U.N. Delays Debate on Cloning 746
hedpe2003 writes "'The General Assembly on Tuesday ducked for a year a polarizing debate over human cloning that has set the Bush administration against some allies like Britain and much of the world's scientific community.
All 191 United Nations members agree on a treaty to prohibit cloning human beings, but they are divided over whether to extend such a ban to stem cell and other research known as therapeutic cloning.
Opponents say total prohibition would block research on cancer, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, diabetes, spinal cord injuries and other conditions. The White House says that enough stem cells from human embryos exist for research and that cloning an embryo for any reason is unethical.
United States was happy to go along with the one-year consensus but would not alter its stance. 'We will continue to work for a total ban,' he said.'
I was just wondering what everyone thought about this. To tell the truth, I didn't know that the US was pushing so hard to ban stem cell research all together."
wait wait wait... (Score:4, Insightful)
Which stem cells? The ones that are gathered at the abortion clinics? The abortion clinics that preform the abortions that YOU'RE TOTALLY OPPOSED TO AND WANT TO SEE MADE ILLEGAL? Those abortion clinics?
Stupid fucking government.
In the defense of our idiot-in-chief president, he is Texan, so some leeway must be given.
Would a vote mean much? (Score:4, Insightful)
What's the big deal? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:My 2 cents. (Score:5, Insightful)
What reason would there be for mass-cloning?
As I see it, cloning/stem cell/whatever research is a way to learn more about how we work.
And the more we know about how we work, the better we can work on small things like medicine. (genetic research seems very promising for a cure for cancer)
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
That were my 3 cents...
Re:My 2 cents. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's pretty tough to find any group that is impartial (theoretically the closest would be judges, but I doubt that would be reflected in reality).
Re:cloning a human being is unethical (Score:3, Insightful)
But we could discuss forever and neither of us would convince himself to change his mind. The future shall show which path was correct...
Re:cloning a human being is unethical (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice troll, let me countertroll; so you condone murder?
Tell that to Superman, or my grandma who died of Alzheimers.
If I had a disease which could potentially be cured through some kind of research, but someone else wants to prohibit that research on religious grounds, they are as guilty of murder as "christian" "scientist" "parents" who withhold treatment from their sick children (won't someone please think of the children?) for religious reasons.
This is something I feel pretty strongly about--I find any religious argument against the reduction of suffering or extension of life to be anti-humanist, ignorant and intolerant. Live how you will, but don't deny me and others the fundamental right to live what we see as better lives through the advancement of medical science.
Now flame away.
science and politics don't mix (Score:5, Insightful)
Cloning Other Species First (Score:1, Insightful)
Interesting to note also that Bush is pushing for complete ban, while the rest of the world seems to not care. Seems like the US isn't a bunch of heathens after all.
-Tukon
I am for it but... (Score:2, Insightful)
But I think this kind of thing should have the most stringent monitoring available, this is also the kind of thing which could do allot of damage to this world.
Imagine the repercussions if a world leader were cloned. Or worse yet what if we could speed up the process and steal other people's identities.
Re:My 2 cents. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a strange argument. Cloning is not about creating a large number of individuals. You have been watching too much Star Wars. Creating individuals is far more cheaper if done the old-fashioned way, and I don't think cloning will ever be able to compete with that.
It might be able to help parents get a child if they are otherwise infertile, but I don't think that is a threat against population control.
Unless your argument is that we can control the population by not curing people with Alzheimers, parkinsson, etc. But I don't think you ment that.
Unethical? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah yes, I forgot that the Bush administration is a world reknowned authority on ethics.
Re:wait wait wait... (Score:2, Insightful)
Someone should tell the Texan in the Oval Office that he cannot have it both ways. There are 3 possible scenarios for him:
1) allow abortion -> harvest fresh stem cells
2) ban abortion -> clone old stem cells
3) claim that cancer is the wrath of god and a cure should not be found.
If think even George W is stupid enough to claim #3 in public, so that logic kinda limits his options. However, he has already proved that logic is not one of his stronger points.
What a waste (Score:5, Insightful)
Cloning is not Duplication (Score:5, Insightful)
No more than identical twins are the same person!
Doh!
Re:If only (Score:4, Insightful)
What if they clone stem cells in a way that doesn't prevent the fetus from developing, store it for 10 years while the person grows up, and then ask them if they mind their cells being used that way. If it had been done to me, I sure wouldn't mind.
Jason
ProfQuotes [profquotes.com]
It's all economics, stupid! (Score:4, Insightful)
When was the last time the US abided by a UN resolution it did not support, even if it was achieved by a 'vote'?
Re:My 2 cents. (Score:5, Insightful)
who is more bigotted, the Christian or the scientific zealot?
You are phrasing your questions, and your thinking in a very bigotted fashion. Kind of an existence proof of my point.
The 'yuck' factor. (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of these people just take 1 look at the idea and speak up about how abhorant this idea is, basically because their first instinct is to screw up their faces and say 'yuck'. It's the 'yuck' factor that stops people from looking further into an issue and understand the real issues.
This is just another example of people talking loudly without putting in any effort into understanding more.
As for people with religious objections, while have have respect for their views, there are a significant number who are making the debate very polarised. They will not allow any answers other than yes or no, leaving out all the important details in between. I don't like that style of argument, it generally sets my alarm bells ringing!
Re:wait wait wait... (Score:2, Insightful)
While I'm pro-abortion, conservatives need to realize that two "wrongs" don't make a right. If abortion is so evil, we should at least gain as much good from it as we possibly can. To do otherwise is downright criminal to the medical community and everyone who could benefit from this research.
Re:My 2 cents. (Score:5, Insightful)
The real problem is that frequently the leaders of any given "interest group" having a stake in maintaining the party line. Ultimately, you need a disinterested third party to make a call after hearing the arguments from both sides. In theory, that's where politicians and judges come in. In practice....
Re:cloning a human being is unethical (Score:2, Insightful)
On morals (Score:5, Insightful)
Please do not equate moral viewpoints with religious viewpoints. It's quite possible to have morals without subscribing to any religion, and as has been seen over centuries it's equally possibly to subscribe to a religion without having any morals.
Cheers,
Ian
Re:cloning a human being is unethical (Score:1, Insightful)
Another Christian viewpoint (Score:5, Insightful)
Having said that, I think it's crazy how some fundamentalists still think they know that God is against science of any kind. They are OK with breeding dogs and horses to suit their needs -- even good with masturbating bulls to get their semen for artificial insemination. Some of them start to get squeemish when I mention these things, but we have been playing with genetics for the longest time, and have reaped the benifits. Now, I can't figure out how cloning or even forming living cells from nutrient-rich baths can be 'playing God' more than any other science.
In fact I can -- people use life as a 'proof' that God exists. Unfortunately, any proof of God's existance would negate the need for faith, so it is doubtful whether such will ever exist. In these people's lives, they need to be able to say: 'Look at that foal -- it is proof that God exists'. If we can create life, therefore, we will be like God. This is flawed, for God is so much more than just something that creates life.
Re:cloning a human being is unethical (Score:3, Insightful)
However, you're not in a morally superior position compared to them. You're calling them anti-humanist, in other words, you're accusing them of not following the same moral code as you do. The very same thing you blame them of. Your arguement depends on the assumption that the reader agrees with your values. Circular logic. See how you use the word "fundamental right". According to whom? Not according to them.
It's a very real problem, how to deal with people who have mutually incompatible moral systems and the solution you suggest (non-interference) just doesn't work. Why? Consider a situation of incompatible "fundamental rights". What if I consider it to be fundamental right that my property doesn't get violated (absolute no tresspassing) That doesn't sound so bad does it? Now what then if your house is in middle of my territory and you consider your right to travel freely to be the one that cant be violated by anyone. So, who has the stronger right? And more importantly, who decides it? How can we have judges and laws if everyone carries their own laws and personal codes which are absolute? If you'd like to argue that laws aren't really moral codes I'd to hear your arguements. Just remember that if you claim that they're made for the common good be prepared to answer how can we define "good" without making a moral decision.
Re:My 2 cents. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but his assigning the zealot modifier to "christian" but not "scientist" does.
If you take a reasonable person from either group and compare them to a zealot from the other, the zealot will always look like more of a bigot. The statement also suggests that there is no intersection of the two groups, which is kind of ludicrous.
Re:wait wait wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
Want to know a secret?
The reason we oppose the use of aborted fetuses for stem cell research is two fold. Not only do we believe that it would be like taking fruit from a poisoned tree, it would undermine our efforts against abortion on demand. Not only would we be accused of wanting to enslave woman to childbearing, by opposing abortion we would also be accused of wanting someone's little old grandmother to die from parkinsons because she couldn't get the stem cells she needed for her treatment.
LK
Ethical and Government never go to together... (Score:1, Insightful)
Forget Terrorism (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Another Christian viewpoint (Score:4, Insightful)
Here here. Not to mention the fact that cloning is embarassingly similar to the process God gave us in the first place to perpetuate the species (although without all the fun parts
I think though, that the battle lines on cloning are more closely drawn on the other side of the equation: getting the stem cells. It's tough to say where to draw the line, I think most people would be uneasy with the most extreme cloning scenario: paying folks for killing newborns to harvest their stem cells for cloning research. The trick is: where do you draw the line between the extremes? This is the kind of thing that draws upon all kinds of issues (even the hippocratic oath), including religious ones. Since we're dealing with life and death here folks get pretty upset even when they disagree only slightly on where to draw the line.
Cloning a human being is ethical (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Cloning humans = unconsenting experimentation (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you realize that many forms of medically assisted reproduction done today use essentially the same methods and have essentially the same risks as the kind of cloning you are talking about (the key difference being that they don't use solely your own genetic data)?
BTW, folks don't tend to clone stem cells. They tend to want to clone from stem cells.
Reasons why I oppose cloning (Score:3, Insightful)
Also it is inevitable that clones will be stigmitised in human society. When they go to school they will be considered freaks of nature, their very existence deemed monstrous. They'd probably be turned down for jobs - essentially they will be marked from birth as societal outcasts. The only people likely to accept them will be the scientists who created them and even then only as experimental subjects.
But even that doesn't matter so much if they were loved, as guidance and acceptance and unconditional love from your parents can help people through the worse of things, but from what I read of the people who want clones as children, they don't seem to be entirely mentally stable. Many of the stories seem to involve a dead child who they literally want to bring back from the dead. Anyone grow up in a family and go to a school where you were continually expected to be as good as your older brother/sister? Same thing, except a million times worse. Your parents will be expecting you to *be* your dead brother or sister. Why else would they have spent tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars cloning them when they could just have had another child? Other reasons also seem bad - as an organ bank for someone. Human bodies put in storage to have organs taken out to be used for spares (I've actually read a manga about that where a doctor feeling sorry for the clone and hating the selfish brat who is the original secretly switches the two so the brat's organs are harvested and the clone 'becomes' the brat albeit with amnesia). And making the child the clone of one of the parents seems to be firstly somewhat egotistical and brings up all sorts of emotional complications and feelings. You'd also have to question the mentality and ego of someone who wants to spend a fortune on a clone of him/herself rather than using a sperm/egg bank or adoption. Essentially all of the people who want clones (with perhaps the exception of those who want a clone to harvest organs for a dying child though even that is morally dubious by any standards) seem to be some of the most selfish mentally unstable people who either seem to have an ego problem (too large) or are too obsessive about the past. There is no way any of them could guide a clone child through a hostile world where their very existence is seen as wrong.
Re:science has a place but God is greater (Score:2, Insightful)
And those who lament "the life that would have been" seem unconcerned about the countless life ended early in agonizing disease. Presumably by rationalizing that God's cancer is the tourist class seat to the good land.
Not just the USA (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the UN is generally a good thing, but it does come up with questionable policies from time to time. This is one of those times. There is no reason for the UN to get involved in the cloning debate at this stage. If individual countries want to encourage or ban cloning, then it should be up to them. This is not really a global matter.
Re:wait wait wait... (Score:2, Insightful)
All the contradictions only serve to confirm one fact: Human's will do what they want to do in any given circumstance because we believe we have the right to what we want.
When we needed land, we decided that the native inhabitants were only savages and killed them, moved them.
When we needed manual labor for agricultural work, we went and got slaves because we had conveniently deemed them non-human.
When we (humanity) decided that our woes were jew-induced, we decided they were not human and killed them.
And the list goes on and on and on. Instead of elevating our lives, our aspirations, we debase them, pawning our tiny little hearts for a bit of instant gratification at someone elses expense.
Don't kid yourselves.
Re:wait wait wait... (Score:2, Insightful)
You only have to look at the personality and behavioural changes that happen with damage to the brain to show that.
Re:cloning a human being is unethical (Score:3, Insightful)
No, he's not. The vital point you're missing is that his views are not affecting those he is addressing directly. Their views ARE affecting him directly.
It's a very real problem, how to deal with people who have mutually incompatible moral systems and the solution you suggest (non-interference) just doesn't work. Why?
Because one of the sides believes their viewpoint should be able to impact the other side?
Consider a situation of incompatible "fundamental rights". What if I consider it to be fundamental right that my property doesn't get violated (absolute no tresspassing) That doesn't sound so bad does it? Now what then if your house is in middle of my territory and you consider your right to travel freely to be the one that cant be violated by anyone. So, who has the stronger right?
This is just a plain dumb analogy based on a false pretense. If it is your property, someone else's house would not be in the middle of it.
And more importantly, who decides it? How can we have judges and laws if everyone carries their own laws and personal codes which are absolute?
It is very simple: The right to swing your fist ends at another man's nose.
People fear what they do not understand (Score:2, Insightful)
People fear what they do not understand. Sadly, in this case, it is the leaders of our government who do not understand.
Any time I see debate over anything like this, I see the fear in the "eyes" of one side. For the many who are against this because they fear mankind will play god, I can only extend my deep sadness. They fear for the validity of thier faith by the actions of mankind. Mankind will always strive for perfection and it always seems to create the fear in some that we may succeed. What then of our faith? This is sad, for these people will never know true peace.
Perhaps what they should really fear is the loss of the scientists who do any of this research. If we have a ban in the United States that the rest of the UN does not support, then the research will move to other countries. This is good for the other countries, but bad for the US. How long before other industries and researches follow? If the ban is lifted later, do we really think the scientists will return to our country to continue the research?
Bans on anything have historically been bad ideas (prohibition springs immediately to mind but history is riddled with other, better examples). But bans on scientific research seems to be particularly bad. When that happens, we loose a resource more precious than any metal or gem - the human mind!
Rational debate (Score:3, Insightful)
So, any talk about weighing potential benefits is really a smokescreen for the only real issue: When does human life begin? I'm not saying that's an easy question, but I think it's really illogical and unfair for people to bash those of us who believe it begins at conception and stand by the logical conclusions of that belief.
Re:wait wait wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
The insults will only last until they have the ability to replace organs(heart lungs) and mass quantities of tissues(spinal cord nerves, skin). Then every other country will be asking "Can you show our doctors how to do that?
Re:thinking != life (Score:2, Insightful)
In all debates on this (and related) topics, we see many clever insights that play off of our linguistic tendencies and our gut reactions (these come from both sides of the debate: "Perhaps we have already killed the one who was to find the cure for Cancer", "The research that we could have done might have saved your dying grandma" etc.). Any progress in our understanding of opposing viewpoints that we can make through the mincing of terminology has already been long since exhausted -- we all more or less understand each others positions, we have all been subjected to the various explorations in the hypothetical on this topic. The next thing for us to do is to realize that we don't have to, and in truth never will, agree completely.
One of the natures of human interaction in community is that of compromise for the sake of pooling resources. We will always have disagreements about what is or is not moral -- it's a byproduct of freedom. Instead of repeating arguments, we eventually have to make what will ultimately be a largely arbitrary definition of what we are all trying to describe (I think that splitting the term "life"/"[a]live" into it's multiple understandings would be a good start, since it's been analyzed into ambiguity). After establishing a usable set of terminology, we can then proceed to establish policies (or choose not to establish policies) regarding these. Once the terminology is sufficiently well established to accurately describe the issue (read: once the bs is cleared away) the law making should become, in theory, largely just the of polling members of the community for what they want to do (or what freedoms they are willing to forfeit) and drafting policy to reflect this. If the outcome of this is disagreeable to you, perhaps you are, in fact, in the wrong community.
It is not unreasonable to look to other communities that may maintain a collective ethos that is more agreeable to yours. Often times, people will say something along the lines of "If you don't like the way this [community group] is, then LEAVE!"... Well the truth is, they may be right (it's usually more complicated than that -- the value of your community is often not swayed entirely by a single issue) -- and it doesn't need to be a dramatic or a violent, or even a particularly noteworthy occurrence for someone to choose to leave a community.
If you find yourself living in a nation that doesn't allow the scientific freedom (or lack thereof) that you desire, and if that is important enough to you, then of course you should explore alternate communities in which that would be allowed. But we really need to get past trying to "prove" that the law should be a certain way.
Morality has no place in community policy, except as a secondary influence. What the people in the community want and what they are willing to do/forfeit to that end is the only thing that is a valid explanation for law. For some (many?) people, morality might be the reason why they are willing to make a personal sacrifice for the community, but that is (or should be) secondary to the fact that they are willing to do so.
My point is that this debate has been exhaustively completed, and it seems like all that there is to do now is periodically poll public opinion and maintain the public policy to match that, and let those of us who are displeased with the outcome make our own choices on whether the community is one in which we want to participate. But at this point, the attempts at moral "proof" of the validity of community policy ends up just being ambiguous fluff that confuses the issues.
At least approach the debate with the understanding that your morality (or your purported lack thereof) does not give you any grounds for demanding a similar moral stance from anyone else in your community -- in pursu
Re:wait wait wait... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:If only (Score:4, Insightful)
The primitive superstitions of you and your kind cannot be permitted to force me and my kind away from the science which can liberate us from the limitations of our genes.
You don't want stem cell research, or genetic engineering? Fine, don't use it. Trust me, we won't try to force you to use our evil technology.
There's a non-argument. You can use "what if" to make anything look bad. "Oooh, what if your parents had used contraception, see, contraception is bad and should be outlawed to satisfy my superstitions, oooh."Eighty years ago your intellectual ancestors were claiming that flight was an offence to God, a few centuries earlier your kind claimed that Galileo's telescope was evil incarnate. Squat in a mud hut if it makes you feel better, the rest of us will be trying to improve things.
More importantly, who appointed you God's spokesman? If He/She/It doesn't like stem cell research let He/She/It speak for themselves. I haven't heard God tell me that stem cell research is wrong, and I'm sure not going to take your luddite word for it.
Re:cloning a human being is unethical (Score:2, Insightful)