|
Why the U.S. Supports a Comprehensive Cloning Ban for
U.N. Treaty
The United Nations has begun deliberations aimed at
bringing about a UN treaty to ban human cloning. The official U.S.
position is in support of a cloning ban treaty that is comprehensive ban,
and the illuminating reasons for doing so are outlined below.
These reasons alone are sufficient to support the
Brownback-Landrieu comprehensive ban currently before the US Senate (S.
1899). The "promise" of therapeutic cloning is elusive while treatments in
adult stem cells are now available (and with new treatments currently in
clinical trials). With over 97% of animal clones dying or grossly
disfigured (sometimes killing the mother that carries the clone), S. 1899
is the only bill that will truly prevent deadly experimentation on women
and children.
The official U.S. position paper on the U.N. cloning ban
treaty, as distributed on February 26th to members of the special
committee tasked with the negotiations, included the following points:
"First, a ban that prohibited only "reproductive"
cloning, but left "therapeutic" or "experimental" cloning unaddressed,
would essentially authorize the creation and destruction of human embryos
explicitly and solely for research and experimentation. It would turn
nascent human life into a natural resource to be mined and exploited,
eroding the sense of the worth and dignity of the individual. This
prospect is repugnant to many people, including those who do not believe
that the embryo is a "person."
"Second, to ban "reproductive" cloning effectively, all human
cloning must be banned. Under a partial ban that permitted the creation of
cloned embryos for research, human embryos would be widely cloned in
laboratories and assisted-reproduction facilities. Once cloned embryos are
available, it would be virtually impossible to control what was done with
them. Stockpiles of embryonic clones could be produced, bought and sold
without anyone knowing it. Implantation of cloned embryos, an easy
procedure, would take place out of sight, and even elaborate and intrusive
regulations and policing could not detect or prevent the initiation of a
clonal pregnancy. Once begun, an illicit clonal pregnancy would be
virtually impossible to detect. And if detected, governments would be
unlikely to compel the pregnancy to be aborted or severely penalize the
pregnant woman for allowing the implantation or for failure to abort the
pregnancy. A ban only on "reproductive"cloning would therefore be a false
ban, creating the illusion that such cloning had been prohibited.
"Third, a ban that permits embryonic clones to be created and
forbids them to be implanted in utero legally requires the destruction of
nascent human life and criminalizes efforts to preserve and protect it
once created, a morally abhorrent prospect.
"Fourth, there may be other routes to solving the transplant
rejection problem, and there is to date no animal research to support the
claim that cloned embryonic stem cells are therapeutically efficacious. A
legal ban on "therapeutic" cloning would allow time for the investigation
of promising and less problematic research alternatives such as "adult"
stem-cell research. It would also allow time for policy makers and the
public to develop more informed judgments about cloning, and for the
establishment of regulatory structures to oversee applications of cloning
technology that society deems acceptable."
If you would like to have notices like this forwarded to you by email,
signup here. |
