Pardon the quick blog post on this topic (more to come later, but I am still traveling with spotty time for 'netting). The legal committee of the UN finished its debate on different proposals regarding human cloning last Friday without taking an official vote, thus delaying taking any position on the issue.
The US is pushing for a total ban, along with about 60 other member states, stating that cloning erodes the dignity of human life. Another proposal, entered by Belgium and supported by about 20 member states and Kofi Annan, would prohibit human cloning but allow each state to decide on options related to therapeutic cloning and research.
It is not immediately clear when the final vote will take place, and UN committee members deny that the US presidential race hae anything to do with the delay. Stay tuned to hear more about the proposals entered and how the member states come down on the issue.
Having sat through the horrors of that Michael Keaton movie, I, for one, wholeheartedly agree with a complete ban on human cloning.
Humor (or attempt at) aside, I have to say that I'm at a loss here. There is a repeated statement that the creation of human clones is a horror, but I have yet to hear a cogent explanation as to why. In vitro fertilization is not a horror. Neither are twins. What is the fundamental difference between cloning and in vitro fertilization (admittedly on a delayed basis) of your twin? The parade of horribles ("we'll make clones for the spare parts!") is defeated with the simple realization that a clone would be a person, and entitled to all the rights and protections of a person. With remarkably few exceptions, we don't make people for the spare parts, do we?
Could someone explain why cloning is so horrible?
-- These statements are my own and not those of my employer, a really nice biotech firm that has nothing to do with cloning. --
Posted by: Jeff Donohue | October 26, 2004 at 03:13 PM