An Oasis

Proposed UN Human Cloning Ban

The FT reports that a Move to ban human cloning is likely to divide UN.

A draft text sponsored by Costa Rica, the US and almost 60 other countries have sponsored a resolution which calls for a convention against human cloning to be prepared by next year and calls on states to prohibit the research, development or application of any technique aimed at human cloning.

The UK, Belgium, Japan, China and others (over 20 co-sponsors) have sponsored a counter resolution calling for a ban on human reproductive cloning but allowing therapeutic cloning for medical research.

Advocates for the counter-proposal, which has more than 20 co-sponsors, say their text reflects nations' right to determine for themselves where the boundaries lie. The UK argues that cloning early embryos for research could bring significant benefits to human society and does not violate the sanctity of life.

US officials say they cannot accept a resolution allowing activity in a field the Bush administration believes is universally unacceptable. "It's important for the international community, even with a divided voice, but a strong voice, to send a message that cloning will not be tolerated," said one.

The proposed resolution deems human cloning (reproductive or therapeutic) to be "unethical, morally repugnant and contrary to due respect for the human person". General Assembly resolutions are not binding on member states.

I'm wondering what puts Costa Rica the US and others in the position of telling anybody what is "unethical, morally repugnant and contrary to due respect for the human person".

Everyday legislation is made which assumes one moral position or another to be right and others which by that virtue are thus wrong. The sentiment which says, "Yeah, let us get together a convention which bans/condemns human reproductive cloning" is one that I find easy to agree with at the present time when (in my extremely limited knowledge of this area) there appears too much risk to the human which is created. The simplistic arguments against therapeutic cloning which follow similar lines are specious; there being in my view no harm inflicted on any person by conducting research on early stage embryo's.

If you believe that life begins at conception then it will follow that therapeutic cloning might be distateful to you. If however you believe that life begins at a later stage, perhaps post-implantation, then therapeutic cloning ought to present no such problem.

The General Assembly, wise and powerful as they may otherwise be, would be foolhardy to resolve one way or the other and should resist pressure which is founded on religous doctrine and conservative ignorance.

Posted by Paul at October 29, 2003 02:23 AM |