- Text smaller
- Text bigger
Another Bill O’Reilly, Mel Gibson, Joseph Farah and my husband. Hmmm, that could work. To produce a genetic twin of these guys in the process known as human cloning would actually be great. Other than that, human cloning should be banned.
Just think of it. You could have “The Factor” live on two networks! While one Bill O’Reilly prods and pokes Alan Greenspan and the Fed, the other one could launch an all-out effort to bait Jesse Jackson into appearing on “The Factor” to answer those lingering questions about Jackson’s apparently illegal fund-raising/tax-evasion activities. But the climax would come when the original Bill O’Reilly interviews Bill O’Reilly the clone. Talk about fireworks! I wonder which one of them would get the “last word”?
And do I really need to say why a Mel Gibson clone would be OK? Come on now, with his “machismo,” valor, commitment to family values and great looks? The women of the world should be so blessed.
Of course, Joseph Farah would have to be cloned too. Besides the fact that he’s my boss and he’d be insulted if I didn’t demand a clone of him, he is a brilliant journalist making a difference in the world. Why, can you imagine two WorldNetDaily.coms? Instead of ripping Americans off everyday, the government would be on its knees paying daily homage to the newssites! If there were two Joseph Farahs, they would be able to accept all the speaking invitations my office receives, and I wouldn’t have so many people mad at me. Israel would be safe (have you read his columns on “Myths of the Middle East”?), politicians would behave and I might even get a raise.
Two of my husband would be a dream come true. One hubby could split his time between our boys leading the Boy Scouts on endless activities, and taking our daughter on “dates.” The other hubby would spend all of his time with … me!
Gosh, as great as all the above sounds, I’m starting to feel a little creepy thinking about it. As much as I admire and love the aforementioned males for different reasons, I’m beginning to have second thoughts about second versions of even them. Cloning Dolly the sheep is one thing, but cloning even the best of men is another.
This week, when the U.S. Congress is expected to consider “The Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001” (H.R. 2505), the opponents of the legislation, and those who advocate embryonic stem cell research, won’t be talking about cloning great men like Bill O’Reilly, Mel Gibson, Joseph Farah and my husband. Their marketing tactic is to advocate human cloning for such “noble” purposes as research – research aimed at ending pain and suffering for children and adults with incurable diseases. The “spin” they use is “religion vs. science” as they try to sell the lie that the two are incompatible. Their PR goal is to make their opponents look stupid. They want to make the public believe that if your faith dictates
that a human is a human, regardless of age, then you must be a heartless, scientific stooge. But don’t let them fool you.
Science is defined as “knowledge of facts.” The best science relies upon the Creator of the universe for direction in seeking the revelation of those facts, and for guidance in how to use them. Without such moral absolutes the value of individual human beings is determined only by expediency. Historically, when men define some classes of human beings as more valuable than others, terror eventually reigns. Take the Holocaust, for instance, or slavery. Commonly accepted, but no less evil, is the current classification of preborn children as something less than human – this, of course, is so we can abort them at will. Now the proponents of abortion actually want the world to think it is noble to sacrifice the very young preborn for the sake of others.
If we accept their argument that it is an act of beautiful humanity to sacrifice young embryos for sick people, where will it end? Will it eventually become acceptable to sacrifice 6-month pre-born babies, or 8-month pre-born babies to enhance the lives of, say, 10-year olds? Will we proclaim that newborns have less value than adults? Are we not in danger of establishing grounds for preferring entire classifications of humans such as the young, the healthy and the intelligent over the elderly, the handicapped and the mentally challenged?
In addition to trying to make it a “science vs. religion,” argument, those in favor of killing humans very young in their development lie about the facts. They don’t tell you that adult stem cells have already successfully been used to treat patients with leukemia and sickle cell anemia. They neglect to inform you that the NIH admits that embryonic stem cells can be extracted without killing the embryo.
So why the intense marketing effort to make opponents of cloning and death-causing embryonic stem cell research look stupid? Why the cover-up of the real success stories? There are two reasons: greed and selfish convenience. First, researchers know that it is less costly for them to kill a human embryo for its stem cells than it is to save the embryo or
extract the stem cells from living adults. For them, it all boils down to the almighty dollar.
Secondly, pro-abortionists know that if they succeed in convincing people to mentally and legally strip away the humanity of the human embryo for the sake of science and research, then they have won the entire argument that the preborn have no real intrinsic rights. If an embryo is not entitled to the same protection afforded to those who are born, then all preborn humans have successfully been defined as human tissue instead of a unique human individual. The pro-abortionists know that if they win on this front, they have won the abortion debate completely. The act of killing one’s own young has always been based on a selfish and convenient definition of human life. Supporting the right to sacrifice our young for the sake of science and research further propagates this dreadful evil.
A clever sounding substitute bill expected to be offered to HR 2505 would allow for cloning of a human being when it’s used for research, but prohibits the clone from being implanted. Although this sounds reasonable to some on the surface, it is deadly. This logic can best be described as a “clone-and-kill” approach, and amounts to nothing more than federally mandated destruction of human life. It would enable scientists to create a human clone, but also order that every one, and everyone, created be destroyed. The clones created and killed in the lab won’t have names we recognize, but they will, nonetheless, be real people.
The fight goes way beyond the battle for or against federal funding for cloning and embryonic research. One private Massachusetts biotechnology company is already deep into experimenting with creating human embryo clones for their stem cells. Others claim they will be able to create human clones for live births within two years. We need to stop these
companies’ efforts dead in their tracks.
As much as I hate passing law after law, the fact is that we need a national comprehensive and complete ban on human cloning. HR 2505 is the legislation that will do just that.
Human cloning for any reason at any time is plain wrong (if not crazy).
The perfect race, the perfect human being will never exist because all of mankind is inherently flawed. The point is simple: Scientists and researchers should work every day to combat diseases and make our lives better, but they should never be given license to kill one human life in order to improve another.