Cloning and Human farming

The New Jersey legislature seems to have created law that will allow the intentional creation of human life by cloning, implantation of the embryo into a woman, and killing of the human, at least until, and some believe, even past birth.

For more information on the New Jersey bill:

http://www.nationalreview.com/lopez/lopez020303.asp

http://www.nationalreview.com/lopez/lopez020303.asp

Here's the linked url for Ms. Lopez' article.

One more comment: It gives a whole new meaning to The Garden State, doesn't it?

Þ ÞUnder separate cover, we are sending a copy of Human Cloning and Human Dignity, the Report of the President's Council on Bioethics, chaired by Dr. Leon Kass, on which we have the honor to serve. The Report recommends (unanimously) a ban on cloning for the purpose of baby-making and (by a vote of 10-7) a four year moratorium on cloning for biomedical research. Please note that though seven of the seventeen members of the Council support cloning for biomedical research (subject to strict federal regulations), none indicated support for the implantation and gestation of cloned embryos for the purpose of harvesting cadaveric fetal tissues or organs.Ü Ü PCBE: Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry -- ...

Þ ÞWe write to express our grave concern about legislation currently pending in New Jersey (Senate Bill 1909/Assembly Bill 2840) to authorize human cloning and the harvesting and use of body parts of cloned humans in the embryonic and fetal stages of development. This legislation, if enacted, threatens to make New Jersey a haven for unethical medical practices, including the macabre practice of human fetal farming. Ü Ü

The Law of Universal Conscience by Professor Diane Orentlicher Diane F. Orentlicher is a Professor of Law at the Washington College of Law, American University, where she is also Director of the War Crimes Research Office. This paper was presented at the Committee on Conscience conference Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity: Early Warning and Prevention on December 9, 1998, at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. EXCERPTS

The subject about which I have been asked to speak-- the law of crimes against humanity and genocide-- is, in a very real sense, the law of universal conscience. Both the development and enforcement of this law have depended above all on the determined commitment of communities of conscience. Those communities were given a powerful new voice several years ago when the United States Holocaust Memorial Council created its Committee on Conscience "to alert the national conscience, influence policy makers, and stimulate worldwide action to confront and work to halt acts of genocide or related crimes against humanity."

The Law of Conscience: Transforming the Realm of Politics

The most important legal foundation for the legal proceedings against General Pinochet was established through the Nuremberg and other postwar prosecutions of Nazi war criminals for crimes against humanity, as well as more recent legal developments that build upon the Nuremberg legacy.... It is commonplace to observe that states lack the political will-- or at least too often lack sufficient will-- to enforce the universal code of conscience.

In short, not only is enforcement of the law of conscience profoundly affected by the prevailing political environment, but the law itself is deeply concerned with questions relating to the legitimate exercise of political authority.

Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide: The Legal Regime

First, a legal-- though not highly technical-- definition. While crimes against humanity have been defined somewhat differently in various international instruments, they in essence comprise inhumane acts such as murder, torture, enslavement and persecution committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population. Although linked to interstate war in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal, crimes against humanity no longer must be connected to armed conflict, whether international or internal.

Genocide is an international crime in its own right, and is also considered the most serious crime against humanity. The authoritative definition of genocide is the one set forth in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which defines genocide as one of five types of act committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such. The acts that constitute genocide when committed with this intent are generally directed at the physical destruction of the group.

Crimes Against Humanity

Crimes against humanity were first recognized in positive international law in the Nuremberg Charter, which was adopted by the four Allied Powers on August 8, 1945.

The political impetus was essentially a moral impulse. In the course of the second World War it became clear that some of the worst atrocities of Hitler’s Germany did not fall within the province of classical war crimes. Yet as the Allies turned their thoughts to the question of how to punish Nazi criminals once the war was over, it soon became plain that it would be intolerable not to address these atrocities. In 1944 Henry Stimson, the United States Secretary of War, asked Colonel Murray Bernays, then head of the Special Projects Office of the Defense Department, to prepare a memorandum on how to punish Nazi criminals once the war was over. In his memorandum, Bernays observed that many of the worst Nazi practices could not be classified as war crimes, and remarked that "to let these brutalities go unpunished will leave millions of persons frustrated and disillusioned." Further, he observed, both the United States and United Kingdom were under pressure from various Jewish organizations to ensure that all such atrocities-- not just those committed against Jews-- should be punished.

Article 6( c) of the Nuremberg Charter gave the Tribunal jurisdiction over crimes against humanity, namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated. Several aspects of this provision represented a profound rupture with international law’s longstanding deference to what had been regarded the province of sovereign prerogative. First, the phrase "against any civilian population" would include Germans who suffered inhumane acts at the hands of German authorities. Further, the phrase "before or during the war" seemed to signify that the Nuremberg tribunal could concern itself with a government’s treatment of its own citizens even in peacetime, at least in some circumstances. That it could do so "whether or not" the conduct was "in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated" represented yet another major encroachment on sovereign authority. It seemed as though international society had been so deeply shaken by Hitler’s atrocities that it could no longer bear to respect the principles of law that it had long ago shaped.

In his 1946 article on crimes against humanity, Egon Schwelb observed that the word "‘ humanity’ has at least two different meanings, the one connotating [sic] the human race or mankind as a whole, and the other, humaneness, i. e. a certain quality of behaviour."

The abhorrent crimes defined in this Law are not crimes under Israel [sic] law alone. These crimes, which struck at the whole of mankind and shocked the conscience of nations, are grave offences against the law of nations itself .

Genocide

The third major transformation in the postwar law concerning crimes against humanity involves the emergence and crystallization of the crime of genocide. The term "genocide" does not appear in the Nuremberg Charter, though it had already been coined by Raphael Lemkin. In his 1944 book, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, Lemkin argued for recognition of the international crime of genocide to reflect the peculiar nature of Hitler’s crimes. "New conceptions require new terms," Lemkin wrote, and so he proposed the term "genocide"-- made from the Greek word "genos," meaning race or tribe, and the Latin "cide," meaning killing— to connote "the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group."

The adoption of this convention 50 years ago today was a magnificent triumph for Raphael Lemkin and others who had campaigned for a treaty recognizing that genocide is an international crime-- whether committed in time of peace or in time of war-- and requiring States Parties to prevent the crime and, where they fail to prevent, to punish those who bear criminal responsibility.

Statement - On Human Embryos and Stem Cell Research...

One of the great hallmarks of American law has been its solicitous protection of the lives of individuals, especially the vulnerable. ...–one of the great achievements of the modern world–is founded on the conviction that when the dignity of one human being is assaulted, all of us are threatened.

Current law against funding research in which human embryos are harmed and destroyed reflects well-established national and international legal and ethical norms against the misuse of any human being for research purposes. Since 1975, those norms have been applied to unborn children at every stage of development in the womb, and since 1995 they have been applied to the human embryo outside the womb as well. The existing law on human embryonic research is a reflection of universally accepted principles governing experiments on human subjects–principles reflected in the Nuremberg Code, the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki, the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, and many other statements. Accordingly, members of the human species who cannot give informed consent for research should not be the subjects of an experiment unless they personally may benefit from it or the experiment carries no significant risk of harming them.

...the Supreme Court has never prevented the government from protecting prenatal life outside the abortion context, and public sentiment also seems even more opposed to government funding of embryo experimentation than to the funding of abortion. The laws of a number of states–including Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Utah–specifically protect embryonic human beings outside the womb. Most of these provisions prohibit experiments on embryos outside the womb.

I just visited the only former abortion mill turned Memorial in the country: National American Holocaust Memorial in Baton Rouge, LA. 30,000 babies died there from 1986 to 1994. It reopened May 12, 1994 as the only Holocaust Memorial of it's kind in the United States. It is also a center of Christian Pro-Life activity, providing services to help women in crisis pregnancies.

The tables and killing equipment are there just like the day it closed. There is blood on the floor in one room, all the tools of death sitting (quitely).

Fr. Frank Pavone, Priests For Life, said the second Mass there after it became the Memorial. There are pictures of Father Frank standing in the former execution rooms holding some of the equipment! Unbelievable. I felt like I was walking in a nightmare.

America! You have become deadlier than Nazi Germany and Stalins' Russia combined (42,000,000+ million aborted America citizens since 1973, growing daily) But you just keep pushing your baskets through Wal-Mart like: "nuthin's happening-dude" we're the land of Liberty, everything is just fine.

6 posted on 01/10/2003 9:32 PM CST by cpforlife.org

During the human cloning and embryonic stem cell discussion at FreeRepublic.com, some have tried to characterize our discussions as fear-mongering when we stamp the practices as cannibalism. One or two have gone so far as to try the misdirection ploy of stating that no one is talking about 'eating babies'. We call this exploitation of human life 'cannibalism' because we believe the scientists themselves are perpetuating a lie they fully comprehend; the scientists doing the in vitro 'procedures' have as an axiom to their 'work' that the conceived embryos are individual human life. In order to have societal acceptance of the goals they seek with this nascent individual human life, these scientists need the public to either ignore the truth or accept the cannibalism as a means to a 'higher purpose' for these individual human lives conceived in vitro then harvested for their body parts. Public outcry is the only way these forces pushing modern cannibalism will be stopped. Sadly, our nation may have degenerated to the level where the potential supposed benefits weigh more heavily on the public mind than the real evils, the too real abrogation of society's moral contracts regarding the unalienable right to life.

ÞSadly, our nation may have degenerated to the level where the potential supposed benefits weigh more heavily on the public mind than the real evils, the too real abrogation of society's moral contracts regarding the unalienable right to life.Ü

The Question of God A fundamental fact of our existence, one that we learn very early in life, is that we're on this earth for a very short time... The fear of abandonment is the first fear we experience as a young child a baby screams when its mother walks out of the room. Research at the Massachusetts General Hospital has shown that, in terminally ill patients, this is what they fear most the fear of being left alone, of being abandoned. It's a fear we harbor all of our life. Yet we cannot escape the harsh reality that every breath we breathe, every heartbeat, every hour of every day brings us nearer to the time when we will leave those we love.
Federalism: Reconciling National Values with States' Rights and Local Control in the 21st Century A constitutional principle without an actual constituency to back it up will soon crumble.
Death as Deliverance: Euthanatic Thinking in Germany ca. 1890-1933 Writing in 1989, the late Cardinal John O'Connor of New York City, an ardent pro-life advocate, predicted that euthanasia would "dwarf the abortion phenomenon in magnitude, in numbers, in horror." When one considers the sheer number of abortions that are performed each year and that have been performed over the last two decades, this statement borders on fantastic. But Cardinal O'Connor's are not the words of someone given to exaggeration. While there is nothing inevitable about human predictions, O'Connor's words are haunting. What is it that can hinder this "prophecy" from coming to pass?
Federalist No. 51 ...It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure....Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects...Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradnally induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.

some have tried to characterize our discussions as fear-mongering when we stamp the practices as cannibalism

There will be problems down the road aside from labels. But labels will be a problem, too. Can the legal system possibly come up with a satisfactory resolution to the problem of estate inheritance? Will clones be perceived as lacking souls? Is it wise to mess with Mother Nature? Do you own your clone?

Writing in 1989, the late Cardinal John O'Connor of New York City, an ardent pro-life advocate, predicted that euthanasia would "dwarf the abortion phenomenon in magnitude, in numbers, in horror." In defense of the Cardinal's haunting prediction, 'euthanizing' is the very thing we address with conceiving individual human lives and then killing for harvest of the desired body parts.

(((PING))))))

Thanks for the heads up!

BTTT!!!!!

Remedy,

Thanks for the ping. I’m honored you thought enough of my old comment to add it here—Thank you.

Venerable hocndoc,

This is a very sad but important post. It reminds me of one of the things I’ve learned at the National American Holocaust Memorial in Baton Rouge, since getting directly involved with their groups efforts:

A Pro-Life group (not far from N.J. – I can’t remember where) alerted their congressman that a ship was leaving port for Europe—full of aborted babies to be used in the production of certain high priced cosmetics! It seems some people have allergic reactions to animal based cosmetics(?); so certain groups want to offer “special” alternatives. The congressman stopped the ship and worked with the pro-life group to arrange for a mass burial. How many ships like that one are not stopped?

MHGinTN’s cannibalism doctrine is sadly apropos to rapidly growing areas of this culture of death.

I’ve only been posting since Dec’ 02 so I’m new. Does this entire thread fall into the Barf Alert! grouping, because that’s what I need to do each time I learn about these monsters?

"Never, never will we desist till we. . . extinguish every trace of this bloody traffic, of which our posterity, looking back to the history of these enlightened times will scarce believe that it has been suffered to exist so long a disgrace and dishonor to this country"

William Wilberforce: Member of Parliament who led the fight for the abolition of slavery in Great Britain.

God Save The Republic

...the macabre practice of human fetal farming.
I'm not sure any more if were progressing or regressing as a civilization.

If we resort to wholesale preying upon nascent individual human life, whether cloned or conceived in vitro for harvesting purposes, the direction is clear.

Prolife bump!

These are some very evil, blood-sucking ghouls. And those who are their customers are NO better, do not deserve the 'benefits' of living longer from the harvested baby pieces. (yeah, I know, that's harsh.)

A little OT...did you know that some baby immunizations are based on aborted baby pieces?

Yes, I'm well aware of that 'application' of fetal body parts. It is useful to realize that such a route was taken because it was easier for the pharmaceutical company to use the individual slaughtered child rather than do the small additional work to utilize adult tissues from living, willing, informed donors.

I don't consider resorting to cannibalism for medical advances as progressing, but there it is ... we're not progressing, in fact, we are degenerating at an accelerating pace.

Thanks for all the pinging.

Where is the outrage?

My God, help us. I did not know that the cosmetics industries were involved. Although I have seen products that include "placenta," I assumed that PETA was more likely to be upset than the Right to Life chapters.

Where is the public media report on that ship?

I make it a policy to stick to science and secular ethics in the debate about "persons" and "rights", but if we have gone so far that the cadavers from abortions are used in cosmetics, I can't reason: I can only shudder (and, like you, try not to throw up). I remember Abraham and the messengers from God about Sodom and Gommorah. We all need to pray that God will count us as righteous, for the sake of our kids and ourselves.