Marijuana.com

Niteshift

This week, the UN General Assembly passed a non-binding resolution calling for a ban on ALL human cloning. This would also ban embryonic stem cell research.

No, The US was NOT the one who introduced it. The resolution was introduced by Honduras.

The resolution passed by a vote of 84 to 34. 37 countries abstained from voting.

Among the countries voting FOR the resolution: Australia, Austria, Chile, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Poland, Portugal, Switzerland and the US.

Those voting AGAINST it included: Belgium, Canada, China, Cuba, North Korea, South Korea, Japan, UK, France and Spain.

Interesting to me was that 18 of the 37 countries that abstained are members of the Islamic Conference.

Here is a link to the resolution and a list of each countries vote:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/ga10333.doc.htm

__________________
A burning desire for social justice is never a substitute for knowing what you're talking about. -Thomas Sowell

Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is muzzle flash.

 

DonkeyPunch

To ban all human cloning is to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning are 2 different things, and I don't think people realize that therapeutic cloning is used successfully in a lot of medical situations already. We already use cloning techniques to create things like human insulin, HGH, treatments for kidney dialysis, hepatitis treatments, and human skin for skin grafts. All this would fall under the category of human cloning.

I don't believe that most people fully realize just how widespread the uses for cloning and DNA cloning and the like really are, or could be. While I don't believe everyone would change if they realized what therapeutic cloning entails, I do think a lot of people would rethink their positions. I sure did. One of my old high school teachers had a sizeable skin graft done, and through an experimental procedure, the skin he received was his own, which help him heal much faster and reduced complications substantially. Ban cloning, and he is still recovering, hoping for a result that probably could not equal the result that was produced.

Now, with that said, I hesitate to put much stock in non-binding UN resolutions, because it seems that even their binding resolutions no longer hold any weight...

__________________
Posting Guidelines

Niteshift

I didn't read it as a ban on therapeutic cloning, but it would be on reproductive cloning.

What the basis of it came down to was that the countries who voted for the ban believed that life begins at conception.


What I found as interesting as the actual topic was the mix of countries that voted for and against. There was no rhyme or reason to it. I was frankly surprised to see that Germany, Austria and Switzerland voted for it, as well as being surprised to see India and Spain vote against it.

DonkeyPunch

As written, it does not differentiate between the 2. Therapeutic cloning does indeed fall under "human cloning", whether that was the intent or not.

Niteshift

There is a wording problem in it. You're right, it should have been more clear.

If you read the link, where some of the countries expound on their votes, that difference was the major reason cited by those who voted against it.


Which brings up the next point..........take those who voted for the resolution, then add those who said they'd vote FOR it if it covered only reproductive cloning and the ones who said they'd have voted for it had they been there.............and you have a clear majority of the worlds governments opposing embryonic stem cell research.

 

DonkeyPunch

No so. Embryonic stem cell research is under the umbrella of therapeutic cloning, not reproductive. Reproductive refers to the cloning of a full human, no more. Embryonic stem cell research could be called regenerative, but not reproductive. The distinction drawn between therapeutic and reproductive cloning has nothing to do with the initial cloning procedure, but with what is done with the embryo. England (or Great Britain, I never know which term to use) has a ban on reproductive cloning already, but embryonic stem cell research is fine, with restrictions on the age of the embryo, IIRC. Your conclusion here is incorrect because of the misuse of the term "reproductive."

Niteshift

Your conclusion here is incorrect because of the misuse of the term "reproductive."

How could it be incorrect? The majority voted FOR the resolution. If you add the ones who opposed it and the ones who adstained together, they are still in the minority.

But you are correct, I'm confusing the terms again.........but the outcome didn';t change.

DonkeyPunch

My turn to mis-speak. What I meant was that how you got to your conclusion in the quote above is wrong, because those against only reproductive cloning would not be included in the group opposing emb. stem cell research. As far as a clear majority goes, however, that's not quite correct either. The UN has 190+ member states. 84 voted for the declaration. More than 95+ members (at least) would have to agree to get to a clear majority, and I just don't see that here. So, I guess I did mean that your conclusion is incorrect. You could say that a majority of world governments that voted on this declaration are against ESSR (not writing it out again...), but the way you have it stated above is not supported by the evidence here.

Niteshift

We could presume that the Islamic countries would opppose cloning since it clearly violates the tenants of Islam, but the Organization of the Islamic Conference decided to advise members to abstain and many did. No islamic country voted against it and those who did vote supported it. So it's not a wild assumption.

Nigeria was not present, but siad they support the measure. Russia also said they would have supported it. Antigua and Barbuda, Kyrgyzstan and Libya support it.

That's 89 that either voted for it or said they would have if they'd been there. If the 18 abstaining Muslim counties voted for it, that would make 107, well over half the 191 members.

DonkeyPunch