Cloning Ban—Why it’s Important




Cloning is NOT the same as IVF – it is the asexual creation of human life,
creating life according to scientists’ specifications. It’s not fertilization of an egg
with sperm, but rather manipulation of a single cell from a person to produce a
genetic copy.
It is unethical to specially create human embryos by cloning just to destroy them
for their parts. It turns human beings into commodities, and treats them like lab
rats.
These embryos would be alive—human beings at the earliest stages of
development.
Some people do begin their lives in a Petri dish—consider Louise Brown, the first
IVF baby, and all of the snowflake babies implanted through embryo adoption.
The Slippery Slope:
 This is a slippery slope. First scientists called for “left over” IVF embryos. Now
the biotech industry is calling for “fresh embryos” by cloning.
 In NJ, it is legal to clone and let cloned embryos develop until the point of birth,
as long as he or she is killed. We are on the same path—even though our state
mandates killing at the 8th week of development, nothing prohibits the
implantation of cloned embryos into a woman’s womb.
 “Clone and Kill” bills such as SB144 are greasing the skids for the live births of
clones, if only for speculative research and theoretical benefits. We are losing
sight of the cost of human lives.
Universal/Public Opinion:
 By a 70% margin, the UN called on all member states to ban all human cloning—
we are slipping behind other developed nations: Germany, France, Norway,
Canada, Switzerland.
 Six states (Arkansas, Iowa, Michigan, North Dakota, South Dakota and Virginia)
ban human cloning for any purpose
(See: http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/bioethic/statelaw.shtml).
 The vast majority of Marylanders oppose the start-up of cloned human embryo
farms. In a 2005 poll, 79% of Marylanders rejected this concept (Mason-Dixon
Polling and Research Inc., 2005).
Other Ethical Concerns:
 The exploitation of women—via egg donation (See Boston Globe op-ed by Judy
Norsigian
www.boston.com/yourlife/health/women/articles/2005/02/25/risks_to_women_in
_embryo_cloning) or the use of their wombs for fetal farming.
“Cloning” as defined in MD law via SB144 (2006) does
not ban the creation of embryos through cloning, and it
does not ban the implantation of cloned embryos.
Why we need the Dyson Cloning Ban in the wake of SB144:

SB144 adds a scientifically inaccurate addendum to the definition of human
cloning. It states:
HUMAN CLONING means the replication of a human being through the
production of a precise genetic copy of nuclear human DNA or any other
human molecule, cell, or tissue, in order to create a new human being OR
TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT BEYOND AN EMBRYO [8 weeks].
According to this definition, human cloning is explicitly permissible, so long as
the human being in question is killed by the 8th week of development. This law
not only permits human cloning then, but actually mandates the killing of human
beings created through cloning.

There is nothing in this bill that prevents human embryos created by cloning from
being implanted in a womb—what then follows once we reach 8 weeks gestation
and face a mandatory killing? A mandatory abortion requirement?
The Dyson Cloning Ban vs. SB160, as brought before committee in 2006:

Like this years SB362, the language of last year’s proposed cloning ban (SB160,
brought up in 2006) sought to ban the cloning of human embryos. The language
of last year’s bill however, was perceived as an attempt to set restrictions on
donated IVF embryos and their use for Embryonic Stem Cell Research. We
suspect that because of this, SB160 was deemed unfavorable in committee.

Senator Dyson’s bill poses no threat to the practice of Embryonic Stem Cell
Research on embryos donated by individuals through IVF clinics. The bill
EXPLICITLY states:
Nothing in this section shall prohibit a person from conducting or
attempting to conduct research using embryonic stem cells obtained from
donated unused human embryos which were created through in vitro
fertilization for individuals being treated for infertility.
Thus legislators who voted against last year’s cloning ban for this reason should
have no problem voting for the cloning ban this year. [Added by Lee Merrell:
This does not mean that we support embryonic stem cell research. However, we
know that there are representatives who do support such research, yet are opposed
to human cloning. We want them to know they can support this bill. Our
concerns with in vitro fertilization are being addressed separately in other bills.]


The sole restriction that the Dyson bill seeks is on the creation of new human
embryos through cloning, not the use of already existing, donated IVF embryos.
As it stands under last year’s SB144, human cloning is permissible so long as
“development is stopped” by the time the human being is 8 weeks old. We
strongly oppose the creation of new human beings by cloning, and we strongly
oppose the notion that cloned human beings are subject to state-mandated death.
Cathy McLeod
Legislative Liaison, Maryland Right to Life
410-269-6397, cathy@mdrtl.org