Posted by
EFuller on Monday, October 23, 2006 8:35:47 PM
The
TV ad featuring former Senator John Danforth in support of Missouri Amendment 2 is just as "truthful" as Bill Clinton. Amendment 2 has been called misleading by
Robert Novak. But it is no more misleading than Bill Clinton. In fact, it is a "Clinton claim."
What's a "Clinton Claim"?
Remember the second-most famous line uttered by the ex-President? "It depends on what the definition of is, is." Clinton claimed to be telling the truth – as long as one used his definition of terms. This is precisely the way Amendment 2 was written and the way Danforth and others are making claims.
Is the claim of Amendment 2 supporters that it outlaws human cloning true?
Well, that depends on the definition…
What's "Human Cloning"? Amendment 2 states:
2. (1) No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being.
Seems clear enough, but it is followed by the definition of terms in 6. (2).
6. (2) "Clone or attempt to clone a human being" means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.
Here the term
human cloning is only "cloning" if you put the clone in a woman in order to give birth. The same technique that produced Dolly the sheep is now, magically, no longer cloning! This fancy legal parsing of terms is no better than Clinton's claims about the definition of "is."
Is the claim of Amendment 2 supporters that it outlaws human cloning true?
Well, that depends on your definition of true.
More on the deception of Amendment 2
Show me that you won't be duped
Jumping the Gun on Stem Cells in Missouri
Missouri: Gateway to Human Cloning
Potential Dupes: The Public’s Willful Ignorance about ESCR
last updated 10/23/2006 9:40 pm