If a human embryo was cloned, what would the social conservative agenda be?
916667
Don't expect any mercy during the great clone wars. So, you might as well get on board for the big win.
798477
What kind of stem cell research? Embryonic stem cells come from unborn babies, which means you have to kill the most innocent and most defenseless of human life to get the cells. This is what the liberals want to do to increase the number of abortioins in the US and the world. There is no evidence that this type of cell research is going to produce anything of value. If it had any promise, investors would be lining up to put money into it. But they aren't, so the pro-aborts want government (that means "your money") to fund the research.\n\nOn the other hand, adult stem cell research has yielded incredible results. But you can't kill an adult, so the libs aren't interested in this type of research...
814877
I am a conservative.\nI do NOT support sanctions and laws against gays marrying and women having abortions.\nThey are definently moral  AND political issues.\nThe reason it is a political issue is the fear of change and the fear that someones morals are not going to be the same.  If it was just a moral issue there would be no laws abridging the issues.\n\nWhat you are looking at is the Republican party platform.  There are real conservatives out here and we want real change.
959456
It depends on your defination of Human cloning.\n\nStrictly speaking, embryonic stem cell research can be classified as human cloning, as it involves the cloning of a human embryo. However, the embryo is only grown so that is has 8 cells (you can't even see that without a microscope!!) at which point growth is stopped, and the stem cells are harvested.\n\nCloning an embryo and allowing it to grow into a full human being is in no way whatsoever legal in the US, or anywhere else in the world!\n\nStem cell research is immensely important to medicine, as it can potentially cure a whole range on diseases. In America, one group of researchers are near the point of creating a CURE for diabetes!! Once completed, stem cells which produce insulin can be transplanted into patients, so they will never have to inject insuling again! In the UK, a group of researchers has manged to grow liver tissue from stem cells. Although only small at the moment (the tissue is about the size of a 1p/1c coin) it will be a very useful research tool for testing and developing better drugs with less side-affects. In the future, scientists believe they will be able to grow whole replacement organs, grown to match the genetics of the patient, so there is no risk of rejection!\n\nAmerica, being the richest country in the world, with some of best research facilities, is a key player in world medicine. However, the current ban on federal funding of stem cell research in the US is slowing down the progress of the research immensely. Scientists around the world are hoping that when the Bush Administration leaves office, this ban will be lifted, so that more funding will be availble for research, and development of treatments which help patients will come a lot sooner!
223925
A lot of them are ethical and moral questions.   For example, if you were going to use cloned human cells for testing of a drug, where would you draw the line?  Somewhere between a cell and a fully grown human, but who gets to make that decision of where?\n\nOr a more far out question: Imagine if you could clone your favorite movie star, celebrity or anyone else to be your husband or wife?   How many copies of the same person would we have roaming around?   And even so, would that person want to be your husband and wife anyway?  Who would be that person's parents or next of kin?   Do you really have a right to "create" that person or treat them like property?  Are they a person?   \n\nDo you see how the idea of human cloning creates a lot of issues that wouldn't otherwise exist?
719674
It is. The area of dispute is public funding vs. private funding. Currently only adult stem cells and a few fetal stem cell lines, most of which are unusable, are allowed to be used by firms with public funding.\n\nThe problem with the embryonic stem cell research debate is that too many people equate it with abortion. For years, publicly-funded researchers have been trying to use embryos from fertility clinics. The way the current law is, the ones that are not implanted in a woman are discarded - thrown in the trash. I see this as unethical. Why discard them when they can be used on possibly life-saving research? Who supports embryonic stem-cell research? People as diverse as Michael J Fox, Nancy Reagan, Curt Shilling, Muhammad Ali, Arlen Specter, and my father, who passed 4 years ago from Lou Gherigs disease.\n\nI feel it is unethical to discard something that could potentially save lives simply because of misinformation.\n\nPluripotent stem cells, those from embryos, are able to develop into all the different types of cells in the body and multiply rapidly. \n\nAdult stem cells, or multipotent stem cells, that could give rise to all cell and tissue types have not yet been found. Adult stem cells are often present in only minute quantities and can therefore be difficult to isolate and purify. There is also evidence that they may not have the same capacity to multiply as embryonic stem cells do. Also, adult stem cells may contain more DNA abnormalities—caused by sunlight, toxins, and errors in making more DNA copies during the course of a lifetime. These potential weaknesses limit the usefulness of adult stem cells.\n\nThere is a really good paper on this at The Michael J Fox Foundation website called "Q&A Embryonic Stem Cells; Exploding the Myth" (see link)
696876
I think Alex P Keaton would be very conflicted because the Republican party in existence when "family ties" was on television is not the same Republican party we have today.  Today's Republicans are beholden to the religious fringe, a group that was largely dismissed in the eighties as kooks and crackpots.  Now they are a force to be reckoned with. \nThe objection to stem cell research seems to be largely grounded in religious dogma and not science or politics.
326498
Cloning seems like a bad idea.  There is the whole degradation of the genes thing and all of those ethical questions.  Besides if you have clones they have to be fed, clothed and sheltered.  What I want is a small platoon of robots.  I'll get them three jobs apiece and do whatever I want while I collect their pay checks.
656095
For cloning organs/tissue but against cloning human beings
171855
Very good question.  Ask Scott Peterson (worthless piece of garbage) about that one.  This is just one hole in the beliefs of the right to choose people that they wish we wouldn't see.  The fact is that a fetus IS a human life and abortion IS murder.\n\nAnother scenario that escapes me is that you will see the same people at a "Fur Is Murder" rally as you will see at a "Freedom of Choice" rally.  I wonder if they see the irony of their actions?
983619
Can you show me where in the article it says anyone wants to create an embryo which is half cow and half human? I only see it mentioning that they plan to insert human DNA into cow ova from which the DNA has been removed, to create embryos that are 99.9% human. I don't have a problem with that, and I think it's actually rather sensible as far as being cost-effective and providing sufficient testing material goes.\n\nHalf cow half human, maybe not. I'm not sure you could even 'fuse' cow and human DNA to create an embryo.
89389
We don't want to have human cloning. That has been made abundantly clear by numerous polls and elections.\n\nI doubt that you personnally know even a single person who wants human cloning.
1039013
First off, men (and women) have been arounf a lot longer than 6000 years. The 6000 years figure is one the fundamentalists use, ignoring all scientific evidence to the contrary. There was no cloning involved. The whole Adam and Eve story is a poem, like most of the bible, certainly not meant to be taken literally. \n\nThere has never been a cloned human baby. The S. Koreans claimed to have done it but they were "stretching" the truth somewhat.
927213
You make a good point. It is not at all obvious that a technical medical training guarantees a solidly thought out ethical stance on any issue. This seems especially true when the scientists and doctors involved have a vested interest in this research going forward (billions in federal grant money, and much more in biomedical patents). \n\nI read recently that there is an ethically less problematic process called ANT that can make stem cells without killing developing human beings. (see link) \n\nThese claims have been raised by other answers:\nCLAIM 1. Sections 5, 6, 6a protect against unethical practices.\nMY RESPONSE: If you were poor and I offered you $50,000 for your liver, would you "voluntarily" give it to me? Section 17 authorizes the following to be paid to a "voluntary donor:" "consideration (money) paid to a donor of human eggs or sperm by a fertilization clinic or sperm bank, as well as any other consideration expressly allowed by federal law." In other words, women will be paid for their eggs by a feltility clinic. These eggs will then be sold to researchers. This is the issue that feminists and many African American leaders have with Amendment 2. See link 2 below. \n\nCLAIM 2: this amendment bans cloning or attempted cloning, so what's the problem? \nMY RESPONSE: the amendment defines "cloning" in Section 6.2 as "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." \nThis means that you can clone all that you want, as long as you don't let the clone grow up. It enshrines in the constitution the requirement that these embryos be killed. Also, a group of 300 lawyers has pointed out that this doesn't necessarily mean that you can't implant the embryo for some other purpose than the creation of a human fetus. For an expert analysis of this issue, see link 3. \n\nFor these reasons, I am not comfortable "taking Mr. Danforth's word for it" that Amendment 2 is good for Missouri.
674863
I support the research on human cloning. The clones would be individuals just like the rest of us--there is more to what makes a person who they are than their genes. Look at identical twins--they share the exact same genome yet they are not exact copies of one another in experience, personality, skills, etc. \nI think the pertinant question is this: What are the ethical rules to follow when it comes to human cloning?
846477
I predict we will do stem cell research and cloning; and while these things will help us to some extent, I think cloning especially will prove to be more problem than solution.\n\nI predict we will be forced to be involved in recycling for the well-being of our planet.\n\ni predict the antichrist will show himself.
745500
It's good that they're finally coming out into the open about human-cow hybrids, but they've been doing that for years. Look at Margaret Thatcher for example.\n\nBut seriously, an embryo is not a human or a cow, and I doubt they would allow this to grow past a small number of cells. They are created in fertility clinics and discarded all the time. I don't have a problem with this.