(A4c4a1) human cloning

As of this date 07-01-23 this file consists of 8 items. ******* item 1) LETTER FROM LEADING CATHOLIC BISHOP URGES PRO-LIFE CLONING VOTE ******* item 2) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES APPROVES BAN ON ALL HUMAN CLONING ******* item 3) CHARLES COLSON ON CLONING ******* item 4 CULTURE & COSMOS/NEW YORK TIMES ADVERTISEMENTS POINT TO EUGENICS REVOLUTION ******* item 5 EUROPE'S PROBLEM IS THAT IT'S BARREN ******* item 6 PRIEST'S MEETING WITH POLITICIAN RESUTLS IN CHANGE OF HEART ON CLONING ******* item 7 UN APPROVES DECLARATION BANNING ALL HUMAN CLONING ******* item 8 PRO FAMILY GROUP, SCIENTISTS APPLAUD UN CLONING BAN ********************************************************************************************************************* ******* item 1 LETTER FROM LEADING CATHOLIC BISHOP URGES PRO-LIFE CLONING VOTE ******* From: The Pro-Life Infonet ******* Reply-To: Steven Ertelt ******* Source: U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops; February 26, 2003 ******* Washington, DC -- The following letter was sent to all members of the House of Representatives, from Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, Chairman of the U.S. Catholic bishops' Committee for Pro-Life Activities: February 25, 2003 ******* Dear Member of Congress: ******* Soon Congress will again vote on legislation to forbid human cloning, the Weldon/Stupak Human Cloning Prohibition Act (H.R. 534). The House overwhelmingly approved this bill in July 2001, and the case in favor of such approval is even stronger today. ******* In 2001, supporters of human cloning for biomedical research said they were about to usher in a new era in modern medicine. If only they were allowed to bring cloned human embryos to the blastocyst stage (4-7 days old) to destroy them for their stem cells, they could produce cures for Parkinson*s disease, diabetes and other ailments. ******* Almost two years later we can see how exaggerated these claims were. Embryonic stem cell research in general has encountered numerous practical and scientific obstacles, including difficulties in culturing these stem cells and the cells* own tendency to form lethal tumors when transferred into animals. Medical use of cloning is even farther away, as years of effort have failed to produce a single documented case of a cloned human embryo surviving to the blastocyst stage. ******* Moreover, animal trials suggest that even stem cells from cloned embryos may be rejected by host animals, and that the embryos may have to develop to the fetal or even adult stage to produce usable cells for therapies. A recent overview of human cloning research concluded that its therapeutic *promise,* if any, is *all in the distant future* (G. Kolata, *The Promise of Therapeutic Cloning,* The New York Times, Jan. 5, 2003). Medical research is developing new and promising treatments for Parkinson*s, diabetes, heart disease and other illnesses * but these are from adult stem cell research and other approaches that pose no moral problem. ******* While the practical case against all human cloning has become stronger, the basic moral issue has not changed. Cloning dehumanizes human procreation, treating new human life as a mere laboratory product made to specifications. Whether used to bring cloned human embryos to live birth (so-called *reproductive* cloning), or to exploit them as sources of *spare parts* for other humans (so-called *therapeutic* cloning), human cloning diminishes us all. The allegedly lofty goals proposed for cloning cannot outweigh the grim reality of the activity itself. ******* Some supporters of cloning for research purposes seek to hide this reality by tricks of language. They say they oppose *human cloning* but support *somatic cell nuclear transfer* or *SCNT,* hoping no one will notice that SCNT is simply the scientific name for the cloning procedure. They even say they support only the use of cloning to *produce stem cells,* evading the fact that they want to create live human embryos who will then be destroyed for their stem cells. The fact that supporters of such cloning must resort to these evasions to make their case only underscores how abhorrent the practice is to all of us when it is confronted squarely. ******* H.R. 801, offered by Rep. Greenwood as an alternative to the Weldon/Stupak ban, does not address the moral problem of cloning but aggravates it. Misnamed a *cloning prohibition act,* it would directly involve the federal government in registering for-profit human cloning laboratories and supervising their manufacture of human beings as research material. By assigning this task to the Food and Drug Administration, Congress would treat the cloned human embryo as a marketable *biological product,* to be exploited for benefit to others and tested for its safety and effectiveness. Congress would define a class of human beings whose only status is as a commodity. ******* Perhaps in recognition of animal trials suggesting that cloned humans may have to reach later fetal stages to produce *beneficial* cells and organs, H.R. 801 sets no time limit on how long cloned humans could be maintained artificially. It does, however, create a new federal crime: the crime of trying to *initiate a pregnancy* with a cloned human embryo. The bill*s ten-year prison sentence would be imposed first and foremost upon those most directly involved in initiating a pregnancy * that is, upon pregnant women themselves, who would face enormous pressure to submit to an abortion if they fell under suspicion of violating the new law. ******* This is a case in which proposals offered as halfway or compromise measures are worse than doing nothing at all. In keeping with the growing national and international consensus that human cloning has no place in our society, Congress should ban this practice outright. I urge you to reject deceptive substitute measures and approve H.R. 534. ****** Sincerely, Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua; Archbishop of Philadelphia Chairman, Committee for Pro-Life Activities U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops ************************************************************************************************************************ item 2 ******* From: The Pro-Life Infonet ******* Reply-To: Steven Ertelt ******* Subject: HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES APPROVES BAN ON ALL HUMAN CLONING ******* Source: Pro-Life Infonet; February 27, 2003 ******* Washington, DC -- Turning back a phony ban offered by those who favor killing human embryos to obtain their stem cells for scientific research, the House of Representatives voted 241-155 in favor of a pro-life ban on all forms of human cloning. ******* The measure passed the House 265-162 during the last legislative session. ******* The bill, sponsored by pro-life Reps. Dave Weldon (R-FL) and Bart Stupak (R-MI), bans all forms of human cloning -- both to create new human beings and for use in life-destructive scientific research. The debate now returns to the Senate, where a similar bill put forward by pro-life Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) competes against a similar phony ban backed by several senators. ******* President Bush supports the pro-life version and has told members of Congress he will veto any phony ban. The House voted against the phony ban 231-174. ******* As it did last time, the debate volleyed between pro-cloning legislators who claimed medical science and the chance to find cures for diseases would be set back and pro-life legislators who pointed out that embryonic stem cells have not saved any lives and adult stem cell research offers more ethical and more effective alternative. ******* "Our bill allows animal cloning, tissue cloning, and current adult stem cell research ... How is this seen as stifling research," pro-life Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), asked. "Opponents of our bill have said embryonic research is the Holy Grail of science, and holds the key to untold medical wonders. I say to these opponents, show me your miracles. Show me the wondrous advances done on animal embryonic cloning. But these opponents cannot show me these advances because they do not exist." ******* Opponents of the complete ban claimed the Weldon-Stupak bill would halt scientific research. ******* "This is a question about whether or not we are going to go forward with the most promising medicine of our time," said pro-cloning Rep. Jim Greenwood (R-PA), who sponsored the phony ban. ******* "Embryonic stem cell research has failed to find any cures in any clinical trials," Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) countered. On the other hand, "adult stem cells have produced promising medical results." ******* Pro-life organizations applauded the House vote. ******* John F. Kilner, Ph.D., president of the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity commented "The passage of the cloning ban by the House is a wonderful statement of our country's determination not to let the lure of scientific achievement or financial gain run roughshod over ethics. If news events of the last year have shown us anything, it is that cutting ethical corners in the pursuit of prosperity is not a wise long-term approach. May the Senate have the courage to chart a similar course." ******* Pro-life lawmakers speaking in favor of the Weldon-Stupak bill included: Dave Weldon (R-FL), Sue Myrick (R-NC), Joe Pitts (R_PA), Rick Renzi (R-AZ), Jo Ann Davis (R-VA), Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO), Bart Stupak (D-MI), Lee Terry (R-NE), Pat Toomey (R-PA), Todd Akin (R-MO), Mike Pense (R-IN), Howard Coble (R-NC), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), John Sullivan (R-OK), Richard Baker (R-LA), David Wu (D-OR), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), and Chris Smith (R-NJ). ******* Lawmakers speaking against the pro-life bill included: Jim McGovern (D-MA), Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), Lois Capps (D-CA), Chris Bell (D-TX), Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Diana Degette (D-CO), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Mel Watt (D-NC), Anna Eschoo (D-CA), Rush Holt (D-NJ), Ron Kind (D-WI), Gene Green (D-TX), Jim Greenwood (R-PA), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Adam Schiff (D-CA), David Price (D-NC), Jim Moran (D-VA), Susan Davis (D-CA), Dutch Ruppersburger (D-MD), Peter Deutsch (D-FL), Dennis Moore (D-KS), and Darlene Hooley (D-OR). ************************************************************************************************************************ item 3 ******* From: "Roy Hamel" ******* Subject: Charles Colson on Cloning ******* Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:12:50 -0500 ******* Dear Friends, ******* Here is an excellent article by Charles Colson on cloning. It is very relevant to our time in that the Canadian parliament is debating these very issues at the present time. ******* Warmly, Royal Hamel ******* BreakPoint ******* cultural commentary with Prison Fellowship's Chuck Colson http://link.crosswalk.com/UM/T.asp?A1.25.10517.1.57660 ******* February 26, 2003 ******* 'An Obvious Moral Absurdity'(A Secular Case against Cloning) ******* Tomorrow, Congress is scheduled to vote on the Human Cloning Prohibition Act (H.R. 534), that will ban all human cloning. ******* The bill's opponents support an alternative bill that bans what they call "reproductive cloning" while permitting so-called "therapeutic cloning." A symbol and advocate for this bill is actor Christopher Reeve, who was paralyzed when thrown from his horse in 1995. ******* Given Reeve's personal history, it seems almost callous to argue against his position. Fortunately, there is someone whose own story is a mirror image of Reeve's, respected columnist Charles Krauthammer. And he says that Reeve is dead wrong. ******* * * * * * * * * * * * * ADVERTISEMENT * * * * * * * * * * * ******* TRINITY COLLEGE & SEMINARY OFF CAMPUS & ONLINE ******* Experience Personal & Ministry Growth ******* Through Bible-Focused Degree Programs ******* Associate and Bachelor of Arts ******* Master of Arts, M.Div., Doctor of Arts, Doctor of Ministry ******* http://l.salemweb.net/tcs2003tr * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * In the New Republic, Krauthammer, who was paralyzed in a diving accident, makes what he calls a "secular argument" against all human cloning. He reminds readers that all cloning involves the same technology: The genetic material is removed from a human egg and is replaced by the genetic material from another person. ******* The difference lies in what happens afterward. In "reproductive cloning," which both bills would ban, the egg is implanted in a uterus. In what Reeve and company call "therapeutic cloning," "the main objective . . . [is] to disassemble [the four- to seven-day-old divided cell, called a 'blastocyst'] . . . [and] pull the stem cells out." ******* Words like 'disassemble' and 'pull' remind us of a fact that cloning proponents would like us to forget: The clone is invariably killed. There is nothing "therapeutic" about it, certainly not for the dead clone. ******* For Christians, the clone's inevitable destruction renders cloning beyond the pale. But Krauthammer insists that you don't have to believe that "personhood begins at conception" or that "the embryo is entitled to inviolability" to be opposed to all human cloning. For starters, permitting the cloning of embryos for research makes it inevitable "that someone will implant one in a woman and produce a human clone." What do we do then? The bill supported by Reeve would "make it a crime not to destroy that fetus." Krauthammer, who is pro-choice, calls this "an obvious moral absurdity." ******* But even if this were not the case, what is being done to the cloned embryo should give us pause. Even if you deny that the seven-day-old human embryo is a full member of the human family, there is still something human there. As Krauthammer puts it, "It is not nothing." And if it is not a person, is it like what we once believed was property-that is, slaves? You can't say that. ******* Proceeding with cloning, Krauthammer writes, will mean crossing a "moral frontier." Allowing the creation of human embryos in order to use them and then destroy them will "enable further assaults on human dignity," Krauthammer explains. And he warns: "Violate the blastocyst today . . . and the practice will inure you to violating the fetus or even the infant tomorrow." ******* Christians need to learn how to make this kind of logical "secular argument." Contact us at BreakPoint (1-800-995-8777), and we'll send you a resource kit about cloning, including Krauthammer's superb column. ******* Ultimately, the cloning debate isn't about callousness versus compassion. It's about whether there are any limits in our pursuit of what people call "compassionate"-a pursuit that threatens, not just cloned embryos now, but in time, the weak and disabled and then all of us. ********************************************************************************************************************* ******* item 4 CULTURE & COSMOS/NEW YORK TIMES ADVERTISEMENTS POINT TO EUGENICS REVOLUTION ******* Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 14:34:03 -0700 ******* From: "Austin Ruse -- Culture of Life Foundation" ******* Dear Colleague, ******* Today we report on ads in the New York Times promising parents control over the sex of their babies. Can ads offering parents "designer" babies be far behind? Some scientists say such genetic manipulation of the species can -- and should -- be done. ******* Spread the word. ******* Yours sincerely, ******* Austin Ruse, President _____________________________________________________________________ ******* CULTURE & COSMOS ******* October 7, 2003 ******* Volume 1, Number 10 ******* Over the past few months, the New York Times has repeatedly printed advertisements for the Genetics and IVF Institute (GIVF), a Virginia-based clinic that promises parents the ability to choose the sex of their babies. This marks the first time that a eugenics procedure has been marketed openly in a mainstream American publication. ******* GIVF claims that its sperm-sorting sex-selection technique, called Microsort, is currently offered for two reasons, as a method of "balancing" the composition of a family's offspring, as well as to avoid conceiving babies with gender-linked diseases. GIVF charges $2,300 for its services. ******* However, some observers worry that the advertisements signal an increasingly widespread acceptance of eugenics, of efforts to improve the human race through breeding and genetic manipulation. In this regard, GIVF's website also allows customers to shop for human eggs based upon the race, eye and hair color, and education level of the donors, raising the prospect of a future of "designer babies." ******* In the United Kingdom, there have been recent reports that women carrying babies with Downs' syndrome, or even surgically-correctable defects, have been pressured by public health service doctors to abort their babies for the greater good of society. Bill Albert, of the Council of Disabled People, has said that we need to "�face up to what's going on and not say this is about choice, this as about elimination�You're talking about eradicating a whole section of the population-it's state-sanctified eugenics." ******* Some prominent scientists explicitly support eugenics-based sex selection and abortion of disabled individuals, as well as the redesigning of the human race. The Nobel laureate James Watson has said that, "If we could make better human beings by knowing how to add genes, why shouldn't we? What's wrong with it?" Lester Thurow, Professor of Economics and Management at M.I.T. agrees, saying, "Biotechnology is inevitably leading to a world in which�human beings are going to be partly man-made�Suppose parents could add 30 points to their children's IQ. Wouldn't you want to do it? And if you don't, your child will be the stupidest child in the neighborhood." Perhaps most troubling, Richard Lynn, a professor at the University of Ulster, has spoken in an interview about "phasing out" "incompetent" people, saying, "Evolutionary progress means the extinction of the less competent." In addition he says that "genetic improvement is likely to evolve spontaneously through the technique of embryo selection in which women will use IVF to grow a number of embryos, have them genetically assessed and will select for implantation those with genetically desirable qualities." ******* Even the long-discredited racial theories behind much of 20th century support for eugenics appear to be enjoying a resurgence. In a 2002 journal article, Lynn says that he "presents new evidence showing conclusively for the first time that lighter skinned blacks have higher IQs than darker skinned blacks. This supports the theory that the proportion of white ancestry is a determinant of the intelligence of African Americans." Lynn also states that "In 1991 I extended my work on race differences in intelligence to other races. I concluded that the average IQ of blacks in sub-Saharan Africa is approximately 70. It has long been known that the average IQ of blacks in the United States is approximately 85. The explanation for the higher IQ of American blacks is that they have about 25 per cent of Caucasian genes and a better environment." ******* Copyright - Culture of Life Foundation. Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required. ******* Culture of Life Foundation ******* 1413 K Street, NW, Suite 1000 ******* Washington DC 20005 ******* Phone: (202) 289-2500 ******* Fax: (202) 289-2502 ******* E-mail: [email protected] ******* Website: http://www.culture-of-life.org ********************************************************************************************************************* ******* item 5 EUROPE'S PROBLEM IS THAT IT'S BARREN ******* From: "Robert A Jason" ******* Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 08:00:51 -0500 ******* by Mark Steyn ******* Opinion.telegraph.co.uk ******* 'But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John." ******* If you're one of the increasing numbers of Britons who have "some problems with conventional organised religion" (as J K Rowling puts it), you've probably forgotten that bit from the Christmas story. It's Luke 1:13, part of what he'd have called the backstory, if he'd been a Hollywood screenwriter rather than a physician. ******* Only two of the gospels tell the story of Christ's birth. Mark plunges straight into the Son of God's grown-up life: he was writing for a Roman audience and, from their perspective, what's important is not where Jesus came from but what He did once He got going. But Matthew was writing for the Jews, and so he dwells on Jesus and His parents mainly to connect the King of the Jews with all that had gone before: he starts with a long family tree tracing Joseph's ancestry back to Abraham. ******* Like Mark, Luke was writing for a gentile crowd. But, like Matthew, he also dwelt on Jesus's birth and family. And he begins with the tale of two pregnancies: before Mary's virgin birth, he tells the story of her cousin Elisabeth: Zacharias is surprised to discover his impending fatherhood - "for I am an old man and my wife well stricken in years." None the less, an aged, barren woman conceives and, in the sixth month of Elisabeth's pregnancy, the angel visits her cousin Mary and tells her that she, too, will conceive. ******* If you read Luke, the virgin birth seems a logical extension of the earlier miracle - the pregnancy of an elderly lady. The physician-author had no difficulty accepting both. For Matthew, Jesus's birth is the miracle. Luke leaves you with the impression that all birth - all life - is to a degree miraculous and God-given. ******* There's a lot of that in the Old Testament, too, of course - going right back to Adam and Eve, and God's injunction to go forth and multiply. Or as Yip Harburg explained in his Biblical pr�cis in Finian's Rainbow: "Then she looked at him And he looked at her And they knew immediately What the world was fer. He said 'Give me my cane.' He said 'Give me my hat.' The time has come To begin the Begat." ******* Confronted with all the begetting in the Old Testament, the modern mind says, "Well, naturally, these primitive societies were concerned with children. They needed someone to provide for them in their old age." In our advanced society, we don't have to worry about that; we automatically have someone to provide for us in our old age: the state. ******* But the state - at least in its modern European welfare incarnation - needs children at least as much as those old-time Jews did. And the problem with the European state is that, like Elisabeth, it's barren. Collectively barren, I hasten to add. Individually, it's made up of millions of fertile women, who voluntarily opt for no children at all or one designer kid at 39. In Italy, the home of the Church, the birthrate's down to 1.2 children per couple - or about half "replacement rate". You can't buck that kind of arithmetic. ******* Israel's doing the numbers, too. If it doesn't unload the "occupied territories" soon, Palestinians will do their sums, quit asking for their own state, and instead demand a one-man-one-vote arrangement for the state they're already in. Last week, in a speech on the country's demographic difficulties, Binyamin Netanyahu conceded: "We do have a demographic problem, but it is with the Arab Israelis." ******* "The day is not far off," replied Ahmad Tibi, an Arab member of the Knesset, "when Netanyahu and his cohorts will put up roadblocks at the entrances to Arab villages to tie Arab women's tubes and spray us with spermicide." ******* Mr. Tibi is correct to this extent. The problem is not tying Arab tubes, but metaphorically untying Jewish tubes. It's remarkable that, having survived the Holocaust, the Jewish people should now be in danger of not surviving their survival of the Holocaust. ******* Demography is not necessarily destiny. Today's high Muslim birthrates will fall, and probably fall dramatically, as the Roman Catholic birthrates in Italy, Ireland and Quebec have. But demo-graphics is a game of last man standing. It's no consolation that Muslim birthrates will start falling in 2050 if yours are off the cliff right now. The last people around in any numbers will determine the kind of society we live in. ******* You can sort of feel that happening already. "Multiculturalism" implicitly accepts that, for a person of broadly Christian heritage, Christianity is an accessory, an option; whereas, for a person of Muslim background, Islam is a given. ******* That's why, as practised by Buckinghamshire County Council, multiculturalism means All Saints Church can't put up one sheet of A4 paper announcing tomorrow night's carol service on the High Wycombe library notice board, but, inside the library, Rehana Nazir, the "multicultural services librarian", can host a party to celebrate Eid. ******* To those of us watching from afar the ructions over the European constitution - a 1970s solution to a 1940s problem - it seems amazing that no Continental politician is willing to get to grips with the real crisis facing Europe in the 21st century: the lack of Europeans. If America believes in the separation of church and state, in radically secularist Europe the state is the church, as Jacques Chirac's edict on headscarves, crucifixes and skull caps made plain. Alas, it's an insufficient faith. ******* By contrast, if Christianity is merely a "myth", it's a perfectly constructed one, beginning with the decision to establish Christ's divinity in the miracle of His birth. The obligation to have children may be a lot of repressive Catholic mumbo-jumbo, but it's also highly rational. What's irrational is modern EUtopia's indifference to new life. ******* I recently had a conversation with an EU official who, apropos a controversial proposal to tout the Continent's religious heritage in the new constitution, kept using the phrase "Europe's post-Christian future". The evidence suggests that, once you reach the post-Christian stage, you don't have much of a future. Luke, a man of faith and a man of science, could have told them that. ********************************************************************************************************************* ******* item 6 PRIEST'S MEETING WITH POLITICIAN RESUTLS IN CHANGE OF HEART ON CLONING ******* Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 ******* From: "Austin Ruse -- Culture of Life Foundation" ******* Dear Colleague, ******* Today we report on the amazing things that can happen when a Church leader teaches a Catholic politican about the culture of life, and the politician courageously listens. ******* Spread the word. ******* Yours sincerely, ******* Austin Ruse, President, CULTURE & COSMOS ******* June 15, 2004 ******* Volume 1, Number 45 ******* A meeting in Louisiana between a Catholic state senator and a parish priest resulted in the lawmaker changing his position in time to cast a crucial vote against "therapeutic" cloning, the creation of cloned human beings to be used and destroyed in medical research. The lawmakers' openness to guidance stands in stark contrast to a number of prominent Catholic politicians who advocate policies on human cloning, abortion and stem-cell research that deviate from the Church's fundamental teaching on the duty to protect innocent human life, and yet still claim to be in full communion with the Church. ******* On May 17, the Louisiana Senate considered a bill that would have banned some types of cloning, but not therapeutic cloning. When an amendment to the bill was offered that would have also banned therapeutic cloning, Craig Romero, a Republican representing the 22nd state senatorial district, voted against it. ******* Father Bryce Sibley, who is pastor of St. Joseph Parish, a church located in Romero's district, learned of Romero's vote and took immediate action. He harnessed the political power of the Catholic laity, admonishing parishioners from the pulpit to inform Romero that they did not agree with his vote. ******* His parishioners took up the challenge, and after Romero's office had received numerous calls of complaint, Romero decided to contact Father Sibley to discuss the matter. Father Sibley told Culture & Cosmos that Romero "was confused on what therapeutic cloning really did. He told me that a bunch of doctors were brought in who said allowing such cloning would save children's lives and that he only wanted to help sick children." Father Sibley said he explained to Romero that such research, even if it were successful, would amount to killing one life to save another. "The senator said 'No one explained it to me. Now I understand.'" The meeting ended with Romero's assurance that when the senate took up the question again he would oppose all forms of human cloning. ******* On May 25, when the senate considered another bill that banned all types of cloning, Romero voted for it. More importantly, when an amendment was offered that would have allowed for therapeutic cloning Romero, true to his word, voted against it. The amendment failed by a margin of only two votes, making Romero's opposition essential. The legislation now awaits the signature of Gov. Kathleen Blanco, a Democrat who is also a Catholic, who has sent mixed signals regarding her position on the topic. ******* Father Sibley said his actions were a function of the teaching office entrusted to him by virtue of his ordination and his office as pastor. Addressing concerns about mixing Church and state, Father Sibley said, "Even though a priest is not to get directly involved in politics he has to be able to inform his people. We don't oppose therapeutic cloning primarily because the Church says so. It's natural law. I can explain it to anyone regardless of whether or not they believe in the Catholic Church." ******* The most important lesson Father Sibley said he gained from the episode was how easily it was to advance the culture of life "I was amazed to think that here I was, one little priest with a country parish in the middle of rural Louisiana, and we were able to turn around this vote. Think if we had more people in the Church being proactive on life issues." ******* Copyright---Culture of Life Foundation. Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required. ******* Culture of Life Foundation, 1413 K Street, NW, Suite 1000, Washington DC 20005 ******* Phone: (202) 289-2500 ******* Fax: (202) 289-2502 ******* E-mail: [email protected] ******* Website: http://www.culture-of-life.org ******************************************************************************************************** ******* item 7 UN APPROVES DECLARATION BANNING ALL HUMAN CLONING - PRESS RELEASE FROM UN PRO-LIFE AND PRO-FAMILY COALITION OF NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS ****** From: LifeSiteNews via [email protected] ******* Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 ******* The UN General Assembly adopted a Declaration today calling on nations to enact legislation to `'prohibit all forms of human cloning." By a vote of 84 to 34, the Declaration received more support in the General Assembly than when it passed in the 6th Committee two weeks ago. The measure sets an international standard that humans should not be created through cloning for any purpose, placing human life as a priority over scientific experimentation. ******* The decision ends over three years of deadlock caused by countries seeking approval for cloning research. Belgium, the United Kingdom, Singapore and other countries that hope to profit from cloning humans opposed a total ban, and declared they would defy the international moral agreement. ******* The topic was originally introduced at the UN by pro-cloning countries to gain implicit international approval for so-called "therapeutic cloning" (creating human clones to experiment upon and kill). In 2002, these countries requested that a treaty be drafted to ban only so-called "reproductive cloning." The countries insisted that human clones are for research only and should not be allowed to survive. ******* The pro-cloning countries lost support as Costa Rica took the lead, along with the U.S. and pro-life groups, to educate countries that cloning would violate the human rights of both cloned embryos and women. The embryos would be created and destroyed at the whim of scientists. Women would be treated as commodities to harvest their eggs. ******* Additionally, adult stem cells, the use of which is ethical, are already doing what cloning only promises by providing near-miraculous treatments for patients with a variety of illnesses, such as Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injury, heart failure, cancer and blindness. ******* The Declaration, introduced by Honduras, also calls on Member States to introduce measures to "prevent exploitation of women." Delegates from developing countries feared that women from poor countries would be targeted as a source for the large number of women's eggs that would be needed to support these "egg farms." The procedure by which eggs are extracted from these vulnerable women is painful and dangerous to their lives and health. ******* An additional 6 countries stated that they supported the Declaration but missed the vote. ******* The news was highly praised by pro-life groups internationally as a considerable breakthrough, uniting the international community incondemning human cloning as exploitative and unethical. ******* For more information contact: ******* Wendy Wright, Concerned Women for America (http://www.cwfa.org) 202-497-9590 ******* Lea Sevick, C-FAM (http://www.c-fam.org) 201-407-0826 ******* Thomas Jacobson, Focus on the Family (http://www.famiy.org) 719-651-3366 ******* Samantha Singson, Campaign Life Coalition - Canada 416-576-1494 ******* Jeanne Head, UN Representative for National Right to Life at 212-741-2681 or 917-660-3136 ******* (c) Copyright: LifeSiteNews.com, a production of Interim Publishing. Permission to republish granted but acknowledgement of source (use LifeSiteNews.com) is *REQUIRED* ******* Comments, questions, or news tips: [email protected] ******* Search LifeSite - http://www.lifesitenews.com/search/ ******* Subscribe - http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/subscribe/ ******* Subscribe friends - http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/subscribe/gift/ ******* Donate to LifeSiteNews.com at http://www.lifesitenews.com/contribute/ ******************************************************************************************************** ******* item 8 PRO FAMILY GROUP, SCIENTISTS APPLAUD UN CLONING BAN ******* from Catholic News Agency ******* date March 8, 2005 ******* NEW YORK CITY, March 8, 2005 (CNA) � In a statement today, Concerned Women for America (CWA) praised a United Nations declaration, passed this morning, which condemns all forms of human cloning. 84 countries, including the U.S. voted in support of the declaration, which calls the practice of human cloning �incompatible with human dignity and the protection of human life." ******* A reported 34 countries voted against the resolution while 37 countries abstained. ******* The Declaration was initiated by delegates from Honduras who also called on nations to �prevent the exploitation of women?, citing that the act of cloning requires the harvesting of eggs from women. ******* Cindy Wright, CWA�s senior policy director commented that, "This Declaration sets an international standard that places human dignity and life as a priority. Even scientists should be bound by ethics." ******* According to CWA, many delegates, especially those from poor or developing countries �expressed concern that poor women would be targeted to extract the vast numbers of eggs that would be needed, inevitably inflicting painful, dangerous and invasive procedures on vulnerable women.? ******* The declaration ends nearly three years of heated U.N. deadlock on the issue. ******* Wright added that, "Belgium, the United Kingdom, Singapore and other countries that hope to profit from cloning humans refused to agree to ban all forms of cloning?, but that �these pro-cloning countries lost support as other countries became aware it would violate the human rights of cloned embryos? as well as women who would be used to harvest the eggs required. ******* CWA added that the declaration includes a proposal �calling for wealthier nations to direct attention and funding to pressing medical issues such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.? ******* It also condemns all applications of any genetic engineering techniques that threaten human dignity?. ******* Meanwhile, noted scientists and ethicists gathered for the "Global State of Stem Cells and Cloning" conference in Rome broke into spontaneous applause at the announcement that the UN passed a political declaration banning human cloning by a nearly three-to-one margin (84 for; 34 against; 37 abstentions). ******* Two members of the President's Council on Bioethics attending the conference in Rome praised the decision. ******* Dr. Alfonso Gomez- Lobo of Georgetown University said, "I am very happy to hear the outcome of this vote because it seems to me that human cloning would be passing a barrier that would be detrimental for humanity because in the name of our imposing a genome on other human beings we would be violating their dignity." ******* Council member and Stanford professor Dr. William Hurlbut also approved the vote. "I applaud this important declaration. These are truly species issues. We need a global standard on which to ground our biotechnology -- one that respects human dignity and opens positive prospects of scientific developments," he said. ******* Noted author and ethicist Wesley J. Smith said, "The UN has powerfully demonstrated that naked science is not the be-all and end-all of the pursuit of human progress. Morality matters too. The task for us now is to work together as a world community to develop a thriving and moral biotechnology sector that both alleviates human suffering and remains within proper ethical boundaries." *********************************************************************************************************

Links to other sites on the Web

(A4c4a1c) Culture of Life Foundation
(A4c4a1d) Lifesite News
(A4c4a1f) (A) home page

The following warning is a prophetic message given to me, Frank Wagner, in November of 1974. ******* LISTEN TO THE CRY OF THE ABORTED CHILDREN. THEIR CRY IS NO. THEIR CRY IS A CRY OF TERROR. HEED THEIR CRY. ******* This prophecy is now being fulfilled. ******* For details about the source, meaning and fulfillment of this prophetic message go to ******* http://ca.geocities.com/fwagner4/index.html ******* email me at *** [email protected] ***