Re: Talk of Banning Research into Human Cloning (fwd)

[Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com>]

Forwarded message:

> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 17:02:13 +0100 (MET)
> Subject: Re: Talk of Banning Research into Human Cloning (fwd)
> From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
> 
> > Spin doctor bullshit. Without the research there isn't anything to publish.
> > By banning the basic research we would in fact be banning the publishing of
> > the results of that scientific research.
> 
> This is a more significant difference than you let on: if the research is
> done abroad, it can be published here.  To the extent that one can
> theorize without experimenting, that too can be done here.  

I hope they forward the CNN piece on the European ban on cloning that is
occuring as I type this. 

The bottem line is that saying it's ok to ban it here simply because you are
sure somebody somewhere else will allow it is reprehensible and a complete
abrogation of both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution. If it's ok
to do it there, why isn't it ok to do it here? Smacks of a double standard
or some sort of surreptitious conspiracy to control the technology to the
benefit of a few. Perhaps the government has already done this research, at
Seed's estimate of $100,000 per clone, god knows they already have the money,
the equipment, and the people willing to do it.

Tell me, once the other countries have banned it will you then argue that we
should repeal our own ban and allow such research?

> > Not at all. Equating swinging of ones fist in a empty field and swinging it
> > into somebodies nose and then taking that supposition as justification to
> > ban fist swinging *is* most certainly unconstitutional. Furthermore, robbery
> 
> Congress has the power to choose whether to ban acts when the cause a harm
> (fists that connect to federal noses), or just to ban acts whether or not
> they cause harms (sending threats to government officials; broadcasting
> without a license on an unused frequency).

Bans on broadcasting without a license on an unused frequency was found
unconstitutional - it seems nobody had *ever* raised the issue before. The
interstate commerce clause was also raised and found to be potentialy
irrelevant.

Until a few years ago the threatening of anyone, even the killing of a
president, was not a federal crime. Perhaps that original idea was that
since we believe all people to be equal under the law the killing of a bum
was no more heinous than killing of a president. One could even argue that
such classifying laws as the protection of federal employees over and above
a commen citizen are in fact against the equal treatment under the law for
all citizens that this country is founded upon.

>  Like it or not, there is no
> question that most of these bans -- including the cloning ban -- are
> constitutional under the commerce and other powers, the copyrights clause
> notwithstanding. 

It's 'interstate commerce', and it isn't the copyright clause per se but the
clear and plain language regarding 'advancement'. Further the clause
*specificaly* states that it is between states - by no stretch of the honest
imagination can be be construed to include private functions inside the
state boundary. Next you will be telling me I need a federal license to
program because somebody might use my software ...

Taking away peoples rights and choices is much ruder than anything you could
claim I have ever been. Why not answer the points instead of crying about
how I hurt your feelings because I won't play within the limited set of
rules you want so that you can retain the advantages of that limited set and
as a consequence not have to deal with the possible reality that your entire
suppositional set is bogus.

> unpleasantness, and especially a complete and utter incomprehension about
> how the law in this country operates. 

I know how it operates, that is why it pisses me off. It operates under the
authority of a document that prescribes in clear language how that system is
supposed to operate and specificaly describes what those limits are, how to
apply those limits to new events, and how to change those limits if they
should be felt to be too restrictive or damaging. However, those who are
entrusted with the operation believe that that self-same trust allows them
to ignore their empowering charter.

You seem unable to comprehend that perhaps the logic that has been used to
justify many of these actions is not only unconstitutional but also in the
long term detriment of the country. It's a pitty you're so close minded you
are unable to expose your delicate sensibilities to open debate.

It's a pity that your only defence is ad hominim attacks and concious
exclusion of contrary arguments because of their emotional impact on
yourself.


Sir, the only thing I have left to say to you is:

Yet, it moves.



    ____________________________________________________________________
   |                                                                    |
   |      Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make       |
   |      violent revolution inevitable.                                |
   |                                                                    |
   |                                          John F. Kennedy           |
   |                                                                    |
   |                                                                    | 
   |            _____                             The Armadillo Group   |
   |         ,::////;::-.                           Austin, Tx. USA     |
   |        /:'///// ``::>/|/                     http://www.ssz.com/   |
   |      .',  ||||    `/( e\                                           |
   |  -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-                         Jim Choate       |
   |                                                 ravage@ssz.com     |
   |                                                  512-451-7087      |
   |____________________________________________________________________|