United Nations postpones vote on cloning

By Tom Strode - Nov 30, 2004 - comment

The United Nations again has failed to pass a ban on human cloning.

The U.N.’s legal committee was unable to break an impasse between supporters of a comprehensive ban on cloning and backers of a proposal that would permit the cloning of embryos for research purposes. Research cloning results in the destruction of embryos.

Although Costa Rica, the United States and other supporters of a comprehensive ban on cloning said they had a majority of votes, they said it would not have been possible to defeat a Belgium-led strategy to delay action for a year, the Chicago Tribune reported. Costa Rica had lined up more than 60 co-sponsors for its comprehensive prohibition, while Belgium had about 20 co-sponsors for a measure allowing research cloning.

The legal committee agreed to receive a nonbinding resolution from Italy as the basis for negotiations on the issue beginning in February, according to news reports.

This marked the third year the U.N. has battled over human cloning without adopting a ban, according to LifeNews.com. The legal committee debated the issue for two days in October but had a deadline of Nov. 19 for action.

Countries that oppose a comprehensive ban do so primarily in order to permit research on stem cells extracted from embryos.

Stem cells are the body’s master cells that can develop into other cells and tissues. They are found not only in human embryos but in adult sources, such as bone marrow, umbilical cord blood and placentas. The procurement of stem cells from an adult source does not harm the donor.

Further Learning

Learn more about: Life, Cloning

Post a Comment




Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before You Submit Your Comment (below), Read This:

Thank you for your interest in the ministry of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (SBC).

Comments are moderated to preserve the family-oriented nature of this website and in an attempt to avoid comment spam. We welcome opposing viewpoints, and we will not turn comments away as long as your views are presented with respect to everyone.

Your comments will not appear immediately and are subject to editing or deletion. We will make every attempt to check new comments in a timely manner, though there will likely be delays on the weekends and around holidays.

Please follow the these guidelines to insure your comments will be posted:

  1. Use a real name, at least a real first name. We find folks are less-rude online when not hiding behind a screen-name.
  2. Name-calling and vulgar-language will not be tolerated. Zero-tolerance is our policy. We will not spend time editing profanity. If it contains foul language, your post will be deleted. Oh, and we decide what is and what is not vulgar.
  3. Comments must be on topic. General comments (compliments, complaints, and otherwise) are best delivered here or expressed on your own personal Web site.
  4. And please, do not type in ALL CAPS. It looks like you're screaming at people.

Additionally, within Baptist polity, please recognize that many issues and decisions are addressed at a local church level. SBC denominational (national) offices have no control and desire no control over the activities of a local church. This entity is not responsible for overseeing and insuring the ethical behavior of Southern Baptist pastors or church members. If your concern involves a legal civil or criminal matter, we suggest you contact the proper local officials.

Issues involving pastoral staff or other church members, local Baptist associations or state Baptist conventions are local issues. Therefore the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission cannot and should not address such issues. While we regret we are unable to assist you, we encourage you to seek a biblical resolution of the issue at the local church level. If your question or submission pertains to a matter covered in this text, it is likely we will not acknowledge your submission.

Other than that, we welcome you and hope to see thoughtful discussions at ERLC.com