Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Magic. I wonder if you or Squirt have you read the MO initiative?
|
Yes. In much the same way that you seem to have been too busy to click on Squirt's link, you were also too busy to read the entire initiative.
I won't post the link to the initiative again. You didn't read it when you posted it yourself.
Quote:
|
(2) “Clone or attempt to clone a human being” means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.
|
And, the following from Squirt's link:
Quote:
The act of implanting an embryo in a woman’s womb, performed with IVF embryos many times every day, is not what makes human cloning different. What is different is the act of cloning — somatic-cell nuclear transfer — by which the embryo is originally created. Cloning to produce an embryo to be developed to birth and cloning to produce an embryo to be destroyed for research are both human cloning, carried out identically. As James Battey, chair of the NIH Stem Cell Task Force, told a congressional committee in March, “The first step, the cloning step, is the same, but the intended result is different” (emphasis added). But the initiative, by redefining cloning, protects the practice while pretending to prohibit it.
Moreover, the combination of the first and second sections of the initiative would mean that the Missouri constitution would first privilege and protect the creation of cloned human embryos for research (as long as federal law did not prohibit it) and then would mandate the destruction of these embryos.
|
I'm sure Filtherton would be willing to give the framers of the initiative a break. They were probably too busy to read what they were writing.