.

If it isn't alive, why does it grow? If it isn't living, just leave it alone and watch what happens.

[alnick]

That it would not "survive on its own" is only evidence that these most helpless of humans should not be destroyed of exploited but protected and defended.

Exactly. Can a 3-month-old infant survive on its own? Of course not. It needs to be fed, at the very least, by someone else, or else he or she will die. The same can be said for older people with certain disabilities. That makes them no less human and no less valuable.

[agrace]

Agreed, great posts. The "survive on its own" argument is extremely tiresome. Any newborn, although breathing air, cannot clothe or feed or shelter himself. Just because an infant can breathe does not mean he can survive. Same goes for a full grown man dropped naked onto the Arctic tundra. Or dogpaddling in the Pacific.

[John Twenty 28]

Perhaps you could explain a bit further. You write:

Cloning research, ethically and professionally done, with proper safeguards and objectives, is a blessing, not a curse.

The government must stay out of science.

How are we to ensure that research is ethically and professionally done, with proper safeguards?

[elephantlips]

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart..." Jeremiah 1:5. What He has done with one denies your perception that we are nothing but a fetus at conception.

[jwalsh07]

The government has absolutely no business being anywhere near the regulation or banning of cloning

Wrong, the government's whole purpose for being is to protect rights. If you don't believe that the preeminent right is life, then we really have no more to talk about. Liberty, the pursuit of happiness, smoking weed and having sex with armadillos in the privacy of your own home are all wisps in the wind without life.

To sum up, if you believe that life begins at conception and you believe in unalienable rights and if you believe that the federal governement is the final protector of those rights, then the government has an obligation to make laws banning the taking of life without due process or informed consent.

[tracer]

So say horticulturists from all walks of life....

[AndrewC]

The government must stay out of science.

Then defund science.

[weikel]

I agree this is an issue of national security when China starts mass producing super soldiers and scientist( yes I know they can't clone with all the memories of great scientist but they can clone super intelligent people) where will that leave us? Rumsfeld needs to discuss the National Security ramifications of this issue with Bush.

[weikel]

And its unconstitutional for the Federal Government to do this( what happened to Bush all throughout his early term and during the Afghan campaign he seemed like such a great President but around when he almost choked on that Pretzel he turned into a spineless pandering politician).

[GlesenerL]

Joseph Mengali would be supportive of your position.

How do you ensure that all of this research is "ethical", if you insisit on redefining "ethical" to justify your objectives?

[DB]

I totally agree.

I would add, use animals to experiment with therapeutic cloning. Once the science is solid it may well be able to be expanded to humans without destroying human embryos in the process.