This gets so old: In Missouri there is a pending fight over an initiative to legalize human therapeutic cloning. The Missouri Secretary of State has been sued for permitting the signature petitions to be released. The basis of the suit is that the petitions claim that the initiative bans “human cloning,” when in fact, the initiative would explicitly legalize it, while not permitting cloned babies to be born. (As I have had to restate ad nauseum, biologically, the act of human cloning is asexual reproduction performed via somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT. This act of cloning culminates in the creation of a new human embryo. Human cloning is not the birth of a cloned baby.)
It isn’t that hard. Really. Yet, here is how David A. Lieb, the AP reporter, described therapeutic cloning in the story about the lawsuit: “But the proposal would allow what’s known as therapeutic cloning, or somatic cell nuclear transfer. In that procedure, the nucleus of an egg is replaced with the nucleus from something such as a skin or nerve cell. The altered egg then is stimulated to grow in a lab dish, and researchers remove the resulting stem cells.” (Here is the link.)
What did Lieb (or his editor) leave out? Ah, yes: the fact that SCNT creates an embryo, which is a new human life. That is what grows, not the egg, which ceases to exist upon the successful completion of cloning just as it ceases to exist upon the completion of natural conception. The stem cells are derived by destroying the embryo. Thus, in therapeutic cloning human life is created for the purpose of destroying and harvesting it, which is one reason why it is so morally controversial—and I suspect, why it is almost never accurately described in media reports.
The MSM is totally in the tank for therapeutic cloning, but one would hope that there would be one writer in one outlet with the professional integrity to accurately describe the act of human cloning. But I am not holding my breath.
(Full disclosure: I have been informally advising opponents of the initiative on a pro bono basis, but have not been involved in the litigation.)
Dear Reader,
Can I be direct with you?
War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.
First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.
But we can’t do it without readers like you.
Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.
Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.
Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…
