Comments on: Dem wants human cloning http://www.delawarepolitics.net/dem-wants-human-cloning/ Where public policy meets common sense Sun, 12 Feb 2012 00:29:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: David Anderson http://www.delawarepolitics.net/dem-wants-human-cloning/comment-page-1/#comment-20206 David Anderson Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:04:00 +0000 http://www.delawarepolitics.net/?p=6758#comment-20206 Unfortunately, I do not have time to address your question with the seriousness it deserves. This is only a brief answer. 1. a. You fell for a myth. The embryos are not currently being destroyed in most clinics. They are saved for later use and if released adopted to other families. Now the current backlog is unacceptable and the practice of fertilizing 8 or 9 eggs when only 1 baby is wanted should be restricted. It is a moral outrage. If it is as you assume that they will be destroyed, why are they not now destroyed as long as they are viable? 2. The Congress person is not talking about the cloning of stem cells which has been done with federal funds since the Bush order of 2001. She is advocating the cloning of embryos which has been ruled inethical. It is the cloning of entire human beings. The idea is to clone them, experiment on them, then kill them. As long as they are not allowed to be born or in some bills implanted, the fact that human cloning would be allowed would be ignored. 3. The science has found other ways of producing stem cells that are far better from marrow,<a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/08/080827-tooth-stemcell.html" rel="nofollow"> teeth</a> and skin. You can use the donor's cells and eliminate rejection, incompatibility, cancer like growths, and it is cheaper and faster. 4. The diversion of federal money to methods rejected by the private sector actually hinders cures by diverting researchers from more promising endeavors to fulfill a political agenda. Unfortunately, I do not have time to address your question with the seriousness it deserves. This is only a brief answer.

1. a. You fell for a myth. The embryos are not currently being destroyed in most clinics. They are saved for later use and if released adopted to other families. Now the current backlog is unacceptable and the practice of fertilizing 8 or 9 eggs when only 1 baby is wanted should be restricted. It is a moral outrage.

If it is as you assume that they will be destroyed, why are they not now destroyed as long as they are viable?

2. The Congress person is not talking about the cloning of stem cells which has been done with federal funds since the Bush order of 2001. She is advocating the cloning of embryos which has been ruled inethical. It is the cloning of entire human beings. The idea is to clone them, experiment on them, then kill them. As long as they are not allowed to be born or in some bills implanted, the fact that human cloning would be allowed would be ignored.

3. The science has found other ways of producing stem cells that are far better from marrow, teeth and skin. You can use the donor’s cells and eliminate rejection, incompatibility, cancer like growths, and it is cheaper and faster.

4. The diversion of federal money to methods rejected by the private sector actually hinders cures by diverting researchers from more promising endeavors to fulfill a political agenda.

]]> By: DEConservative(Evan Q) http://www.delawarepolitics.net/dem-wants-human-cloning/comment-page-1/#comment-20198 DEConservative(Evan Q) Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:17:38 +0000 http://www.delawarepolitics.net/?p=6758#comment-20198 Dave, I want to ask just a couple of things about "embryonic stem cell research" from the perspective of someone who is NOT (hold on to your hats you DL readers) ideologically opposed to the concept. 1.) If...(it's a big if but stay with me) the embryos are either... A.) Unused embryos from a fertility clinic that would be destroyed if not used to promote research that COULD result in the saving of millions of lives later, what's the harm in at least making the destruction of those embryo's (remember, they WILL be destroyed no matter what) at least a contribution? 2.) If the embryonic stem cells were cloned only for the propogation of the cells to continue research without the destruction of more embryos is that a bad thing and why? Dave,
I want to ask just a couple of things about “embryonic stem cell research” from the perspective of someone who is NOT (hold on to your hats you DL readers) ideologically opposed to the concept.

1.) If…(it’s a big if but stay with me) the embryos are either…
A.) Unused embryos from a fertility clinic that would be destroyed if not used to promote research that COULD result in the saving of millions of lives later, what’s the harm in at least making the destruction of those embryo’s (remember, they WILL be destroyed no matter what) at least a contribution?

2.) If the embryonic stem cells were cloned only for the propogation of the cells to continue research without the destruction of more embryos is that a bad thing and why?

]]>