Rayilyn's post:
<Dear Frank, or the person to whom I am speaking,

You obviously have very stong feelings about something too.  You have
misstated and misinterpreted my remarks several times, but that is what
happens when a person says anything.  Many people agree with you.

Why don't you be the voice of reason and submit an article in support of
therapeutic cloning that does the job my article failed to do?  We need to
work together on this if you support SCNT and SB 2439.

It doesn't sound to me like you haven't made up your mind, but I may be
misunderstanding your intentions as you have mine.  With the exception of
"flat-earth thinkers", you've never addressed any of the issues I tried to
discuss for SB 2439 regarding ----

(1) when a "life" begins.  Cells do seem to have lives of their own.  Don't
some continue to grow for awhile after you die?  Cancer cells are "immortal"
and blastocysts MIGHT become a person, but do they have the same status as a
child with cystic fibrosis or a young adult with ALS and civil rights
protected by the 14th Amendment like us Parkies with our limited supply of
dopamine producing brain cells?  What is the relationship of cells to our
"selves"?

WHOSE LIFE AM I TAKING IF I USE MY OWN DNA TO CURE MYSELF?

(2) fear of clones or the misuse of medical technolgies to produce malformed
monstrosities for exploitation which might outweigh the good done by medical
science.  The so-called "slippery slope"?  What might be versus, what is.

(3) religious prohibitions or moral objections to this therapy?

(4) other objections???

Help me out here, man, I have another column to write.  What arguments of the
opponents of SB 2439 do I need to address?  Don't make me guess.  I can think
of more in favor of it, but I'm limited to about 600 words. I welcome ideas
from anyone on this List. However, my Editor may not print mine or yours, you
just never know.>

Rayilyn,

       I am very late in my participation to this thread, and I seem to have
missed/deleted your original newspaper column without reading it.  I would
appreciate it if you would send me a copy of it off the list.  (Without
reading your column) I thought Frank's first posting was reasonable, and I
did not perceive it to be an attack on you.  His second posting clarified his
position, but it was, I thought, a little over the top.   But, Rayilyn, you
should be congratulated on how you have handled, and apparently resolved,
this controversy.  Your second paragraph in this posting is a beacon of
reason, and inspiration, to all of us--we need to stop fighting and to start
working together to achieve common goals.  If we dont't have common goals and
common opinions, and we clearly don't in the areas of abortion, stem cells,
and  the beginning of life--and even in regard to Sl899-- then we do need,
according to Frank, to stop the namecalling and start listening and
respecting the opinions of others.

       In regard to your questions about the beginning of life in (1), you
are confusing the legal issues with the medical/scientific issues and the
moral/ethical issues.  The legal issues you raise go back to the U.S. Supreme
Court decision in l973 and the Roe v Wade decision on abortion.  A foetus is
not a person, and does not have any legal rights, such as the protection of
civil rights laws, until birth.  The tri-semester structure for the
availability of abortions in Roe v Wade implicitly recognizes that "rights"
attach to the foetus as it becomes viable and closer to birth.  This means
that the woman is legally able to make the decision to abort the foetus,
without regulation or restriction by the government, in the first trimester,
but usually not in the second trimester and definitely not in the third
trimester.  This also means legally that the embryo, the blastocyst, as the
foetus, or the predecessor of the foetus, also has no independent legal
rights.  The legal issues that involve the embryo or blastocyst have to do
with ownership issues under state property and contract law and the
licensing/ownership issues under federal patent law.  This is the basic legal
framework; it is based upon medical/scientific information and issues,
particularly the arguably now out-of-date medical/scientific information
available when Roe v Wade was decided in 1973.  This legal framework does not
address the basic moral/ethical questions we have to confront and then answer
when determining for ourselves when life begins and what our individual
positions will be in regard to cloning, stem cell research, somatic cell
nuclear transplantation, etc.

       The Right-to-Life Movement has been chipping away at Roe v Wade for
years, but it has not been able to get the Supreme Court to change its ruling
that a foetus is not a legal person.  Roe v Wade implies legally that life
begins at the time of quickening, at the time of viablity.  The Right-to-Life
Movement and various religious groups define the beginning of life at a much
earlier point in time: I have read arguments that most forms of birth control
interfere with the normal reproductive (life) process.  The focus to define
the beginning of life on a religious or ethical/moral basis has now shifted
in the legal/political arena from abortions to stem cells and cloning.

       The process of human cloning according to the definition in S1899
produces "a living organism (at any stage of development)..."  S1899 uses the
power of the federal government, under the Interstate Commerce Clause of the
U.S. Constitution, to ban the performance of human cloning; the shipping or
receipt in interstate commerce of a cloned embryo, or product thereof; or the
importation of a cloned embryo, or product thereof.  For instance this bill
would prohibit the University of Wisconsin from selling its stem cell lines
across state lines.  It would also prohibit a person from receiving stem cell
treatment which is definable as human cloning or a product thereof.  If the
UK or Australia or India or China were successful in developing a stem cell
treatment, which was definable as human cloning or a product thereof,  the
importation of that treatment into the United States would also be
prohibited.

       As for the penalties, the $1,000,000 penalty is a civil penalty and it
is probably directed at the drug companies and the medical people who would
find it economical, on a cost-benefit analysis, to violate the law.  The
penalty only applies if a person or entity receives "pecuniary gain," money,
from violating the law.  The fine is a flat $1,000,000 until the gain goes
over the $1,000,000, and then the fine is double the amount of the gain.  If
the gain is $500,000, then the fine is $1,000,000; if the gain is $1,500,000,
the fine is $3,000,000.  As an individual it is far more important to note
the criminal penalty of a fine and/or a maximum of ten years prison time.
The federal government has sentencing guidelines which are intended to take
the discretion at the time of  sentencing away from the judges and which
usually results in more prison time than the person would get on a comparable
charge at the state level.  The person, who provides the banned human cloning
treatment, imports it, or ships it, is probably looking at prison time
whereas the person who received the treatment probably is not.  Probably: it
all depends upon how the law is enforced, how fervant the religious and right
-to-life groups are in your jurisdiction, if the bill is passed.

       The bill has some very interesting legal loopholes, particularly a
section which exempts other "use[s] of nuclear transfer or other cloning
techniques."  Of course the bill is intended to be as broad as possible, to
cover the introduction of human somatic cells into both fertilized and
unfertilized eggs and to cover every byproduct or manifestation of human
cloning as defined.  I could use the assistance of a biologist, or stem cell
specialist, to wade through these definitions and the exemption, but I think
the right-to-life issue and the moral/ethical issues come in because the
process of human cloning produces the blastocyst, the "living organism,"
which first is produced in the controversial cloning process and secondly the
character of the blastocyst is changed from embryo cells into other cells as
a result of the transplantation and not allowed to develop into the living
(cloned) organism.

       Caveat:  I am only pointing out legal issues/framework which I think
are important to the understanding and the discussion of this bill.  My
scientific background is weak although I have faithfully skim-read Murray's
stem cell and cloning articles.  I am NOT addressing any moral/ethical
issues. Katie


.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn