Rush says actor Fox exagerated symptoms!

[Anewman]

Read further...The problem is that the proposal so narrowly defines cloning as to open the door in Missouri to any cloning procedure that takes place OUTSIDE the womb.


(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.

nothing there about human clone OUTSIDE the womb.

I am not a genetic imagineer, but will anything "OUTSIDE" the womb create a human fetus or the birth of a human being???

And if what others have stated is true(that cloning is legal already in that state), wouldnt this act at least place some not already existing restrictions on cloning.


In other words the logic being used is that since this amendment does not BAN ALL "POSSIBLE" methods of cloning it must be in favor of cloning. In that case the Tabacco Tax measure must also be in favor of cloning...

 

[Anewman]

These things already happen
from wikipedia

In 2000, a cow named Bessie gave birth to a cloned Asian gaur, an endangered species, but the calf died after two days. In 2003, a banteng was successfully cloned, followed by three African wildcats from a thawed frozen embryo. These successes provided hope that similar techniques (using surrogate mothers of another species) might be used to clone extinct species. Anticipating this possibility, tissue samples from the last bucardo (Pyrenean Ibex) were frozen immediately after it died. Researchers are also considering cloning endangered species such as the giant panda, ocelot, and cheetah. The "Frozen Zoo" at the San Diego Zoo now stores frozen tissue from the world's rarest and most endangered species.[7][8]

In 2002, geneticists at the Australian Museum announced that they had replicated DNA of the Thylacine (Tasmanian Tiger), extinct about 65 years previous, using polymerase chain reaction.[9] However, on 2005-02-15 the museum announced that it was stopping the project after tests showed the specimens' DNA had been too badly degraded by the (ethanol) preservative. Most recently, on 2005-05-15, it was announced that the Thylacine project would be revived, with new participation from researchers in New South Wales and Victoria.

not paranoid...just not ill informed

If the COW named Bessie gave birth to the clone, I assume the cloned embryo was implanted into the WOMB...

Which according to what you posted earlier would be banned by this measure.

 

[shrubber]

I am not a genetic imagineer, but will anything "OUTSIDE" the womb create a human fetus or the birth of a human being???



And if what others have stated is true(that cloning is legal already in that state), wouldnt this act at least place some not already existing restrictions on cloning.


In other words the logic being used is that since this amendment does not BAN ALL "POSSIBLE" methods of cloning it must be in favor of cloning. In that case the Tabacco Tax measure must also be in favor of cloning...

invitro fertilization

not neccessarlily legal just not yet addressed


I believe the problem here is that it clearly makes SOME human cloning legal
tobbaco tax aside

 

[Anewman]

I believe the problem here is that it clearly makes SOME human cloning legal
tobbaco tax aside

AGAIN, you have stated it already is legal.

So since this measure does not sepicifically ban cloning outside the womb you "think" it is legalizing it, IF it is even possible...

Sorry but just trying to find some logic here.

 

[magicmato]

These things already happen
from wikipedia

In 2000, a cow named Bessie gave birth to a cloned Asian gaur, an endangered species, but the calf died after two days. In 2003, a banteng was successfully cloned, followed by three African wildcats from a thawed frozen embryo. These successes provided hope that similar techniques (using surrogate mothers of another species) might be used to clone extinct species. Anticipating this possibility, tissue samples from the last bucardo (Pyrenean Ibex) were frozen immediately after it died. Researchers are also considering cloning endangered species such as the giant panda, ocelot, and cheetah. The "Frozen Zoo" at the San Diego Zoo now stores frozen tissue from the world's rarest and most endangered species.[7][8]

In 2002, geneticists at the Australian Museum announced that they had replicated DNA of the Thylacine (Tasmanian Tiger), extinct about 65 years previous, using polymerase chain reaction.[9] However, on 2005-02-15 the museum announced that it was stopping the project after tests showed the specimens' DNA had been too badly degraded by the (ethanol) preservative. Most recently, on 2005-05-15, it was announced that the Thylacine project would be revived, with new participation from researchers in New South Wales and Victoria.

not paranoid...just not ill informed

Right, so in order to have a human clone, they would have to use chimpanzees for gestation. All those you mentioned, they were gestated inside of a similar animal... the cow-like species in a cow, the wildcat in a housecat, etc.

BTW, don't assume you know more than other people. It just makes you look like a pompous rear end. Thanks.

 

[reeeoga]

For those who have no problem with human clones: Rush Limbaugh 1 now on the radio. To be followed by Rush 2 at 2. Then a lively debate between Rush 3 and Hannity 4. repeat as needed

 

[shrubber]

If the COW named Bessie gave birth to the clone, I assume the cloned embryo was implanted into the WOMB...

Which according to what you posted earlier would be banned by this measure.

Fine,
I was just trying to dispute someones 'dog' comment.

Hows this for babies born without wombs,
also from Wikipedia
[edit] Key Developments
Dr. Hung-Ching Liu of Cornell University and her team made headlines in 2002 when they engineered an artificial uterus by growing cultured human endometrial cells in a tissue scaffold shaped like a uterus. The artificial organ was supplied with proper nutrients and hormones and the scaffold dissolved. Embryos left over from in vitro fertilization (IVF) programs were introduced, and they began to implant and develop correctly. The experiment was halted after six days, in keeping with U.S. law.

In Japan, Yoshinori Kuwabara of Juntendo University conducted his experiments on goats. Goat fetuses were removed from their dams and placed in clear plastic tanks filled with amniotic fluid, their umbilical cords connected to machines that removed waste and supplied nutrients. The fetuses were kept alive for ten days in the first experiment. Later experiments extended the time to three weeks. After their birth some of the goats lived from several days to significantly longer.

 

[magicmato]

Yep! I am against all cloning! Someone kill all twins!

 

[shrubber]

Right, so in order to have a human clone, they would have to use chimpanzees for gestation. All those you mentioned, they were gestated inside of a similar animal... the cow-like species in a cow, the wildcat in a housecat, etc.

BTW, don't assume you know more than other people. It just makes you look like a pompous rear end. Thanks.

I never called you a name.
I believe thats distasteful.

 

[Anewman]

Fine,
I was just trying to dispute someones 'dog' comment.

Hows this for babies born without wombs,
also from Wikipedia
[edit] Key Developments
Dr. Hung-Ching Liu of Cornell University and her team made headlines in 2002 when they engineered an artificial uterus by growing cultured human endometrial cells in a tissue scaffold shaped like a uterus. The artificial organ was supplied with proper nutrients and hormones and the scaffold dissolved. Embryos left over from in vitro fertilization (IVF) programs were introduced, and they began to implant and develop correctly. The experiment was halted after six days, in keeping with U.S. law.

Didnt you say there was no US law banning it

You are going in circles, you do not understand that just because this measure only BANS human cloning implanted inside the womb does not mean it is legalizing any other forms of human cloning if they become a possibility in the future.

Sorry But my head hurts from this lack of logic.

 

[aztecgoods]

I never called you a name.
I believe thats distasteful.

I think that person has that bad habit so don't take it personally.

 

[magicmato]

I think that person has that bad habit so don't take it personally.

You do? Please show me where I have called people bad names? I took offense at being told I am ill-informed and responded to that. I stated that calling people ill-informed can make one look like a pompous rear-end.

You have been MUCH worse than that, dear aztecgoods.

You are right, I should not have said anyone's actions could make them look like a pompous rear-end.

Now it is your turn to retract the billion times you have inferred things about other posters. Go on. We are waiting.

 

[aztecgoods]

I never call peeps names, that's what you do. I may use sarcasm, but that's not the same thing.

 

[magicmato]

You have no idea who or what I am. I have NEVER called anyone any bad thing on this forum. Thank you very much.

 

[N.Bailey]

If stem cell research was as promising as some claim, then private research institutions would be jumping all over it. This is something that the should be handled in the private sector. Isn't our government big enough?

Many people in this thread seem to think you are either in favor of federal funding for stem cell research or you are opposed to it all together. People who are opposed to federal funding are not trying to ban stem cell research or make it illegal. They are opposed to the bill be passed on to the tax payers and government involvement. Big difference.....

But the government funds much research. It's not like PD is the only one. Yes, I'm being a bit lazy here because I'd read this last night and knew where to go to get an instant link and these figures are probably much different today, but I chose it to show just what the government has done in the past.

For the record, I'm not opposed to any of this research. I'm only making a point that the private sector doesn't fund it all.


I was beginning to understand why Parkinson's disease has traditionally received so little public attention, and relatively few government research dollars. I learned that in the mid-1990s, the National Institutes of Health were spending an estimated $2,400 per victim each year on HIV/AIDS research, $200 on breast cancer, $100 on prostate cancer, $78 on Alzheimer's disease, $34 on Parkinson's, and only $20 each on diabetes and coronary heart disease.



http://www.michaeljfox.org/news/article.php?id=5

 

[shrubber]

But the government funds much research. It's not like PD is the only one. Yes, I'm being a bit lazy here because I'd read this last night and knew where to go to get an instant link and these figures are probably much different today, but I chose it to show just what the government has done in the past.

For the record, I'm not opposed to any of this research. I'm only making a point that the private sector doesn't fund it all.


I was beginning to understand why Parkinson's disease has traditionally received so little public attention, and relatively few government research dollars. I learned that in the mid-1990s, the National Institutes of Health were spending an estimated $2,400 per victim each year on HIV/AIDS research, $200 on breast cancer, $100 on prostate cancer, $78 on Alzheimer's disease, $34 on Parkinson's, and only $20 each on diabetes and coronary heart disease.



http://www.michaeljfox.org/news/article.php?id=5

very interesting....limited supply of funds, too many diseases.

 

[wdw4us]

MJF has said he shoots in short time periods for television shows because he has small windows where he is able to keep it together. I saw him on Inside the Actor's Studio and he had trouble doing that whole interview.

I saw that interview and if you look closely, it was taped in 2004! I'm sure the disease is much worse now.

denise

 

[Charade]

There is already a federal ban on cloning.

Why is that? Because we haven't throughly discussed the medical and ethical issues surrounding it.

When human cloning becomes medically successful, the proponents will push to have the ban lifted and toss the ethics right out the window. IMO, that will be a sad day for humanity.

 

[Chloe'sMom]

Why is that? Because we haven't throughly discussed the medical and ethical issues surrounding it.

When human cloning becomes medically successful, the proponents will push to have the ban lifted and toss the ethics right out the window. IMO, that will be a sad day for humanity.

I'm a proponent of stem cell research but not cloning. So if the window was ever opened to do so I would vote against it. As would a lot of other moderates, liberals, and conservatives. I feel my family is still ethical on this issue.

~Amanda

 

[noodleknitter]

very interesting....limited supply of funds, too many diseases.

You know, that plays for the other side of the argument. Limited funds should conceivably go to research that might benefit many and not just one disease.