Pro-Life News: Un and Human Cloning, Amnesty International and Abortion

International   |   Steven Ertelt   |   Nov 12, 2007   |   9:00AM   |   WASHINGTON, DC

Pro-Life News: Un and Human Cloning, Amnesty International and Abortion Email this article
Printer friendly page

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
November 12,
2007

United Nations Call for Human Cloning Ban Comes at Pivotal Time
by Tony Perkins, Family Research Council President
Considering the news that a team of scientists has successfully cloned adult primates, the U.N.’s latest call to ban cloning may have come at a pivotal time. Although FRC strongly believes that the current recommendation should extend to so-called "therapeutic" cloning, the U.N. proposal does help to renew global dialogue on the procedure, which appears to be moving ahead with or without the world’s blessing. Triggering a wave of fresh concern about the research, a team of scientists in Oregon is celebrating the creation of the world’s first viable cloned monkey embryos. For many in the field, this is a defining moment that they hope will pave the way to creating cloned human embryos. Professor Don Wolf, who led the primate project, said, "The focus is now going to be on therapeutic cloning." That’s exactly what many people fear. Without a ban on both "therapeutic" and reproductive cloning, there is no limit to where this brave new world could lead, including the manipulation and destruction of countless cloned humans. Experts suspect that the team has already made about 100 (unsuccessful) attempts at implanting cloned primate embryos into monkey wombs. If we haven’t already, the world is quickly approaching the point of no return on cloning. America should lead by example and move quickly to ban all experiments that commodify and destroy life.

Pro-Life Group Says Catholic Colleges Should Boycott Amnesty International
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) —
Another pro-life group says Catholic colleges and universities should boycott Amnesty International because the human rights group now supports abortion. Ivory Tower Heretics Blog says, "In their twisted logic, they believe abortion should be available due to violence against women in cases of rape and incest." The Catholic Church teaches that abortion is harmful to women, the group and its blog say. "Not only is the procedure itself harmful to women, causing elevated risks of infertility, bleeding, breast cancer and psychological trauma, but in many countries abortion is used for sex selection, with females the intended victims. Abortion is murder of an innocent human baby, plain and simple." The Vatican and Catholic Bishops have condemned AI’s position and have resigned from the group over the abortion position. "Amnesty International was founded by a devout Catholic but has turned its back on Catholic faith and morals as the basis for human rights. They should have no place on Catholic collage campuses," Ivory Tower concludes.

Indiana Right to Life Seeks Review of Judicial Canons Challenge
Indianapolis, IN (LifeNews.com) —
Last Friday, Indiana Right to Life requested the Seventh Circuit to review the panel decision in Indiana Right to Life v. Shepard. That ruling dismissed Indiana Right to Life’s claims against a judicial canon, stating that no judicial candidate want to answer Right to Life’s questionnaire and that only judicial candidates who had violated the rule could bring such a challenge. The rule Indiana Right to Life had challenged prohibited judicial candidates from making "pledges and promises" and from "committing or appearing to commit" on a case, controversy, or issue likely to come before them. Indiana Right to Life had sent a questionnaire to candidates for judicial office in the November 2002 and 2004 elections requesting that they state their views on policies and court decisions related to such matters as assisted-suicide and abortion. Many of the judicial candidates refused to do so, stating that the Indiana Judicial Commission on Qualifications had advised against answering because they might violate the pledges and promises clause and the commits clause and be disciplined for expressing their views in such a manner. In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court held unconstitutional a Minnesota rule that prohibited judicial candidates from “announcing their views on disputed legal or political issues.”