07/31/01: Vote on Cloning Bans

[Freakapotimus]

Tuesday July 31 7:58 AM ET

House to Vote on Competing Human-Cloning Bans
By Lisa Richwine

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A battle in the House of Representatives is set for Tuesday between competing approaches to outlawing human cloning, one of which permits a type of stem cell research.

Legislation written by Florida Republican Rep. Dave Weldon would make it a federal crime to clone humans, punishable by fines and up to 10 years in prison. The bill is scheduled for a vote in the full House on Tuesday.

Opponents of the measure, including some lawmakers, medical researchers and the biotechnology industry, agree that human cloning for reproduction is unsafe and ethically questionable. But they are fighting Weldon's proposed ban because it also would forbid use of cloning techniques to provide embryonic stem cells for research.

Lawmakers plan to offer an amendment by Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Jim Greenwood to permit human cloning for stem cell research while outlawing it to produce children.

Scientists believe that stem cells hold promise for alleviating serious ailments such as Alzheimer's, diabetes and spinal cord injuries and that using cloning techniques is important to any treatment's success.

``The Weldon bill, while laudable in its intent, is overly broad and will close the door to one of the most promising aspects of stem cell research,'' Florida Democratic Rep. Peter Deutsch said at a news conference on Monday.

Many lawmakers, particularly anti-abortion Republicans, oppose embryonic stem cell research because it involves destroying an embryo to harvest the cells.

TECHNIQUES CALLED IMMORAL

At a committee meeting last week, several Republicans said they opposed the techniques advocated by Greenwood because they were immoral and would make a ban on reproductive cloning impossible to enforce.

Deutsch said he could not predict which approach would prevail on the House floor.

Separately, President Bush is weighing whether to permit federal funding for research using stem cells from embryos created by in-vitro fertilization that are slated for destruction. Those embryos are not clones.

The Biotechnology Industry Organization, which represents about 1,000 biotech companies, supports Greenwood's approach. The group's president, Carl Feldbaum, was lobbying members of Congress on Monday to oppose the far-reaching ban proposed by Weldon.

Two companies, Advanced Cell Technology and Geron Inc., have plans to study techniques that could be outlawed by Weldon's legislation, Feldbaum said.

And two groups of scientists have announced plans to create cloned children for infertile couples.

Bush has said he supports a ban on human cloning.

``The administration supports a ban on the cloning of human beings by somatic cell nuclear transfer,'' a statement of administration policy released on Monday said.

Somatic cell nuclear transfer is the technique that was used to create Dolly the sheep, the first cloned mammal, in 1997.

The statement said the administration approved of the development of cell- and tissue-based therapies based on research involving the use of nuclear transfer or other cloning techniques to produce molecules, DNA, cells other than human embryos, tissues, organs, plants or animals.

[Cthulhu5]

My take on cloning is that if I needed a new kidney and they cloned me one that is good. Cloning whole live humans is bad. Cloning animals could be good if they were used for food. A few extra chickens or cows never hurt anyone. I took Biology classes in high school and I remember all the terribly boring details of cloning. So, ethically tissue cloning is good, and organism cloning is bad depending on intent and species. That's all this arguement is about really. What do people intend to do with the clones? Or why do they intend to clone them? The only law I'd support is mandatory government observance of all projects involving cloning. Prohibiting cloning would be like banishing Capernicus because the Earth isn't the center of the Universe. If we let religion get in the way of every scientific advance we would be left in the Middle Ages. Time to leave the Bible where it belongs. I say cloning is the next logical step in bio-technology and should not be banned.

[LaserBeamBandit]

At 8/7/01 04:00 AM, Cthulhu5 wrote: My take on cloning is that if I needed a new kidney and they cloned me one that is good. Cloning whole live humans is bad. Cloning animals could be good if they were used for food. A few extra chickens or cows never hurt anyone. I took Biology classes in high school and I remember all the terribly boring details of cloning. So, ethically tissue cloning is good, and organism cloning is bad depending on intent and species. That's all this arguement is about really. What do people intend to do with the clones? Or why do they intend to clone them? The only law I'd support is mandatory government observance of all projects involving cloning. Prohibiting cloning would be like banishing Capernicus because the Earth isn't the center of the Universe. If we let religion get in the way of every scientific advance we would be left in the Middle Ages. Time to leave the Bible where it belongs. I say cloning is the next logical step in bio-technology and should not be banned.

I Totally agree.

[Low-Budget-Superhero]

Most politicians' idea of faith is going to church for show and talking about how holy they are. They hold back progress just so they can talk about how "Faithful they are to the... uh... faith!". That's why we're having all this shit with the stem cell research on fetus's. After a lady gets an abortion the fetus just goes in the trash! Why not use it for something? Bottom line... if politicians want to talk about something being unholy, they should take a long hard look in the mirror!

[shorbe]

I think science should be given a reasonable amount of latitude. Science itself is not the problem. It's what people do with the science. Unfortunately, there will always be people who will abuse science. I think the rationale behind bans on cloning is to prevent a Brave New World or Gattaga situation, which could very easily happen, especially if certain corporations or individuals got control.

Of course, no one will be able to tell if something is good or bad until it is too late, but given the choice, I'd rather I (or my children or grandchildren) only lived to seventy or eighty than forever under some Huxley-esque conditions.

shorbe

[Slizor]

Of course, no one will be able to tell if something is good or bad until it is too late, but given the choice, I'd rather I (or my children or grandchildren) only lived to seventy or eighty than forever under some Huxley-esque conditions.

People from a thousand years ago would think 80 years is a super-human amount of time, how do you know attitudes won't change?

[shorbe]

Slizor: What I meant was I'd rather live a short life that was somewhat free and interesting than a long one full of tedium and banality.

Frankly, I don't know how most adults do what they do. I don't know how people can get out of bed from a spouse they don't even know anymore, let alone love, drag their sorry arses through traffic to a job they loathe, drag their arses back through traffic, maybe see their kids (who are also strangers to them) for a couple of minutes, settle into a little escapism via the idiot box or engage in a little materialism at their local mall, then start the cycle over again, with a few weeks off on an annual basis.

It's testament to the pain tolerance of humans, but that's about it.

God, I never want to become like that. I'll top myself if that even gets close. That's what I meant by not wanting to live a long time in some Huxley-esque world.

shorbe

[wdfcverfgtghm]

At 8/18/01 06:38 AM, shorbe wrote: Slizor: What I meant was I'd rather live a short life that was somewhat free and interesting than a long one full of tedium and banality.

Frankly, I don't know how most adults do what they do. I don't know how people can get out of bed from a spouse they don't even know anymore, let alone love, drag their sorry arses through traffic to a job they loathe, drag their arses back through traffic, maybe see their kids (who are also strangers to them) for a couple of minutes, settle into a little escapism via the idiot box or engage in a little materialism at their local mall, then start the cycle over again, with a few weeks off on an annual basis.

It's testament to the pain tolerance of humans, but that's about it.

God, I never want to become like that. I'll top myself if that even gets close. That's what I meant by not wanting to live a long time in some Huxley-esque world.

shorbe

I disagree, Hell I'd love to get too 80 then it's off to soma and big orgies! Huxley is O Kay with me as opposed to death. Grip on to life and hold on tight!

[Slizor]

Slizor: What I meant was I'd rather live a short life that was somewhat free and interesting than a long one full of tedium and banality.

Then stop sitting infront of a damn computer and get out!

[Redhotchilis]

Personally, I think that cloning humans is bad, but cloning body parts is fine. If cloned humans were to live normal lives, the population might grow too much and people would starve to death. Cloning vital organs is fine, because they would not come from a human being. I think that people should be allowed to use stem cells from embryos for scientific purposes. A microscopic embryo is not alive, and they are going to be thrown out anyway. I would rather save the life of a man who is dying of Parkinson's disease with stem cells, rather than not use stem cells from an embryo and let the man die. The stem cell debate is purely a religious debate, and George W. Bush is violating the Constition by not keeping church and state seperate by even giving the religious right's arguement a chance

[Freakapotimus]

At 8/18/01 06:40 AM, Anarchypenguin wrote: I disagree, Hell I'd love to get too 80 then it's off to soma and big orgies! Huxley is O Kay with me as opposed to death. Grip on to life and hold on tight!

Yes, but wouldn't you rather have the *choice* of soma and orgies? I'll gladly die young and happy and (relatively) free than old and miserable because I did everything I was "supposed" to do.

[shorbe]

Slizor: I don't find the Stileproject boring or banal. Then again, I don't really give a fuck about much anymore. I've become such a nihilistic ghoul.

That having been said, I'be been busy as hell of late. I have hardly been home, which has been too much for a recluse like me.

shorbe