Are You Pro-Clone?

Jim Doyle is PRO-CLONE.

If you believe that human clones should be created in labs for the sole purpose of doing experimentation that demands their destruction, then vote for Doyle.

He's on the record as PRO-CLONE. He vetoed AB 499, a bill that banned human cloning in Wisconsin.

Doyle's position on human cloning is so extreme that members of his own party are at odds with him.

In March 1997, Bill Clinton called human cloning a "troubling prospect."

"Any discovery that touches upon human creation is not simply a matter of scientific inquiry," the president said Tuesday at a White House news conference to announce his decision. "It is matter of morality and spirituality as well."

Clinton also called on privately funded researchers to voluntarily implement a temporary moratorium on human cloning research "until our bioethics advisory committee and our entire nation has had time to... debate the ethical implications."

The success of Scottish scientists in cloning a sheep from an adult sheep -- and the subsequent announcement that Oregon scientists had successfully cloned monkeys from embryos -- prompted Clinton's decision.

No federal funds are currently being put toward human cloning experiments, but the president said he wanted to close possible loopholes in the present law by explicitly banning such funding.

..."There is much about cloning that we still do not know," he said.

The president said that he personally hoped the country would "respect this profound gift (life) and resist the temptation to replicate ourselves."

Doyle disagrees with Bill Clinton on cloning.

Unlike Clinton, he supports replicating ourselves and using state and federal funds to do it.

Yes, indeed, Doyle is the PRO-CLONE candidate.

Come November, if you want to vote for someone who will fight to clone human life, vote Doyle.
_____________________________

Does that seem unfair, calling Doyle a supporter of human cloning?

Would you say it's wrong to be going around saying that Doyle is a PRO-CLONE extremist?

You might argue that it's misleading to leave out any reference to the distinction that Doyle and others make between therapeutic cloning (embryos cloned for research) and reproductive cloning (embryos cloned to be brought to full term and born.)

So, is it wrong to label Doyle as PRO-CLONE?

If one follows the Democratic Party of Wisconsin's techniques of labeling -- such as calling Mark Green ANTI-STEM CELL RESEARCH -- then, to be consistent, one would have to agree that it's fair to call Doyle PRO-CLONE.


(Just a reminder: An embryo contains the same genome, or total genetic content, that a living, breathing human being has throughout his or her life. The individual is a genetically complete human being as an embryo.)