Thanks to all who answered my question yesterday: What do you think cloning is? I asked for simple and technical definitions.
Cameron, our resident doctorate biology major, answered: “Asexual propagation. Recent attempts at animal cloning have been described as identical twins born years apart.”
SH answered: “‘[Y]ou are genetically copying a life form, so the end result is a life form identical to the original.”
Heather4life answered: “Duplication.”
Jasper answered: “[T]o produce an exact copy of.”
SamanthaT answered: “[T]he process of replicating genomic material from one organism for the purpose of reproducing that organism in whole or in part.”
John M. answered: “[T]he popular (media) view is that a duplication takes place… a kind of living photocopy. The reality in science is somewhat different: each cell has a nucleus with DNA surrounded by a full-gel. Cloning then is the separation of these two… plunk in a DNA of choice and voila a clone.”
All good. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think all would agree with Wikipedia’s definition:
Human cloning is the creation of a genetically identical copy of an existing, or previously existing, human being or clone tissue from that individual. The term is generally used to refer to artificial human cloning; human clones in the form of identical twins are commonplace, with their cloning occurring during the natural process of reproduction….
The most successful common cloning technique in non-human mammals is the process which produced Dolly the sheep…. The process is as follows: an egg cell taken from a donor has its nucleus removed. Another cell with the genetic material to be cloned is fused with the original egg cell. In theory, this process, known as somatic cell nuclear transfer, could be applied to human beings.
Our understanding of cloning becomes important today.
Because today, pro-death CO Democrat Congresswoman Diana DeGette is expected to introduce the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2007 on the floor of the U.S. House.
Will it be that? No. It is a sham, a phony, a lie.
In fact and incredibly, DeGette’s “ban” actually authorizes human cloning experimentation. It is a clone-and-kill bill that parses by allowing human cloning for scientific experimentation but not for implantation in uteruses.
How so? DeGette has simply changed the definition of human cloning to suit her purposes.
Here is DeGette’s definition of cloning:
(a) In General. – It shall be unlawful for any person -
(1) to perform or attempt to perform human cloning….
(b) Definitions. – For purposes of this section:
(1) The term ‘human cloning’ means the implantation of the product of human somatic cell nuclear transfer technology into a uterus or the functional equivalent of a uterus.
(2) The term ‘human somatic cell nuclear transfer technology’ means transferring the nuclear material of a human somantic cell into an egg cell from which the nuclear material has been removed or rendered inert.
Of the 70+ comments received yesterday in response to my question, everyone basically agreed with the scientific definition of cloning, as explained in layperson’s terms by Wikipedia.
Is it acceptable to you that politicians in bed with the biotech industry change the definition? Why do they have to? Why the cover-up? Why not just say out loud what they want?