another door left wide open
yesterday, the united states lost in its attempt to pursuade the united nations to ban all human cloning regardless of its use. unfortunately, this is just one of a number of issues that results in a cultural shift when enough people make enough noise for a long enough time. in other words, the trend in our tolerant society (read, all is valid) has now become such that when a previously rejected issue...any issue...is raised, people are unwilling to say absolutely no to just about anything. therefore, once an issue that may have been considered taboo on moral or ethical grounds in the past first surfaces in public dialogue, you can mark it down right then that the cultural mood will shift. the game of softening up the public and making them desensitized is on, eventually giving the proponents the opportunity to claim victory sooner or later. we see this in the media regularly: new words that before were considered inappropriate for television are introduced to an initial outcry from certain corners of society, but within a short time are used so regularly (even used in situations where it is obvious a line in a story was written in for no other reason than for the opportunity to use that particular word), it is quickly absorbed into the list of acceptable terms. The same principle applies to any number of hot issues amassed within the so-called "culture wars."
when the idea of cloning first emerged there was a massive outcry; a collective gasp, if you will. like everything else, however, enough time passes as proponents (including the mass media) keep the information flowing into our ears and before long, we get used to the idea, become complacent, finally accepting the inevitable.
as for how this recent development occurred, the new york times reports that, "The United States backed a resolution proposed by Costa Rica to outlaw all forms of human cloning, while opponents of such an absolute prohibition supported a Belgian measure banning reproductive cloning outright and offering nations three options for therapeutic cloning: outlawing it, putting a moratorium on the practice, or regulating it through national legislation to prevent misuse." though this appeared a promising development under the circumstances, which would have at least put an outright ban on all forms of human cloning and had at least a thin chance of limiting other forms of cloning, the deliberations took a more typical and unfortunate turn: "Instead of proceeding to a showdown vote on Friday night, the committee agreed instead to take up a nonbinding declaration proposed by Italy with ambiguous language that avoided raising objections and to schedule meetings in February to shape the final wording. The Italians' proposal prohibits 'any attempts to create human life through cloning processes and any research intended to achieve that aim.'"
in case you think that sounds good (if you're against cloning), two key words need to be taken into consideration: the first is "declaration." this basically means a statement; an announcement of belief, if you will. the second is the word "non-binding." put the two terms together and you realize the united nations adopted...well, nothing. as usual, the united nations took the unfortunate position of doing nothing of real substance. no treaty or resolution; nothing that actually has any power to prevent this procedure from going forward. sure, some will say that it declared the process of human cloning "illegal," which is arguably not the case, but again, without a door being shut, i am afraid that time will demonstrate a continuing softening on the issue worldwide until it becomes the standard in therapeutic research and development. the times concludes the piece by explaining that "regardless of what language emerges, the result will be a declaration, not a treaty, which would have been the outcome had either the Costa Rican or Belgian versions been adopted. Because of that, nations will be under considerably less pressure to change their existing views on cloning.
"'A declaration is important for what it's not,' said Bernard Siegel, the executive director of the Genetics Policy Institute, who had lobbied against the American-led campaign. 'It is not a treaty, it is nonbinding, and it will have no chilling effect on therapeutic cloning, and stem cell research will advance. We consider this a triumph.'"
sadly, these types of triumphs are being declared on our society almost daily. whether or not those who hold to stronger ethical standards can overcome them remains to be seen. though history is not on our side, the recent overwhelming acceptance of a ban on gay marriage by all 11 states that voted on the recent measure demonstrates that these issues do not have to be surrendered, but that it takes the same level of determination as demonstrated by those who seek to reinterpret the meanings of right and wrong. i'm not really sure this is a war we can outright win, but i believe that if our society is to survive, it is a war that must be fought.
when the idea of cloning first emerged there was a massive outcry; a collective gasp, if you will. like everything else, however, enough time passes as proponents (including the mass media) keep the information flowing into our ears and before long, we get used to the idea, become complacent, finally accepting the inevitable.
as for how this recent development occurred, the new york times reports that, "The United States backed a resolution proposed by Costa Rica to outlaw all forms of human cloning, while opponents of such an absolute prohibition supported a Belgian measure banning reproductive cloning outright and offering nations three options for therapeutic cloning: outlawing it, putting a moratorium on the practice, or regulating it through national legislation to prevent misuse." though this appeared a promising development under the circumstances, which would have at least put an outright ban on all forms of human cloning and had at least a thin chance of limiting other forms of cloning, the deliberations took a more typical and unfortunate turn: "Instead of proceeding to a showdown vote on Friday night, the committee agreed instead to take up a nonbinding declaration proposed by Italy with ambiguous language that avoided raising objections and to schedule meetings in February to shape the final wording. The Italians' proposal prohibits 'any attempts to create human life through cloning processes and any research intended to achieve that aim.'"
in case you think that sounds good (if you're against cloning), two key words need to be taken into consideration: the first is "declaration." this basically means a statement; an announcement of belief, if you will. the second is the word "non-binding." put the two terms together and you realize the united nations adopted...well, nothing. as usual, the united nations took the unfortunate position of doing nothing of real substance. no treaty or resolution; nothing that actually has any power to prevent this procedure from going forward. sure, some will say that it declared the process of human cloning "illegal," which is arguably not the case, but again, without a door being shut, i am afraid that time will demonstrate a continuing softening on the issue worldwide until it becomes the standard in therapeutic research and development. the times concludes the piece by explaining that "regardless of what language emerges, the result will be a declaration, not a treaty, which would have been the outcome had either the Costa Rican or Belgian versions been adopted. Because of that, nations will be under considerably less pressure to change their existing views on cloning.
"'A declaration is important for what it's not,' said Bernard Siegel, the executive director of the Genetics Policy Institute, who had lobbied against the American-led campaign. 'It is not a treaty, it is nonbinding, and it will have no chilling effect on therapeutic cloning, and stem cell research will advance. We consider this a triumph.'"
sadly, these types of triumphs are being declared on our society almost daily. whether or not those who hold to stronger ethical standards can overcome them remains to be seen. though history is not on our side, the recent overwhelming acceptance of a ban on gay marriage by all 11 states that voted on the recent measure demonstrates that these issues do not have to be surrendered, but that it takes the same level of determination as demonstrated by those who seek to reinterpret the meanings of right and wrong. i'm not really sure this is a war we can outright win, but i believe that if our society is to survive, it is a war that must be fought.
Labels: David C. Price
posted by DAVID C. PRICE at 11/20/2004 09:20:00 AM
|
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home