| Author |
Message |
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
 Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:51 pm U.S. pushes global ban on stem cell cloning |
|
| Quote: |
U.S. pushes global ban on stem cell cloning
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) -- Talks at the United Nations appear to have failed to avert a new U.N. confrontation over a U.S.-led drive to ban all cloning of human embryos including for stem cell research, diplomats said Thursday.
As a result a General Assembly panel is headed for a close vote next week on a plan for an anti-cloning treaty put forward by the United States and Costa Rica.
But with support for the plan seen fading in the assembly's treaty-writing Legal Committee, a last-minute compromise could yet be reached to avert an up-or-down vote, the envoys said.
A group of countries led by Belgium opposes the plan for a U.N. treaty. It is broad enough that it would ban cloning human embryos for stem cell or similar research -- known as "therapeutic cloning" -- as well as the cloning of human beings.
That group has suggested the committee adopt instead a declaration of principle leaving policy decisions on research cloning to individual governments.
But three weeks of negotiations, which began before the November 2 U.S. elections in which stem cell research was a major issue, have failed to lead to a compromise between the Belgian-led group and the rival group led by the United States and Costa Rica, diplomats said.
"The negotiations are continuing, but a lot of people seem to be resigned to a vote. It seems there is no possibility to reach an agreement," said one diplomat close to the talks, speaking on condition of anonymity.
In the absence of a deal, the committee has scheduled a vote for November 19, assembly spokesman Djibril Diallo said.
Plans for a U.N. treaty on cloning have been bottled up in the United Nations since 2001.
While all U.N. members essentially agree on a treaty that would ban the cloning of human beings, there is strong support in many nations for the use of cloned human embryos to make stem cells for medical research.
Many scientists argue the technique holds out the hope of a cure for hundreds of millions of people with such diseases as Alzheimer's, cancer, diabetes and spinal cord damage.
But Washington and others seeking to ban all forms of human cloning say therapeutic cloning is the taking of human life.
The Legal Committee last year decided by a one-vote margin to delay the writing of any treaty on cloning, concluding it would be unwise to begin drafting when there was no international consensus on its goals.
The Bush administration is now again pressing for the assembly to adopt a resolution instructing U.N. treaty writers to draft a total cloning ban.
Since last year, however, several blocs have announced their opposition to a new vote if the committee remained divided. They have suggested the panel either find a compromise acceptable to all, or reject the U.S.-Costa Rica plan in favor of an additional delay.
Bernard Siegel, a Florida attorney organizing a global drive to defend therapeutic cloning, called it "flat-out wrong to condemn this kind of research when so many people want it."
"Scientists and patient groups around the world are going to make a major effort over the next week to fight for therapeutic cloning research to advance," he told Reuters.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2004 Reuters. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/11/12/science.cloning.un.reut/index.html
|
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:52 pm |
|
Can't say I really disagree with this ban...
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Valathous
The Canadian, eh
Joined: 31 Aug 2002
Posts: 19074
Location: Centre Bell
|
| Sat Nov 13, 2004 1:25 am |
|
I think I'm pro stem cell. You have no idea how much this could advance our medicines.
Now I know many people say it's unethical, and I'd agree, but what we'd get as an end result..... Stem cells would, with time, be able to repair things such as lost limbs! Repair damaged organs, restore a damaged nerve, healing paralysis....
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Sat Nov 13, 2004 1:31 am |
|
The only promise that stem cell research has shown has been with adult cells, not embryos.
I also, for one, don't think it's fair to end one life, in order to fix anothers' problem.
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Sat Nov 13, 2004 1:46 am |
|
...I'm not sure I believe in the possibilities for stem-cell research. I would lean towards nanotechnology, actually...far less controversial, and if it would get funding, it is technically plausible...the theories are sound, they just need to be put into practice. I'd be pushing for that, but eh.
|
|
|
Jeff Miller
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 22 Nov 2001
Posts: 23947
Location: Mental Ward for the Mentaly Unstable 6th floor, Saint John's 1615 Delaware Longview Washington 98632
|
| Sat Nov 13, 2004 10:28 am |
|
I'm for Cell research who knows how it could help mankind.
-------signature-------
| ~Tony Montana wrote: | | You know what you need people like me people for you to snub your nose at and point at saying there is a bad man. Well guess what This bad man is leaving. Say goodnight to the BAD MAN! |
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Nov 13, 2004 2:38 pm |
|
I'm talking the cloning...
Well, I don't know. I would say this:
You know the moms that can't have babies but instead she and her husbands sperm are humanly touched together? Well, in most cases the mom just takes one and the rest are thrown away. I say don't throw them away. Use them for stem-cell research, and perhaps the frozen cells, but that's it.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
superwoman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 25 May 2004
Posts: 5742
Location: Sweden
|
| Sat Nov 13, 2004 2:48 pm |
|
Global ban? How in hell is that possible? I mean global sounds pretty... global, but the US is just one country... 
And this kinda sum up what I think about this question 
| Quote: | Many scientists argue the technique holds out the hope of a cure for hundreds of millions of people with such diseases as Alzheimer's, cancer, diabetes and spinal cord damage.
But Washington and others seeking to ban all forms of human cloning say therapeutic cloning is the taking of human life. |
Oh and I would call myself a scientist... kinda 
-------signature-------
We will never run out of oil, because no one will afford to use the last litre.
|
|
|
Admiral_Tom_Paris
Commodore
Joined: 01 Aug 2003
Posts: 1785
|
| Sat Nov 13, 2004 11:23 pm |
|
I say that it's not a "baby" or anything untill the third trimester, and the law agrees with that too. I'm for Stem Cell, but not when the woman is pregnant, when someone who doesn't want children is willing to give the cells up.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Nov 13, 2004 11:25 pm |
|
| Admiral_Tom_Paris wrote: | | I say that it's not a "baby" or anything untill the third trimester, and the law agrees with that too. I'm for Stem Cell, but not when the woman is pregnant, when someone who doesn't want children is willing to give the cells up. |
Life begins at conception, but if you are going to throw them away during the process I talked about, use it for Stem Cells. But don't do abortions.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Sun Nov 14, 2004 12:37 am |
|
| Admiral_Tom_Paris wrote: | | I say that it's not a "baby" or anything untill the third trimester, and the law agrees with that too. |
The law is wrong. Look up human life in any medical dictionary.
Murder is murder, no excuse. A fetus is able to smile 60 days after conception, meaning it has emotion, and has pleasure, and IS SENTIENT. 60 days is LONG before "third trimester" too. I don't care if it's 2 cells, a fetal mass, or a fully developed baby, nobody has the right to choose if it lives or dies at that point. I don't give a damn about the irresponsible woman who now has the RESPONSIBILITY of preserving it's life. She gave up her rights when she decided to make her mistake.
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Sun Nov 14, 2004 12:57 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | You know the moms that can't have babies but instead she and her husbands sperm are humanly touched together? Well, in most cases the mom just takes one and the rest are thrown away. I say don't throw them away. Use them for stem-cell research, and perhaps the frozen cells, but that's it. |
That actually makes a lot of sense.
There also may be people who would be willing to donate embryos for research. I probably would if I were old enough...
The way I see it, as long as the people donating the embryos don't have a problem with it, stem cell research should be encouraged. Think of how many lives it could save, and improve in the long run.
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Sun Nov 14, 2004 1:40 pm |
|
| LightningBoy wrote: |
The law is wrong. Look up human life in any medical dictionary.
Murder is murder, no excuse. A fetus is able to smile 60 days after conception, meaning it has emotion, and has pleasure, and IS SENTIENT. 60 days is LONG before "third trimester" too. I don't care if it's 2 cells, a fetal mass, or a fully developed baby, nobody has the right to choose if it lives or dies at that point. I don't give a damn about the irresponsible woman who now has the RESPONSIBILITY of preserving it's life. She gave up her rights when she decided to make her mistake. |
So basically through your logic, and I'm just extrapolting from what you are saying, It's a woman's fault if she gets pregnant. No matter if she was raped or if it's incestual, it's her fault and now she must bring that child into the world.
Yeah, I'm glad there are only a few people who think that same way.
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Sun Nov 14, 2004 3:09 pm |
|
| Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | | LightningBoy wrote: |
The law is wrong. Look up human life in any medical dictionary.
Murder is murder, no excuse. A fetus is able to smile 60 days after conception, meaning it has emotion, and has pleasure, and IS SENTIENT. 60 days is LONG before "third trimester" too. I don't care if it's 2 cells, a fetal mass, or a fully developed baby, nobody has the right to choose if it lives or dies at that point. I don't give a damn about the irresponsible woman who now has the RESPONSIBILITY of preserving it's life. She gave up her rights when she decided to make her mistake. |
So basically through your logic, and I'm just extrapolting from what you are saying, It's a woman's fault if she gets pregnant. No matter if she was raped or if it's incestual, it's her fault and now she must bring that child into the world.
Yeah, I'm glad there are only a few people who think that same way. |
See, now you're bringing extreme circumstances into it.
And no, in that case it is not her fault, but it still doesn't advocate murder, and it's still her responsibility, unfortunately, to give birth to that child. That is a no win situation, but abortion is not the answer.
Nice cheap shot though, bringing up rare and extreme situations to try to invalidate the general truth. I'm glad there are only a few people who resort to those kind of argument tactics.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Nov 14, 2004 3:26 pm |
|
| LightningBoy wrote: | | Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | | LightningBoy wrote: |
The law is wrong. Look up human life in any medical dictionary.
Murder is murder, no excuse. A fetus is able to smile 60 days after conception, meaning it has emotion, and has pleasure, and IS SENTIENT. 60 days is LONG before "third trimester" too. I don't care if it's 2 cells, a fetal mass, or a fully developed baby, nobody has the right to choose if it lives or dies at that point. I don't give a damn about the irresponsible woman who now has the RESPONSIBILITY of preserving it's life. She gave up her rights when she decided to make her mistake. |
So basically through your logic, and I'm just extrapolting from what you are saying, It's a woman's fault if she gets pregnant. No matter if she was raped or if it's incestual, it's her fault and now she must bring that child into the world.
Yeah, I'm glad there are only a few people who think that same way. |
See, now you're bringing extreme circumstances into it.
And no, in that case it is not her fault, but it still doesn't advocate murder, and it's still her responsibility, unfortunately, to give birth to that child. That is a no win situation, but abortion is not the answer.
Nice cheap shot though, bringing up rare and extreme situations to try to invalidate the general truth. I'm glad there are only a few people who resort to those kind of argument tactics. |
I agree with both of your comments, but this is when I think an abortion (which is what much of this goes down to) can happen: When the child is raped/insestualized AND has a chance of dying, or if the parents would truly beat her--and bad, like a case in Texas--then okay.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Five - seveN
Rear Admiral
Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Posts: 3567
Location: Shadow Moon
|
| Mon Nov 15, 2004 2:53 pm |
|
| LightningBoy wrote: | | Admiral_Tom_Paris wrote: | | I say that it's not a "baby" or anything untill the third trimester, and the law agrees with that too. |
The law is wrong. Look up human life in any medical dictionary.
Murder is murder, no excuse. A fetus is able to smile 60 days after conception, meaning it has emotion, and has pleasure, and IS SENTIENT. 60 days is LONG before "third trimester" too. I don't care if it's 2 cells, a fetal mass, or a fully developed baby, nobody has the right to choose if it lives or dies at that point. I don't give a damn about the irresponsible woman who now has the RESPONSIBILITY of preserving it's life. She gave up her rights when she decided to make her mistake. |
Yeah right. A 60-day old fetus with emotions. That really is bs. I'm sorry.
Anyways, I kind of agree with RM on this. It's not right to make some kind of embry-factory or so, but if the embryos won't be 'used' anyways, why not?
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Mon Nov 15, 2004 5:22 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: |
I agree with both of your comments, but this is when I think an abortion (which is what much of this goes down to) can happen: When the child is raped/insestualized AND has a chance of dying, or if the parents would truly beat her--and bad, like a case in Texas--then okay. |
Exactly.
There are circumstances where abortion is in the mothers best interests. I'm not saying abotrion is right, I'm not saying it should be endorsed. I simply think we should make it as painless and safe as possible. I say this because I don't think people realize how painful it is on a woman, emotionally. Also, I'm not sure that people saying abortion should completly illegal realize what will happen if that happens. Back to the days of the 60s. Women will die of that.
I'm not sure if what I said was totally coherant(sp?)...
However, I don't think this was the original topic of this discussion.
I agree with Five-seveN. How is it morally wrong if they're not going to 'live' anyway?
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
