Skip to Content, Navigation, or Footer.

Cloning prohibition shows respect for life

In a decision that dealt with medical, theological and ethical issues, the House of Representatives yesterday not only banned research into human cloning but also prohibited the use in this country of any medical procedures developed from cloning research.

With a vote of 265 to 162, it was a clear and deliberate bipartisan move that shows our representatives are not about to tread into the troubled waters of human cloning. It is a large and difficult issue to deal with, and cloning can be tackled only superficially here. But it does not take much understanding to realize that the replication of life in an alien environment through inhuman methods is wrong.

As one of the chief sponsors of the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001, Rep. Dave Weldon, a Florida Republican, accurately told The New York Times: "It clearly sends a message that there is a place we don't want to go, and that is the manufacture of scientific embryos for research."

Fortunately, a majority of our elected representatives feel the same way. One hopes the Senate will also see the inherent wrongs in treating human life as a product to be mass produced.

This decision has further political implications, as it somewhat muddies the waters in the discussion of stem-cell research. That issue, however, can be viewed as distinct from cloning. The ban put forth by the House may in fact give some conservative leaders the means to bend their stance on stem-cell research.

Supporting limits into scientific inquiry is a troubling policy to say the least. Some could argue that a ban here could lead to other roadblocks in less ethically troubling areas that are subject to political agendas. But regarding the issue of human cloning, one has to argue that a line must be drawn. We must continue to hold dear the thought of academic freedom, but we cannot let that freedom threaten the sanctity of human life.

Supporters of the research claim that human cloning will be beneficial to those with serious and chronic diseases. One would be heartless to advocate a prohibition on cloning without acknowledging that any loss in research toward curing such diseases would be a sad loss indeed. But the thought of what could in fact be realized through cloning is more frightening by far than the slim chances of disease-curing research. It is a tough choice to make, and no easier when one takes into account that we are arguing over the very building blocks of life, but we have to make the right choice in this nation to protect that life.

There are areas in which only a thin line based on the law of morality is left to safeguard life, such as in work on embryonic cells. And if not reigned in, scientific progress will invariably cross that line without slowing down or looking back.

Amazon Pool is an old-fashioned summer success

In matters closer to home, it is with sincere pleasure that one can see the Amazon Pool has become a sure-fire success.

Anyone living near the pool can attest to the fact that from its early opening hours in the morning to when it closes late in the evening, the pool is packed with people of all ages swimming laps or doing flips from the high dive. And if one happened to be driving along Hilyard Street last Sunday when it was pretty close to pouring, he or she would have had the amusement or astonishment of seeing both children and adults swimming in the rain.

From those lounging in the sun, lining up at the snack bar or playing in the water fountains, it is easy to see that those in Eugene love their new public pool.

At the risk of sounding a little sappy, Eugene should be looking into more community recreational areas that everyone can enjoy. It keeps adolescents out of trouble and lets older children regain some of that young enthusiasm that is so often branded as "uncool."

One can only hope that the pool's open hours will be extended into the fall so that those who may not be able to go swimming this summer can get the chance later on in the year.


This editorial represents the views of the Emerald editor in chief and does not necessarily represent the views of the Oregon Daily Emerald.

Copyright Oregon Daily Emerald


Similar Posts