HB4156: Will House Dems allow Blagojevich's order to stand forcing taxpayers to fund human cloning?
This morning, HB4156 will be heard in the House Human Services Committee.
This bill would undo one part of Gov. Blagojevich's July 2005 executive order that financed via taxpayers his human cloning and embryonic experimentation scheme. To do this, he hid $10 million in the budget and thwarted the Democrat-controlled GA.
Human cloning? Didn’t Gov. Blagojevich say during his press conference that "no funding will be authorized for research involving human cloning"?
Yes, but he either lied or was misinformed. His order indeed funded "somatic cell nuclear transfer," the scientific term for human cloning. (Don't believe me? Check out Wikipedia, the National Human Genome Research Institute, or the Genetic Science Learning Center for their definitions, or just google the term.)
If Gov. Blagojevich is truly against human cloning, he should support HB4156.
Very importantly, all state legislators who voted in favor of the 2005 state budget have the blemish on their record of supporting taxpayer-financed human cloning, whether or not they knew it at the time.
This blemish can be erased only by a vote prohibiting public funded human cloning.
Four of the 35 HB4156 co-sponsors are on the Human Services Committee, all Republican. Three more of the 12 members are needed to get this bill to the floor. There are 7 Dems and 5 Republicans.
18 comments:
Very interesting discussion. I find the debate over whether these cells created by nuclear transfer are new human persons (just as a fertilized egg) or merely newly created cells of the nuclear donor (since they are not eggs fertilized by sperm) to be one with no clear answers but with tremendous implications. I suppose we may never know for sure whether they could in some sense be considered human persons unless one such cloned species were implanted into a woman's womb and allowed to develop. However, such an experiment would be horribly unethical and should never be allowed to occur because of the unknown risks to this clone. That being said, such methods have been used to clone monkeys and other mammals, so it could very well be theoretically possible for humans. Fascinating Debate.
Executive Order? How come no one talks about an Imperial Gov?
Nothing wrong with this at all. The guv should use any and all powers and muscle necessary to grant this. He, in fact, does have the power to do this.
If anyone has had a relative or friend with a disease that is potentially curable (not just treatable or preventable, but CURABLE) using this treatment, they are in support of this. As someone whose uncle hasn't been able to walk or even feed himself due to MS for the last 20 years, and someone who watched his grandmother turn into someone who went from a wonderful Italian cook to practically a vegetable in ten years because of Alzheimers, I'm in favor of this.
Anyone who is in favor of LIFE should be in favor of this.
Another case of a conservative pushing their "values" around, as long as it doesn't affect their own lives.
I never say this, but way to go Blago.
Just for clarification for myself:
What is the non-religious-based argument against Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer?
Aside from full-blown cell to complete human cloning, why should this matter to me?
Here is the non-religious argument.
I don't want to pay for the state to spend money on cloning. I don't want to pay for the state to invest on cloning minor league baseball parks. I don't want the state to spend money on regulating the house-moving industry. I don't want the state to spend money on early retirement programs for 48 year old teachers.
I am a taxpayer. It is my money. I should have some representation on spending programs the state comes up with. The governor has decided to spend money without consulting the electorate. I argue against it.
JBP
You don't need to be religous to have calms about what's going on with stem cells.
You can be a sincerely atheistic Marxist and make a pretty good case their is potential for exploitation.
And, Tony, one of my problems with the whole debate is the propenents haver really over reached on the potential benefits; especially near term.
It is indeed about LIFE and more then one LIFE involved and the complex ethical questions about how one life can, and should be used to support another's.
John-
Not to detract from your argument but your argument is applicable to pretty much everything. An extreme version of it could extend to a racist not wanting the state to spend money on minority programs or an environmentalist not wanting the state to spend money on industry.
Bill-
While I understand the potential for exploitation, I tried to pre-empt it with the obvious cloning a cell to produce a human being for such purposes as slave labor, living organ banks, etc.
What I honestly seek is some examples of reasons against it besides the obvious religious or the Nth degree is bad or I don't like it reasoning.
I lean more towards the other side so I easily understand the potential benefits but I don't easily understand the negatives.
Anon 10:35 am
By the way, has anyone noticed how the phrase 'human cloning' is thrown about without considering the implications to the typical layperson?
I imagine (no proof, mind you) that when a layperson hears the term human cloning they think of creating a fully functioning human from another ala the movies Multiplicity or Godsend.
Now while the term may technically be correct when referring to the process of creating an identical copy of a single-cell which has the potential to grow into a fully functioning human given the proper conditions etc, it most likely steers laypersons to the ultimately evil end of identical copies running around without rights, mutating, etc.
Far be it from me to tell someone not to use a technically correct term just because the general population assumes a far worse end than what occurs. However it seems a lot like the same type of people who love to throw around nuclear proliferation in reference to powerplant building and not in expansion of nuclear weapons.
anon: 4:36
I don't want to see a market for human-fetus stem cells harvested for any purpose.
Even if they successfully treat disease. I think that would lead to exploitation of women not to mention the fetuses.
I think that would be an evil thing.
Regardless of how God or Religion feel about it. I'd leave them out frankly.
Anon 10:35,
Yes, but you don't have to be a racist to not want to blow money on affirmative action or blow money on corporate welfare. You would just be a common sensical taxpayer.
JBP
Nor do you have to be a religious person to object to wasting money on cloning.
JBP
What's wrong with injecting human cells into mouse brains? Such an exercise could have tremendous potential for drug discovery and testing.
John-
I ubelieve I understand your argument but what I was trying to convey was that 'wasting money' on anything is a purely subjective argument. Wasting money to you may not be wasting money to me. My neighbor may find spending money on space exploration wasteful but it does not address any reasoning of positives vs negatives of the space exploration itself.
I was looking for something more specific to the debate over positives versus negatives with regard to 'human cloning' in all its parts start to finish.
I understand where you are coming form and I feel that way about some things too.
Bill-
I think I see where your position rests.
Exploitation of foeti aside and assuming women sell/donate eggs without being coerced, how does this exploit women?
Jill-
I understand that animal clones have often not been viable or been severely aberrated. That is part of any process of learning. Look at the early days of flight, one can not honestly expect to base an assumption of the entire process on the early missteps and glaring failures.
As an interested reader of science fiction, I imagine I have been exposed for qquite some time to the concepts and rights of viable, fully functioning human clones (including those that have remained in some sort of suspended animation state for the purposes of providing replacement organs. I don't argue against protecting the rights of functional humans (clone or otherwise).
I, however, see no issue with experimentation/usage of foeti/blastocytes/single-cell etc in science and medicine for the purposes of advancing knowledge or developing new therapies/medicines etc. I see no issue with blending human/animal genes for knowledge/medicines etc.
Since many people seem to have no issue with animal testing/vivisection etc occuring in the medical field and other fields, I imagine I would support blending up to the same amount of mix we use in our most closely related animal test subjects. Correct me if I am wrong but that would be chimpanzees who are in the mid-90 percentile range.
Anon 10:35a => Anon 4:36p (I think I need to get a screenname)
Anon 10:17
Yes, but you miss the point. If it is a subjective argument on what is a waste of money, then the political process should be used to decide whether to spend or not.
When Gov Blago and Dan Hynes declare without debate that we must fund stem cell research, the voters are denied any voice in spending. When Blago "gives" $1 Million in tax payer money to a Baptist Church, the voters are denied an voice in spending. When Blago funds a minor league baseball stadium for his crony, the voters are denied any voice in spending etc.
If it is controversial, then discuss it. What Gov Blago is doing is demanding spending on controversial issues so as to avoid the political process.
Which leads us to the condition we are now in, trying to drum up a Keno business to pay for early retirement programs for teachers.
JBP
From said Human Genome Project: "The term cloning is used by scientists to describe many different processes that involve making duplicates of biological material. "
It's 10 PM. Do you know where your duplicates of bilogical material are?"
Jill: i hope you never get type 1 (or insulin dependant) diabetes. I have had it for 31 years now and I am 34 years old. To put it bluntly: it sucks. I have retinopathy in my right eye and have had 10 (yes-ten) laser treatments for that. If you think that is easy, think again. A bright light is brought right up to your eye so the doctor can see what she is doing and then you see blasts of green, which is the laser.
I want a cure. Why are you against a cure for diabetes and other diseases that would be helped by stem cell research?
Jill-
I do see consequences in human cloning. I am against human cloning in which complete clones would be produced and used for purposes we would not allow humans today to be used for: slavery, walking organ banks, etc.
You and Bill and John have made good points. With John's last post, I understand his point and actually I agree with him. I support human cloning to a degree but I disapprove of any politician pro or con skirting the political process.
I see the positives and the negatives but I think, in my own mind, the potential benefit still outwieghs the fears of misuse.
-Gish (formerly Anons)
Jill-
That was why I needed a screen name. I did not make the anon post about having diabetes but that is mostly irrelevant since information is information irrespective of who it is directed at.
Post a Comment