**[Cloning Fact Sheet]{.underline}**

# Congressman Joe Pitts

**Summary:**

> The cloning of any human being is morally and ethically wrong. Cloning
> humans for any reason, including birth or harmful research, should be
> opposed. Cloning of DNA or cells or anything else that does not create
> a new human life is acceptable.

**Status:**

> Two groups are working on cloning human beings for live birth. One
> group, in Cypress, claims it will be able to do so within the next 18
> to 24 months. Advanced Cell Technology in the U.S. is pursuing human
> cloning as a way to make embryos to use in destructive experiments.

H.R. 2505, that would truly stop human cloning in the United States,
passed the House 265-162 on July 31, and a companion bill, S. 790, is
awaiting action in the Senate.

**[The Countdown is Short]{.underline}**

**Scientist Says First Human Clone Is Near**

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011005/hl/clone_1.html

Dr. Panayiotis Zavos, who along with his Italian colleague Dr. Severino
Antinori has triggered worldwide alarm with plans to create tailor-made
offspring, said research was going faster than initially expected.

\`\`It is going well enough so we may attempt the first production of
embryos\--cloned embryos\--in the very near future. That is, 3 or 4
months from now,\'\' Cypriot-born Zavos told Reuters in an interview on
Friday.

**Clone pregnancy \'this year\'**

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1617000/1617877.stm

\"I think in three or four months there is the first pregnancy,\"
Severino Antinori told BBC Radio 4\'s Frontiers programme. Asked whether
he would have cloned a human by September 2002, Dr Antinori said: \"I
hope and I believe.\"

**Another cloning first: This time, a monkey**

http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/2000/01/14/p3s1.htm

The birth of a cloned rhesus monkey named Tetra, announced today, raises
new questions about humans\' ability to manipulate the earliest stages
of life, and pushes even further the progress toward the eventual
cloning of a human being.

**[Objections to Human Cloning]{.underline}**

-   Cloning of humans would require the prolific creation and
    destruction of human life in order to finally create a fully
    developed human clone. New humans would be created and destroyed in
    massive numbers for scientific research. Even many proponents of
    embryonic stem cell research have not advocated for the creation of
    new human embryos solely for research.

-   Human cloning represents a degree of power and control over the
    physical identity of other persons that violates their rights and
    demeans their unique individuality.

-   Cloning would make human life a commodity, created to preset
    specifications, thereby lessening respect for the value of human
    life.

-   Cloning humans would create a new category of biological
    relationship that presents serious personal, familial and societal
    difficulties. Who would be the \"parents\" of cloned humans? Who
    would be legally and morally responsible for them?

**[Definition]{.underline}**

Cloning is a way of producing a genetic twin of an organism, without
sexual reproduction. The method used to produce Dolly the sheep is
called \"somatic cell nuclear transfer\": the nucleus of a body cell
(\"somatic cell\") is transferred into an unfertilized egg whose nucleus
has been removed or rendered inactive. A tiny electric pulse may then
stimulate development of the resulting embryo, which is an almost exact
genetic twin of the creature that supplied the nucleus.

**Two Opposite Approaches to Banning Human Cloning**

**[True Ban on Human Cloning (H.R. 2505 Weldon/S. 790
Brownback)]{.underline}**

This approach would prohibit using the cloning technique to create a new
human life. Cloning of DNA and cells and anything else that does not
create a new living human organism would be acceptable under this
approach.

**[Ban on Implantation of Cloned Humans (H.R. 2172
Greenwood)]{.underline}**

This approach would allow the cloning technique to be used to create
human life for the purpose of destroying that life in research. The only
requirement would be that the cloned human is not allowed to be
implanted in a uterus. This approach has been called \"Clone and Kill\"
because it would allow human life to be created and manipulated as long
as science can support it, just so the life is destroyed before
implantation.

**This approach would for the first time allow the creation of human
life while making it a federal offense to let that life continue.** Even
proponents of Embryo-Destroying Stem Cell Research, including the
National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) did not favor specially
creating embryos for research; they argued that only embryos created by
In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF) and originally intended for reproduction
should be used:

*Recommendation 3: ES Cells from Embryos Made Solely for Research
Purposes Using IVF*

Federal agencies should not fund research involving the derivation or
use of human ES cells from embryos **made solely for research purposes**
using IVF.

The primary objection to creating embryos specifically for research is
that **there is a morally relevant difference between generating an
embryo for the sole purpose of creating a child and producing an embryo
with no such goal.** Those who object to creating embryos for research
often appeal to arguments about respecting human dignity by avoiding
instrumental use of human embryos (i.e., using embryos merely as a means
to some other goal does not treat them with appropriate respect or
concern as a form of human life).

(National Bioethics Advisory Commission September 1999 Report -
\"Ethical Issues in Human Stem-Cell Research\")

Endorsing the creation of human life solely for the purpose of
destroying it would be a new step backward in the protection of human
life.

This approach would also be completely unenforceable. Once cloned embryo
farms are created, it will be impossible to control whether or not any
of those embryos are implanted for live birth.

**[Abortion and Roe v. Wade]{.underline}**

This is an issue of protecting human life and respecting human nature.
Some would want to make this into an abortion issue, but it is not.
Since cloning happens outside the body, [Roe v. Wade]{.underline} does
not come into play. In fact, those who want to draw the line at banning
the implantation of clones are the ones most likely to run afoul of [Roe
v. Wade]{.underline}. What would the remedy be for someone who broke the
law by implanting a cloned human being? Would the law require an
abortion? By contrast, at least ten states restrict or prohibit harmful
experiments on embryos in the laboratory without infringing on [Roe v.
Wade]{.underline}.

**[Destroying human embryos for stem cell research]{.underline}**

Destroying human embryos for research is reprehensible, but neither
approach to banning human cloning would address the issue of federal
funding for embryo-destroying stem cell research. The current stem cell
debate is over whether or not human IVF embryos can be destroyed for
research; the cloning debate is over whether or not new human life can
be created for the purpose of scientific tests and then destroyed by
government mandate.

**[Dolly was Number 277]{.underline}**

To produce one live sheep, \"Dolly,\" scientists created 277 sheep
embryos; 276 died in different stages of development or were discarded.
Experiments in human cloning would involve the creation and destruction
of human life, at many stages, on a massive scale. Human lives are not
acceptable scientific guinea pigs; a mistake making a human clone is not
the same as a mistake copying an article at the copy machine.

**[Poll - (Time/CNN, February 7-8, 2001)]{.underline}**

ABC News/Beliefnet, August 8-12, 2001. \"Should it be legal in the U.S.
to clone humans?\" Yes, 11%. No, 87% (men 16/82, women 6/93). \"Clone
humans for medical treatments?\" Yes, 33%. No, 63% (men 41/56, women
27/70).

CNN/USA Today/Gallup, August 3-5, 2001. The federal government should
fund research on stem cells from \[percentages that approve\]: from
embryos cloned from human cells, 28%; from adults, 68%; from embryos not
used at fertility clinics, 55%; from embryos created for research, 46%.

International Communications Research, June 1-5, 2001. \"Should
scientists be allowed to use human cloning to try to create children for
infertile couples?\" Yes, 12%. No, 85%. \"Should scientists be allowed
to use human cloning to create a supply of human embryos to be destroyed
in medical research?\" Yes, 10%. No, 86%.

Fox News/Opinion Dynamics, April 18-19, 2001 (904 registered voters).
\"As you may know, scientists have made advances in cloning, where they
can reproduce a whole animal from a single cell. Do you think it is
acceptable to use cloning to: Reproduce humans? Acceptable, 6%. Not
acceptable, 90%.

Time/CNN, Feb. 7-8, 2001: \"In general, do you think it is a good idea
or a bad idea to clone human beings?\" Good idea, 7%. Bad idea, 90%.
\"Do you think scientists should be allowed to clone human beings or
don\'t you think so?\" Should be allowed, 10%. Should not be allowed,
88%.

**[Brain Teasers]{.underline}**

-   Who would be the clone\'s parents since there is no genetic
    \"father\" and \"mother\" in the usual sense?

-   Who would be legally responsible for a cloned human being or groups
    of cloned human beings?

-   Who would be legally, morally responsible if something went wrong
    with a clone?

-   Who would those deemed to be the responsible parties be responsible
    to?

-   What kind of rights would a clone have?

-   Could a clone sue the responsible parties that cloned him or her?

-   Would it be legally permissible to kill a cloned human if he or she
    were found to be \"defective\" after birth?

-   If you allow human cloning, but ban implantation of a human clone
    (by far the quickest and easiest part of the cloning process), what
    would be the legal remedy if a woman broke that law and implanted a
    clone?

-   Would it be legal to keep a cloned human embryo alive for a longer
    time outside the womb and develop parts of this human life for
    harvesting?

-   At what point does a cloned human have rights (life, protection from
    scientific experimentation, protection from crime, etc\...)

-   Is that point different from what it would be for human life created
    the old fashioned way? If so, why?

**Will Cloning Lead to:**

-   cloning of organ donors who would be mutilated or destroyed for the
    benefit of others?

-   the genetic creation of a human-animal hybrid \[chimera\] race?

-   the custom design of specialized human beings with gene sequences
    that make them better suited for combat situations or dangerous
    environments?

-   the design of a genetically superior, super-race?

-   the elimination of genetically distinct groups of human beings who
    are genetically inferior?