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