And the scientific ignorance begins:
The money will be given in grants to medical research facilities for research on adult, cord blood and embryonic stem cells and is not to be used for reproductive cloning.
Not to be deterred by that, opponents say
Sen. Steve Rauschenberger, R-Elgin, said the governor’s order “opens the door to human cloning in the state of Illinois, and that’s wrong.”
Why does it do that? Because it’s the only way to get the approval numbers for embryonic stem cell research below ~60%. Research dollars is a winning issue and while those opposing this kind of research may be well meaning in their objections, throwing garbage like this around and hoping it sticks isn’t going to work.
Where the attempt at confusion comes in is in what one calls human cloning. Opponents of stem cell research have attempted to define the cloning of a human cell as ‘human cloning’ while most people think of human cloning as the creation of a new human. SCNT is a form of cloning, but cloning is between an unfertilized egg and another cell to stem cells–not a fully developed human being.
And remember, support StemPac over at the right.
I don’t think you are winning anything playing semantic games like this.
I am strongly supportive of Stem cell research and have no issue with cloning as a part of research or therapy, but the distinction you are drawing between “human” cloning and “stem cell cloning” is completely bogus.
When a somatic cell nucleus is inserted into an egg and stimulated to begin dividing, the result is a human embryo which, if implanted in a human uterus, could develop into a human being. For those who believe that life begins at conception the notion that the intent of those who do the cloning to subsequently slice up the blastocyst to provide stem cell cultures does not make it any more acceptable.
If you are making the distinction between this process and growing the clone into a baby or mature human before vivisection I suppose we all agree that that would be unacceptable but surely even the most vehement prolife advocates are not claiming that proponents are proposing such things.
This argument is really about what it is to be human and have rights (legal and moral). The prolife side takes the view that life begins at conception and that the fertilized egg is just as human and deserving of protection (if not more because it is innocent and defenseless) as a mature human being. That view in part reflects their religious belief in a god given soul which exists independent of the physical body.
My own view is that humanity is a function of complex cognative abilities that emerge only after much development in utero and after birth. While that presents some difficult issues about defining when the critical threshold is reached, I have no problems denying that an early embryo with no differentiated nervous system should be treated as fully human. I expect that this view will eventually come to be the consensus as technology erases some of the current benchmarks such as viability outside the womb.
In any event this really is the heart of the issue, and attempts to obscure it with misleading words only give a lever to those who question the honesty and morality of research proponents
===If you are making the distinction between this process and growing the clone into a baby or mature human before vivisection I suppose we all agree that that would be unacceptable but surely even the most vehement prolife advocates are not claiming that proponents are proposing such things.
I think that is exactly what they are claiming. Steve’s comments are phrased exactly as many of those opposed to stem cell research are claiming that human cloning is widely opposed, yet when given a description of SCNT people are in favor of it, but if you put the word cloning in there, people oppose it overwhelmingly. People perceive the word cloning to be about making a fully grown organism and opposition to that is what those fighting stem cell research are trying to exploit.
When you look at polls that move around the word cloning and exchange descriptions of SCNT you get wide swings because of the presence of the word. It’s exactly what Steve is trying to do with the quote.
Don’t believe me:
http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/smith200505240809.asp
Wesley J. Smith: Absolutely. Apparently the South Korean researcher Wu Suk Hwang has learned how to reliably create human cloned embryos. Human cloning is the essential step toward biotechnologists learning how to genetically engineer progeny, a new eugenics project that enjoys great support among futurists, bioethicists, and some within the science establishment. For example, James Watson, the co-discoverer of the DNA double helix, is a big booster of creating designer babies who have been enhanced for intelligence, health, looks, etc. There is even a nascent social movement that has formed around creating a ?post human species? known as ?transhumanism.? Princeton biologist Lee Silver put it this way in his book Remaking Eden: ?Without cloning, genetic engineering is simply science fiction. But with cloning, genetic engineering moves into the realm of reality.?
+++++
The distinction is meaningful and rather critical to a rational understanding of the different arguments.
OK, so the most vehement opponents ARE claiming such things. I still think we do ourselves little good in obscuring the issue the other way
What I objected to was : “Where the attempt at confusion comes in is in what one calls human cloning. Opponents of stem cell research have attempted to define the cloning of a human cell as ‘human cloning’ while most people think of human cloning as the creation of a new human. SCNT is a form of cloning, but cloning is between an unfertilized egg and another cell to stem cells–not a fully developed human being.”
Clearly SCNT is, at least by prolifer standards “creation of a new human”, and while it begins with an unfertilized egg and another cell and ends in stem cells, in the middle is a potentially viable human embryo, which is rather central to the moral and religious objections raised by opponents.
Frankly I think the opposition to reproductive cloning is as misguided as the opposition to SCNT. Not that I support reproductive cloning but in my mind the major objection is not that we would be making a perfect copy of an individual, but that we would not. I don’t know why a clone would be any more objectionable than an identical twin, we certainly have no current prospects of reproducing the personality and intellect of a living individual. The problem given the current state of the art is that we have good reasons to expect a clone would suffer genetic impairment, and it is wrong to bring a child into the world without a reasonable chance at a full and healthy life. Of course that view smacks of the same sort of eugenics that so appalls Mr. Smith.
Which brings me back round to my point. Just as Smith is throwing up a strawman by conflating SCNT with attempts to grow human clones to maturity, you are conflating the objections of those who see no distinction between the embryo and adult human and therefore voice legitimate (from their perspective) concerns about SCNT with the hyperbolic rants of folks like Smith. Just as you can point to Smith as evidence that the Right is arguing dishonestly they can point to attempts to finesse and obscure their concerns. We must do better than that.
I see your point, but I still disagree, but respectfully. Let me make clear that my point is to clarify the difference between types of cloning and not obscure them. I don’t claim that cloning isn’t taking place, but I am trying to distingiush in a meaningful way what cloning means in practical termsl.
From a purely scientific discussion I think your point may well trump mine. So I apologize for any confusion on that, but at the same time, I believe I’m trying to communicate as I think people perceive the issue. And under such a condition, I fully admit I may be adding to the confusion, though that isn’t my intent.
I do believe there is an effort to conflate SCNT with the reproduction of a fully developed human being. I think if you look through the literature of anti-embryonic/SCNT stem cell ressearch advocates that a clear effort is made to pretend we are talking about cloning fully developed human beings.
I’ll think about your critique seriously, and admit that some opponents are more serious than the example, but I still believe I presented a prevalent view of most activists against such research. I especially believe Rauschenberger is trying to draw on images of the cloning of fully formed individuals than he is of cells.
I understand the objection of those who oppose such research and who do make subtle arguments, but I think such arguments are very rare and arguements against such research much more often attempt to portray human cloning as being about a fully formed human and not about a blastocyst.
It still looks like you are missing the point.
Most opponents of embryonic stem cell research are strongly prolife, indeed it is a matter of some controversy even within the pro life community with some prolife leaders (Orrin Hatch for example) supporting research.
Most of those folks don’t distinguish between a blastocyst and a fully mature human, or if they do they put a higher value on life of the innocent and defenseless blastocyst.
While some may, like Smith, parade the “horror” of cloned adults to make their point, or to engage those who lack their dedication to the sanctity of blastocysts, it is not at all clear to me that Rauschenberger is doing that, and his statement makes perfect sense within the prolife context that this procedure is every bit as bad when the embryo is destroyed as when it is allowed to mature.
You are accusing Rauschenberger of confusing the blastocyst with a fully mature clone. I am reminding you that he may find that distinction much less important than you or I, and might legitimately be just as distressed that you are blurring the (he feels) critical line between unfertilized egg, adult somatic cell and potentially viable human embryo.
You and I see a clear and important distinction between a healthy post natal human and a blastocyst, but little between the blastocyst and the stem cell lines harvested from it.
Pro lifers think the embryo and the adult human belong together as human life, and the others are fundamentally different. While we may disagree with that categorization, we should at least understand that they see the line at least as bright as we do and are entitled to argue from that perspective. Moreover if we fail to recognize that bright line, we will surely invite the same sort of response from them that you had to Rauschenberger.
I’m not missing any point, I’m saying the use of the word cloning without any description of whether it’s therapeutic or reproductive is a specific strategy of social conservatives who are attempting to conflate the two because they know it is less popular when simply called cloning.
It isn’t some isolated mention in one article, I just happened to point that one out. If you read the articles by social conservatives on this issue you’ll see it being thrown around quite freely. One of the great weaknesses of Democrats and liberals is the inability to understand the specific language used in conservative circles and knowing how it’s utilized.
I fully understand that Rauschenberger doesn’t care about the distinction, but he’s using the term to obscure the different kinds of uses. It’s fine that he doesn’t agree, what annoys me is the way the language is being undermined in what I view as a deliberate attempt to skew the debate by referring to all cloning techniques simply as human cloning knowing that people assume they are talking about reproductive cloning. There’s a reason Rauschenberger isn’t being specific about what is allowed—one can criticize Blagojevich too when he says he is not allowing cloning–something originally in the press release, but the distinction is made in state’s announcement.
My distinction isn’t covering up that cloning is taking place in the form of SCNT–I say it’s a form of cloning human cells, it’s specifically pointing out the way language is used to confuse the issue and muck up the science.