Congressman’s Human Cloning Ban Would Actually Ban Human Cloning

Friday, May 31. 2013

Congressman’s Human Cloning Ban Would Actually Ban Human Cloning

Congressman Andy Harris (R-MD) has reintroduced a true ban on human cloning to the U.S. Congress. H.R. 2164, Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2012, would ban human cloning all over the U.S. This is actually a remarkable bill. Why? Because most other “bans on human cloning” do nothing of the sort.

I have always told my readers to beware of bans on human cloning. A lot of legislation that claims to ban human cloning does not actually ban human cloning. These laws just redefine cloning so that the cloning of human embryos for research can continue.

Somatic cell nuclear transfer or SCNT is the scientific name for cloning. With SCNT, scientists create cloned embryos using a cell like a skin cell and an egg. SCNT was the process used to create Dolly the sheep, the first mammal cloned using an adult mammary cell.

SCNT is cloning, but if you read the fine print of many a law that says it “bans human cloning” often SCNT in humans is NOT banned. Instead these phony bans allow researchers to continue using SCNT to clone as many embryos as they want. The phony “ban on human cloning” then just prohibits the transfer of those cloned embryos to a woman. The cloning of human embryos is still allowed; it is the attempt at pregnancy that is banned. These phony cloning bans are especially insidious because they require the destruction of the human embryos created with SCNT.

Continue reading at LifeNews >>

Posted by Rebecca Taylor in Cloning at 11:15 | Comments (11) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

You are wrong that A2 "only banned the transfer of cloned embryos to a womb." It banned transferring embryos that are not created by sexual reproduction by a man and a woman. So though it doesn't ban SCNT, it is a good law. We should be advocating for expanding it to ban creating embryos rather than just implanting it, but we shouldn't go backwards on what it already does. It is better than a law that only bans SCNT, since there are many other horrible ways to create human embryos besides SCNT.

#1 John Howard (Homepage) on 2013-06-01 20:29 (Reply)

I wouldn't call any amendment that enshrines the cloning of embryos into the state constitution all the while saying it "bans human cloning" a "good law."

#1.1 Rebecca Taylor on 2013-06-03 10:24 (Reply)

I think it's really unfortunate that during the United Nations debate on passing a global human cloning ban, the Bush White House actually objected because it would only have covered reproductive cloning. In part because of that, the UN effort collapsed, never to be revived since. Right now there is no federal legislation on even reproductive human cloning in the United States, either. Getting support for a total ban on cloning may be possible someday, but as long as people continue to insist on having all or nothing, they are going to get nothing.

#2 Alexander Gabriel (Homepage) on 2013-06-02 08:57 (Reply)

I agree, Alexander, by insisting on all or nothing, they collapsed the whole effort and we are far worse off than if we had tried to make incremental progress, starting with an international ban on reproductive cloning.

What's more, they aren't even asking for "all" they are only asking for a ban on SCNT, but not on creating human embryos from experimental manipulations of the genome. This Congressman's bill should take Missouri's A2 as a starting point, and ban creating human embryos by any means other than sexual reproduction, the joining of sperm of a man and an egg of a woman. I think all intentional unmarried conception should be illegal, to stop donor conception, but that would be making the same mistake and winding up with nothing.

#2.1 John Howard (Homepage) on 2013-06-02 11:01 (Reply)

I disagree. Bush was right. A ban on only reproductive cloning would only be window dressing. Once cloning embryos for research was widespread and mainstream, reproductive cloning would occur. There is no way we could prevent (or detect) the transferring cloned embryos to willing women and likely the law would be overturned anyway because it interferes with "reproductive rights."

Also, therapeutic cloning is the more insidious of the two because it requires not only the creation of human life asexually, but the destruction of those lives for parts.

#2.2 Rebecca Taylor on 2013-06-03 10:20 (Reply)

That last sentence is the clincher. Reproductive-only bans ban only the LEAST morally objectionable kind of cloning. It'd be like leaving marijuana illegal and legalizing meth.

#2.2.1 Tom in AZ on 2013-06-04 19:59 (Reply)

I think the problem you point out with being unable to detect the implantation of such embryos sounds plausible, but I don't see how having a ban on reproductive cloning only is somehow worse than having no laws at all. The point is...what purpose was served by opposing the UN effort? It's not like a complete global ban on cloning was even a remote possibility then in the short to medium run, or is now. The same is true now in the US at the federal level. I suppose if you think that a ban on reproductive cloning only is literally worthless, such opposition would make sense, but not otherwise.

#2.2.2 Alex (Homepage) on 2013-06-11 11:12 (Reply)

Banning reproductive cloning allows them to pretend they've already addressed the issue, when they haven't. And it's also, again, banning the least objectionable kind while leaving all the other, WORSE ones legal.

#2.2.2.1 Tom in AZ on 2013-06-11 21:22 (Reply)

Nicely put.

#2.2.2.1.1 Rebecca Taylor on 2013-06-13 12:27 (Reply)

Response.

#2.2.2.1.2 Alex on 2013-06-15 13:05 (Reply)

Ok, so much for embedding links.

Anyway...response/related thoughts here:

http://humanpetition.blogspot.it/2013/06/realist-bioconservatism.html

#2.2.2.1.3 Alex on 2013-06-15 13:20 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images.
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry