Reason.com
Most Popular Stories
- 5 Classic Teen Sex-and-Drug Freakouts: Rainbow Parties, Butt-Chugging, And So Much More (By Which We Mean Less) (5.27)
- Government Beneficiaries and Other Fairy Tales (5.26)
- Do Organic Consumers Shop Exclusively at the Jerk Store? (5.26)
- Sharon Presley on Libertarian Feminism (5.26)
- Here Are the 15 Senators Who Voted to Stop Armed FDA Agents From Conducting Warrantless Raids on America's Farmers (Not One of Them is a Democrat) (5.24)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
- Reason-Rupe Poll: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42, Obama Leads Romney 46-36 (5.24)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
James B.|11.17.04 @ 12:53PM|#
Help me out here. This proposed UN ban wouldn't have any legal force in the United States would it?
At least not unless the US Senate ratified it, and if they can't get a Senate majority to ban cloning how can they get ⅔rds of the Senate to approve a treaty.
So isn't this ban all for show and completely meaningless.
On the other hand if it does have legal force, does that mean the UN can ban our guns, fast food, action movies and cigarettes as well. Maybe I'll end up joining the black helicopter crowd.
Highway|11.17.04 @ 1:28PM|#
I still don't see the big deal about cloning. I can understand opposition to current practices, since they have a high rate of defect so far. But I just don't see why the idea of babies that are identical twins to other babies sends so many people into a tizzy. I have no problem with it, therapeutic, reproductive, whatever. Just find out a way to get rid of 'birth' defects when you do it.
James B.|11.17.04 @ 2:11PM|#
Actually a couple of my friens on the right are not opposed to reproductive cloning just therapeutic cloning. They are all for babies being born, they just dont wan the embryos being used to harvest stem cells. But I have yet to see any politician adopt to anti-therapeutic, pro reproductive position.
Another question, under Roe V Wade and Casey versus Planned Parenthood can Congress even outlaw reproductive cloning?
It would seem to me that the Bill of Rights penumbras and emanations that protect abortion would surely protect this form of conception.
|11.17.04 @ 2:58PM|#
I have yet to read a strong argument for why reproductive cloning is wrong in and of itself -- aside from the technical problems.
|11.17.04 @ 3:18PM|#
Rikurzhen,
Because the Pope, etc. say its wrong. :)
|11.17.04 @ 4:46PM|#
What James B. at 12:53 PM asked.
|11.17.04 @ 6:05PM|#
So isn't this ban all for show and completely meaningless.
If the goal is "ban cloning in the United States" then, yes, the UN ban is meaningless. If the goal is "ban cloning in as many places as possible", however, it isn't -- the UN has clout in some nations, just not in this one.